In Plain Sight

For the Children

I am interested in discovering primary political positions that place an emphasis in political strategy on the children of a community. It seems to me that neither capitalism, communism/socialism nor anarchy/libertarianism place a primary emphasis on the treatment of children as the foundation of liberty and equality. References that indicate otherwise are welcome.

The question is motivated by my consideration of "natural ethics" and ethical imperatives that serve the cause of species survival, and the following are my perhaps idealistic ramblings when I apply this thinking to my own species and community.

On the face of it our species is doing remarkably well despite our clear neglect of children and the absence of liberty and equality. The bottom line question, however, is one of sustainability in the face of the whim of due process by natural selection.

Quality of life is not a function of evolution, the wretched and the happy serve equally well. Ideas still sweep our numbers and modify our internal behavior, but practical limits are maintained by nature. These practical limits do threaten the sustainability of our species and we have begun to give serious consideration to some of them. For example, there are now serious plans to deal with threatening asteroids, global climate change and so on.

So, as a reasoning species we face a dilemma. Increased numbers is a natural process to ensure our survival of catastrophe. If the planet survives the impact of an asteroid or other catastrophe then our current numbers and broad planetary distribution should serve species survival. If we reduce our numbers in the cause of increasing the quality of life then we may actually reduce the sustainability of our species.

Nature is indifferent. When one looks at the strategies of species they range from the brute force - more is better - approach, to the greater care of the child. For example, birds that lay many eggs to ensure that sufficient survive versus birds that lay few eggs and invest parental care to ensure that the few survive. The ironic thing is that both strategies work equally well it seems.

Where are we in this grand scheme and where do ethical imperatives that drive political strategies count? We surely cannot claim that a reasoned approach has led us to become the dominant species. Our success in numbers arises as much from our cruelty and apparently irrational behavior, as it does from our compassion and wisdom. Is that OK? Is it enough? Is it how we wish to be? Do we have any choice in the matter?

I suspect the real answer is that we do not have a choice - it is what it is. A review of history suggests however that the ship can be steered by ethical imperative, by the power of ideas.

So here is a suggestion. It's the children. An ethical imperative that would ensure both our sustainability, improve the quality of life for all, and be more reasoned and more peaceful, is one that seeks to ensure that all children of our species have equal opportunity and equal resources. That is, it is the responsibility of individuals to ensure that wealth is distributed such that each child in the community is provided with the foundations of liberty and equality.

I asked a few of the people around me about this notion and they did not seem to think that it is at all practicable. They did not feel a responsibility to the children of the community at large - only to their own children. I find this disappointing. Certainly, we naturally place our children first in our own distribution of wealth. However, while our modern notion of ensuring advantage against others may ensure the sustainability of our species, it seems a wretched affair that neglects a sustainable quality of life for all.

PS. A point of clarification and response to an offline comment. I firmly believe that it is the responsibility of individuals, not states, to distribute wealth. I am not advocating public policy, but rather an ethical imperative directed at individuals.

Apple - Get a Mac

Link: Apple - Get a Mac.

New Mac Ads ... get yours now! The funniest shorts on the planet.

Apple Did It Again: Apple TV and iPhone

You may know that I have spent more than my fair share of time in the industry of purgatory known as "interactive television." It is a place that has consumed many fruitless careers over the past twenty years. The gateway to television technology is monopolized by the industries that dominate access. Primarily this means the cable industry, a slow and lumbering beast that rules the access to consumers with a protective and juvenile conservative attitude.

A few companies have sunk huge resources into the market potential; notably Microsoft and Paul Allen's Digeo, and Larry Ellison's Liberate (the successor to Oracle's Network Computer where my own efforts in this domain began). They have all failed dramatically and with embarrassing consistency.

In part this is the result of greed. Technology companies lust for the largeness of the television market, and even though technologists are not known for their television viewing habits they all think they have something to offer Joe and Mary Six-pack (as the industry lovingly refers to a large portion of its market). Cable companies lust to keep their cash cows by doing as little extra as possible.

Incompetence exists all around. Technology companies want to give television viewers much much more activity than they will ever accept or need. Cable companies want to keep dumbing the public down and extracting more cash. Just keep the public sitting, stupidly staring at the television watching adverts and paying subscriptions, and we'll all make a lot of money. The sad fact of the matter is, from the cold capitalism of it, it works and the general public fall for it and don't care. As a result the high technology companies, all except Apple, have been kissing the cable industry's back end.

I've seen a lot of interactive television proposals. I've made a few of my own, and I hold patents in the field (now owned by Microsoft).

So when Apple announced in September that they were going to create a "set-top box" my ears perked up and I have been keen to hear the details, that were finally revealed yesterday.

Of course, noting that this is a notoriously difficult space, with dead bodies everywhere, no industry can be handled with more caution and caveats. This said, I think Apple have got the bull by the horns and the Apple TV product looks perfect.

The reason for my optimism about Apple is the success of iTunes and the natural extension of the successful iPod franchise. Apple TV basically turns your TV into a video iPod - fully, and automatically, integrated with iTunes. IPods are now understood by all, iTunes has a growing portfolio that is now increasingly attractive to content providers and already is hitting a critical mass.

While Steve Jobs was commanding the consumer electronics limelight in San Francisco, CES - the annual consumer tech love fest in Las Vegas was a footnote. Bill Gates' bravado keynote at the event in which he lamented the difficulties Apple would face against the vastly superior efforts of Microsoft are now just hollow echos. Yesterday, Apple put Microsoft TV, Digeo and Liberate to shame with solutions, executed with sophistication, simplicity, style and embarrassing competence. Apple are now the only game in town.

Apple have leveraged the strengths that they have developed over the past five years to crack a nut that many have tried to make a dent in before. I wish them luck and I am optimistic about their chances.

It's game over for the cable companies when HBO signs up for iTunes. The absence of HBO is perhaps the one weakness in iTunes. When they join, the rest will be compelled to follow. What may compel HBO to join is that iTunes with video Podcasting offers a new and compelling route for independent content producers to get onto your television screen - something that has been impossible to do before.

Don't under estimate the cable companies, who still have a lot of leverage with mainstream content providers - they fight dirty and there is a lot at stake. The content providers will have to pick their allegiances carefully, but a rise of independent video producers would quickly compel them to favor Apple.

For the record, iTunes is currently the only way that I watch television. I subscribe to series like Law and Order, South Park, and 24. I buy single episodes of shows I am exploring: recently, Dirt, Firefly and Lost. Yes, I watch these shows on my laptop - and do it with company - so I will certainly pick up an Apple TV in March, which is when I expect to see them in stores. HBO? I wait for the DVDs.

Up front, the only real concern one might have about the iPhone is that no standby time is given in the specs and five hours just might be too little use time. The reason for this is that this is a device that people are going to love and they are going to want to use it all the time. So five hours is likely to frustrate.

Even technology weary folk like me are drooling to get one. The widescreen iPod and multi-touch screen - heralding things to come in the iPod mainstream - is enough ... but oh, no ... they had to put OS X on the thing as well to provide for an incredibly useful device - and an incredible new user interface. If you haven't done so yet, go to the Apple web site and play with the Quicktime demos ... oh, man!

France's Villepin announces bill allowing homeless to sue government

Link: France's Villepin announces bill allowing homeless to sue government - Europe - International Herald Tribune.

My friend Pierre wrote to me recently telling me of the "right to housing" by decree likely to see the light of day in France very shortly. It is a fascinating proposal placing the right to housing along side the right to health care and education.

It is such a good idea that it gives me pause to consider. My preference is clearly against government decree and the distribution of resources is, in my view, the responsibility of individuals, not states. But this has to necessarily go along with a change in property notions and ethical imperatives. And that will take time, it doesn't help now - and there are a lot of people that need help now.

In France, perhaps more than anywhere else, such decrees in fact turn out to be the product of popular ethical imperatives. Yet the problems of large central governments and central planning are well known to be the road to serfdom. Are the French there yet? The gating factor in France is the willingness of the people to both speak out and take action, and their rather healthy and laid back approach to government and bureaucracy.

I approve of the "right to housing" but I would rather see it come to be as the product of a generally accepted revision of our property notions where the responsibility for its execution lay not in the hands of government but in the hands of you and me.

The homeless really should be allowed to sue the rich.