What does it take to solve the world’s biggest problem?

The day when Mr. Obama appeared at the joint session of the US Congress to deliver his much-anticipated speech, I arrived very late in my house. I was tired and ready to go to bed (yes, it is already night here in Europe!), but the excitement and clamor on TV kept me awake. So I decided to watch the 30 minutes speech about the US economy. After all, I am a student of economics, and I have enough curiosity to learn what the President of the world’s most powerful economy have to say about… yes about solving the World’s biggest problem. Which happens to be, at this moment, the sick state of the US economy. And Mr. Obama does not disappoint at makes speeches either. (I am not sure if it is a credit for him, because his opponents are increasingly presenting him as a naïve college professor whose only specialty is mastery of words …)

The US economy has been in tatters for years now. The Great Recession that started 3 years ago has left millions of Americans jobless. After spending more than a trillion dollars to ‘stimulate’ the economy, the government has not yet succeeded in reversing the gloomy state of the economy. In fact, many were talking that the US (and by extension also ‘us’) is just sliding into the second phase of what they call a ‘double-dip recession’.

Across the Atlantic, Europe’s economy is even in a more dire situation. Because of the near bankruptcy of the Mediterranean Euro countries, the Euro is in deep trouble. The situation is so gloomy that many are talking about the collapse of the Euro. And I have to confide to you, I myself has considered moving out my small saving from the Euro….

And there he comes, Mr President - preceded by his cabinet- exchanging handshakes and kisses with seemingly everyone in the crowded congress house. I noted that when you are a president everyone, and yes literally everyone, wants to talk to you. It must be a hard business. Do you run the country or exchange handshakes? Make speeches or kiss all those congresswomen? For a moment, I wondered if it is not just a kissing ceremony.

Everyone is curious about what the President has in stock. The economic situation is not just bad; it is also extremely controversial. If you put together the world’s leading economists and ask them to diagnose and fix this crisis, they won’t be able to do it. Which is why it is not solved yet. 

In the beginning of the crisis, everyone agreed with the Democrat’s idea of a stimulus package – that is to say the government’s intervention to step up the economy from the brink of collapse. Three years later, the Republicans argue, and after spending a trillion dollars, the economy is still in tatters. So they recommend cutting back taxes, shrinking the government and reducing the ballooning government deficit. The Democrats think just the opposite. They believe the stimulus was a success because it averted a looming catastrophe. And they add that what the country needs is more government spending. The public debt is large, they contend, but the immediate problem is the state of the economy, not the ballooning debt. The Democrats and Republicans are so divided about the priority between addressing growth and the debt that they nearly led the country into bankruptcy just a few weeks ago. That cost America dearly. Just after the bitter squabble between the two parties ended, S&P downgraded America’s debt rating, claiming that the two parties nearly bankrupted the country and led the world into an economic disaster….

If I were told to be the judge, I would have a hard time because both sides have a point. The economy needs to grow now, so it perhaps deserves more stimulus. And yes the public debt is also already 14 trillion dollars! And something has to be done about that too. The problem is that no one, not a single of the all-too-famous economists, is yet too sure as to which of the two issues should be given a priority. For every argument he makes in favor of one idea, there will be a thousand arguments for its opposite. That is why it is called the World’s Biggest Problem.

And there comes Mr President. He is already on the pulpit now, just in front of the House Speaker John Boehner, who happens to be an arch-enemy Republican, and the Vice President Joe Bidden. Hundreds of congressfolk received him with a standing ovation.

No one is sure what this man will pull out of his hat. On my part, I did not expect much. Considering the deep controversial nature of the problem, I expected a few smart ideas, with pros and cons, and a few hesitant proposals on how to fix the World’s Biggest Problem. And I was sure the Republicans in the congress –including the House Speaker Mr Boehnerwho sat there with a gloomy face– are sure about one thing: they expect no solution from Mr President. They have exactly the opposite idea of what he is to say, whatever that is gonna be. These parties are so divided that I don’t know how they stand each other. I sometimes think it is easier to take the guns and go to the jungle – the African way - than to sit together to ‘agree’ with someone who thinks just the opposite of whatever crosses your mind ….

Then followed the speech. The president detailed his solution for the World’s Biggest Problem. In one very important aspect, the speech was the exact opposite of what I expected. There was a lot of math and economics in it, with some of which I disagreed, but there was something that was exactly the opposite of my expectation.

The president was sure about his answer.

Now, that is striking. Here is the World’s Biggest Problem, about the diagnosis of which even the best economists cannot agree, let alone on its solution, and the president is sure about how to fix it? That is something!

Mr. Obama was in a fired up mood. Delivering his speech in his usual powerful and charming voice, the president made an eloquent and detailed description of his solution. He called it “The American Jobs Act,” or the AJA. Obliviously, the AJA is a meticulously developed proposal, which is reviewed and re-reviewed and consulted with his council of economists multiple times, and most importantly one that takes into account the voices and considerations of the Republicans in the House. But that is not the point. However meticulously you develop your solution, you can never be sure about it when what you are facing is the World’s Biggest Problem.  

That is where I learned My Greatest Lesson. And it goes like this: if there is something called the “World’s Biggest Problem” there also is the “World’s Biggest Solution.” When you think about it, that sentence is almost like saying that there is no such thing as the World’s Biggest Problem because all problems have answers. That was what I learned from Mr. President, not any economics at all.

A famous basketball coach called John Wooden claims to have re-discovered the meaning of the word “Success.” He completely disagrees with the definition in the Webster dictionary for the word, which defines success as getting something others don’t have. He thinks that definition is obsolete. His preferred definition is: “Success is the peace of mind which is a direct result of self-satisfaction in knowing you made the effort to become the best that you are capable of becoming.” In other words, the Biggest Solution is the Best Solution You Can Conjure Up. When you think about it, there is no failure according to this definition so long as you did the best. What a rich world, where everyone can be successful!

It seemed to me Mr. Obama has known this definition all along. His attitude for the question was the answer. And it was a big attitude. In his own words: “Man can be as big as he wants to be.” And he wanted to be as big and capable as what it takes to solve the World’s Biggest Problem. And I saw that greatness on tv that late night.

There was one thing the President did not do in his 30 minutes speech. He never emphasized how big the problem was. When he did, it was only to remind the congressfolk that they are greater still. The problem is big, but you are bigger still.

He was so fired up, so inspiring, but at the same time so down-to the earth and meticulous in his math and economics that it was hard not to believe him. Suddenly, I realized that this problem is not big anymore.

That was how I learned the answer to the world’s biggest problem. There is no Big Problem, because we are bigger still.

የተረሳ ግርማ

የተረሳ ግርማ

ባለ ቱባ ታሪክ  -  የሊቃዉንት አንባ   -   ዉዲቷ ሀገሬ

የሚያስባት አጣች  -  ሆነች ያዉሬ ጎሬ::

ናቡከደነጾር

ሳያዘምትባት ጦር

ባቢሎን ሳይመታት

ድል አርጎ አንበርክኮ  -  እጆችዋን ሳይይዛት

እንደ እየሩሳሌም  -  ኦናነት ጸናባት።

ስልጣኔው አልፏል  -  ተረት ወሬ ሆኗል

ግርማዋ ተቀብሮ   -  አሸዋ ዉስጥ አድሮ  -   ትቢያ ተከናንቧል

የኔ እሚላት አጥታ  -  አምዶቿ ፈረሱ

ልጆቿም እንዳባይ  -  ወደ ውጪ ፈሰሱ።

ታህሳስ 1996

አዲሱ አበበ

Judgement and Opinion

Okay, my first blog is gonna be on judgment and opinion. A recent experience inspired this topic.

How would you respond if someone whom you barely know approaches you and makes some unflattering remarks on a close friend of yours? Let's say, with a sincere face, he leans towards you and remarks, pointing to your friend, ''That guy is really strange and mean. I always hear him whining!' I don't know how you would react, but I tell you how I did. I was speechless. Would you say ''Oh yeah!'' or give this poor fellow a miserable time facing him off with a tough questioning? The closer the person who is the target of the the gossip, the more miserable you would be. I hope you would never hear such a thing on, say, your spouse or your child.

When it happened to me, I completely disagreed with the remark because I knew my friend better than this person. But I couldn't face and challenge him either. That would almost be like whining. So I muttered something, neither agreeing nor disagreeing, and left immediately.

But then, what does this really mean? Everyone makes such remarks on others all the time. It only becomes embarrassing when the person who is the target of the gossip happens to be your friend. Most of the time, we are gossiping only while surrounded by the safe network of our friends so our words have little consequences. Even in the unlikely case where we are overheard, the gossip is so harmless that there is nothing to worry about.

I believe this is in general the outcome of our education. We are taught to judge, analyze, criticize (or you could say complain - what would be the difference between criticizing and complaining except that the later has some personal touch?). Of course these skills should be targeted towards solving to problems, and not towards attacking our colleagues. But, sometimes, one can't help misusing them toward abusing 'others.'

I would like to close this blog by recommending, mainly for myself, how to interpret and approach such experiences. Criticizing is a good tool, except when it is used for the wrong purpose. Though anyone can misuse it at any time, banning it is out of reach. The solution? I believe the answer is IMPERSONALIZing it. Anything becomes offensive only when it is personalized in the sense that, when we believe that the remark is inherently offensive and the person is, out of his mean attitude, directly targeting us.

What is the difference between receiving feedback on our presentation and overhearing someone gossiping about our dressing? Although in both cases people might be just saying their opinions instead of judging us, we seek the former but cringe from the later. So the difference lies in how we want to accept and interpret the experience. Just like accepting feedback is a professional way for learning, there should also be a 'professional way' for accepting gossip and interpreting it for growth. Did they say my trousers are out of fashion, or that my friend is whinny? Well then, that was a wrong opinion. My trousers might be out of fashion, but I hate shopping; and they might think my friend is whinny, but they don't know him close enough. That was just an opinion about which I don't care. I take either of these remarks as offensive only when I decide to reinterpret them as meaning something bad about me or my friend. What would that mean except that I am not certain that I am not a bad guy?

Is religion is a force for good?

Q. Is religion is a force for good?

A. It used to be; not anymore.

I have already given my answer. I will try to support it with a set of simple and solid arguments. As an input for my argument, I will rely on my own experience and the little reading I made about religion.

I was brought up a very moderate Christian – my parents are not at all extremists. Then I converted myself into a fanatic believer after joining university. When I came to Holland 4 years ago, I was shocked by the realization that such a just and affluent society could function seamlessly without any support from religion. That was a very difficult time for me because I had to accept that people can live a happy life without religion, and thus by extension I might not need religion as well.

For almost two years afterwards, I came to believe that religion was a stupid game idle people play when they want to forget their problems. Since there are more problems in poorer countries, I found it unsurprising that the most religions countries in the world are the poorest. Later I developed what I believe is a better understanding of religion and its significance in people’s lives. I learned that religion has had its time. For Europeans, religion used to be important a few generations ago. For me, religion used to be very useful while I lived in Ethiopia, and perhaps it is still important for some people in other parts of the world. My simple point is that, religion used to be important, but that is not the case anymore in a modern society.  

Perhaps I should start my argument by defining the purpose of religion as I see it. What is so important about religion that much of mankind has been religious in one form or another throughout much of history? Why are almost all societies before modern era used to be religious? What do they get from it?

Why societies are (used to be) religious

I see two essential purposes for religion in society. One is a more individualized role of giving meaning and inspiration to people’s lives. The second role of religion is a more collectivist role of serving as a kind of constitution, or a code of conduct, so to say, among individuals to be able to build a harmonious society.

      1) Giving meaning and inspiration to life  

Religion, like philosophy, answers very key questions for individuals thereby giving meaning to their lives. Religion sets the core of people’s lives by defining what they are, and how they relate with God and other people. Specifically, religion answers a number of important questions as follows.

Who am I? I am a worthy creation of God.  What am I doing? I am here for a purpose of having eternal life, and I will not live and die in vein. What is God and how am I related to him? God is omnibenevolent (infinitely kind), omnipotent (all powerful), omniscient (all knowing), and omnipresence (ever present). Who are people around me? They are worthy creatures of God, my brothers, and I should love them like I love myself.

It is also noteworthy that religion has had a very important role of inspiring people towards being good and doing good for others, towards peace, love and harmony. Most religious leaders, from the Buddha, to Moses, from Jesus Christ to Mohammed, are admired for their integrity and for their ability to inspire people. The Buddha came as a teacher of enlightenment and a bringer of end to suffering; Moses came as a liberator from the tyranny of the Pharaohs; Jesus as a liberator from sin and death; Mohammed as a deliverer of Allah’s “greatest law” that promises the salvation of mankind. Almost all religions at least initially set out by promoting and teaching inspiring and universal principles of equality and fairness, peace, togetherness, and love. 

      2) Religion as a code of conduct 

Thousands and thousand years ago, when people did not at all have any notion of a constitution or a civil code, sacred religious texts were the means by which nations were run and justice was delivered. Can anyone imagine the Israeli kingdom of Solomon without the books of Moses? Or is it possible to imagine any of the Islamic empires without the Quran? How would medieval era European empires be functioning without the Bible? Whether or not these sacred texts were democratic as constitutions or fair as civil codes is another question. But at some point in time, they had this role to play.

Besides offering the rules of the game by which nations were built and run, religion also played more the role of providing a code of conduct in smaller societies. A very straightforward and common example for this is the case of adultery. Almost all religions consider adultery a very serious sin. I might have difficulty to back this conclusion with solid evidence, but I believe adultery is considered such a serious sin mostly because it is the most palpable cause of social instability if it is left totally unregulated.

Why religion is not relevant in modern societies

To show why religion is not relevant for modern societies, I will simply point out how religion cannot anymore serve the aforementioned two purposes in the present day.

1) Religion as a follower instead of a forerunner of social change

Previously, I argued that one of the roles of religion was to serve as source of meaning to one’s life and as an inspiration. I believe religion has already outlived its life in that aspect.

Imagine the year 30 AD. I know it is difficult to imagine anything about life 2000 years ago, so I will give you a few examples. At that time, people could conquer people, kill all those they disliked, and make all the rest their servants. That was why Palestine, though a land of the Palestinians and Israelites, was ruled by the Romans. That was the time when people were ruled by the iron fist, and when there was no justice and no laws to enforce it. Even when the are some laws, they were unjust and protected the strong instead of the weak. The rules of Moses of that time read as follows: ‘Eye for eye, tooth for tooth.’ If your enemy takes off your eye, you are justified to take off his eyes.

It was during that era that an ordinary man called Jesus Christ, who grew up learning exactly the same rules, stood up to speak against them. He argued that the rules are misunderstood and misused.  Instead, he advised “Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” In a society where the winner could take all, such an advice was simply revolutionary. People who believed in Jesus Christ at that time could see a different world. They were set free. Possibly, people may not need this advice today, or at least they don’t need to be taught such a law in a church. But in 30 AD, that was the most revolutionary idea that changed the world.

Just to remind you of what it really used to be like at the time of Jesus: try to imagine what used to be the pastime of the kings and other elites in that dark era. They used to confront trained wild beasts with human beings. Watching a human being torn apart by lions used to be fun for them. Jesus Christ, as many other religious leaders before and after him, had to change that kind of society. Do we need Jesus today? Perhaps as individuals. But not as society. Today, we have a society that prohibits dog-fighting let alone training gladiators.

And I should add, religion saved many people from abject slavery, and mostly from another religions. Many Hindus in modern India still believe in the caste system. The low cast Hindus used to live a life of real slavery. Islam was a savior for man of these people. For them, Islam meant freedom. I remember what an Indian friend of mine told me about one experience. He saw baskets hanging around the fence of a high-caste person, and he asked what they were. He was shocked when he was told that they were for putting food for beggars. When a beggar, who is almost surely a low-caste person, comes to ask for food, the high-caste person puts the food in the basket and disappears. What shocked my friend was the reason why the high-caste person would not want to see the beggar. He wants to avoid being ‘polluted’ by touching or even seeing the beggar. Islam set these people free from centuries of injustice and descrimination. Throughout history, religion has been revolutionary and a means of pushing human freedom farther. Then again, in the modern day, one doesn’t need to be a Muslim to believe that the caste-system is a fake means people created to justify their atrocities. 

I believe religion used to be a tool of change, inspiration and a pulling factor in the growth of human consciousness. It is not any more. Society has gone ahead of much of the causes religion used to stand for. For that matter, religion today is much more regressive than forerunning in promoting social consciousness in many aspects. Present day society, for example, is concerned about animal rights about which most religions say nothing.

2) Religion as a code of conduct.

This is perhaps a simple observation, so I shouldn’t spend many words to get my point through. We live in an era where states are not means for the few elites to subjugate the masses. However imperfect they may be, modern states are led by citizens chosen by the people to serve the people. We live in an institutionalized society. The practical day-to-day importance of religion to serve as some form of code of conduct is thus dead as a dodo in modern-day society.

3) Exclusivity of religion

There is one very important factor why religion as it used to be in the past cannot serve a larger social role in present day society. I call this big problem of religion ‘the problem of exclusivity.’

Have you noted that a huge number of people living close by usually tend to have the same religion? You can take the case of Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim country, where two hundred million people are all Muslims, or India where close to a billion people are all Hindus, or China, where again until recently around a billion people used to be Buddhists, or Europe where virtually everyone is (used to be) a Christian.

Most traditional religions need exclusive adherence, and so they are not pluralistic. They are closed, and do not allow any open interpretation. They don’t accept and accommodate and compromise. They tend to reject, suffocate or dominate. Most religious people believe their way is the only one. There is no wonder that, given this characteristics of religions, all people, even as many as a billion, living in one country had to conform and adapt and have the same religion. The other option would be social exclusion which could be disastrous in a traditional society.

Okay, can such religions survive in the modern era? The answer is no, because modern day society is diverse and mixed. What I mean by diverse is that people with different backgrounds, beliefs and opinions, who originally used to live in different corners of the world, are living together. Or even simply, modern day society is populated by so much independent individuals that it is hardly possible to get all this conformity from them.  The only principles that can properly function in a diverse and individualistic society are pluralistic and tolerant principles. Exclusive principles such as those promoted by religions are doomed to fail in such a society. Doomed to fail in two senses. Firstly, they cannot answer the questions of the individualistic believer to begin with. Simply, the one-size-fits-all approach of religion can not give inspiration and meaning to a modern day man who is more educated, informed and exposed to different ideas and is open to accept learn from them. In the second place, even if we assume that such an institution gets some support, it is sure to lead to social tension. If I could really believe that my way is the only way and if I feel justified to feel the other is wrong, I am sure to try to correct it. One way or another, that will giver rise to social tension.

***************

I started by writing about my personal experience so I want to wind up with developments that happened to me. My first two years of living in Europe were very difficult years. I lost all the values I carried dearly, and I almost fell into a precipice. It sounds funny; but I was saved by a book. Since a very young age, I have always loved reading books, and I have always sought a higher purpose in life. Then I came across this transformative book about having a higher purpose in life: a match made in heaven. I could never have imagined that one book could turn my life back like that.

The book is called “A Power of Now” and was written by Eckhart Tolle. Looking back, what the book gave me was a new set of tools to look into my own personal problems, most of which came from my difficult upbringing. What is more, the book held a hope and promise of salvation. It was from this book I came to understand that religion is only a means of inspiration for finding purpose in your life, and nothing more. Finding purpose in life starts by solving your day to day problems, and then extends to contributing to society, and perhaps goes even beyond that.

After the Power of Now, I came across an even more amazing book called A Course in Miracles. This mysterious book provides a dramatically radical and esoteric version of Christianity which has many elements in common with Buddhism and different schools of philosophy. I learned that most religions start with a grand idea of leading to salvation and liberation, but get captured by special interests and end up with so many lyres of irrelevant material that it is usually difficult to sort out the useful from the useless.

In short, life is a journey each of us must travel. We might need to draw help and inspiration from different sources, from religion to science. Some may be born with the knowledge of their purpose in life; and some might never dare or get the time to ask about it. But for those who ask, I think increasingly fewer people will get the answer from religion. Instead, I expect an era of more individualistic spirituality whereby each person tries to learning and understand his own purpose in life. I think the one-size-fits all approach of religion will be more and more at odds with the values of present day society. I expect more and more people will want to distance themselves from religions which try to stigmatize or make guilty people travelling their own journeys. I believe an era of freedom is ahead of us. It is just that one more chain has to fall away.

http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/591