Humanity has evolved to the point, cognitively, socially and historically, where we have the self-awareness to be able to get beyond living through instinct, in nature red in tooth and claw.
We have gained the ability to model the world conceptually, to manipulate our environment, to accumulate our knowledge and to use ideas to make choices that help us thrive. We have even gained the ability to think about our thinking and build ways of doing things that make use of this: e.g., science or law.
One form of ideas of central concern to humans is ideology. Ideology includes any idea that serves as a basis for proper conduct e.g., religions and mythologies, political and economic ideas, moral principles, law, tradition, and the like.
What is the legacy of ideology? It is varied to say the least. Throughout history mankind has been exposed to disasters that stemmed from ideological notions that seemed, at least to someone, to be good ideas at the time. On the other hand, many ideas that did not seem good at the time turned out to be transformative for human welfare. A few ideas e.g., universal religions, have both effects – binding people into much larger cooperative groups, to inspiring the most grotesque of treatments such as human sacrifices, executions, tortures, wars of conquest, or telling us all other cherished ideas are mere vanity. In this article I will argue for pragmatic meta ideologies. One example of a meta ideology is the precautionary principle i.e., err on the side of not risking harm.
The war raging against Iran brought back memories of Hamas’s October attack on an Israel Kibbutz, and the resulting Israeli response. I recall wondering why Hamas would do that. Sure, I understood Hamas thinks Israel is an invader and therefore wants to hurt and eliminate its people. I also thought they must have known that Israel, who in turn think they face an existential challenge, would respond in devastating fashion. Hamas knew very well that many of their own families and neighbours would die, and Gaza would be completely destroyed, but chose to do it anyway. My friend Leon Louw mentioned thinking the same thing. The cynical might think they wanted that outcome. Do Hamas, and its backer Iran, think it worth it?
Khwarazmian Empire
There are many other examples. In 1218, Sultan Muhammed II of the Khwarazmian Empire executed some of Genghis Khan’s envoys, resulting in the complete destruction of several cities and the butchering of their populations. Forty years later the Caliph of Baghdad rejected Genghis’s grandson Hulegu Khan’s demands and added some insults. The Mongols promptly and catastrophically destroyed Baghdad as well. Both the Sultan and the Caliph knew full well what the Mongols would do.
This is not to deny that Hamas or these historical characters had a right to resist. The question I am raising is whether the principles they have chosen to guide them are the best they could have done for themselves. For example, in the liberal West, we insist that women have the right to dress as they like and not be subjected to sexual harassment. We also recognise that it is quite likely that the right will not protect them, so it would be foolhardy for them to function as if it will. Armed robbery is a terrible ordeal, but is the best advice you can give people, “It is better to die resisting the robbers?” One could ask the Khwarazmian Empire and Baghdad Caliph the same question. Both were on the Silk Road and stood to profit handsomely from trade in a world where the Mongols kept the peace. They swapped a thriving future in exchange for a horrible death on principle. That does not seem the wisest leadership decision to me. Likewise, if Hamas had embraced Israel’s right to exist, the Gaza population could be benefiting handsomely from Israeli cooperation, innovation and trade.
Arguably, Ukraine would have a better future if it had simply heeded Russia’s concerns and warnings. On the other hand, there are many examples where resistance has seemingly paid off. The WW1 and WW2 allies did defeat the Kaiser/Ottomans and the Nazis/Japanese after all. Still, those wars resulted in considerable loss of Allied and Axis lives and economic damage.
They ushered in the Russian and Chinese revolutions, resulting in the murder of hundreds of millions of Soviet and Chinese citizens. On the subject of Japan, Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew explained that it was poor in natural resources and the only alternative path to wealth was to conquer places that did have natural resources. Lee argued that had free trade been an option, Japan would have exploited it instead of going to war, much as it did after the war, and everyone in the region would have been better off. Were the two World Wars worth it?
Successful resistance
Honestly, it is impossible to know whether successful resistance is worth it. We do not know the counter-factuals. I do know that project estimates of costs and time are always hugely optimistic. The final figures are at least three-fold as high. Statistics of similar past projects serve as a realistic expectation. The Superforecaster Project demonstrated that the best forecasters always use baseline figures e.g., what happened in similar situations, as a start. Researchers should look at the statistics on the net outcomes of resistance and capitulation across history. That will not give a definitive answer but could give leaders a realistic base expectation to work from.
Here are a couple of quite different examples. How many people try to become film, music or sports stars? Only a very tiny fraction succeeds. Most fall out altogether, and the vast majority of those who make a living make an extremely poor living. Yet you see lots of stories about how the stars stuck to it when it looked hopeless and suggest you do the same. When your objective odds of success are a million to one, is the best principle to risk your whole working life pursuing it? I strongly doubt it.
How about medical research? The risks and rewards are enormous both to the drug companies and to the patients. Medicine subscribes to the precaution principle via their rule “First do no harm.” There are however economists who argue that net outcomes would be better if patients could choose whether to try riskier medicines.
I think the economists have a point, the precaution principle is overvalued and the rewards of playing God undervalued. Nonetheless, leaders are clearly overconfident, particularly on social and military outcomes. We should therefore pay more attention to some meta principles, such as statistical base rates. My plea is for people to at least think about it a bit more, before they decide to risk the lives of all those that they represent.
[Image: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Genghis_Khan_monument_03.jpg]
The views of the writer are not necessarily the views of the Daily Friend or the IRR.
If you like what you have just read, support the Daily Friend