Change must come through the barrel of a gun

No, I am not a Communist, Maoist or environmental activist, that is not the reason for this quote from Mao Tse-tung. Change must come through the barrel of a gun is in this context meant, not as a slogan for a revolution, but a way that seems to work when change is needed. Or, it is a reversal of the saying if there is a will there is a way, becoming: if there is a way, there is a will.

In this article I will claim this mindset has been diverted to a needed change, both literally during wartime, but also in recent times, with success. And the reason for bringing this up is that political actions can actually can solve problems (hard to believe is it not), but the action has to be radical - in the constructive sense.

If we are faced, or think we are faced, with obstacles that resemble the barrel of a gun, we are most prone to change our habits and act out of united wisdom rather than fast economical gain (though one does not exclude the other, rather the opposite).

First example, second world war. In the mist of all the global horror the war race accelerated technological innovation up to the bombing of Hiroshima with a nuclear bomb, simply because governments thought they had too to meet the threat of the enemy (the barrel). But the knowledge accumulated in the years of the war continued and launched us into space (also in record time) and introduced technologies we still develop today. I will argue the threat was the primed the willingness to find fast intelligent solutions. Much like global warming is beginning to feel as a (real) threat, the willingness to take intelligent actions increase.

Like I have written in previous entries, intelligent solutions exist to most of our current problems already, in raw or developed form. If we wanted it, we could build cars that did not exceed certain speed limits. If builders were faced with a legal demand that 50-100 % of a new house has to be self-sufficient on heat and energy, it would be fairly easy to optimize existing techologies to meet this demand. Removing personal wate products could have a demand of breakdown to neutral and non-infectious components in soil by 2025 for all households, and firms would meet the demand. But if there is no barrel, and the pocket is full of money, why change a habit? Well, just see how the imaginary terror threats has boomed the inventiveness on monitoring and security measures. But as a new thing, compagnies does seem to be picking up on the greener mindset in their consumers (helped by the danger-loving news press). People want greener, smarter, safter, and more flexible solutions - and not just in buzz-word form on the wrapping. Tor Nørretrander cover this possible 360 degree change in trend in his new book Civilization 2.0. In short, the producers may have delveloped smelling senses to detect the money in sustainable development.

The Danish health sector, where everyone can get treatment when needed with no or at a symbolic cost, is a good example of when an ambitious project of visionary change pays off. Providing quality care for everyone in society spawned a wide spectra of new technologies and inventions to meet an efficient health system, that Denmark has living itself fat on for decades. This is an example, not of a threat, but that change does not have mean a sacrifice, but a change with gain.

It is doubtful that politicians risk anything these days, but for a minor adjustment to existing legislation. But if the risk is cataclysmic enough, maybe it can bring around bold enough politicians to inspire use of practical and easy development changes with effect on our habits. But it is probably more likely that our current solutiouns come from down and up to the political level. Yes, my faith in real boldness of politicians is rather small I am afraid. So good initiatives that has a long history of working might be safe enough for a politician to support, rather than demanding development through new ambitious goals.

Don't give up brilliant people - everything will change when we get ourselves scared enough!

Never mind the basics

These days science has a cancer. It is political, but not necessarily lethal – just resulting in some needless overspending. Buzz-words/newspeak drives the funding today, and thus forces the research in the same direction (nano-anything, multi-platform-anything, global-warming, CO2, food safety etc.) It is a bit like helping the third world countries: catastrophe = money = satisfied voters = base of problems remain unchanged.

At a recent lecture on pathology a researcher put this in crystal clear perspective in an example of salmon farming. We are intensely investigating vaccines for fish, but nobody has looked at even grossly describing the intestine. How absurd is that? This kind of research is probably sound by method, but I would claim it also contain a fair amount of guessing and assumptions. Are we falling over our own legs and getting ahead of ourselves because we have to be cutting-edge to get funding? I know in my own field the general feeling these days are that it is not real science if it is not molecular biology (where I started).

If we dared looking backwards a little we would discover that many of our clever inventions are copying older knowledge as David Edgerton described in his book The Shock of the Old.

Here is an example. I am the lucky to be in possession of a replica of one of the seven surviving imperial seals from the Ming dynasty. This bronze mirror looks like the common mirrors of this age, but was so intelligently crafted that the atomic structure was altered in the bronze at the cooling process, that it would reflect an detailed image of the blank mirror onto a wall when exposed to strong light. It was not until last century a smith discovered the key to replicate this amazing craft. Still I have seen no applications of this amazing knowledge, though I could imagine quite a few.

The mirror is a nice metaphor (for me) of science today. We are studying the applications of atomic structures, but the possibilities of metal working elude us on more basic levels.