Genetically modified. Innovative. Productive.

With the focus on Australian productivity, and the decline in manufacturing, we will soon be seeing stories about the innovation of Australian industry.  Today's announcement by the Queensland University of Technology developing genetically modified, iron-rich bananas for the Indian market is a great example.

We should praise scientific innovation - including GM

There has been a lot of criticism of GM food over recent years, but little focus on the benefits.  One of the world's great problems is food security.  As the world's population grows, we need to find methods to increase the amount of nutritious food grown on our limited amount of arable land.

GM is a fantastic example of scientific innovation.  If GM can add iron to bananas, that's something for Australians to be proud of.  Sure, there are many criticisms of GM - some valid, some less so - but the road from innovation to success is never a straight one.

Manufacturing productivity not old style factories

As Australia rapidly moves away from old manufacturing to new, value-added manufacturing, we should encourage scientific advances in agriculture.  The more that we shine a positive light on high-tech research and development efforts leading to high-tech manufacturing, the less we will be concerned about the loss of old-style factory jobs.

Libertarians support the free market

Philosophically, I'm also in support of less controls rather than more over new innovation.  If we want to be productive, and creative, we should release the chains on new ideas.  Whether it is the production of GM crops, or the creation of edgy art and movies, let's embrace new ideas - even if they subsequently fail.

It's good to see positive stories about Australian science and innovation.  Let's keep focusing on the good, not the bad.

Let me know what you think

Mark S

Affairs are matters of the heart, not matters for the State

How can acts that make some people feel bad be acceptable?

Let's take the thorny issue of affairs. One perspective is that once two people have committed to a relationship then any breach of that bond through a romantic connection to another person is wrong and should be prohibited.

A social liberal doesn't agree with this hard and fast rule.

First, let's pass this action through the "physical harm to person or property" test.

Jenny and Fred are married. Jenny has an affair with George. Fred doesn't find out about it and notices no change in their marriage. Has Fred been hurt physically - no.  This action has not breached the harm test.

What if Fred does find out about it when he sees an expose on the television about his wife's affair? Jenny's action didn't change - there was no physical harm to Fred.  But what about emotional harm?

This is where the context is all important. Let's develop a scale to measure the context.

Relationship monogamy scale
(modified from the original Kinsey Scale)
1 - Totally monogamous, no incidental emotional contact with others permitted
2 - Monogamous, incidental emotional contact with others is accepted
3 - Monogamous, more than incidental emotional contact with others is accepted
4 - Partly open, sexual contact outside relationship permitted in certain circumstances
5 - Mainly open relationship, one committed relationship with other sexual contact permitted with conditions
6 - Totally open relationship, one committed relationship with sexual contact permitted with others
7 - Polyamorous, no conditions attached to any relationships

If Fred and Jenny's relationship is a 6, Fred will have no problem with this TV revelation. He would accept the sexual contact with George as being perfectly normal.

But if their relationship is a 2, he will view the contact as breaching their marriage agreement.

This is where it gets interesting. Fred can view this breach of their marriage in a variety of ways. He can choose to feel hurt and betrayed. He can choose to treat this as a fundamental breach and leave the marriage.  He can choose to be surprised by the revelation and ask Jenny to enter into counselling. Or he can choose to accept Jenny's actions as a minor infringement and continue as normal, resuming their previous agreement.

He can CHOOSE?? Are you serious?? Yes, this is exactly what he can do. Indeed, with most statistics citing that 25-50% of married people have an affair, this is a decision that is being made very often.

Does this condone Jenny's behavior? If their relationship was a 2, no it doesn't. But that is a private matter between Fred and Jenny.

Without demeaning the personal side, it is much like a commercial agreement - if there is a breach by one side, there may be consequences. In a breach of a personal relationship, there may also be consequences - and as sad as the consequences may be, that is OK for those consequences to play out in whatever way they will.

Providing the harm test is not breached, people should be at liberty to act in whatever way they wish - they just need to accept that there will be consequences of any action.

Groups of people are free to impose social norms on themselves, but breaches are civil matters between those individuals, they are not a matter for the State.

(Clarification: having a secret extramarital relationship is no different to having a relationship when the other party finds out.  If the action would not be acceptable if it was learned about, it wouldn't be acceptable if they didn't find out.)

Let me know what you think


Mark S

Some statistics on infidelity:
Peter Fox
Kinsey studies

From bikinis to gay rights, there are real costs of not supporting civil liberties

When it comes to economic matters, data and logic really are king.  But social attitudes are not so cut and dry.  I've spent the last few days researching data to support some thoughts on social liberalism, and then had an epiphany - not every comment needs to be supported by statistics!  Instead, the issue of social liberties comes down to a philosophical debate between two sides.

In the red corner - those of us who believe that adults should be permitted to act in whatever way they want, providing it doesn't cause any harm to person or property.
In the blue corner - those who believe that adults cannot be trusted to make good (or moral?) decisions, and need to be "protected" by the imposition of a set of rules by "society".

Of course there are an unlimited supply of examples that bring this debate to a head, so let's look at a couple of them, from the sublime to the ridiculous:

Wearing bikinis:
In the red corner, we say, if you want to wear a bikini, wear a bikini.
In the blue corner - well, it depends on what year it is, and where you are. Throughout history, the bikini has been acceptable, then unacceptable, then acceptable again.

Villa Romana del Casale, Sicily.
Source: Wikipedia

In 2006, in Kanab, in the US state of Utah, Council passed a ban on bikinis at the city pool, which was overturned in 2008.  The Kuwaitis rejected a motion to ban the bikini just this year, but in the neighbouring Saudi Arabia, no way.

Kuwaiti parliament rejects ban on bikinis

So, just for the moment, let's consider the blue corner has a point (which I don't accept of course), and this bikini ban is in some way a good decision for women.  Why should that decision vary from year to year, and even from State to State and country to country?  It's surely nonsensical.



Sex between consenting adults of the same sex:
In the red corner, we say, if you want to have sex, enjoy yourself.
In the blue corner - this is one of those issues where the wrath of God has been invoked against sin.  But of course, society's attitudes have differed over the centuries.  To the ancient Greeks, no problem.  To the Abrahamic religions, it is a sin.  For the Chinese, over most of its history, homosexuality has been OK.

When it comes to homosexuality, the battle isn't just theoretical.  Societies over the years have demonised and proscribed homosexuality, with 76 countries still criminalizing consenting sexual acts between people of the same sex.  4,000 people have been executed in Iran since 1979 for homosexual acts.

You see, when it comes to being socially liberal, there are real consequences. The costs of imposing rules on people, where no person is being harmed are very, very high.


Let me know what you think

Mark S

What's this whole socially liberal and economic rational thing?

Over the long weekend I've spent some time talking about the position I have on social and economic issues over several glasses of wine and whisky.  So, I thought, why not start writing about what I talk to people about.  And given that I've titled this blog SocialLiberalEconomicRational, that seems like a fair place to start.

A good place to begin is to briefly explain what it all means.  In the media, you hear a lot about the left of politics and the right of politics.  Those terms really refer to economic positions.  The far left are the socialist approaches to economics - they are not in favor of free trade, and strongly favor social welfare.  The far right are in favor of the free market, in everything including social welfare.  Those who call themselves 'libertarians" (especially in the US, like the Tea Party) are economic libertarians on the far right.

But what gets left out of these conversations is attitudes to social issues.  I'm an extreme social libertarian, not an economic libertarian.  A good way to find out where you are is to take one of these little political tests.  The world's smallest political quiz is pretty good, even if it is sponsored by the economic libertarians.  The red dot shows where I sit on that spectrum. It's ironic that this labels me as a Liberal, given that in Australia of course the Liberals are not liberal at all.

Another good test is the political compass.  This is a bit longer, and has the economic left-right and social up-down axes.  You can see that I sit in the same spot on this test as on the first one - so that gives some credibility to both measurements.





What's interesting about this test is that they have mapped some world political leaders on the grid as well, so you can see where you sit. Kevin Rudd and Gordon Brown are still on the chart - but you get the general picture!  I'm closest to the Dalai Lama and Nelson Mandela. There are a lot of people who are like me, but look at where all of the politicans are - they are nowhere near us.

What's also important is the shift over the past few decades.  The major parties have all shifted towards being more socially conservative and economically right.  If you want to read more about the patterns, based on UK data click here.

So, this is the heart of my blog.  Socially liberal, and economically rational people like myself and the Dalai Lama are not represented in our current democratic system.

Let me know what you think.

Mark S