Rotten Spirit of Individualism

Shahab Sabahi

Energy and Environment for Development - Policy Analysis Research Group

In 1865, a theory with its origin in Europe put in practice in North America. A radical, profound and calculated change took place in America. The change was to affect nearly every aspect of individuality for generations to come. It was a lesson-learned from the past, and ready to shape the future and the destiny of millions. The ideology was embraced since its birth. Both it targeted individual’s natural incentive while it could create collective incentive within the concept of progress by the means of joining the common liberal man together, for strengthening and moving forward toward collective progress. The force with such overwhelming strength would condition the minds of the people to accept and withstand the cry of torture, hunger, death, while tilting the scales of justice in favor of social injustice. This was a true force which would cause to alter the common man’s value system so as to conform to its purpose of a new ideology. It would create a new value and faith, undermined radicalism, fueled by greed, and chosen as an alternative to prevent revolution of the masses. It was a two-edged sword, one for powerful elite, and one for common man; one for the rich and one for the poor.

But now, it is a stranger to its founders and lost touch to its original principle. Bankers have taken over not only the wealth of nations also their minds’ assets.

Please, the spirit of Norseman and the great arctic breath, please, please puff fresh air again

Thailand's regional energy cooperation - Time for influence

Shahab Sabahi

Energy and Environment for Development - Policy Analysis Research Group

The pressures from economic growth, social structure changes in Thailand besides a shift in regional geopolitical and climate change, force the country to think over innovative solutions for its future energy supply challenges. 

Thailand has a significant contribution and consequently global-scale influence in the food supply chain and also blesses its strategic geographical location. Despite the mentioned strategic potions, Thailand has moderate (if not least) influence in its regional governances and does not fully realize its potential capabilities. It causes that Thailand could not benefit effectively from its potentials, possessions and intrinsic values. 

Perhaps BIMSTEC, a regional cooperation between the South East Asian states   would be a gate of opportunities for Thailand’s influences in the regional governace and consequently benefit the nation as a whole.

BIMSTEC, however, could offer opportunities and also carries threats and it would be Thailand’s choices to pick out the best opportunities and mitigate all threats. Energy and technology cooperation are among important bullets of BIMSTEC’s agenda. To identify, analyse and understand the energy related opportunities and threats and their associated impacts on Thailand’s national security and economy, we launched a study which focuses on BIMSTEC’s energy supply potentials and its interfaces with other regions and regional cooperation. It brings out evidence, arguments and analysis in extended details, based on the available data, and eventually suggests based upon its analysis a set of the long term fittest strategies for Thailand’s engagement in the BIMSTEC energy and technology cooperation. The study suggestions strongly support the idea of “Thailand future as the South – South East Asia energy gate”

One may ask “how would it come when Thailand is not accounted as a major energy resource holder?” Holding vast energy resources does not guarantee a dominance role in energy market (think of Singapore)

The study’s proposed fittest strategies were screened through SWOT analysis. To evaluate and compare the strategies in order to find optimum ones, the study deployed GAME theory and Dynamic optimization.

The analysis assumes, within BIMSTEC, there is ONLY a pure cooperation WITHOUT energy market competition. The BIMSTEC member states cooperate on total regional required quantities when they maximize their aggregated national profits  

The source of Trust and Obligation

Shahab Sabahi

Energy and Environment for Development – Policy Analysis Research Group

Game theory suggests that individuals who interact with one another repeatedly tend to gravitate toward cooperation with those who have shown themselves to be honest and reliable and shun those who have behaved opportunistically. But to do this effectively they have to be able to remember each other’s past behaviours and anticipate likely future behaviours based on an interpretation of other people’s motives. This is not so easy to accomplish since it is the appearance of honesty, trust and not honesty itself that is the marker of a potential collaborator. That is, I will agree to work with you if you seem to be honest based on experience. But if you have deliberately built up a fund of trust in the past, you can put yourself in a position to take even greater advantage of me in the future. So while self-interest propels individuals to cooperate in social groups, it also creates incentives for cheating, deceiving, and other forms of bahaviour that undermine social solidarity.

For one, cheating may cause an exit from society and its potential benefits. The EAST adopted the losing face (disgrace) measure which holds the end point for social life of who stands against its OBLIGATIONS. In contrast, the WEST took another value measures such as legal institutions to treat disgraced person who breaches its obligations.

Of course in complicated, cultural-mixed global-scaled systems, the latter measure is favored the most. Yet building a far-reaching global administrative and authoritative body who can effectively impose and police the measure remains a key challenge.   

I am investigating below, the source of trust and social obligations with use of biological evolution framework and game theory. It may be a critical question for someone

Where did human beings’ sociability (cooperation, cheating)) come from?

  

Indeed biologists have identified two natural sources of cooperative behaviour; kin selection and reciprocal altruism. The most basic forms of cooperation predate the emergence of human beings societies. 

William Hamilton formulated the principle of inclusive fitness or kin selection which holds that individuals of any sexually reproducing species will behave altruistically toward kin in proportion to the number of genes they share. (W.D. Hamilton Journal of Theoretical Biology 7 – 1964 and R. Dawkins Oxford Press 1989) So nepotism is not only a socially but also a biologically grounded reality which explains the desire to pass resources on to kin.

Reciprocal altruism is a term referred to cooperation with genetic strangers. It is regarded as the second major biological source of social behaviour of humans after kin selection. Social cooperation depends on an individual ability to solve its life games. (Game theory) In these games individuals benefit potentially by being able to work with their fellow humans. But they can often benefit more if they let other individuals do the cooperating and free ride off of their efforts (R. Axelrod 1980)

Thus human sociability is not a historical or cultural acquisition, but something hardwired into human nature. Some may say other species such as vampires chimpanzees and wolves have shown sociability though their social evolutionary process has not ended into the level of human-like civilizations and advances. This contrasts the cognitive ability of humans which has not advanced into upper level in other species as it has occurred for humans. What is the source of this cognitive ability? At first glance it may appear that cognitive abilities were required for human beings to adapt their physical environments. Greater intelligence offers advantages with regard to hunting and making tools. But it is not the whole story. One may argues other species even do hunting, gathering, surviving harsh climates and the like without having developed anything like a human being’s cognitive abilities.

So what makes all differences between human beings and other intelligent species?

From evolutionary biology perspective, the source of human’s brain advancement must be different from those species such counted above. It is suggested that human being in effect enter into a cooperation and competition with other human beings through which the winners are those groups that could create more complex forms of social organization based on new cognitive abilities to interpret each other’s behaviour. (N. Humphrey, Cambridge university press 1976; R. Alexander, University of Michigan press 1990) It is wise to say that the source of human beings’ brains development is their social interactions, races and the means by which these interactions undertaken such as language.

My 2011

Shahab Sabahi

Energy and Environment for Development – Policy Analysis Research Group

December-2011 turned into its second half. This is the time for reflecting the year which we will pass into history just in the next few days time and building upon new hopes for 2012.

Like every years, the first year of the second decade of the 21st century, accommodated bitter and sweet events. It may be hard to draw a bold line to contrast sweet and bitter events, as they could be differently interpreted by people. There were, however, some events that there is a general consensus which overwhelmingly affected the function of the global system or moved human’s heart.

Nevertheless, in reality, bitter and sweet forces are interacting and applied to dynamic systems. The natural and social systems must be capable to balance them through an adaptable path if they wish to survive.  

In individual level, everyone experienced the impacts of these events. Some even forced further and got radical structural changes to transform the entire system with altering their lifestyle and resetting their mindsets.

My life was influenced by Japan’s tsunami, Fukushima nuclear disaster and Thailand’s floods. The former strained my emotions to its limit. My friends and family were directly exposed to the disasters. The latter tested both my physical and emotional capacity. Struggling for securing foods and drinking water, living in fear of flood reaches your place plus watching people’s lost, pushed me to limit.

The events, along with other personal experiences, force me to undertake an adaptation process which brought me a great life and mindset transformation. I got know myself and now feel free.

If you’re reviewing your 2011 to create hopes for 2012, I wonder, it would be useful to bring up some great words in this thinking process. They contributed in bringing off my life transformation. They may find your interest.       

}        Knowing is better than wondering (B. Franklin)

}        Never leave that till tomorrow (B. Franklin)

}        It is not the strongest of species that survive, nor the most intelligent, BUT the ones most responsive to changes (Ch. Darwin)

}        Changing paradigms is not easy. Too many have invested too much in the wrong models (J. Stiglitz)

}        If we are to survive, we must have ideas, visions, and courage. (A. Schlesinger)

}        Everything that matters in our intellectual and moral life begins with an individual confronting his own mind and conscience in a room by himself  (A. Schlesinger)

}        Do not watch, but see and listen. They open your mind and heart (the tale of Genji)

Have a wonderful year

Subjective priority setting process

Shahab Sabahi

Energy and Environment for Development – Policy Analysis Research Group

One may describe, the policy analysis procedure involves a series of objectives and logical steps such as goal setting; based on world-view and cultural values, cost-benefit outcome (logic, abeit to some degree depends on analyst's perspective), compliance with the governed law both cultural bases and natural law and etc.

There is one element so-called "PRIORITY setting" that comes so often to fore that is influenced by SUBJECTIVITY. It may radically shift and influence the policy design and its implementation.
From different perspectives, priorities may be in different colours.

General notion says that dotmocracy is an effective technique to underplay the influence of SUBJECTIVITY. In its simplest form, one provides participants with one to three dots (usually stickers) and invite them to place a dot beside their top one to three options. It is a voting technique. Dotmocracy works well with large groups in situations when a quick ‘read’ of the group feelings are required and when participants are not very interested or able to engage in very rigorous, analytical ranking processes.

Like all existing techniques, dotmocracy has its limitations. It still accomodates, to some degree subjective priority setting processes. It is effectively implemented in situations when the personal or professional judgment opinions of participants are an acceptable decision-making standards.

Giving all a/m points, is there any way to get ride of this "SUBJECTIVITY"?

A brief on Confucianism and Critical Thinking

Shahab Sabahi

Energy and Environment for Development – Policy Analysis Research Group

Confucianism posits moral eductaion for nobles who will take office, is the critical point that determines the success of a government and progress of a state. It beilives that nobles who are educated, under this system, will feel a sense of responsibility to their society (Journal of Democracy 11, 2000)

This system believes the art of government and nobles are to correct people and it is fundamental in societies who influenced by Confucinism, "the optimum is what nobles say". The system believes the moral accountability notion maintains NOBLES from any wrong doing (Fukuyama)

Without any value judgment on Confuciosim, it could be said that this system keeps away people from participating in debates. Would it eventually cause to halt the growth as the notion of Critical Thinking would fade away (which is the main value of Freedom and progress)? Does this notion kill curiosity and would lead to the decay of a society?
One may say China, with adopting such a notion, could improve its society and got changes. Will it be sustainable?

Contrary to principle: Budget deficit reduction policy

Shahab Sabahi

Energy and Environment for Development – Policy Analysis Research Group

For reducing budget deficits, governments face two policy choices, either reducing government spending such as health care or raising tax on rich. WHICH one is good?

There are many ways to judge the value of a policy target. To answer the above mentioned question we should answer to the essential questions. How can we distinguish between good and bad?

Utilitarian theory requires, which is one of the most dominant doctrines with stronghold in North America, a policy to maximize pleasures.

According to a utilitarian theory, it assumes that the rightness of an action depends entirely on the amount of pleasure it tends to produce and the amount of pain it tends to prevent. It describes the good not only as pleasure, but also as happiness, benefit, advantage. J. S. Mill particularly emphasizes the importance of pleasures. Thus the values of the consequences of an action are evaluated based on not only the quantity but also the quality of the action’s pleasure.

So if one accepts utilitarianism, its policy target must be set based on the greatest-happiness principle of majority as a standard of right and wrong. Hence, the Budget Deficit Reduction Policy should be judged as good if it improves the greatest happiness of the greatest number, by either increasing pleasure or decreasing pain.

The notion and motion that denies health care to the poor who outnumbers rich, is a BAD policy when it makes the majority unpleased.

By this standard: “should not deficit-reduction policy raise taxes on the very rich?” However one can sticks to only the collective cost-benefit numbers, so then the value judgment is not something it can justify at all on the basis of those numbers.