Whose Fault are Those Earthquakes?

We Need the Brightest Minds, Science and Great Wealth

The peoples of Turkey and Syria have suffered from a series of devastating earthquakes. Our hearts go out to those whose lives have been snuffed out by this act of nature, and to their friends and family members. All human beings have lost out, whether near or far away from that destruction. We are all brothers under the skin, and any such obliteration, massive or not, hurts us all. At the last count, some 50,000 people have perished, and the numbers keep rising as more dead bodies are discovered. If we are looking for the silver lining in this very dark cloud, it is that countries from all over the world have sent aid to Turkey and Syria. Most notably, Israel, despite being formally in a state of war with the latter, has sent military and civilian aid to both countries. This, alone, must uplift the hearts of all decent people. If countries at war with each other can engage in human compassion of this sort, there may be some hope for our species. However, I am not looking for the bright spots, rare as they are, in this horror. Instead, I am asking: who is to blame for it? At first glance, this is a silly question. The obvious retort is that it is an act of God; it is beyond human ability, way beyond it, to do anything apart from, perhaps, erecting stronger buildings to ensure fewer people are killed in the next similar natural outburst. Thus, it is no one’s fault, and to even ask this question is to divert attention from what must now be done to help the victims who are still clinging to life. Stuff and nonsense! We all know darned well that in 500 years from now, if we do not blow ourselves up before then, earthquakes will have been banished. Don’t ask me how; I’m no Jules Verne. I just know that if science proceeds at its present, albeit bumpy, rate, in five centuries from now, this scourge will certainly have been ended (and ditto for other “natural” disasters such as volcanoes, storms, freezing weather, etc.). Perhaps even 100 years will gain us this boon. So, what, then, is slowing down the process? Those responsible for this slowdown are to blame, perhaps not for the present earthquake disasters (although we can never be sure of that), but certainly for those that will otherwise occur in the future. Let me list some of the ways. Affirmative action We need our best and brightest in the laboratories and universities of the world if we are to make progress against earthquakes, etc. Affirmative action, or its more modern equivalent Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI), is tailor-made to get into the game those whose abilities would limit themselves to the bench instead. Thus, our best minds, many of whom are Oriental, are precluded from entry into the most prestigious institutions. One can only hope and pray that the U.S. Supreme Court will see its way to doing its duty in the next little while. If so, at least in that one country, which has contributed more than its proportional share of scientific progress, we will be rid of this intellectual, moral, and spiritual disease. The argument in favor of DEI and other wokist institutions is that we do not need our very best people in the laboratories of the nation. As long as they are qualified, they need not be located at the very tip of the right wing of the normal curve. Nonsense, and on stilts. We do not pursue any such policy in numerous other aspects of our society, culture, economy. Take sports, for example. The National Basketball Association (NBA) is comprised of the best basketball players in the world. There are plenty of college team members who are pretty good. Nay, very good. Yet, they are not invited by NBA teams to join them. They are just not right out there at the extreme of the bell curve in terms of their abilities. If this totally sensible policy is good enough for athletic contestants, it ought to suffice as well for the laboratories of the nation. Another argument in favor of socalled affirmative action (it is not very “affirmative”) is that it is needed to serve underserved populations that have been kept out of mainstream power and influence via improper and unjustified discrimination. It is entirely possible that 100 years ago, superior intellects from minority demographics were shunned. But, if anything, nowadays, the very opposite is the case. Do we want to wrestle Mother Nature to the ground and overcome her penchant for killing people with earthquakes, storms, volcanoes, etc.? Or do we not? If we do, it behooves us to put our “best and brightest” on the frontlines in pursuing this task. Affirmative action is a hindrance in this regard, not an asset. Science Surely, scientists and engineers will be in the forefront of those waging the good battle against Mother Nature and her all too often nasty ways, which kill tens of thousands of innocent people and more, every year. Therefore, anyone who is attempting to undermine science is retarding the efforts of human beings to fight off these natural menaces. And who, pray tell, is guilty of that? All those who actively squelch science. And who, in turn, are they? Simple: all those who are cancelling scientists and attempting to rescind the medical licenses of doctors who are spreading “misinformation” (actually, viewpoints opposed by the powers that be). Shame on them all. Let me cite in this regard John Stuart Mill, who in his magisterial On Liberty made the most eloquent case for open inquiry. He states as follows: The greatest orator, save one, of antiquity, has left it on record that he always studied his adversary’s case with as great, if not with still greater, intensity than even his own. What Cicero practised as the means of forensic success, requires to be imitated by all who study any subject in order to arrive at the truth. He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side; if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion. The implication is clear. If we want to overcome natural disasters, we need science at our disposal. This is a necessary, albeit not a sufficient condition. But if we want to mobilize the best minds of the human race in this quest, it behooves us to allow them free speech. If we engage in intellectual central planning, our chances of saving human lives will be diminished. Every time a scholar is cancelled for something “offensive” to snowflakes (ultra-sensitive members of the public), every time a doctor is threatened with the removal of his license to practice medicine for engaging in “misinformation” (claims rejected by the authorities), every time a professor is fired for engaging in free speech that hurts the feelings of someone on campus, we are moving away from science. But science is pretty much the only way we have that can make progress in dealing with the problems which beset us, such as disease, earthquakes, volcanoes, storms, the chance of an asteroid impacting our planet, etc. He who squelches science in this or in any other manner is retarding human progress. Wealth There is no truer statement in this context than that “wealthier is healthier.” This is true not only in the superficial sense that sturdier dwellings can save lives, but also that they cost more money. Also, and more fundamentally, the more wealth we human beings have at our disposal, the more likely and the sooner we will be able to conquer earthquakes and other such dangers to humankind. Who knows? It might be required to stave off earthquakes that we fiddle with, move around, tailor, and in otherwise interfere with the location of tectonic plates that lie beneath the surface of the earth. That will be no mean undertaking. It will call for great riches. So, who, nowadays, is interfering with the amassing of wealth? The answer is simple. Socialists of all types and varieties. Those responsible for minimum wages and labor unions, which create unemployment. Our regulatory bureaus, in greater numbers than you can shake a stick at. High taxes. An out of control Federal Reserve system responsible for inflation. Warmongering (the U.S. has some 800 foreign military bases, and they call that defense). Have we not learned any lesson from the almost natural experiments of East and West Germany, North and South Korea? In each of these two cases the languages were the same, the history was the same, the abilities of the two groups of people were the same, morally, intellectually, ambitiously, etc. An act of war separated the two. In East Germany and North Korea, one economic system was followed. The result was near starvation and emigration, even though people were shot for attempting to do so. In West Germany and South Korea, a different system was put into place. The result: relative prosperity. Adam Smith published a book in 1776. It was entitled An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. In it, he made the point that the best way to increase economic well-being was via laissez faire capitalism. Nothing written since that time has overturned this thesis. If anyone, subsequent findings have only strengthened this claim. What is laissez faire capitalism? It is the economic system predicated upon private property rights, very low taxation, virtually no business regulation; in a word, free enterprise. The government is limited to providing “public goods” such as armies to quell invasions, police to ensure domestic tranquility, and courts to determine guilt or innocence and to ensure that voluntarily signed contracts are upheld. All the market consists of is voluntary exchange between consenting parties. Necessarily, such trades —buying, selling, renting, investing, gift giving— must be mutually beneficial, at least in the ex ante sense, otherwise they would simply not occur. That is, if I purchase a shirt for $20, that means that I value this article of clothing at more than that amount. If I only ranked it at exactly $20, I would not have bestirred myself to buy it —there would have been not even any expected profit in the deal for me. So in that sense of anticipation, I necessarily gained from buying the shirt. Ex post, that is, after the fact, is an entirely different matter. Usually people do not regret purchases of this sort. However, in this perspective, there are no necessary net gains. For example, I might have changed my mind and wished I had my $20 back instead of having the shirt. In closing Yes, let us do all we can to help the survivors of these horrid earthquakes at present. But let us also consider the fundamental long run sources of this misery. In that way, the day will come sooner when we can put all of this sort of thing behind us.