The Ghost Dance

The ghost dance was a ritual the came to prominence in late 19th-century North America, as European colonists from the east began to push deeper into the continent. Native cultures throughout North America were already in a state of flux, as traditional ways of life were abandoned and the arrival of colonists was preceded by waves of disease and disruptive forces like alcohol and  firearms. Much of the old native culture had already crumbled, but Christianization was only just beginning. The native cultures of the Americas were trying to find a new equilibrium that would allow them to maintain their historical traditions while interacting with new technology and invading colonists. Oddly, this is not so far from where First Nations cultures are today, struggling to find an identity and stuck in a broken and unfulfilled status quo.

 Amidst this chaos, the ghost dance was created by a Paiute shaman named Jack Wilson after he claimed to have had a vision during a solar eclipse on January 1st, 1889. Wilson claimed that if the dance was performed at the proper intervals the evil in the world would be swept away, leaving a renewed Earth where food, love and faith were abundant and the First Nations would live in peace with the whites.

The ritual spread quickly through the tribes, and as often happens with religions and rituals based on peace, the message was quickly lost. Some tribes began to focus more on "sweeping away the world's evil" and began to see the ghost dance as a tool to help them do that. Warriors were taught that the ghost dance could be used to enchant garments and make them impervious to bullets. Of course, this was not the case, and eventually the resistance to the colonists was crushed. For a time, though, this simple dance galvanised resistance to the whites and actually made people believe they were invincible.

The ghost dance is only one example of this phenomenon: the self-fulfilling power of belief. Whether or not something is empirically true, mere belief in it can radically change the course of people's actions. The same phenomenon was occurring around the same time, during the Boxer Rebellion in China, where the rebels believed that magic power could be used to repel firearms. It is still evident today, where Islamic radicals are motivated to blow themselves up with the promise of forty virgins awaiting them afterward.

The phenomenon even showed up this last NFL season with Tim Tebow and the Denver Broncos. Many of Tebow's critics pointed out that the Broncos' turnaround was not due to his play, but instead to the improved play of the defence. What they fail to note, however, is that the reason the play of the defence improved was arguably their belief in Tebow. A couple of improbable wins and Tebow's blind faith with respect to both God and winning started to rub off on his teammates, and the belief itself, regardless of its truth, propelled the Broncos all the way from last place to the second round of the playoffs.

The self fulfilling power of belief is why I do new year's resolutions (and then don't write them down until March). I am sympathetic to the argument that new year's resolutions are almost always unachievable and are actually rather silly compared to an attitude that focuses on continuous, incremental improvement. However, I feel like making a point to craft the resolutions, writing them down, publishing them and measuring progress lends a certain gravitas or accountability to them and actually makes it more likely that I will achieve them, at least in part.

That said, here goes:

In 2011, I had five resolutions. I accomplished one outright by running a 5k in 19:51 in the rain on Mother's Day. I also ran my first 10k road race, and although the time (45 mins) wasn't great, I'm glad I did it. I also made progress on my bucket list by visiting three new countries in 2011: Belize, Honduras and Israel, but it was more modest progress than I would have liked. Two of my other resolutions resulted in very modest progress: eating healthier and simplifying my material possessions. My last 2011 resolution was to improve my arm strength, and although I made progress early in the year, I subsequently regressed and likely made no progress overall.

 Therefore, I will carry over the four latter goals into 2012:

1. Make progress on and update my bucket list. I can potentially make progress towards visiting 100 countries, visiting Canadian national parks, running a marathon and/or running every day for a month. My time is also running short to see Peyton Manning play live so it will be important to see where he ends up. Updating the list will be the topic of a future post.

2.  Eat healthier than the previous year. My sub-goals here will change slightly. I think I will try to keep linking intake of unhealthy snacks to number of workouts, as that was effective for parts of last year. I think I will initially try 150g of snacks per workout - roughly 2 workouts for every bag of chips. For unhealthy meals, as defined last year, I will change to limit unhealthy meals to only those times when I go with other people, as that was the biggest source of failure last year. The home-cooked meals idea is gone for this year.

3. Simplifying material possessions. Carried over as written last year. Obviously Dana will have to be on board with many aspects of this.

4. Improve arm strength. Carried over as written last year.

Additionally, I have a few new goals for this year:

5. Run a half-marathon. I have no time in mind here, as the distance will likely be a challenge in itself. I think that given how little I have run over the last 2-3 months, running the Calgary half on May 27th will be a stretch. Melissa's half in Banff on September 22nd is not a bad one for me to target because it is a tough course and not good for running a time, but would be scenic for a first race.

6. Run a 10k fast enough to score for the Nexen Corporate Challenge team. Last year this meant about 41 minutes. I would probably want to do a couple practice runs prior to the CC to establish a time but at the very least I want to improve my 10k time from last year and try and beat a few of Nexen's very strong ladies!

7. Save at least 50% of my after-tax net pay. For the first time in a couple years, I have no major capital expenditures planned for 2012. I paid for about two thirds of my car in 2010 and the rest in 2011, so I should be able to recognize substantial savings this year compared to those years. My budget forecast currently projects about a 51% savings rate, so if I keep to that I should be able to achieve this goal.

8. My last 2012 resolution is likely a multi-year one, but it stems from an article I read a few months ago that really struck a chord. I can recognize that although I am good at some of these things, there are others that concern me a little, particularly the first two on the list. I have already set in motion work on the second item by looking to transfer to a department that might be a little less onerous, but I may have to revisit that further over the long term.

The first item is where the real dilemma lies. I need to make strides towards a life that I am spending doing more of the things I like to do and am passionate about, and less of the other stuff to compensate. I want to read, write, debate, run, compete, make a difference, relax and spend time with friends, family and Dana. I have felt that since I graduated from university, I have been on a slow slide towards doing less of the things that I want to be doing and more of the other stuff. I need to evaluate why that is, prioritize differently and reverse that trend, starting in 2012.

Just as the ghost dance was meant to usher in a renewed Earth, each year is an opportunity to renew and improve oneself, and there are too few years in a life to waste any.   

A Middle Kingdom

For a long time, there has been a fundamental disagreement between many in the western world and the government (some would say people) of China involving "universal values".

Many people in the west maintain that Chinese citizens are "repressed" because the political system does not allow the exercise of certain freedoms that we in the west consider fundamental. The press is censured, protest is not allowed and people have no input into the composition of their government, among other things. We tend to assume that people in China would prefer to live in a western-style system where they have greater individual freedoms and more political rights, and if that is not the case, we assume that they have been "brainwashed" by government control of the media.

The other side of the story is what you tend to hear from the government of China when they are asked about these issues. They argue that a claim for universal values (that also happen to be the fundamental values of the west) is an imperialistic viewpoint meant to force those (subjective) values on everyone. They argue that there are fundamental differences in the value systems of most Chinese compared to most westerners, and that makes a western style of government inappropriate for China. Probably the simplest example of this is the claim that Chinese people place less value on individualism than do people in the west and therefore the trade-off between individual freedom and collective harmony has a different optimal result.

As with many things in life, the evidence suggests to me that the truth is somewhere between the two extremes. There are four observations in particular that I find interesting when thinking about this issue.

First, there does seem to be evidence that the Chinese system of government has an efficiency advantage over other systems, based on the successful development of the country. The appropriate comparatives to look at here are not the OECD countries, but countries that were at a similar level of development to China in 1978, when Deng Xiaoping began implementing his reforms. It is important to note that China's advantage does not appear to be a result of the old argument that dictatorships are more efficient than democracies because they are better able to make unpopular but necessary decisions. China does look to have a development advantage over large, resource-rich democracies like India and Brazil, but it also appears to have a significant advantage over other authoritarian systems in big countries like Egypt and Iran and over hybrid or changing systems in Russia, Indonesia and South Africa.

Instead, I see the evidence as suggesting that China has been successful because their system has been effective in creating somewhat of a meritocratic government. Most of the people running the government in China are well educated and intelligent technocrats who are committed to making evidence-based decisions. Compared to many democracies, this may be an advantage because the skill sets and decision-making systems that are favoured when standing for election are often not the same as those that make an effective public servant. China has also been able to avoid the patronage, corruption and instability that has plagued other authoritarian systems.

The second observation that I would make is that the idea of Chinese citizens as ignorant, repressed or brainwashed seems to be fairly inaccurate. When I was in China, the great majority of people that I met were quite content with their lives and believed their country was headed in the right direction. I don't subscribe to the argument that the only reason for this is ignorance, or as my brother might put it, "they don't understand what it is like to be free". Despite the censorship of the press and the Internet in China, most people there have a fairly solid understanding of what goes on in the outside world with the exception of certain notable issues such as Tibet.

Many of the people I met in China genuinely believe that their system in not inferior to ours, just different. In their view, the two systems each have advantages and disadvantages, and emphasize different things. External evidence also seems to support that this is a genuine opinion and not a result of "brainwashing", as studies indicate that even in Hong Kong, with a free press and better access to information, approval ratings for the government in Beijing are quite high.

Although the government of China seems to be effective and generally well-liked, there are contrasting observations and arguments to be made as well.

The first thing to note is that although China has done a good job avoiding corruption per se, there has, by most accounts, been a significant expansion of the bureaucracy over the decades. This is less damaging than it might be in a system of crony capitalism where the expanding bureaucracy is skill-deficient, but even in China, it is likely to have adverse effects sooner rather than later. I heard an anecdote recently that I thought was illustrative of this and I would be interested to know how much truth there is to it:

"After the establishment of the PRC, Mao pretty much made the key decisions himself, possibly consulting with a small group of advisers. Once Deng Xiaoping came to power, there was more consultation and a larger group of decision makers but Deng still commanded ultimate authority. When Jiang Zemin took power, and then Hu Jintao, the same trend continued. With each generation of leadership, decision-making is taking longer and is more politicized, the state is less responsive and therefore less effective"

The second, and larger issue, in my view, is the limits and threats to the expansion of non-zero sumness in China. From a moral point of view, the limits set on freedom of expression in China are likely to limit the establishment of a true moral consensus in China. Even in the economic arena, China's growth is likely to be slowed by restrictions on communication and breakdowns in trust that are hard to avoid in authoritarian systems.

This is quite possibly what is causing an "innovation deficit" in China, where a society and educational system focused on efficiency, conformity and hierarchy has trouble creating an environment conducive to free thought and the type of revolutionary thinking that has led to innovations like the Internet. This, to me, is the best explanation as to why China is very good at improving on existing ideas and lowering costs, but has yet to produce any large-scale innovations in technology.

All that considered, I asked myself if there could be a third way. A third way that could give China some of the benefits of democracy and openness while maintaining distinctly Chinese characteristics and the advantages of the current system.

Suppose that prior to each leadership cycle, the Communist Party selected 5-10 candidates for President and Premier based on formalized versions of the criteria that have seemingly been utilized in recent transitions. This would result in a slate of candidates that are educated, experienced and intelligent, but also candidates that would presumably maintain continuity with existing policy and focus on incremental change rather than revolutionary shifts. This system would maintain the traditional Chinese focus on the importance of education, seniority and continuity.

Following the selection of the candidates by the party, each candidate would be given a list of 5-10 "topics", of which roughly 1/3rd would be constant cycle-to-cycle, one-third would be developed by the Party, and one third developed by popular submission (likely using technology). The types of questions I would envision would be as follows:

- What is your strategy to continue China's economic development and "peaceful rise"?
· How would you manage the growing income inequality within China?
· Should China take a more active role in international issues such as the Arab-Israeli conflict?
· How can protection of the environment be balanced with economic development?

Perhaps later, once the system was firmly established, more controversial questions would be allowed:

· How should China manage its relations with Taiwan?
· How can China better accommodate ethnic minorities in Tibet and Xinjiang?

Each of the candidates for President and Premier would have to produce a short essay (perhaps the equivalent of 1,500 words) on each topic, and these essays would be published broadly. No other information about the candidates would be released to the public, not even their names. The public would then elect the new generation of leadership based on the policy prescriptions laid down in the essays. This would force people to make decisions based on policy only, and would echo the centuries-old Chinese examination system that was the world's first truly meritocratic appointments system and also the de facto requirement for each Chinese leader to add their philosophy to the official state doctrine (as with Deng Xiaopeng Theory or Hu Jintao's Scientific Development Concept). It would also effectively limit the franchise to those people interested enough to inform themselves about the issues.

With a mandate from the people, a Chinese leadership team elected in this manner would likely be able to relax control over information and the press, and would probably be accepted into the international community as a "democracy with Chinese characteristics". This could allow the development of a true moral consensus within China and would certainly contribute to an expansion of non-zero sumness.

Deng Xiaoping was once asked why he wanted to study in France, and he replied "To learn knowledge and truth from the West in order to save China". Later in his life, Deng applied that knowledge to lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty while at the same time creating a strong sense of national identity and paving the way for China's "peaceful rise" under his successors. In the same way, I think China can learn from the west's experience with democracy and create a uniquely Chinese system for the 21st century. Deng did in fact, save China. His successors must now set it free.