Monthly Archive for June, 2007

Today’s top links

Playing Warcraft for fun and profit. The New York Times explores the lot of “Chinese gold farmers”: young gamers in China who play the lower levels of World of Warcraft and other online games, then sell on their winnings to cash-rich, time-poor western gamers. The article makes it sound less like an adolescent’s dream job and more like fairly grim, sweatshop-type work. It also reveals that many workers spend their time off gaming.

The perils of blogging. Academic Daniel Drezner linked to this report in the Boston Globe which is a cautionary tale on blogging about your job—and your malpractice lawsuits. I wasn’t a regular reader of Flea’s blog (which is now offline) but I hope he resumes blogging.

Battle robots. This Washington Post article (actually from May, but we didn’t have a blog back then) is on the contribution of robots to the US army in Afghanistan and Iraq. Go robots!

And when did you last see your beliefs?

Bertrand Russell famously wrote, at the age of 15, that “the search for truth has shattered most of my old beliefs”—at least according to the diary extracts he reproduces in My Philosophical Development, which detail his departure from the comfortable, Christian teachings of his youth into the realm of rigorous enquiry. “My thinking,” he adds, “was, in a crude form, along lines very similar to that of Descartes.”

15 may seem a precocious age for the commencement of questing as a full-blown philosopher, but it’s beginning to look positively geriatric in comparison to the more recent British, intellectual and faithless crop. Martin Amis, for one, describes in his 2002 essay “The voice of the lonely crowd” his apotheosis at the age of just 12:

Later - we were now in Cambridge - I gave a school speech in which I rejected all belief as an affront to common sense. I was an atheist, and I was 12: it seemed open-and-shut.

Even this pales in comparison to Christopher Hitchens, however, whose intellectual atheism was fully achieved before he even hit double figures. As he tells it in the opening pages of his (sensationally irate) new book, God is not Great:

At the age of nine… I simply knew, almost as if I had privileged access to a higher authority, that my teacher [explaining why it was obvious the world was made by God] had managed to get everything wrong in just two sentences… There still remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum of servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking. I do not think it arrogant of me to claim that I had already discovered these four objections… before my boyish voice had broken.

Eat your heart out, Bertrand.

Pluto’s last stand

Prospect readers will already know all about our increasingly populous solar-system, thanks to Stephen Eales’s account in the May issue of Pluto’s demotion from proper planet to second-rate dwarf. Today brings final confirmation of the bad news for astronomical reactionaries, as this report in Science explains. Pluto is now officially lighter than its shadowy outer neighbour, Eris (appropriately enough named after the Greek goddess of strife and discord), which at 16.6 billion trillion kilograms is no less than 27% more massive than the object previously thought to be the ninth largest in the solar system.

The image of nine planets orbiting our sun through a pristine void has, it seems, gone the way of the flat earth less than a century after Pluto was discovered. On the other hand, opportunities for scientists to give things silly/portentous names are multiplying. Eris’s tiny moon has already been dubbed Dysnomia, after a Greek demon of lawlessness; and it shares the trans-Neptunian regions with a tongue-twisting cast that includes Varuna (after the Hindu god of the sky), Quaoar (a Native American creation deity), Orcus (a Roman god of the dead), Ixion (a Greek king allegedly bound to a burning wheel for all eternity) and Sedna (Inuit goddess of the sea). Lumps of frozen rock have never had it so good.

CORRECTION:  As has been quite rightly pointed out in the comments below, Pluto was never thought to be the ninth largest object in the solar system, even excluding the sun. In fact, Ganymede, Titan, Callisto, Io, Luna, Europa and Triton are all bigger - as well as Eris, of course.

Many thanks for the correction, Charles.

Revisiting autonyms

I’ve been writing about two Chinese authors for this month’s Prospect, and it just has struck me that Will’s June column about “autonyms”—words that in some way embody themselves—touches on something that is fundamental to all languages, but that is far more obvious in character-based ones: all writing has its roots in autonymy. For example, take a few Mandarin Chinese characters:

中 (Zhong) means “middle,” and is based on the image of an arrow striking the centre of a target, and perhaps also the idea of a flag flying

国 (Guo) means “kingdom,” and is based on the image of a square of land within which stands a highly stylized piece of jade, representing the wealth of that land. This is, however, the “simplified” version of the character; the pre-20th century, “traditional” form contains within its outer square the characters representing a town and a weapon, indicating a defended territory.

人 (Ren) means “person” or “people,” and is based on the image of a standing person—one of the most basic and ancient of all characters, and the basis for many other sets of meanings (大, for instance, connotes “large,” as it represents someone stretching their arms out; while 天 connotes “heaven” because it represents a large man with the sky above him)

Put these together and you have a phrase that reads “middle kingdom people/person,” or, as we might more simply put it, “Chinese person/people.”

Similarly, in Japanese, take these two characters:

日 (Ni) meaning “sun” or “day,” based on the image of the sun—a circle with a dot in it that has over time become a square with a stroke across its centre. Rather wonderfully, the symbol for the moon is the same but with “legs” drawn in underneath it, 月, as it has to run faster around the earth.

本 (Hon) meaning “origin” or “root,” based on the image of a tree (大, the same as the Chinese character for “large,” and with many of its connotations; Japanese writing is derived from Chinese) with the ground drawn in underneath it.

Put them together and you get “sun origin” or, more comprehensibly, “place of the rising sun,” which is the Japanese name for Japan (the word “Japan” is a western mangling of Ni-Hon, also pronounced Ni-Pon. The name ”China” probably derives from the early Qin dynasty).

Even our own alphabet began with the concrete. The letter “A” can be traced to a pictogram of an ox’s head in hieroglyphics; both “C” and “G” probably come from Hebrew representations of a throwing stick; “F” from the image of a hook or club in proto-Semitic; and so on.

There are massive complexities to be explored here which my potted comments barely hint at, but it remains astonishing to think that over the last 6,000 years humanity has leapt from representing the world with images to exploring its deepest workings through the layers of meaning these images have accumulated. No matter how astonishing its flights of abstraction may seem, the written word is rooted in the physical world.

The BAE imbroglio

Prospect readers may have been less surprised than most by the emergence of the murky BAE Systems/al-Yamamah story. Lewis Page, writing in the March 2007 issue of Prospect, drew attention to the unhealthy influence of BAE over government and called for the MoD to direct its procurement efforts towards “off-the-shelf” US products rather than propping up the BAE colossus. Read his piece here.

Street art

The National Gallery’s Grand Tour started yesterday. Thirty full-size reproductions of paintings by old masters are being hung on the streets of central London for the next six weeks. Quite a few are in Covent Garden.

picture4.jpgpicture1.jpgNeal Street 3

Prospect approves, as we have long been in favour of reproducing great works of art for more people to enjoy.

You might want to print a map showing where all the paintings are rather than, say, relying on Tuesday’s edition of the London Paper, which gave Rubens’ Samson and Delilah * the location and title of a Caravaggio.

Londonpaper

I just hope that no one went there to see it, only to be confronted by the severed head of John the Baptist.

*(Although some people have been arguing for years that the painting in the National Gallery is a reproduction too.)

Today’s top links

The latest in anti-spamming—I never knew until reading this New York Times article that there was a name for those distorted letters and numbers that you often have to identify to join a website or leave a comment on a blog (and it’s a great acronym). As the article explains, the arms race between spammers and anti-spammers has led the latter to develop alternatives. None of them, however, appear to get round the old free porn loophole.

Strange Maps—Marginal Revolution linked to this unusual blog, which is something of a timesink. But the Postcode Map of the United Kingdom might prove useful.

Save McSweeney’s. They lost $130,000 when their distributor went bankrupt. Help them keep publishing by buying something.

The world of wrong words

Malapropisms don’t come much more elegant than this one, excavated during the course of my dedicated Prospect researches into the online Poker phenomenon. It’s from an interview with Tony Bloom, top British player and all-round affluent gambler:

WHO WOULD YOU MOST LIKE TO PLAY HEADS-UP?
I guess Stu Ungar. Sadly, he died before I ever had the chance to play him. Certainly at his peak, from what I hear, he had an incredible feel for the game and a photogenic memory.

Those MRI scans must have been works of art.

Putting Ramadan to rights

Tariq Ramadan, the Swiss-Egyptian philosopher in the vanguard of the Islamic modernisation movement, is no stranger to controversy. A substantial body of opinion, particularly in France and the US, views him as a dangerous figure who flirts with radicalism and delivers different messages depending on whether he is speaking to north African immigrants to France or senior European politicians. The debate has been reopened in the last couple of weeks by Paul Berman’s sceptical (and extremely lengthy) profile of Ramadan in the New Republic.

A year ago, Prospect published an interview with Ramadan in which he expressed his support for integration of Muslim minorities in European countries. Prospect’s editor David Goodhart wrote then that it was “vital for Europe’s future” that Ramadan’s attempt to modernise the faith and to reconcile it with Europe succeed. But last week, Ramadan argued in the Guardian that British society needed to stop insisting on Muslim integration and instead start putting its own house in order.

David wonders if this is some sort of “complicated piece of political manoeuvring,” or if the Ramadan he interviewed last year has turned towards what he calls the “beleaguered, paranoid worldview” of some sections of British Islam. You can read his open letter to Ramadan here.

Did you actually read the book? 2: “How Rich Countries Got Rich and Why Poor Countries Stay Poor” by Erik S Reinert

In the latest issue of Prospect magazine, Paul Collier reviews two books, Lawrence Harrison’s The Central Liberal Truth: How Politics Can Change A Culture and Save it from Itself and my How Rich Countries Got Rich and Why Poor Countries Stay Poor. Both books represent an alternative thinking to that of the Washington institutions, including the World Bank, where Collier was formerly director of the development research group.

The starting point for this debate is the striking failure of the Washington institutions to create wealth in many countries. To compensate for that failure, the Washington institutions insist on receiving the credit for the successes of China and India. In his article, Paul Collier uses the example of India’s economic success following liberalisation to dismiss the argument for a degree of protectionism in domestic markets. Yet the success of India and China is based on a) protecting their industrial structure for more than 50 years, and b) opening up their economies gradually, not with shock therapy. These two strategies starkly contradict the key recommendations of the Washington institutions.

Yes, India and China had too little competition and they probably protected their economies for too long, but you want to make sure that is the side on which you err. Because 500 years’ history of economic policy show that all nations which have escaped poverty have been through a mandatory passage point of protecting and subsidising an industrial or manufacturing sector in which economies of scale can be accomplished, before successfully opening up for free trade.

I don’t blame trade liberalisation for poverty as Collier states. I blame premature trade liberalisation on the one hand (the right) and I blame protection without competition on the other hand (the left). Squeezed between the free marketeers and the planning paradigm, the historically successful European and North American blend of protection and competition was often unlearned during the 20th century.

Collier measures success as increased trade. I measure success as an increase in real wages. Collier fails to address the problem I point to, that his success criteria often conflict with mine. My book shows how increased trade often leads to lower real wages if trade is opened too early and too abruptly.

In his 1848 Principles of Political Economy, John Stuart Mill observes: “It often happens that the universal belief of one age of mankind… becomes to a subsequent age so palpable an absurdity, that the only difficulty then is to imagine how such a thing can ever have appeared credible. It looks like one of the crude fantasies of childhood.” When economists admit that some comparative advantages lead nations into specialising in being poor, as Collier implicitly does in his review, then we can return to a framework that was once accepted by the members of the United Nations: the 1948 Havana Charter which counted full employment, economic and social progress and development among its objectives. Let’s try to agree on what we are in favour of, not haggle to save face over past mistakes.

Read an extended version of this reply here.

Buy How Rich Countries Got Rich and Why Poor Countries Stay Poor at the Prospect bookshop