a different concept about connecting to people

Many of us have emails, facebook contacts, twitter accounts, delicious bookmarks... All of these tools are important, and they help order our lives in significant ways.

But I would think that these emails, facebook contacts, etc.. should be thought of as prostheses - things that help us connect to the wider world out there, and help us connect to other people. But when we do connect with other people, we are connecting with the emails, and facebook profiles of other people, not to the people per se. What we are, when we link to emails and all, is that we are linking a prostheses to another prostheses, one degree removed from the reality of the person that we are connecting to.

I would like to think that there could be another way about looking at the social connectivity that we have across the web. I would re-imagine that we are connecting to people, not to prostheses, and a whole suite of applications could be conceptualised based on that ideal. We connect to people, and its just that people are enveloped in our own webs of applications and devices, and we need to recognise that fact. It would be so much better, if we could organise our contacts in a people-centric sort of way, and linking emails and facebook profiles to that person, instead of the other way around.

A possible application could be like this...
(name1)
(gmail)
(msn)
(facebook)
(blog)

(name2)
(gmail)
(facebook)
(blog)
(twitter)
(delicious)
...

and so on... instead of

(email)
(name)
...

Would it be possible?

Sphere: Related Content

elaboration of tweets

Academic subject unimportance and labeling. Knowledge, nt parochial. Depth AND spread. multidisciplinary is only a fluff term if you don't know the disciplines in depth...

I hit on this idea after I realise that all this talk about multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary is all fluff and that talk like that only make sense when people are able to get the different perspectives. I can imagine how that might look like for say, someone doing psycho-neurological research. That person would have to do BOTH psychology and neurology, and only after that, bringing those two perspectives into something more interesting.

Which brings me to the idea that the naming of fields of studies might be commutative, meaning AB is equal to BA. It wouldn't matter if its psycho-neurology or neuro-psychology, both are practically the same.

The unimportance of labels: move past ideology. Its not this ideo vs that ideo. Nowadays, it seems more like, this ideo is nice, combined with that component of another ideo... and then mash things up...

Here I am talking about labels and ideologies, and I'm not sure about all these philosophies, but I'm getting the sense that all of these labels fade away, and the thing that truly matters are the words that compose the labels in the first place, to examine details in every philosophies, and really understand what they mean. Its no longer liberalism vs conservatism, or or pragmatism vs idealism... all these -isms confuse people. And why should people get so stuck on their ideas? Yes, there are some fundamentals that should stay where they are, but after that, argument goes.
Design IS tech! You can't have good design without good technology (note: good, not BEST tech. very different things.)

People dont want tech! People want experience afforded by tech. Apple has been first mover, but MS catching up! Experience is design powered by technology! People DON'T want to know the technology behind their gadgets, they WANT the EXPERIENCE - and that can only be provided by DESIGN!

The two tweets are the result of realising that design itself is technology. Good design has to come from good tech, and there is no one without the other. You can have good tech with bad design though, but that just makes people turned off from the tech.

You have to differentiate between good tech and best tech. best tech refers to the technical advances that have made the performance exceptional. Good tech might refer to optimal performance, one that might not be performing exceptionally, but rather is compatible with the design and user requirements. Good tech also has this sense of optimising for the whole of the product, while best tech usually is about the sheer performance of something in a single indicator rather than throughout the entire product.

And of course, the aim of tech, in a very human-centred way, is to provide an experience. People want the experience of an easy-to-use touch screen, hence the iPhone. People might not necessarily want a device full of functions they don't use... So DESIGN is key!

Should have published this long ago...

Sphere: Related Content

thinking about a different kind of journalism

One of the ways that I'm interested in, is how to bring the realities of the world into Singapore? And so far, the only way I can think of, is to travel around the world, and post it on a blog, and have it carried by the media.

Do something truly bold, that people will follow.

And for me, that means, going around to the worst places in the world, and see how people are coping, and how others around the world are helping. How are MIT students bringing their technology to the villages? How is the OLPC initiative working? How are the UN people doing their humanitarian projects?

By this coverage, I would hope that kids in Singapore begin to realise that what they study, what they learn, aren't simply facts or photographs to be browsed over, becoming just another byline on the CNA news channel, but rather, these stories become tangible in their minds.

Ok. So The New Paper has covered stuff like that before. Journalists from Singapore HAVE travelled across the world to bring these stories. Why would things be any different?

To that question, I have no response, other than the fact that being outside mainstream media, though perhaps augmented by it, that someone might have the freedom to share these personal stories to kids, have it followed by blogs and twitter, have exhibitions in schools and JCs, solely for people to get inspired.

Also, it won't be about the reporting negativity and suffering. These stories will be about hope as well, about the generosity of humanity... For the engineers-, and scientists- to be, to let them know that their research will not be trivial, their subjects are not trivial... To let them know that, for the biggest issues that we face, the solutions already exist, and it is a matter of action to get started. There is a difference to be made, and it is a good difference that can be done.

Ultimately, it is about changing the world, and it is about changing the world one person at a time, about the heart. It doesn't have to be some rural village in Africa or India, it could be inspiring the kid next to us, as well.

Sphere: Related Content

My Ideal fantastic university education

I briefly mentioned my dream university curriculum but I couldn't develop it fully since I had to rush off to go somewhere. And so, more elaborated:

My dream university curriculum:

I'm wondering if I'm a Black Swan myself - the highly improbable freak event that, when happens, causes drastic changes to whatever system the Black Swan is embedded in. But that's just a personal opinion. What I'm really wondering about, is whether I'm a 'statistical outlier' - meaning, the dumb guy who refuses to play by the rules, and wants to do something different, or will I be the leading edge of a tide, the person who will set the trend for others after. But whichever it is, I have in mind, the idea of an ideal university education...

But just before I go on, something very quickly about NUS. I think NUS, in trying to accomodate British and American systems, has instead, become this weird creature that's really neither.The British system of majors works because it was created for industrialism, where specialisation was required. Hence the fixed programme, where once people went through it, they would have attained a high degree of specialty for whatever industry they are studying for.

The American system, however, emphasizes personal freedom and choice. So within the scope of the modular system, people could take basically, whatever they wanted, only focusing in their later years, and where intense effort is required.

So they are very different systems, designed with very different philosophies in mind. NUS, credit to them, has tried to balance the different impulses - by emphasizing the course - which means fixed curricula, and by implementing the modular system, which allows freedom of choice and whatnot.

For most people, it works out fine. Singapore's education system has been that of specialisation anyway, all the way from secondary school to junior colleges, and the entire process could be said to be a narrowing down of subjects. So it works, and I give credit to the people who made it work.

But well... there are this bunch of people who are just... active in their minds, who want to do everything, and are prepared, through their background, to do entirely new things under the sun. This bunch of people would have been really happy in the American system, but they are stuck in NUS. I am, actually.

But I suspect that I won't be the only one. I'm betting that there will be more people who will develop the inclinations that I have developed, who have read up on so much, that they are essentially graduates going through the universities just to get the qualification. But they are in an university, and some of them might see it as the opportunity to do the things they've always wanted to do, with the added bonus of having their efforts recognised. Or rather, that's what I've always thought. But again, I want to emphasize: the current system has worked for many people, and though tweaks are needed every now and then, I do understand that there are constraints, and that not everyone can have the education that they want. However, there is a emotional cost to that, that interests may be killed, bright young motivated people might just lose their spark, and something amazing might just be lost from the university, in spite of university.

So in my head, I fantasize about the kind of education that I've always wanted, and though people might not agree with it, well...

It could be something within USP. But this will be USP to the max, with the ideal of multidisciplinary endeavour pushed to the extreme.

It has to be uber-selective, in searching for students who can move across different disciplines with equal ease. Although there will be people who are aware, this uber-programme needs to have people who have genuine intellectual depth, who have done prior extensive programme before they could even be considered to be able to handle the workload. At the same time, there has to be strong institutional support - it is as dependent on the instructors as it will be on the dynamism of the students. It will be difficult, since good teachers are hard to find, and the context of NUS's priorities make it even harder.

Which leads me to another point before I go onto syllabus design. NUS is currently, almost, fixated on marketing itself as a research university. Which is unfortunate for undergraduate education since there will be many lecturers who will prefer to sit at their desk or at their labs crunching numbers for their experiment, or going through journals for their research. Which is ironic, since, if there are people who prefer to be elsewhere and teach really badly, then NUS is ultimately kicking itself in the foot - by discouraging students to do research, hence decreasing the number of students encouraged to do decent work in their respective courses. Now all of these are just conjectures, but so far, hearing from fellow students, this is what I'm hearing.

Ok, so its not that irrelevant. The system that I'm thinking of requires instructors who are extremely dedicated to the students, who are willing to either, set aside their research projects, OR, include students in their research projects in very close collaboration.

Now, given that there might be students who might somehow have the grasp to handle many many things in one shot... This could be the probable syllabus:

First year will probably be... doing exposures and fundamentals across the major faculties - physics, chemistry, biology, sociology, history, literature, philosophy, writing, statistics, computing... and maybe into second year. Depending on the students, they then start to explore and do research modules on their own, working closely with professors, maybe more than 1 instructor, especially if their research module is across different disciplines. Mashups would be highly encouraged since thats where all the new things are!

The research programme then becomes the main focus from yrs 2 and 3. Their research projects ought to be large projects, consolidating the connections between different areas of knowledge, and go from 8MCs to say, 16MCs. So every sem they might just do 2 or 3 research projects, but the workload required would be rather, large... Whatever they need to learn for their research projects, be it the technical skills to handle the necessary machinery, or the techniques of fieldwork, or the mathematics of statistical analyses - whatever they need to learn will be picked up while on the research project. It sounds huge, and yes it is. If this is impossible, then this dream syllabus remains just a dream.

And then in their final year, they do a uber-thesis, a consolidation of all they have learnt during the years in university.

While majors will not exist, there will still exist clusters - some modules students could do in a certain track in order to attain a body of knowledge they can apply. While they might sit in regular lectures, attend laboratory sessions, they will not sit for their final exams, rather, they will just keep doing research projects.

This idea will definitely have limitations. But then, this concept of education would not apply to the hardcore, focused researchers anyway... And yes, it might even be impossible to implement ever, but well, it is nice dreaming about it...

Sphere: Related Content

hedgehogs vs foxes

Nicholas Kristof, in his column, wrote about Hedgehogs vs Foxes in American foreign policy... http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/26/opinion/26Kristof.html

I love the idea of hedgehogs vs foxes - the idea that hedgehogs dig deep into single issues, are considered specialists while foxes are people who go from idea to idea, explore it long enough but not so deep, and back out again , venturing into other topics.

Kristof wrote about it in context to the issue of experts - how experts sometimes get things wrong because they become so single-minded that they fail to realise that the problems they study sometimes are complex creatures that require multiple angles to look at. Hence his writing that foxes ought to be better than hedgehogs.

I felt that such a simplistic dichotomy is fallacious. I mean, its difficult to classify hedgehogs and foxes in the first place, and there are still many problems out there in the world which requires specialists - years of experience in dealing with problems... there is still room in the world for specialised experts who have worked on specific fields for years, even decades.

But there are also obviously issues out there that are not specific, focused issues, and these issues tend to be the ones that plague our world right now, because specialists, by their simplification, might fail to understand the complexities, and by resorting to some simplifications might instead aggravate the situation. I can think of no specific examples, but again, there probably are many anecdotes about it.

Maybe foxes are prized today because of the large issues today - the credit crunch that led to the economic crisis, climate change, energy, sustainable development, poverty in africa, rural development - these are huge multifaced problems that require people who know how to work and coordinate across many disciplines, hence the jumping around that's required.

Alright then. But then I would actually highlight that hedgehogs are still required anyway - people who have been working on the ground, worked with tonnes of experience - these people are still required, and these are the people that education systems tend to produce. I guess now we see the importance of foxes because we realise that issues are too complex. Maybe the truth is, foxes and hedgehogs need to be in equilibrium in any kind of organisation. Too many hedgehogs and the big picture gets ignored, too many foxes and no actual implementation might be accomplished.

Meantime, our education is still going down the path of the hedgehog-centric style of education, with the emphasis of the major still important, if not utterly important. If we need foxes-type of people for the future economy, there really should be serious reconsiderations to the style of education that we give to our kids. Not everyone will be a hedgehog, and not everyone will be a fox. In the rarest of occasion, we might even see the rise of the hedgefox - people who have the capability to move across vastly different disciplines with equal ease. That will be utterly mindblowing.

Sphere: Related Content

Mission Statement for my time in USP

I decided to listen to songs instead for my quiet time just this once, and the first song was: Who am I?

Just moments earlier, I felt compelled to express what I wanted for USP, in the context of the things that I'm trying to do.

A very simple thing came out:

I wanted to leave USP better than it was when I first came in.

And then BAM! - Who am I, that the Lord of all the Earth, would care to know my name....

I won't be able to do that, or do anything fruitful without God. Or without friends, for that matter. And now, I shall start, to gather like-minded people, and begin to see the possibilities.

Two ways:

Academic, and Community.

Academic: Pushing the boundaries of USP so that others after me can find an-already trodden path.

Push the academic boundaries not just in USP, but in NUS and in Singapore as well.

Current ideas: Raise the possibility of even a Singapore Studies minor, open the possibilities for accredited modules with NTU and SMU...

Community: Finding ways to allow juniors to bond within themselves to pool their learning together, and to engage the seniors when they need to. Provide the juniors with the tools to find peers in USP from their own major, and to look for seniors who are willing to do the job of being a mentor like figure...

I think all these just about sums up why I'm pushing all these boundaries...

But why do I even want to leave USP better than when I first entered?

1. Because USP has given me so much, that naturally, I feel compelled to return.

2. Because I want those who come after us to have a better USP.

and... Because its something from God.

Sphere: Related Content

An 'affliction'

Here's how I decided to frame all my academic problems:

Eddie's Syndrome:

ES tends to occur in individuals who have read extensively in both breadth
and depth, and as such, is a multidisciplinary scholar despite not scoring
high scores. Individuals who have this syndrome tend to be slightly angsty
about what major to do, since no single major can accommodate their
interests. It is also manifested in the numerous emails they send to their
academic advisors about their academic dilemmas, especially with regards to
the profusion of academic ideas that they wish to pursue.

When approaching students possessing this genotype, it is advisable NOT to
ask for their majors, lest incurring the wrath of the individual being asked
the question. Such students typically do not believe in the concept of a
'major' and as such, might be more at home in a true-blue liberal arts
college, which might be beyond the individual's economic means to pursue. As
such, it would be more advisable to inquire about the person's interests -
since all of the interests are highly likely to be academic.

Individuals with ES would like to eventually embark on research projects
that make full use of their multidisciplinary capabilities - more than that,
they would also like to change the way the world thinks, not just about
changing how the world works.

Apparently, Eddie's Syndrome is best treated at USP where afflicted
individuals can receive the academic support to pursue all the many things
that they want to do.

Sphere: Related Content

techie

1. Facebook is no longer just a *social network*. It is now a platform which has its own Facebook-verse, which is on its own trajectory that might not correspond to reality.

2. Wouldn't it be cool to have a *smart camera*, a camera that will tell you information on the *things* that you are taking?

Sphere: Related Content

the embodiment of knowledge

I stared very hard at a car and a market today, and my mind begin to drift away into thinking about how social knowledge/information is embodied by food centres and cars. What does a market embody? It embodies the socio-cultural norms embedded in the neighbourhoods, in the food that it contains, in the items that it sells to the residents. What about cars? Still thinking about it though, but I think I am on to something there. I'm now trying to think of EVERYTHING physical artifact as embodying some kind of social/personal information, but I'm not sure how it might all work out. 

What kind of informational flows? I imagine cars to be outfitted with sensors and flexible surfaces so they change the aerodynamic profile given different road, temperature, and air conditions. But thats merely autonomous smart systems, and aren't really paradigm busting. Similarly for buildings - how buildings might self-optimise for energy efficiency - but thats not really new. I don't want to be looking at smart systems, I'm looking for relational, social information, and how they are embodied in the physical artifacts in our lives. 

What does a car represent as an artifact of society? How does a 'car' reflect the personalities of the user? Ditto for a market - how does a market/food centre represent the neighbourhood and the people living in it? How people are part of a larger community, incorporating them into their identity, creating this personal mosaic, perhaps...

Now, I admit that many of these things sound rather abstract, but all of these thoughts and ideas come down to this: how do we think of institutions as stores of information, and what can we take out from thinking in this way?

Sphere: Related Content

Introducing the hypercracy

I hit upon a fantasy... I wonder if it's possible to have a super-efficient civil service that is nimble and responsive, that has zero barrier with the people being governed. Is that a fantasy? With google-like kind of information tech, perhaps it's not that fantastic, even something to aim for, perhaps...

Sphere: Related Content

Something about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

The New York Times article sure made me think a lot.

Its one of the things that happen that make people question the existence of a just loving God, and why He might allow things to happen. I have no answer to that. Only God has the answer. But I can guess, and one of the things is that, there is still Evil in the world, and sometimes, it win tiny battles, but it will still lose the war in this good/evil conflict.

Sometimes, there are just no clear answer to things. Why did the Israeli shell hit his home? Sometimes there are just no reason to things, only events as they happen. And to learn to accept these events, moving on from there, always developing this compassion and sensitivity to things - thats always a starting point to move from...

So how do I, as a global individual, as someone who has read about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, look at this tragedy, even as this tragedy is but a small tiny event in the entire universe of tragedy that has pervaded the region?

Honestly, after going through history, I can't help but feel a little jaded, but I know this jadedness is simply insensitive when talking about the tragedies that have happened there - of the heartbreak and sorrow, of the anger and hate. Intellect seems insufficient to deal with this, but for a Singaporean thousands of miles, I find it difficult to summon the emotions to think about this. I know that nothing can add or subtract to the sufferings there, but mere acknowledgment seems insufficient. I think about the need for peace - but even that is insufficient... I can only hope - put my faith in - in a God who cares for all of these tragedies, who somehow turns everything for something better. But I am painfully aware that even the idea is insufficient...

But then even these thoughts are overwhelmed by the thought of human suffering all over the world, in Darfur, in Congo, elsewhere in the world...

It is a sad broken world, and today, I'm reminded of it.

Sphere: Related Content

thinking about identity, food culture, and culture in general

I've actually talked about something like this, but today, there's a different epiphany of sorts. I remembered talking about social change with my pals at NS, and they were hardly receptive about the idea. They erm... well... can't really connect to that idea of a different Singapore. All they want to do, was to get on with life, go to university, get a job, have a nice life. The old me back then would hold partially-elitist thought at them being satisfied with the status quo, and try to convince them that a better future was possible.

But now, the present me would go, 'Thats cool!'

I realise that talk about all those abstract things about social and technological revolutions - all of it seems hollow (vacuous) when I look at the guy in front me in a coffeeshop chopping pieces of meat. I wonder what he wants - just a simple life, I guess, save up enough money, buy a house, even a car, have a family, raise kids, send them off to university, perhaps. And its all the same. All of these choices seem to be equally valid ways to live their lives, and there's no badness or wrongness about it. Its only elitist people with their heads in the clouds who would want to impose a different choice for them, and to declare that ONLY these lifestyles are 'good', 'right' lifestyles to live. Which is plain nonsense.

At the same time, I'm starting to not really care about who's in front me when I order food. Be it Chinese nationals (which is beginning to become common) or anyone else - it just doesn't matter. Its a decent job, serving happiness in the form of food - everyone needs to eat, right?

As for issues of integration and assimilation, well... I guess its just one of those things that takes time. Time for them to settle down, to adapt to Singapore society.

And I'm thinking about the need for creativity. Even culinary creativity, and not just the traditional notions of academic or artistic creativity. Thinking about the notion of cultural hacking, looking at how we might change cultural norms of food and rituals, and how they might be transformed in new ways - something unexpected, but pleasant and desirable. In this instance, I'm thinking about how we might hack our food to become unique Singapore variants of food eaten in SEA.

Is it still feasible to think about intelligent jobs? The perspective that all jobs are really a form of information arbitrage between the source and the consumer. Intelligent jobs are suppose to break down the information asymmetry between the producer and the consumer for mutual benefit. How might that work out?

I guess I'll be on this line of thinking for a while...

So, what really is social change? Its more like, social justice - meaning, have equitable jobs for all, even redistributive income system of taxation, political fairness, inclusiveness, openness.

Again, coming back to the point that the average person on the street really just want to get on with life, unless there is something that captures their imagination.

Sphere: Related Content

not a good science, on the second day of school...

Today was only the second day of school and already I'm feeling much negativity.

Already committed some mistakes, many things still undone, and this dreariness in school... Somehow I'm not feeling excited about school and learning, and I'm wondering if its because... there's no more writing module to do? Or is it some lingering sadness that the semester was past, and that things will NOT be the same.

I have to accept a lot of tings. That this is a time to learn about accepting myself, and accepting the role of other people in my life. That personal isolation is not such a bad thing, that out of all the experiences in life, something good will come out of all these, because well, its God. He's in control of everything. As simple as that. The semester will be tough, but He will not give me something I cannot handle. And I must get motivated again, to write and think, to continue to push my own academic and intellectual frontiers.

Its time to get working again. and to learn to rest too, in the midst of everything. Whatever happens, happens, but it all happens because of God.

Sphere: Related Content

a chasm to confess

There is something that I think I might have said it before in the blog, but I'm just going to say it again. There is this distance between generations, I think, even in my family. Its just this sense of apart-ness that its always there.

Education I guess, is a double-edged sword then. It empowers people with the skillsets necessary to thrive in the global economy, but then, as with the case of Singapore, it does not facilitate in the transmission of cultural artifacts/heritage, and instead, seems to tear people apart from them. Can you imagine Hokkien Opera being an CCA? Yet we allow our kids to sing Italian/Spanish/Japanese/Korean tunes! WTH!

THe cultural heritage of our parents and grandparents have been neglected, even debased, The cultural artifacts linked to our festive seasons ends up being promoted - the lion dancers, the lanterns, the mooncakes... for economic profit? drawing in the tourist dollar? As signs of a 'vibrant cultural city'? Something doesn't sync yet. Singapore still has an emerging theatrical culture, yet its being undermined in ways that are hidden. 2 steps forward 1 step back. Why can't we embrace our dialects? And why is Singlish not tolerated? Perhaps the fluidity of the Singaporean identity - the flexibility in moving from cosmopolitan to heartlander in a single larh - that is the wonder of the Singaporean.

And now that I'm here, I was reflecting about the predominant role of English as the medium of instruction, and the Singlish that young people speak. I talk about this because I've identified in another post that the main problem of Singapore's young people is that they are not immersed in the environment of speaking English, especially in the neighbourhoods. That there are structural problems that are preventing these kids from competing in the global talent marketplace, and that meritocracy, being the mindless efficient selector of talent, just disregards the place where people come from. Sometimes, it is really not that people are not hardworking enough - it really is about not even having the environment and the motivation around them that urges them to work hard. No one is stupid. Its about whether the people around them think they are stupid or not.

I think I've moved too far for one night.

Sphere: Related Content

Reading Science Fiction and the inadequacy of our knowledge

I like Amy Tan, and about the resolution of identities. But I like Sci-Fi too - that genre of fiction that truly pushes the conception of man and who he is, in the face of technological changes. I think sci-fi writers are the real people who think seriously about the human condition and what it means.

But thats just my point of view.

I was going around the various bookstores, and I suddenly picked up 'Rise and Fall of the Third Reich', and Applebaum's Gulag. I'm not exactly sure why I bought these books, but I guess it was just a reflection of my desire to understand history.

I think it was then somewhere during this afternoon, that something hit me really badly. What we know, our knowledge, what we think we know, barely represents the thinnest topmost layer of everything that exists. The knowledge that all of us as individuals know - is barely like dust - that we know so little!

All the books that were lying out there, all the words and the texts - these things mean barely anything, if they mean anything at all! As I furiously twittered the whole afternoon - all that we know is really, truly, NOTHING. All the knowledge that we possess, is truly a chasing after the wind.

Our perception of knowledge, of reality, is so insignificant! And yet, there is a greater reality out there, a reality formed by our collective choices - a reality that is our collective consequences - the sum of the complex web of interactions and decisions. And there too, lies other things, of souls and spirits, flowing all around us. There is only so much that the human mind can grasp all at once, but there is still so much more!

All the data that we have, all the knowledge that we know, all of it is still insufficient to describe the reality that we live in. Sure, the sciences can take us somewhere there, but once will and decisions come into focus, everything changes. Before quantum uncertainty, classical chaos was already known.

So even as I engage in exploring this infinite-land of reality, in the study of sciences (chemistry) - despite all the insufficiencies of knowing barely anything at all... What is left?

The sense of humility of knowing that there is a God, who truly takes care of everything - and then the realisation, the barest, slightest, realisation, of the awesomeness of God.

Sphere: Related Content

Book Review: Jared Diamond

I thought that sometimes there isn't much point in talking a single book in isolation, but rather, it makes more sense to talk about books written by a single author, as I am trying to do here with Jared Diamond. He is the author of 3 wonderful books, and they are shown left to right, in the order they are published.

There is a perhaps, a sequence in the way he has written these books. The third chimpanzee was about the way humans are different and also similar with the other apes. And yes, the third chimpanzee refers to homo sapiens, and the first and second chimps are the chimps themselves and the bonobos.

It was fascinating in the way it talks about the evolutionary psychology and sexual selection, in particular, the differences in the sexual behaviour between the other great apes and human beings. To cut the long story short, there is this balls-to-body-mass ratio which seems to be the key. Gorillas have small ratios, which means that a single dominant male does not face sexual competition and practises polygamy (harems), while chimps have large ratios, which means well, the males are kinda promiscuous, but it also means that there is tremendous sexual comeptition, hence the large balls to dominate the competition. And humans have ratios somewhere in between that of chimps and gorillas, which means, that monogamy with affairs might be deemed to be a middle point between chimps and gorillas. At least thats one way of looking at it.

Then, having tackled the origins of the behaviour of people, Jared Diamond then takes on something much bigger - the progress of humanity since then. Jared Diamond examines the development of civilisation in various parts of the world, and examines why is it that Europeans and their descendants ended up dominating the world. First of all, he examines why Mesopotamia was the centre of the world's first civilisation - due to the diversity in tameable animals and abundance in grains. And then there is the whole part about the dominance of Europe - because of the competition due to the rise of different nation-states which originates from their geographical boundaries whereas in China, a centralised ruler could easily stifled innovation.

In other words, Jared Diamond has tried to bring natural history - geology and the environment, into the study of human history.

Collapse, then is about the various case studies into how different civilisations have interacted with the environment, some for better, and some for worse, and seeks to explain how and why. There is the example of the Easter Islanders, about how they unsustainably destroyed the forests of Easter Island in their construction of the stone statues, and points out to other South Pacific islands where islanders have lived in resouce-scarce areas for much linger time eras. The overall message is clear: there is really no determinism in the environment that says that people will either fail or succeed. Bad choices even in a resource-rich area will lead to collapse eventually. But good choices in a resource-poor area can still allow for a sustainable society.

Taking these 3 works combined, you could say that third chimp was about the basis of humanity, and GGS was about how the present came from the past, and Collapse is evidently about the future.

Jared Diamond is one of those synthetic thinkers that puts various different ideas together into a coherent whole. Evolutionary psychology explains perhaps, the basis of political power, and perhaps the environmental factors manifest those political power, be it the centralised form of power in ancient China or the competition between different states in Europe. And how these different forms of politics can either lead to the downfall or success of a civilisation. To tackle these immense problems, you probably need a mind as immense as Jared Diamond.

Sphere: Related Content