Road to Nowhere

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