it's too much fun

our current approach

The idea that Putin needs to turn to the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-Un, for arms is nothing short of bizarre. As far back as I can recall, western analysts worried about famine wiping out thousands, if not millions, of people in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. A family kleptocracy, the North Korean regime certainly spends money on its military and their personal own lifestyle but surely can’t have too much excess capacity to resell to anyone. After all, isn’t Kim worried day in and day out about those nasty South Koreans and Americans threatening his survival?

I have no doubt Kim yearns for cash which Vlad can provide but it still strikes me as a wildly outrageous event in the grand scheme of things. Outrageous but not impossible. Few things are actually impossible but those are related to that science thing we increasingly disregard.

We each and collectively certainly confront quite unexpected things, often known as black swans, but the question is how likely or plausible are they? Coming the same week of the 9/11 anniversary, it’s tempting to say we should pay more attention to the low probability/high impact so painfully illustrated that Tuesday in 2001.

We now know, however, that the evidence for 9/11 attacks was overwhelmed by so much other ‘noise’ that the system did not detect the relevant individuals; yet hours after the attacks law enforcement realised the culprits by name.

I am not blaming law enforcement. I am concerned about our focus on accepting these low probability items as commonly as we now do because we assume there is some perfect certainty freeing us from being responsible for our actions. We are compelling everyone to show us things ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ much of the time yet we accept many things all the time without that certainty. Religion is a classical case. Faith is based on accepting the unknown.

Be we are also rejected logic when it slaps us in the face. We hear utterly absurd arguments, because they are from a personally ‘trusted’ source, which we them take onboard without any consideration. We think we are higher level beings but we are wildly grasping at improbabiliities that are simply illogical much of the time.

I stress most part as we should analyse each and every case of something major before we reject or embrace it. Orson Welles caused panic on Halloween 1938 with his ‘War of the Worlds’ broadcast, breathily reported that spacemen were on a farm in New Jersey, invading this world with hints of nefarious intent. Thousands were lured into believing the tale rather than recognising it as a skit for the holiday.

The event reminds all of us that we may suspend belief in reality when seduced to do so but we seem to do that now for virtually everything. Humans are different as they have the power to use additional (note I did not say alternative as I don’t mean to imbue our current political terminology into the argument) sources to triangulate information to determine something indeed is accurate. But we have to make the conscious choice to only adopt explanations matching our prejudices.

We have abandoned analytical prowess to embrace explanations that fit our individual desired state of affairs. We ignore logical inconsistencies day in and day out. Some of that is human behaviour for survival as we are bombarded by information. Additionally, we are bored with our lives so we latch on to quick hits of black swan type of possibilities because they tantalise us. None of that is malevolent on its surface.

Yet, we have seemingly become immune to descriminating probabilities, tending instead to exaggerate the least likely outcomes to fit what we want while tossing out things will have decades, if not centuries’, effects. That would be ok if all outcomes had the same level of importance but, alas, they do not. The importance of an outcome is relevant and crucial to understanding why we worry or don’t worry about it.

Putin, by any normal measure of power, is head of a third world military and a dying nation. Not to take anything away from the Ukrainians who are fighting to recover their national territory in an existential conflict (again, according to Vlad), but Russia was the 11th largest economy the year the war began while Ukraine was 59th. Russia’s armed forces when the invasion began were 900,000 in number versus Kyiy’s 200,000 with defense spending ten times higher in the Russian Federation. In short, Russia should have wiped out any doubt of success within days. I confess I fully thought they waltz through Ukraine.

Yet Ukraine 19 months later is thrashing this once proud military, heirs to the force defeating the Nazis at Stalingrad in World War II. It’s not over but Russia may well have culminated in its quest, leading to a slog over the coming decade that ends with some political accomodation with Kyiv once the political energy of both sides is spent. A post-Putin Russia won’t necessarily be a better country but it could be yet another outcome that we need consider. So many possible outcomes exist but we tend to latch on to a single one which is pleasing to us but highly unlikely; Russia becoming a democratic state with no further revanchist views comes to mind. Is that feasible or fantastical outcome?

I know, we are tired of so many outcomes, Cynthia. But that is the real world.

So why do we continue to worry about Putin or does anyone pay attention to his desire to get arms from Pyongyang? Because the one constant is that Putin retains nuclear weapons which he threatens to use as a normal implement of war, rewriting the norms. We are seeing so many things erasing the average these days.

We are so shocked by earthquakes in Morocco, by more than five thousand killed by a failing dam in eastern Libya, and by flooding at 140 year levels in Hong Kong. No, they are not average events but they are based on nature’s wrath resulting from a change to our world. Impeaching a president of the United States ‘for high crimes and misdemeanors’, threatening to ‘bring the {House} Speaker back into compliance’ with an exhortation in the most public of settings, or people invading the Capitol with pikes and star-spangled superhero outfits are not average either. Yet we are worn down to accept these occurrences almost daily, as ludicrous as most of them are argued. Are the nature and American behavioural shifts really on the same par beyond our control?

Some things are indeed out of our day-to-day control, such as the weather, but we are abandoning responsibility for longer-term actions that might remedy future problems. We are choosing to focus on the here and now as if it is a movie we can watch for three hours, then everything will return to something we recognise as more average because some mythical figure with superpowers will put it all right.

The willingness to accept previously intolerable behaviour is now the most common response in the United States. We are quick to react to what we see overseas, almost invariably raising it to a level of massive threat while underappreciating domestic concerns. Far too few Americans recognise they are accepting nonsense regarding likelihood of preposterous explanations because we have taken the idea of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ to such extremes. Yes, some of what we are hearing could happen but seriously as often as it is without our actions creating consequences. I thought we were the country willing to accept individual responsibility. I guess not.

As citizens, regardless of our political perspectives, we know the reasons we don’t seem to act on these specious arguments about things we see with our own eyes: people no longer trust institutions or our fellow citizens; the ‘other’ side is too often dehumanised into devils or untrustworthy naifs; plenty of organisations across the political spectrum are injecting themselves into the hate-mongering to raise money; we have become civically and historically illiterate; and on and on. That is convenient but ridiculous because we all accept some silly things in life yet we now want to reject the things inconsistent with our political views? Come on.

All of this has major consequences. Focusing on the most outlandish, highly improbable explanations rather than reasoned analysis, we are shattering as a society. That return to average, as if we have left the movie, is dissolving before our eyes. It’s seductive to say wealthy Americans are immune because they never see bad stuff is fantasy as well. Crime is becoming the great equaliser in America in a decidedly bad way. We are trying to live selectively as individuals but failing entirely as a society and we all live in that society.

My overarching question today is why do we repeatedly accept what we are seeing with our own eyes is something other than what we are seeing? Putin may have nuclear weapons but he is Czar over a third rate, dying (literally) empire which relies on ancient nuclear weapons under a military leadership scaring him because they may prove disloyal. The climate of the earth is shifting dramatically to cause massive upheavals regularly, not once a year or once a century. Evidence is never enough to satisfy people that a crime has been committed or that does not exist to show one has not been; we behave as if every single thing is a lie. If that is our argument, what are we saying about our own behaviour?

People indeed lie to us as citizens but it’s our obligation and capacity as adults to discern truth and disinformation rather than whine about it occurring. We are excusing behaviours that are inexcusable, regardless who engages in them at home or abroad.

Why is this happening? As a friend noted in an email earlier this week as she responded to someone on the many points of divide in our world, she said ‘I can see that what concerns me is not who is attacking who… it is that no effort is going into arriving at solutions.  Everyone frankly is just having too much fun in the fight.’

That is not sustainable for anyone, anywhere—abroad or at home. ANY of us—regardless of colour, creed, gender preference, politics, or beliefs in football teams— who care about our kids, our grandkids, the planet, or anything about the future better stop waiting for someone else to step forward. The dangers of ignoring the descent give us little time but it’s worth trying now to stop the erosion. Let’s get to work, people.

Thank you for reading Actions Create Consequences, especially those of you who pay for a subscription. If you find this worth someone else’s consideration, please consider taking it to others by email or restacking below. Consider a subscription as well.

It’s been a markedly more autumnal day as we approach the equinox next week. Still beautiful colour out there to share. Be well and be safe. FIN

Jonathan Gatehouse and Albert Leung, ‘Ukraine has will, but Russia has might: How their military forces add up’, CBC News, 26 February 2022, retrieved at https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ukraine-russia-military-comparison-1.6365115

‘Russia versus Ukraine Comparison’, www.nasdaq.com, 22 March 2022, retrieved at https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/russia-vs.-ukraine%3A-an-economic-comparison

Ryan King, ‘Matt Gaetz threatens to oust McCarthy as House speaker in fiery floor speech’, nypost.com, 12 September 2023, retrieved at https://nypost.com/2023/09/12/matt-gaetz-threatens-to-oust-mccarthy-in-fiery-floor-speech/