Road to Nowhere
If you found yourself on a road to
nowhere, how would you know it? Would you know it because you have
been on it for so long without arriving? Would you know it because
you aren't even sure where you're headed in the first place? Would
you know it because you have no map, no odometer reading and no means
of telling where you are at all? Would it be all of these things and
more that tells you that you are on a Road to Nowhere?
This is about problem solving.
If you know where you are, and where
you are going; if you have a compass and an odometer; if you have a
map and a pencil and a car, then you have the means to solve the
problem of getting from where you are to where you would like to be
(geographically speaking). But if you are missing too many of these
things, you will not be able to solve that problem, regardless of how
much you say that you want to. And if, after a long while has
passed, you are still not in possession of the means to solve your
problem, it would be fair for others to question whether solving
this problem is important to you at all.
Obviously, I'm not talking about making
road trips. As I said, this is about solving problems—how it is
done and how it is not done.
And the reason I need to use analogies is that the problems I will be
referring to do not immediately lend themselves to analysis. The
problems that I would like to discuss here are those of Race, Poverty
and Energy in America—though my criticisms of what is happening and
what is not happening
could just as easily apply to many other issues.
To
start with; how do you solve a problem? First you need to identify
exactly what the
problem is and do so in a way that also shows what the problem is
not. Second, your
definition needs to be one that will allow you to orient the problem
relative to the prevailing conditions (ie, measuring it)—if it does
not, then you need to go back to step one and try again. A definition
that you cannot use to
help solve the problem is (unsurprisingly) useless. You will know
that your definition is a useful one when you are able to measure the
size and scope of the problem with it. Thirdly, with a definition of
the problem and a way to measure it, you can now consider what
you would like to do to solve it. Fourthly, with a definition, means
to measure and attempted solution, you are now in a position to
measure your results.
From here on out it is a simple process of repeating steps three and
four until you have solved the problem. Or you may need to reconsider
your earlier steps, perhaps the way that you are measuring needs to
be revisited, perhaps your definition of the problem needs to be
different. The point is:
you will actually be working on a means to solve the problem, and
given enough time and resources you will either solve the problem or
come to the realization that the problem is (at least for the
present) unsolvable.
(While
I would normally like to start with something less emotional and less
controversial, as it happens, this is the best place to start, so I
will start here)
Race
Let us
examine the problem of Race in America. As I pointed out, the first
thing we need to do is have a definition of the problem. So what is
the definition of the problem? And right 'out of the gate', we
stumble. Is the problem one that is defined by discrimination? Or is
it defined by racism? Or is the 'problem of race' something else
entirely? Is it about equality? Is it about justice? Is it about
conflict? To be honest, I am not sure what the definition of the
problem is myself, and it seems to me that 'the problem of race'
could actually be several separate problems that are connected by
race. If that is the case, then each of those things needs to be
defined and addressed or else it is not possible to move on. Also, in
defining the problem, you will be defining the solution—not
the path to the solution, but what the solution looks.
So what will the 'problem of race' look like when it has been solved
? Does anyone even know? Even if it were broken into separate parts,
then what would the problem of discrimination look like when it has
been solved? What would racism look like when it has been solved? Or
equality? Or justice? I will suggest that like any other problem of
human behavior, simplistically demanding that these problems be
reduced to zero is
likely a bit unrealistic. But you will need a clear definition of
where you are and where you would like to go before you can move to
step two.
Step
two is measuring the size and scope of the problem, but without a
functional definition, this is impossible. How does one measure
discrimination? How can you tell if the discrimination in Detroit is
better or worse than Minneapolis, or Tampa? How can you measure if
the racism is better or worse for people of one color than another,
or if it is better in one state than another? How to you measure
equality or justice? Let me be clear, I am not saying that such
things cannot be measured—not at all. I am saying that you need to
be able to measure whatever your definition of the problem is if you
are to be able to gauge if your attempts to solve it are working. So,
if you say that 'racism' is the problem, then you must find a way to
measure it so that you can see if what you try as a means to a
solution actually works. And if you cannot measure the
problem, then let us be honest—you know that you will
never solve that problem.
Obviously,
once the problem is defined and measurable, then progress towards a
defined solution is possible, all that is needed is a plan and
action. Then, progress can be measured to see if things are moving
towards the stated goal or not. So...are thing progressing towards
solving the 'problem of race' in America? Clearly, this issue has
been examined, and time and money have been spent in earnest for the
last 50 years, and if you look at the efforts of people like Booker T
Washington, then you can see that efforts go back for 150
years. So how are we doing? Are
we half way to solving the problem? A tenth of the way? Does anyone
even know?
To
spend 50 years working on a problem and yet have no evidence to show
whether they are any closer to a solution is to beg the question: Is
solving this problem actually important to the people involved? I
cannot answer for them, only they truly know what their motivations
are. But I can point out what behavior looks like when you actually
want to solve a
problem and leave the conclusions up to the reader.
Poverty
Now,
let's look at the problem of Poverty in America. Again we start with
a definition, which seems to be easily satisfied. Depending on
whether one looks at income or overall wealth, with census and other
demographic data it becomes easy to define poverty in a way that is
measurable. Other definitions have focused on 'opportunity' and
'education' and (as we will see shortly) while there may be merit in
considering such factors, defining poverty in terms of 'opportunity'
makes for a much more difficult task of measuring.
So
with a definition of poverty and a means to measure it, attempts at
solutions must have been simple to employ—and they have been.
Money. Starting more than a half-century ago, money has been thrown
in the direction of those who were measured and determined to be in
poverty. Alright, so a means to a solution has been tried for a
while, we must be able to measure how that is doing. Are we any
nearer to the solution? Aye, there's the rub.
What
the solution to
Poverty in America would look like has never been properly defined.
Remember? A problem and
a solution must be defined at the beginning of the process, or
efforts to solve the problem will result in failure. Sure, a great
deal of effort and money have been applied to the problem of
poverty—but towards what end? What a solution to the problem of
Proverty in America would look like, is unclear. And it shows.
Measurements of poverty indicate that the situation hasn't changed
much in America since efforts of the government to address it began
during the Great Depression.
This
begs the question: is solving poverty simply unattainable or is the
real goal of government efforts in this sphere something else? If the
real goal is to solve poverty, the then problem and solution may need
to be redefined. Perhaps examining those other definitions of poverty
would lend themselves to defining a solution. But defining poverty
along lines of opportunity or education is going to make measuring it
more difficult and the means to try and solve it much more nuanced
that the current 'more money' efforts. Also—and this becomes fairly
speculative—if the real
goal of the government is something other than actually solving
poverty(say: placating the masses, or buying votes), the the simple
means employed are just fine for those in government, because solving
the problem isn't really the goal anyway.
Regardless
of whether the problem needs to be defined or the means and motives
of those trying to solve the problem need to be examined more
closely, the irrefutable evidence it that; after a very long time of
trying to 'solve the problem', it hasn't been solved.
Either the definition of the problem, or the definition of a
solution, or the measurements of the problem or the means to a
solution must be changed—perhaps all
of them need to change. But continuing to blindly apply the same
means again and again will not solve poverty and for those in power
to continue to do so is disingenuous.
Energy
Alright, we've seen what trying to
solve poorly defined problems looks like, and we've seen what poorly
defined solutions looks like and what the result of those are. Now
let's look at something that is clearly define as both problem and
solution and yet remains unsolved: the problem of Energy in America.
The problem of Energy in America is
childishly simple to define; America is too dependent on outside
sources for energy. The solution is also simple; America needs to
provide most or all of its energy domestically. Measuring this is
very easy, one can look at the ways that energy is consumed and point
out which are produced domestically and which are produced with
imported gas, coal or oil. So that's it then. We've been working on
solving this since the mid-70's, we must have solved it by now,
right? But no, we haven't. Three possibilities present themselves to
explain this. Either there is no real need to solve the problem or
there is no will to solve the problem or there is no means to
solve the problem.
If it is the case that there is no real
need to solve the problem of Energy in America then that immediately
explains the second possibility of why the is no will to solve it.
And it would bring us to asking the question: why is this a problem
at all? We are told that if America was energy independent, then our
economy and our government would be less influenced from the
outside. In the case of the economy, the price of electricity for
home and manufacturing use would be less volatile, this would also be
true for oil and gas used in transportation. In the case of our
government, outside influences would be much less potent and our
government would not be compromised by these influences. But what if
that situation isn't entirely intolerable? Then, the 'problem'
evaporates. Sure, it might be nice to be energy independent, but
without the energy dependence creating an intolerable
consequence, it isn't really a 'problem' at all.
Here I will pause for just a moment to
suggest something for those who are concerned about our
government being influenced from the outside and being unnecessarily
involved in foreign aggression. If it is the case that America fights
'wars for oil', then it must be asked, why? Why would America be
fighting 'wars for oil' when America has huge
oil and gas reserves offshore and in Alaska? IF
America is truly fighting 'wars for oil', then it is clearly the
fault of those who would keep America from using
those oil and gas reserves. Ironically enough, if America is fighting
'wars for oil', then it is the environmentalists who are making that
happen by preventing America from using it's own oil, coal and gas.
(notice, I kept using the word 'if', I did so because—while the
logic is sound—the conclusion is suspect, which means the
assumption “America fights wars for oil” is likely false.
Something to think about)
So what if energy dependence does
create what most people would consider an intolerable situation, what
might interfere with the will
to solve the problem? Well, obviously, if those outside influences
has already made successful inroads into the organization that would
be working on solving the problem and
if those influences (say big oil or oil-rich countries) don't like
what the solution would do to them, then they might be able to get
our government to 'slow things down'. Or maybe there's money to be
made just looking for
a means to the solution and the people who benefit are trying to drag
the process out as long as they can without actually reaching the
solution (Solyndra, anyone?). Either way, there are plenty of
suspects to examine as to why America hasn't moved very far towards
solving the problem of Energy.
Lastly,
there is the question of whether the problem can
be solved. If America is not going to import energy and not going to
tap the vast oil and gas reserves, then energy must come from
alternatives. Without going into detail, it will suffice to say that
each of those alternatives has nearly intractable problems of initial
costs and scaling that do make it quite possible that solving
the problem of Energy in America might actually be impossible
(barring an unforeseen breakthrough in technology), or at least
impossible in the next 50 years.
In
conclusion
So
there you have it, what real problem solving looks like and (more
importantly) what it does not look like.
But before I leave you with the notion that all
big problems are unsolvable, let me point to one that was solved:
smog. In the 70's and 80's the problem of smog in America was quite
serious. And that seriousness spurred people to try and solve it. The
problem was defined, as was the solution. The size and scope of the
problem were measured and means were tried to solve it. Progress
towards the solution was measurable
and once the solution was achieved, it was easy to know it. Some
defined the problem of smog as one of overall air quality and efforts
are still being made in that direction, but the point is this: the
pressing problem of smog in America was solved
and it was solved in the way that any serious effort to solve a
problem must be.
I am
definitely not saying that the problems of Race, Poverty or Energy in
America cannot be solved. I am saying that if they are approached
correctly then they most
certainly can be solved. And if it turns out that they cannot be
solved, then with making the correct approach to solving them, it
will be known why they
problem cannot be solved.
Of
perhaps even greater importance than being able to effectively work
at solving a problem, by being able to look
at problem solving correctly, you will be able to see who is actually
working to solve the problem and who is merely trying to look
like they are solving the
problem. And sometimes, being able spotting the rat among the corn is
a step in solving the problem.
for more essays and
for short stories, check out http://www.MHHickey.com
for talk about books,
swords, and nerd hobbies, check out http://www.Booksandswords.com
