I’m sure Mr. Schäuble is a reasonable man and I respect his opinion. Cross-border tax cheats as well as banks that resort to illegal practices are a problem that likely contributes to the financial destabilization of countries [1] and is probably pronounced in our ever more global world and in times of recession. However, I’m not sure if stating that “we will disestablish the bank secrecy in Europe” (Wolfgang Schäuble, interview with NZZ) is the most sensible approach.

What Mr. Schäuble does not appreciate is the core idea of the Swiss bank client confidentiality, namely, the freedom of financial privacy. Disestablishing the “bank secrecy” equals to giving up individual freedom and move power into the hands of a few, the likes of Mr. Schäuble or government at large, a dynamic that is inherently problematic. Homo sapiens with power has yet to evolve into knowing and wise.

Freedom never comes for free. With respect to bank client confidentiality, Swiss law sets decisional power into the hands of each individual. You, as holder of a Swiss bank account, are free and responsible to do the right thing, a privilege that comes with a price tag, i.e. to file a tax return faithfully knowing you could do differently. In the interview with NZZ, Mr. Schäuble argues that “he wants to assure the people of Germany that nobody can withdraw from tax liability.” I quote,

Er [Herr Schäuble] wolle vor allem den Menschen in Deutschland das Gefühl geben, dass sich niemand seiner Steuerpflicht entziehen könne. (NZZ)

Do we really trust an anonymous, transient, non-transparent, government made of people more than our neighbor or, for that matter, a random person, that it will not abuse of power? To me, Mr. Schäuble’s parental-like authority sounds more like the irate voice of a teacher who feels the urge to castigate students because (s)he has lost the attention of a few. My voice goes more along Pink Floyd’s lines “We don’t need no education//We don’t need no thought control,” Mr. Schäuble.

On the contrary, I wonder what speaks against introducing bank client confidentiality everywhere.

[1] Werner Vontobel und Viktor Parma. Schurkenstaat Schweiz?: Wie sich der größte Bankenstaat der Welt korrumpiert und andere Länder destabilisiert. C. Bertelsmann Verlag, Januar 2009, ISBN: 978-3-570-01083-9

A few days ago, I forwarded the Wikipedia article to a friend. His comment was just “OMG,” meaning Oh My God (or Oh My goodness, or Oh My Gosh). Perhaps he was in a hurry or perhaps it’s really how he could best express his thoughts. Now, I think it is best to ignore for a second religious dimensions because if you read the Wikipedia article (and what follows here) through a religious lens I argue you are likely not to find any sense.

What one needs to do to perhaps find some sense is to strip off all but one dimension of the personality of a prototype human being. Take off ethics, morality, empathy or just common sense, yes, perhaps even rational self-interest and wear the coat of homo economicus. What follows is an excerpt of the excerpt of Summer’s memo,

The measurements of the costs of health impairing pollution depends on the foregone earnings from increased morbidity and mortality. From this point of view a given amount of health impairing pollution should be done in the country with the lowest cost, which will be the country with the lowest wages. I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that. (Wikipedia)

If you read the statement only through the lens of economics and from the mentioned point of view, then the conclusion that “the logic to dump toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable” is probably rational. After all, it is a statement of a former Chief Economist of the World Bank. I’m sure, any Chief Economist of the World Bank knows an awful lot more about economics than I do.

I would like to question the validity of the conclusion nevertheless. The first problem I have with the statement is that I need to dump all dimensions of my personality but the one of economics to have a chance to find some sense in it. I argue, this is a flaw in itself. But, as a thought experiment, I’ll give it a go. The second problem I have with Summer’s statement is actually mentioned, namely “from this point of view.” Not only I need to strip myself, but of the remaining dimension I need to consider only one point of view. Provided I’m almost naked and I’m looking at what remains from a single perspective, then, I might see the logic.

While it might be true that the cost of health impairing pollution depends on forgone earnings, I’m confident that forgone earnings are not the only factor affecting the cost of health impairing pollution. Even just through the lens of economics, by internalizing all the costs of health impairing pollution the conclusion is, I think, likely to be different. For instance, proper treatment of human health effects caused by pollution might be specific to and result in higher costs for low wage countries, e.g. due to the lack of proper infrastructure, education, human and capital resources. On a similar line, studies on the exposure assessment as well as preventive measures for workers and the general population, too, might be more demanding with respect to human and capital resources in low wage countries. Sure, Summers may argue low wage countries don’t have such services and we do not intend to provide them; thus, no costs. Right, I suppose at this point one needs to consider a few more dimensions next to economics to conclude that this reasoning most likely lacks at least justice.

I think this pealing off all dimensions, including plain common sense, until one hits a single point of view from which a statement can be argued to be rational is an example of an analytic ability driven to the extremes that, however, I’m afraid is completely “out of touch,” to the point that whatever one may conclude has essentially no value.

On a side note. The author of the memo, Lawrence Henry Summers is, currently, the Director of the U.S. National Economic Council under the Obama administration.

This problem shows up when I’m generalizing or categorizing. I must admit, I’m at times guilty of it. Not only I sometimes hear others telling me “you are generalizing,” every now and then I here myself telling me just the same, too. I don’t know exactly why, perhaps out of a wish to find order or perhaps out of intellectual laziness as dumb generalization is easy.

That we are mutually different is in the experience of most. (Does this common experience make us similar?) Just take your parents, your set of friends and your ex-lovers. Whether individually, between groups or within groups, it’s hard to see any pair as similar, isn’t it? I believe, there is no doubt that one can count dozens of detailed features in which the people in our direct experience are mutually different. If you combine intellectual, physical, behavioral, spiritual, moral dimensions you end up with a rather large space of diversity. Thus, generalizing on people seems to be counterintuitive.

However, even chaotic systems show hidden order. Is it really so that in this large space of diversity we are all just dots sticking to the corners unfathomably disconnected to each other? It hardly sounds less counterintuitive.

A few thoughts. “All Men are Created Equal” is arguably Thomas Jefferson’s most famous statement. The focus is on creation and the statement has a Christian connotation. Not leveling off all differences between individual women and men the idea seems to suggest that — grounded in a common moral sense — individuals are equally endowed with rights. In [1] Joseph Margolis concludes that the four traditions of thought — science, religion, tragedy and comedy — “agree on the actual and fundamental equality of human beings.” Human empathy, the capability to share another being’s emotions and feelings, does not seem to suggest remoteness but, instead, a large pool of shared experiences for unlikely it is possible for me to share your emotion if I have no experience of it. Finally, it is perhaps in the experience of most to search for similarities in our analytical assessment whether or not a partner might be a “good fit.” (Today, even computer software works on the same assumption that who matches on a large subset of features might get along well.)

Thinking about what situations people, or myself, note that I’m generalizing I wonder if they are associated with arguments, defensiveness, disconnectedness. In a moment flooded by love it typically seems natural to assume two or more individuals share almost their entire self. Perhaps the beauty rests in our ability to distill diversity into shared knowledge to create a tightly coupled web connecting the dots in the corners of a vast space.

[1] Joseph Margolis. That all Men are Created Equal. The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 52, No. 13 (Jun. 23, 1955), pp. 337-346

I would like to think about respect because, well, in the email I was asked to respect a request. The rationale of my opponent on why I ought to is, in my opinion, based on a misrepresentation of past events. Given the opponent’s apparent unwillingness to find a common reading, I can only rely on how I recall the events — which, for the records, I believe is verifiable — and, thus, I need to assume that the request is based on a flawed rationale. Now, the question is whether a request for respect ought to be respected no matter what, independently of the context.

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the focus of contemporary philosophical interest in respect is on “the idea that all persons should be treated with respect simply because they are persons” (Kant’s ethical theory). I cannot disagree with that. For the sake of clarity, the kind of respect relevant here is, I think, Feinberg’s observantia; Hudson’s evaluative respect; Darwall’s recognition respect. Further, the object (to which respect is directed to) is a human being, i.e. my opponent, capable of rational activity, i.e. an end in itself, possessing, thus, a dignity, i.e. objective worth (Kant). I just realize, respect seems to be a respectfully complicated concept.

I like the example of “hostile forces as respecting a cease fire agreement.” I believe, Christmas has been witness of hostile forces magically ceasing fire, without an explicit agreement (I would like to note the compulsory existence of two or more hostile forces respecting). I think, from the article, interesting is,

The idea of [...] giving proper attention to the object which is central to respect often means trying to see the object clearly, as it really is in its own right, and not seeing it solely through the filter of one’s own desires and fears or likes and dislikes. Thus, respecting something contrasts with being oblivious or indifferent to it, ignoring or quickly dismissing it, neglecting or disregarding it, or carelessly or intentionally misidentifying it.

Again, I can only agree — to read on the background of Beethoven’s Symphony No. 9, 4th movement, it sounds veraciously beautiful. Consider this. “Respect is object-generated [...], something that is owed to [...]. We respect [...] not because we want to but because we recognize that we have to respect it.” Sounds natural, doesn’t it? Though, do you always think of respect with this clarity? I don’t think I do. The delicate part is, I believe, to recognize. I think, my opponent is right; I owe respect, no matter what, independently of the context.

If only respect wouldn’t be, too, “a matter [...] of reflective consideration and judgment.” Notably,

The subject [here myself] judges that the object is due, deserves, or rightfully claims a certain response in virtue of some feature of [...] the object [...]. This feature [...] is the [...] basis in the object, that in virtue of which it calls for respect. The basis gives us a reason to respect the object [...].

And this is, I think, the balance. Respect is owned to the object and recognized as compelling by the subject (the left pan of the balance) provided there exists a feature of the object by virtue of which respect is rightfully claimed (the right pan of the balance).

Here, given the context of calling for respect based on a flawed rationale, there seems to be no feature of the object by virtue of which respect may rightfully be claimed. The balance, once again. What sounds, is, veraciously beautiful is only so to the extent of mutually nurtured respect which, I think, is unmet when past events are twisted such that they fit an argument.

In The Botany of Desire (2002), Michael Pollan writes about apples, tulips, cannabis and potatoes to tell a similar story, a story of stories I honestly love. The story of apples that captured our attention with their sweetness to spread their seeds across Earth; the story of the beauty of tulips for which the Dutch fell mad seeding the success story of the flower’s worldwide demand; the story of cannabis and how its ability to synthesize a compound and our ancient desire for altered consciousness lead us to be attentive listeners to the particular needs of a weed; the story of the nourishing potato that knew how to satisfy our constant need for control, of which the need of feeding ourselves is a remarkable instance.

So, is the hen an egg’s way to create another egg?  From the apple, tulip, cannabis, potato viewpoint, are we their way to spread their genes, diversify and evolve? You may argue, no way, eggs, apples and tulips have no consciousness. Indeed, they probably didn’t meticulously plan it, having us under control, but then it is hard to ignore the success stories they had through us — which we didn’t probably plan either. I love the story because it makes it difficult to draw a hard line between nature and us, it makes me wonder whether stating that nature has no intrinsic value extends to our intrinsic value, too. For being without consciousness — which is, I believe, what we assume — it is breathtaking how some instances of nature found solutions to problems that are sometimes far more elegant than the absurdity we design. Simplicity. What if nurturing the art of the apple, the tulip, the cannabis and potato would actually make problems look to us way more simple?

I started this post because I want to quote Michael for a statement that I think I love even more,

Forgetting well is almost as important as remembering well.

Sure, in our daily life we need to remember a lot of things but for a balanced life we, perhaps, need to forget even more things. Indeed, you better forget things unworthy to remember because if you don’t, or can’t, they are likely to turn into trauma.

Forgive or forget, but don’t forget to forgive.

In a nutshell. The natural gas — a by-product of crude oil extraction — is burnt off to mimic the Old Faithful Geyser. The gas could be stored, distributed (e.g. to a needy local market) and be profitable but Shell’s answer is: Not profitable. The local market would require an investment (e.g. infrastructure, security) which Shell argues is an assignment for the government. The government blames Shell saying it ought to act responsibly.

I’m sure, Shell did the maths and the decision is certainly rational w.r.t their best interest. Unethical? Perhaps. Should Shell act more responsibly? Probably. So, why don’t they care? I’m sure they do care; they just care for some dimensions a lot more than probably you and me do. For obvious reasons.

Provided there is an association between the flaring and social, human health and/or environmental damage what we have here are billions of external costs no one is accounting for. Let’s assume there is an association between the flaring and higher rates of cancer, children with asthma, infertility, noise and environmental damage. Would it still be rational, in their best interest, to burn the natural gas if Shell would have to account for the cost of the damage associated with the practice? Unlikely. Would it decide to invest now in storage and distribution of the natural gas? You bet.

Come on, you creative minds out there: How can we fully internalize social, health and environmental costs in every human action?

Read. Think. Comment.

First and foremost, it is an interesting documentary. If you haven’t seen it, I suggest you to take the time to do so. I suppose, it is yet another case for people skeptical about the free market, (too) big (to let fail) corporations, deregulation. Was Enron a child of the free market, a product of deregulation? Some of “The Smartest Guys in the Room” clearly were in favour of deregulation so I suppose the skeptic has a point. Indeed, some of the practices are staggering, the one in California beyond appalling. So, then, should we put the government back in charge to oversight things? Perhaps that isn’t a good idea either, after all didn’t the government has its hands in the dirty mess too? Is there any reason to believe the Obama administration would deal with this any better? Would the Swiss government?

I’m glad, once more, that during my last few college semesters the aggressive recruting and the gloss of a fat salary by the likes of Accenture & Co. didn’t caught my interest. My second thought is, would something like Enron happen if society had perfect information (Game Theory)?

Games where all players know all moves are said to have perfect information. Of course, it is difficult to think we could achieve perfect information in the realms of politics and the economy as we do for chess. (How great would perfect information in the realm of consumption or the environment be?) However, I argue that in a (perfect) market where the players have perfect knowledge something like Enron would likely not happen, at least not to this extent and damage. It would not survive the informed independent decisions of thousands of employees and customers in the millions. Though, perhaps the information was right there on the table in front of us, we just didn’t want to see and relied on what we believed. Having seen the documentary today, I’m certainly not in a position to argue I was informed.

Merriam Webster provides a few definitions for the noun “value,” perhaps we can use some of them for the purpose of this post. Let’s start with “the monetary worth of something.” With respect to the environment, environmental services may be seen as something. Examples are the creation of natural resources, understood as concentrated sources of energy and materials that make extraction economically viable; support of life by providing habitats; waste assimilation. Now, it is difficult to assess the monetary worth of environmental services but Kaufmann and Cleveland argue, in their book “Environmental Science” that, I quote, “the value of these services was about $33 trillion in the late 1990s.” Obviously, the environment does have significant monetary worth. As a supporter of (human) life, the environment also seems to enable “something (as a principle or quality) intrinsically valuable or desirable.”

So, does the environment have intrinsic value? I suppose, if we value “modern lifestyle,” the environment’s ability to assimilate and recycle waste, turn carbon dioxide into oxygen, indeed, if we value life, the answer must be yes. Perhaps, as in our economic modeling the environment is inexistent, it is of no surprise that a free market perspective on the environment does model the environment as having no intrinsic value. With this, I don’t want to argue that market theory cannot be a plausible tool for environmental problem solving. I question if market theory is a silver bullet for environmental issues, in particular as it does not internalize environment’s intrinsic value.

Imagine human species disappears from Earth. Each of us is assigned a star on which we sit for the rest of our days with a telescope watching upon Earth. Would you say, what you see has no intrinsic value? The beauty of life would go on, evolution would not stop, the planet would still reflect its white, blue, brown, green characteristic colors and provide value for its inhabitants. It would again rain and snow. The sun would appear at day, disappear at night, feel warmer in the summer and colder in the winter. Grass and trees would not stop growing. Animals would continue to mate and multiply. What would disappear, however, are our own traces, our houses, cities, waste, thoughts, this blog. This begs the question: Might we be a species with no intrinsic value? Perhaps we have, as long as we exist, as long as we interplay with the environment, with nature.

I’m afraid, we see ourselves too much as to be over here, while nature is over there, failing to see how we are nature. Close your eyes, take a deep breath. Some of the oxygen atoms, drivers of your existence, you are breathing might have been released by the plant next to you. Some of the carbon you inhale might be a product of your last barbecue where you used coal to grill your meal. Some of the carbon you exhale might be used by algae living in the river next to your house for their purpose of survival, the algae used to adorn your makizushi rolls.

Do we betray ourselves in believing the environment has no intrinsic value?