File: c:/ddc/Angel/BestIntentions/Prologue.html
Date: Fri Nov 11 11:25:42 2011
(C) OntoOO/ Dennis de Champeaux

Prologue

We have met the enemy and he is us.
(Walt Kelly/ Pogo strip 1971)

Why?

We experience already a torrent of publications, analysis, opinions, recommendations, etc. about the socio-political realm from a great diversity of sources. Why add another one and why could we pretend to produce anything new?

The great majority of these publications come from official sources (governments, NGOs, supra/international organizations, etc.). As such they see the world typically from a short term perspective, and consider relatively minor modifications of the status quo. Having to deal with entrenched stakeholders prevents shaking up equilibria established through tough negotiations by venerated ancestors - death or still alive. Hence these publications are not "game changers".

The minority comes from powerless sources (individuals, university publishers, advocacy groups, etc.). They see the world, typically, also short term and/or address a relative narrow scope. We are aware of only a few exceptions - the work of the anthropologist Jared Diamond (2005) and the systems group around Dennis Meadows (1972). The former describes societies from the deep pasts up to contemporary time and suggests parallels with the world's future. The latter extrapolates, through a complex simulation model, the trends from 1900-1970 to 2100. Their impact of these substantial, penetrating visions has been thus far, however, minimal.

This text belongs certainly in the minority category. Our time frame is not the here and now, but parallels the Meadows's time range: we analyze the 20th century with selected dimensions - in more depth than Diamond and Meadows - and provide intrinsic, deeper support for the scenarios that they postulate.

A detail where we deviate: we do not try to please the reader with a final chapter in which we declare that we have hope. Hope is a quite subjective personal affair and we leave it to our readers to make up their minds themselves. Having hope or not is actually quite irrelevant. A reasoned commitment to action is preferred.

How?

Since our aims are clearly substantial, a valid question is how we can pull off our goals. The classical answer is to stand on the shoulders of our predecessors. Herrnstein & Murray and Pinker, among others, have been essential to get a grip on the 20th century. Diamond and Meadows have been crucial for shaping plausible scenarios of this century. Other predecessors are all the anonymous individuals and their organizations, which have provided a cornucopia of statistical data. The point here is that this text is not simply a bundle of personal opinions.

We started out with questions that had been lingering for decades because there was never an opportunity to investigate them. Finally, we got more time. Initial clarifications led to other questions. Hence we did not start out with a main thesis for which we gathered supporting evidence. It can be seen as a "bottom up" approach.

Statistic data is too often attacked - while assertions without data is often rejected because there is no supporting evidence. We believe that our data is solid, coming from reputable, mentioned, sources. Were we biased in selecting the sources and hand-picked the data? When we found a trend in the US, we looked whether the same trend occurred in the Netherlands, countries which vary widely on many dimensions. Explaining more our carefulness we avoid. We rely on the judgment of the reader to assess our lack of an "agenda".

A reward?

This text is definitely not funny. The reward is elsewhere. We were often surprised with what we found and hopefully the reader is too. A requirement appears to be an open mindedness for counter intuitive relationships. Some of them are these days labeled as "politically incorrect", as if that affects their veracity. The situation is worse for others; they counter long standing positions of the 20th century societies. Resistance against alternative views is substantial and we request a willingness to scrutinize the supporting evidence. The overall reasoning is tight. A "nasty" observation in one chapter can be used in another chapter that covers a different segment of the society. These uncommon cross links is where - we claim - this text to be different.

Blame?

In contrast with most people, we do not engage in assigning blame in response to the "strange" things we describe. Our title "Best Intentions of the 20th Century" captures that we do not believe that nefarious forces have been at work. That makes fixing the mess, of course, actually way harder.

We have great compassion for the well-being of all life forms on our crowded planet. No matter how disturbed you may become while encountering our hard nosed findings, please share our compassion.

Back to index