Return to sender
April 24th, 2007Do you remember my ‘mirror of justice’? I say that justice is when you’d gladly swap for the symmetrical position in society. Let us apply this tool in a very specific and very illustrative case, but first, let us start with a story.
The story
This story is taken from an old documentary on US nuclear submarines. I could not find the reference. It might be distorted by my memory. It goes like this:
In the fifties, the US were designing their first nuclear submarines. There came the question of whether the lid of the nuclear core should be bolted or welded. Engineers claimed that they had overcome the technical glitches that had plagued the seal + bolt technology in the past, and that bolting had become just as safe as welding, and was much cheaper for maintenance.
The final choice was in the hands of a few admirals and experts, sitting at a large mahogany table in an underground conference room with a black-and-white map of the world as a backgrop (at least, that’ how my memory sees it). The big navy boss asked the experts whether they’d swear the bolts were safe. They were absolutely certain they’d be as safe as the welded lid. The big navy boss reminded everyone that this was a grave decision, that the health and lives of dozens of sailors were at stake. He then asked those who were in favor of the bolted solution to raise their hands, and there was a clear majority for the bolted lid.
Then the big boss took official navy formsheets from a brown file and spread them before him on the table, then he spoke:
- Admiral SoAndSo, your son is serving as lieutenant on the USS Whatever. I made sure he’d be promoted to commander on the USS ThisNewNuclearSubmarine as soon as she is afloat.
- Admiral SuchAndSuch, your brother is captain onboard the USS WhatsHerName. I have here a written assent from his superiors that they’d let him be transferred to the USS ThisNewNuclearSubmarine.
- Mr TheBigExpert, your two nephews are serving as seamen on the USS UnknownAdmiralFromThePast. I have here their signed acceptance of nomination as petty officers on the USS ThisNewNuclearSubmarine.
- etc. for as many people as the big boss could get to with his obviously far-reaching navy relations.
- Gentlemen, we will have a short coffee break, and I suggest we vote again afterwards, just to make absolutely sure we take the right decision.
After the coffee break, the hands appeared to have been glued on the table, and the welded solution was chosen.
Let’s practice
Let us transfer this process to a more contemporary situation: chemicals in food and air. The trio of industry, expertise (paid by the industry) and politics (lobbied by the industry) produces, signs and validates what the safe doses of such and such chemicals are (herbicides in soil, pesticides in water, insecticides in construction materials, hormones in meat, etc.).
Let’s take their word for it.
- Mr PhilanthropicChemicalCo, Mr IndependentBiochemistryExpert, Mrs ImpartialRepresentative, would you swear that the list we have here reflects the absolutely safe doses for all the listed compounds?
- We would.
- Are you certain that we should not feel the slightest hint of unease when we know these chemicals are in the air we breathe of the food we eat?
- We are.
- You will then have no objection against us citizens installing diffusers for all these compounds in your bedrooms, in your children’s cots, in your refrigerators, in your tapwater, at your office, in your automobiles. We have here a report signed by independent experts stating that these diffusers have an extremely low probability of diffusing more than the safe dose. To make it even safer for you and your loved ones, we have taken 5% off the safe doses, so that you would really be on the safe side.
Epilogue
This method can be used also for safe mobile phone relay power, safe radioactivity doses, and any other situation when somebody takes a great responsibility for other people without having to bear the consequences directly.
Reminds me of the time when somebody stopped US congressmen on their way to work to ask if they were in favor of the Iraq war. If the congressman was in favor, he was presented with a list where he could sign up his son to go and fight. No US congressman supporting the war would sign up his son to go to Iraq and fight for the nation and all those wonderful ideals they keep trying us to buy…
I don’t think that making decisions for others is easy. That’s a reason why I would never want to be in power. But it seems to me that the test you discuss here is not done often enough. Many times I wonder how our president would feel about so many issues he judges on the basis of “morality” if it was one of his own going through difficult circumstances.
Power always presents itself under the nice guise of responsibility. Responsibility justifies the big bucks. But when things go wrong, who is responsible? Maybe power was more just in the middle ages, when the fortune of European kings was justified by a very risky life, when they could be poisoned, assassinated or killed in battle day in and day out. Now we have rulers and CEOs who can bail out anytime under a golden parachute but who still invoke responsibility to justify outrageous paychecks when all it is is power abuse. Sorry. I am getting carried away. Decision making is a tough job. Let’s make it a little tougher with this test, so that our decision-makers deserve at least a fraction of what they earn.
I think this sort of test should be mandatory. (Of course, you have to make sure that Mr. It’sPerfectlySafe doesn’t hate his wife when you suggest putting something potentially dangerous in her car, which he never drives, say.) And I agree with you that decision-making probably benefited from having leaders who were held personally responsible, especially when life (as opposed to golden parachutes or being voted out of office) was at stake.
One might argue against too much personal responsibility though, on account that it might entice policy-makers to cheat more and more. I prefer a president admitting ‘I messed up; bye-bye; no hard feelings’ rather than a dictator saying ‘everything I do is great; therefore I stay; I will have to have a few more of you executed, lest you should think I am responsible for my past actions and hang me for that’.
Thank you Mandarine. I have believed this for years and I appreciate the very rational and objective way you have presented this subject. This sort of test is why I do not use chemicals in my yard or garden. Plus I endeavor to use cleaning products that are non-polluting so that I will not be contributing to the pollution of the water supply. Didn’t I read somewhere that if you test the water coming out of most wells now it contains antidepressants and antibiotics excreted by humans? When are we going to stop????
I am sorry. I forgot I said I would not get you started on the subject
I am a careless gardener: if I was using chemicals, I would always forget to clean the tools or my gloves or to wash the vegetables in the end. This is why for me organic = lazy, contrary to the general belief. I am convinced the same goes with mankind as a whole (careless, then scared — should choose organic to save a lot of the trouble and the worries).
Oh, it is easy to set me off. Nitroglycerine should be my middle name. . .
I’ll keep that in mind, healing”nitroglycerine”magichands.
Regarding that congressmen story from the first comment - it was exactly what I remembered too. This was a scene in “Fahrenheit 9/11” movie, directed by Michael Moore.
This is also something I use often when in argument about free vs. commercial software. Many of my friends support the commercial software, while practically none of them ever paid for any application. They all use pirated software.
I must definitely see Fahrenheit 911.
I used to have a lot of pirated software. Not anymore: the free software world is now so rich that I do not even have to be an outlaw to have the best there is.