What if Terminator was real?
This seems to be the point of a recent open letter signed by tech luminaries such as Stephen Hawking, Elon Musk and Steve Wozniak, pleading that the arming of artificial intelligence is ended due to the risk it poses for the future of humanity.
This is not the first time these names, amongst others, have been warning against the dangers of artificial intelligence. Hawking has been particularly loud about this recently, telling the BBC last year that he feared that AI could re-design itself to continually surpass humanity, once it became self-aware.
But as the scientific community frets about robots, the general populace seems to be more concerned about another classic sci-fi threat. A poll released by Essential Report this weeks suggests that a majority of Australians think that intelligent alien life exists in the universe. Interestingly, the polling was done according to which political party respondents would usually vote for, with Labor and Greens voters finding it more likely than Coalition voters or others.
Is there any connection between these dual fears? I suspect so.
Fundamentally, artificial intelligence is simply another type of alien. AI and ET are both meant to be something more intelligent than us, with greater technology and a superior form and function. Ultimately, their differences to us means that they will attempt to destroy, and therefore we should fear them.
Despite this, many who fear AI do not believe that there is alien life (though Hawking is a notable exception). Why might this be? I suspect it is to do with where these two 'species' could come from. Artificial intelligence is a human creation. It is something born from the world of computer technology, a realm in which humanity has made vast advances over the past century. For artificial intelligence to become self-aware and self-replicating would mean that man has managed to make something like itself, quite possibly being the pinnacle of human achievement. By contrast, alien life suggests the opposite: that there is something over which humanity has no control, no involvement in creating and no way of predicting.
Many of those who are warning of the dangers of AI have spent much of their life rejecting the idea of another power over which humans have no control, no involvement in creating and no way of predicting: God. I find it quite possible that the reason for this convergence of athiests fearing a human-created higher power, and the general population fearing an otherworldly higher power, has something to do with the drop in belief of God. For the athiest, it is human-created artificial intelligence that replaces God as the superior of man. For the apathiest, it is an unknown being, like us but also different and somehow greater, that replaces God.
This also seems to correlate with the general understanding of religion amongst the Australian population, whereby most of the remaining practicing Christians in this country tend to vote for the Coalition or other parties. Such people would also have no reason or need for another higher power, as they believe in one already.
The cases of the alien and the AI speak to both our imagination and, surely, our desire for something greater than ourselves to exist. Certainly, neither has any claim to being a reasonable suggestion at this point. Artificial intelligence is a long, long way from being able to do the things seen in film and on television. In fact, such things are likely to be impossible. Real AI can predict and act according to their programming, and nothing more. Aliens, on the other hand, seem less likely to exist every time we discover a planet so different to our own, so disordered and so unable to have established life on it.
Perhaps we are not the godless society we are often claimed to be.
It has been some two millenia since Cicero stated that 'nature herself has imprinted on the minds of all the idea of God.' It seems he is still right.
Friday 31 July 2015
Wednesday 29 July 2015
Kurdistan - nation in waiting?
Nations are a strange thing, logically having no real reason to exist, yet somehow managing to bring together millions upon millions of people under one banner, claiming to be one people. While Western countries have been busy trying to systematically destroy the idea of one national culture over the past few decades, the rest of the world has been trying to overthrow the incoherent 'nations' that were imposed on them by the West in their rapid decolonisation during the 50s and 60s. One region which has still not managed to do so is that of Kurdistan.
What is today called the Kurdistan region is an area crossing four countries, inhabited by people with a shared culture and heritage who call themselves Kurds. Unlike many of the people groups in the region, the Kurds are a fairly recent group, first noted as a distinct people group in around the 12th century and not being firmly established until at least the 16th. It is believed they draw their heritage from various tribal groups of Persia, but have over some hundreds of years come together as one culture and language.
Today, the Kurds mostly live in an area that actually intersects four different countries: Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey. There are mild differences between the Kurds in each of these countries, but not significantly enough to prevent them being grouped as one people. For much of the past century, the Kurds have been left behind by successive nationalist regimes, as they have no country to call their own, being a significant minority in all four of the aforementioned. Now, with two of these four countries crumbling against the force of the Islamic State, the Kurds may be approaching the day where they can declare their independence. Were the Syrian and Iraqi Kurds to do so, no-one could really stand in their way...except for Turkey.
The history of the Turkish Kurds, which make up the largest proportion of Kurds in the world, is the most difficult and storied of the group. Turkish nationalism, and the Turkification of the new republic that happened from the 1920s onwards, naturally found an enemy in the Kurds, who were quite happy being Kurds, not Turks. Thus forms the basis for an century-old internal conflict, one which is today represented in two political parties: Justice and Development (AKP), which currently hold government; and the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), which doesn't focus so much on elections as it does in being the army of the Turkish Kurds. The Turkish government and the PKK have been fighting on and off for years, with the former trying to ensure the Kurds remain in Turkey, and the latter trying to make sure they don't.
Having agreed to their most recent ceasefire in 2013, these two are now once again fighting each other, with both blaming the other for the resumption of hostilities. Unlike past conflicts, though, this one is potentially a three-cornered context, thanks to the Islamic State.
First, some context. A suicide bomber blew himself up in Suruc, a Kurdish town in Turkey, killing 32 people. The Turkish government blames the Islamic State, but at least some Kurds believe Turkey colluded with IS. Therefore, the PKK shot two Turkish policeman as a response, thereby ending the ceasefire on their side. Because they believe Turkey was at least partly responsible for the bomb, they could claim that the ceasefire had already ended. In any case, Turkey proceeded to bomb IS fighters - and bombed the PKK at the same time.
Furthermore, Turkey announced that they would work with the United States to create a buffer zone on their border with Syria. As it happens, this zone would also act as a buffer for another group: the Syrian Kurds. The latter's army, the YPG, has close ties with the PKK, and has carved out a zone of control in northern Syria which is beginning to extend beyond the extent of the Kurdish population in Syria. Not helping matters is Turkey's approach towards IS thus far, which has been more or less tolerant of their existence, due to a preoccupation with getting Bashar al-Assad out of the Syrian presidency and with controlling the PKK.
The question being asked now is whether Turkey truly intends to fight IS, or whether they are using IS as a pretext to put down any potential emerging Kurdistan. As it stand today, Iraqi Kurdistan seems on the verge of being its own nation. It has been autonomous within Iraq for a decade, but the continual weakness of the Iraqi government means that if Kurdistan were to announce independence, there is little they could do. Syrian Kurdistan is in a similar position, but is more bound by geography. There is only a fairly thin border between Iraqi and Syrian Kurdistan, one that is still contested between them and IS. On the Turkish side of the border, though, there is plenty of space with which to work. This presents a significant problem for Turkey, as both IS and the PYG/PKK have shown little care for national borders.
Above all, this presents a direct challenge to the legitimacy of the Turkish government. Having spent a century defining itself as a secular nation with a secular government, a Turkey that loses Kurdistan could well face a national dispute over which way to take in the future - whether to embrace the secularism they claim to have, and do away with the increasing Islamisation of society; or whether to go the other way, and drop the pretence of secularism.
Turkey stands as the gateway of cultures, and it is on the Kurdish question that its direction will be decided.
What is today called the Kurdistan region is an area crossing four countries, inhabited by people with a shared culture and heritage who call themselves Kurds. Unlike many of the people groups in the region, the Kurds are a fairly recent group, first noted as a distinct people group in around the 12th century and not being firmly established until at least the 16th. It is believed they draw their heritage from various tribal groups of Persia, but have over some hundreds of years come together as one culture and language.
Today, the Kurds mostly live in an area that actually intersects four different countries: Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey. There are mild differences between the Kurds in each of these countries, but not significantly enough to prevent them being grouped as one people. For much of the past century, the Kurds have been left behind by successive nationalist regimes, as they have no country to call their own, being a significant minority in all four of the aforementioned. Now, with two of these four countries crumbling against the force of the Islamic State, the Kurds may be approaching the day where they can declare their independence. Were the Syrian and Iraqi Kurds to do so, no-one could really stand in their way...except for Turkey.
The history of the Turkish Kurds, which make up the largest proportion of Kurds in the world, is the most difficult and storied of the group. Turkish nationalism, and the Turkification of the new republic that happened from the 1920s onwards, naturally found an enemy in the Kurds, who were quite happy being Kurds, not Turks. Thus forms the basis for an century-old internal conflict, one which is today represented in two political parties: Justice and Development (AKP), which currently hold government; and the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), which doesn't focus so much on elections as it does in being the army of the Turkish Kurds. The Turkish government and the PKK have been fighting on and off for years, with the former trying to ensure the Kurds remain in Turkey, and the latter trying to make sure they don't.
Having agreed to their most recent ceasefire in 2013, these two are now once again fighting each other, with both blaming the other for the resumption of hostilities. Unlike past conflicts, though, this one is potentially a three-cornered context, thanks to the Islamic State.
First, some context. A suicide bomber blew himself up in Suruc, a Kurdish town in Turkey, killing 32 people. The Turkish government blames the Islamic State, but at least some Kurds believe Turkey colluded with IS. Therefore, the PKK shot two Turkish policeman as a response, thereby ending the ceasefire on their side. Because they believe Turkey was at least partly responsible for the bomb, they could claim that the ceasefire had already ended. In any case, Turkey proceeded to bomb IS fighters - and bombed the PKK at the same time.
Furthermore, Turkey announced that they would work with the United States to create a buffer zone on their border with Syria. As it happens, this zone would also act as a buffer for another group: the Syrian Kurds. The latter's army, the YPG, has close ties with the PKK, and has carved out a zone of control in northern Syria which is beginning to extend beyond the extent of the Kurdish population in Syria. Not helping matters is Turkey's approach towards IS thus far, which has been more or less tolerant of their existence, due to a preoccupation with getting Bashar al-Assad out of the Syrian presidency and with controlling the PKK.
The question being asked now is whether Turkey truly intends to fight IS, or whether they are using IS as a pretext to put down any potential emerging Kurdistan. As it stand today, Iraqi Kurdistan seems on the verge of being its own nation. It has been autonomous within Iraq for a decade, but the continual weakness of the Iraqi government means that if Kurdistan were to announce independence, there is little they could do. Syrian Kurdistan is in a similar position, but is more bound by geography. There is only a fairly thin border between Iraqi and Syrian Kurdistan, one that is still contested between them and IS. On the Turkish side of the border, though, there is plenty of space with which to work. This presents a significant problem for Turkey, as both IS and the PYG/PKK have shown little care for national borders.
Above all, this presents a direct challenge to the legitimacy of the Turkish government. Having spent a century defining itself as a secular nation with a secular government, a Turkey that loses Kurdistan could well face a national dispute over which way to take in the future - whether to embrace the secularism they claim to have, and do away with the increasing Islamisation of society; or whether to go the other way, and drop the pretence of secularism.
Turkey stands as the gateway of cultures, and it is on the Kurdish question that its direction will be decided.
Monday 27 July 2015
A note on European democracy
As we learn on this day how prepared Greece was to use a parallel liquidity system if necessary after their great referendum, it is curious to see what was being said about the impeding failure of the European Union some 21 years ago. Listen to the words used around the two minute mark, and wonder why nothing has changed.
Note: the rest of the video is worth watching for historical enjoyment alone.
Note: the rest of the video is worth watching for historical enjoyment alone.
Monday 20 July 2015
Rallies for drowning out voices
Over the past two days rallies were held across the country by a number of groups, some of which are protesting a shift (real or imagined) in the culture of their nation, and others which are protesting their protest.
You can tell from the names of these groups which one is which, and they have been split into two sides by the media, for your easy consumption. On the 'right', Reclaim Australia and the United Patriots Front. On the 'left', Rally Against Racism and United Against Islamophobia, supported by socialist and university groups.
I would love to be able to pronounce judgement in some form or another on which of these groups had a valid point. Unfortunately, I cannot. The media coverage of these events has been completely lacking in any form of substance, focusing almost entirely on 'clashes' with basically all of the pictures taken involving either people bellowing at others and/or policemen looking stern.
The problem with focusing on these basically irrelevant incidents is that it entirely takes away from the point of these rallies. Or, at least, the point of the Reclaim Australia rallies. It's quite remarkable how the ABC in particular managed to quote the counter-protesters far more than the initial ralliers, to the point where what the rallies were about was lost amongst the cries of racism and hate speech and the like.
From what I can gather, though, I find the claims of the counter-protesters somewhat dubious.
Reclaim Australia and other like-minded groups can fall into one of two categories: nationalists, or fascists. The best place to look to find which they may be is Europe, which is well ahead of us in terms of national discontent about immigration.
There are a large group of parties that are regularly dismissed at far-right, racist, fascist, violent, hateful etc. Some of these parties are, some of them are not, some of them might be but have conflicting messages. For example, the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) is clearly not a racist party. It has repeatedly stated that immigration is fine, but mass immigration and a lack of border control is not. Golden Dawn, the third largest party in the Greek parliament, clearly is a racist party, and though it rejects the label of Nazism it is happy to display very similar elements to the Nazis, from its logo to its rallies to its beliefs. France's National Front probably isn't, but the legacy of its former (now outcast) leader Jean-Marie Le Pen has all but guaranteed that the connection between the party and anti-Semitism will stick for years to come. Hungary's Jobbik possibly is, and undoubtedly has elements within its party that are, but at the very least seems fairly happy to let such elements support them without giving them support back.
Despite the great difference between these parties (and the fact that they all disagree with each other in the European Parliament) all have been denounced with the same language domestically and internationally. Is this wise? It seems to me that if you denounce a party and its supporters as racists, when they are not and their policies suggest otherwise, all you do is fuel tensions, and further their anger at the political climate of their nation. Take it far enough, and it could well become a self-fulfilling prophecy, though it seems unlikely to happen here.
Should Australia's economy tank (it will), chances are there will be far more community discontent and, therefore, many more people joining in rallies like that of Reclaim Australia. Right now, these rallies don't need a great deal of attention, but the public needs to be informed about them properly, to ensure that there is an understanding across the community of the genuine will of the people. If discontent rises, it cannot continually be dismissed as far-right fantasy. For now, let us observe what happens, and if we will indeed follow the Europeans with genuine concerns over immigration, or whether we will instead go our own way. Whatever we do, let us not dismiss today's events, and what they could mean for the future.
You can tell from the names of these groups which one is which, and they have been split into two sides by the media, for your easy consumption. On the 'right', Reclaim Australia and the United Patriots Front. On the 'left', Rally Against Racism and United Against Islamophobia, supported by socialist and university groups.
I would love to be able to pronounce judgement in some form or another on which of these groups had a valid point. Unfortunately, I cannot. The media coverage of these events has been completely lacking in any form of substance, focusing almost entirely on 'clashes' with basically all of the pictures taken involving either people bellowing at others and/or policemen looking stern.
The problem with focusing on these basically irrelevant incidents is that it entirely takes away from the point of these rallies. Or, at least, the point of the Reclaim Australia rallies. It's quite remarkable how the ABC in particular managed to quote the counter-protesters far more than the initial ralliers, to the point where what the rallies were about was lost amongst the cries of racism and hate speech and the like.
From what I can gather, though, I find the claims of the counter-protesters somewhat dubious.
Reclaim Australia and other like-minded groups can fall into one of two categories: nationalists, or fascists. The best place to look to find which they may be is Europe, which is well ahead of us in terms of national discontent about immigration.
There are a large group of parties that are regularly dismissed at far-right, racist, fascist, violent, hateful etc. Some of these parties are, some of them are not, some of them might be but have conflicting messages. For example, the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) is clearly not a racist party. It has repeatedly stated that immigration is fine, but mass immigration and a lack of border control is not. Golden Dawn, the third largest party in the Greek parliament, clearly is a racist party, and though it rejects the label of Nazism it is happy to display very similar elements to the Nazis, from its logo to its rallies to its beliefs. France's National Front probably isn't, but the legacy of its former (now outcast) leader Jean-Marie Le Pen has all but guaranteed that the connection between the party and anti-Semitism will stick for years to come. Hungary's Jobbik possibly is, and undoubtedly has elements within its party that are, but at the very least seems fairly happy to let such elements support them without giving them support back.
Despite the great difference between these parties (and the fact that they all disagree with each other in the European Parliament) all have been denounced with the same language domestically and internationally. Is this wise? It seems to me that if you denounce a party and its supporters as racists, when they are not and their policies suggest otherwise, all you do is fuel tensions, and further their anger at the political climate of their nation. Take it far enough, and it could well become a self-fulfilling prophecy, though it seems unlikely to happen here.
Should Australia's economy tank (it will), chances are there will be far more community discontent and, therefore, many more people joining in rallies like that of Reclaim Australia. Right now, these rallies don't need a great deal of attention, but the public needs to be informed about them properly, to ensure that there is an understanding across the community of the genuine will of the people. If discontent rises, it cannot continually be dismissed as far-right fantasy. For now, let us observe what happens, and if we will indeed follow the Europeans with genuine concerns over immigration, or whether we will instead go our own way. Whatever we do, let us not dismiss today's events, and what they could mean for the future.
Thursday 16 July 2015
The David to the Ashes' Goliath
There are currently two international cricket series going on that stand at opposite ends of the cricketing spectrum. On the one hand, the old rivals of England and Australia are playing each other for the Ashes. On the other hand, the Twenty20 World Cup Qualifiers are being played between eligible Associate nations. I am an Australian with a love of Test cricket. Surely it is clear which of the two I am more interested in?
Yes, it's the Qualifiers. Why is this?
It certainly isn't out of love for T20, a format designed to be consumed and forgotten. It's more a matter of principle. The Ashes are a behemoth, towering over all else in the two competing nations. As a result, the two respective boards have sought, of late, to milk them to the utmost extent. This also extends to non-Ashes format, like ODIs. England has been on FTA television in Australia quite possibly every year since at least 2010. The regularity of the contest has robbed it of feeling special, while the amount of matches these two nations play every year also means that there doesn't seem to be any context to them.
There is a saving grace, in that it is still Test cricket on free-to-air television, and thus I will put it on, but normally I would also be following the news closely before, during and after the series. Not so in this case. I couldn't even bring myself to read the Cricinfo preview for the first Test.
On the other hand, we have the qualifiers. I repeat, I have no love for T20. The idea of a T20 World Cup does not fill me with excitement, or, really, any interest for the cricket that will be on show. But the teams competing in these games aren't Australia or England. They are Nepal and Jersey, Oman and Papua New Guinea. These are teams that are being deliberately ignored by the all powerful cricket administrators from the big countries. I want to see these teams playing cricket however I can, and the those in charge keep taking those opportunities away.
If you're not a big full member, you don't get wall to wall media coverage. In fact, you barely get any coverage at all, only occasionally crossing orbit with the mainstream media when a World Cup comes around, and even then generally only when one of your matches is against a full member and something interesting happens (generally against you, instead of by you). Furthermore, even if there was wall to wall coverage, there wouldn't be much to cover. The amount of matches these teams play is paltry, matching the funding they receive. As a result, the matches they play in the far flung reaches of the world are often covered only by volunteers who fly out to these places, relying on a small income or donations to do so. They do this not for a great mass of people, but for the most dedicated of cricket fans, those of us who want more teams playing more cricket across the world because we love the sport and think that these nations have something to offer.
But now, even this is being taken away. The ICC, in their wisdom, has sold off the ball-by-ball commentary rights to a group that does the commentary by automaton. This commentary is only available on the ICC's website. Here's a piece of commentary that I took from today's match between Canada and Scotland:
R Taylor to S Wijeratne. He picks up a single
R Taylor to S Wijeratne. He picks up a single
How enthralling!
If the ICC genuinely believes that this is adequate for ball-by-ball text coverage, then they do not know what they are doing. Previously, ball-by-ball was provided almost always by CricketEurope, and also from time to time by Cricinfo. These sites know how to do ball by ball, because they use people to do them, and they describe what is happening with each ball so that those reading can get imagine how it looked. The five singles in the above over could've all gone to the same fielder for all I know. There may have been an edge, a beautiful shot that went straight to a fielder, and dubious shot that they scrounged a single out of. We'll never know, because they don't tell us.
More likely is that they don't care. Opta, the group that does this commentary, has bought the rights. The ICC gets views on its website from those who are dedicated enough to follow, and also money from Opta buying the rights. What do they need CricketEurope for?
Well, CE is still providing updates, and posts full commentary at the end of the match for those that want to read it. But it isn't the same as having it live, and it's hard to believe the ICC is receiving much income from Opta for this. That they should still choose to pick this ordinary service over the work of volunteers for a set of matches they clearly aren't interested in anyway speaks volumes about those in charge. It is good that those beneath them still care enough about cricket to let CE do what they can, as otherwise Associate cricket may as well not exist.
Yes, it's the Qualifiers. Why is this?
It certainly isn't out of love for T20, a format designed to be consumed and forgotten. It's more a matter of principle. The Ashes are a behemoth, towering over all else in the two competing nations. As a result, the two respective boards have sought, of late, to milk them to the utmost extent. This also extends to non-Ashes format, like ODIs. England has been on FTA television in Australia quite possibly every year since at least 2010. The regularity of the contest has robbed it of feeling special, while the amount of matches these two nations play every year also means that there doesn't seem to be any context to them.
There is a saving grace, in that it is still Test cricket on free-to-air television, and thus I will put it on, but normally I would also be following the news closely before, during and after the series. Not so in this case. I couldn't even bring myself to read the Cricinfo preview for the first Test.
On the other hand, we have the qualifiers. I repeat, I have no love for T20. The idea of a T20 World Cup does not fill me with excitement, or, really, any interest for the cricket that will be on show. But the teams competing in these games aren't Australia or England. They are Nepal and Jersey, Oman and Papua New Guinea. These are teams that are being deliberately ignored by the all powerful cricket administrators from the big countries. I want to see these teams playing cricket however I can, and the those in charge keep taking those opportunities away.
If you're not a big full member, you don't get wall to wall media coverage. In fact, you barely get any coverage at all, only occasionally crossing orbit with the mainstream media when a World Cup comes around, and even then generally only when one of your matches is against a full member and something interesting happens (generally against you, instead of by you). Furthermore, even if there was wall to wall coverage, there wouldn't be much to cover. The amount of matches these teams play is paltry, matching the funding they receive. As a result, the matches they play in the far flung reaches of the world are often covered only by volunteers who fly out to these places, relying on a small income or donations to do so. They do this not for a great mass of people, but for the most dedicated of cricket fans, those of us who want more teams playing more cricket across the world because we love the sport and think that these nations have something to offer.
But now, even this is being taken away. The ICC, in their wisdom, has sold off the ball-by-ball commentary rights to a group that does the commentary by automaton. This commentary is only available on the ICC's website. Here's a piece of commentary that I took from today's match between Canada and Scotland:
R Taylor to S Wijeratne. He picks up a single
R Taylor to N Dhaliwal. He picks up a single
R Taylor to S Wijeratne. He picks up a single
R Taylor to N Dhaliwal. He picks up a single
R Taylor to N Dhaliwal, no run. He goes hard at the ball, but straight to the fielder
How enthralling!
If the ICC genuinely believes that this is adequate for ball-by-ball text coverage, then they do not know what they are doing. Previously, ball-by-ball was provided almost always by CricketEurope, and also from time to time by Cricinfo. These sites know how to do ball by ball, because they use people to do them, and they describe what is happening with each ball so that those reading can get imagine how it looked. The five singles in the above over could've all gone to the same fielder for all I know. There may have been an edge, a beautiful shot that went straight to a fielder, and dubious shot that they scrounged a single out of. We'll never know, because they don't tell us.
More likely is that they don't care. Opta, the group that does this commentary, has bought the rights. The ICC gets views on its website from those who are dedicated enough to follow, and also money from Opta buying the rights. What do they need CricketEurope for?
Well, CE is still providing updates, and posts full commentary at the end of the match for those that want to read it. But it isn't the same as having it live, and it's hard to believe the ICC is receiving much income from Opta for this. That they should still choose to pick this ordinary service over the work of volunteers for a set of matches they clearly aren't interested in anyway speaks volumes about those in charge. It is good that those beneath them still care enough about cricket to let CE do what they can, as otherwise Associate cricket may as well not exist.
Tuesday 14 July 2015
Satoru Iwata, the heart of gaming
How fleeting life can be.
We've known for some time that Satoru Iwata, President and CEO of Nintendo, was dealing with a serious illness. Last year he'd reported that he had a bile duct tumour, but that he'd found it early and an operation had been successful. He then returned to work, albeit in a limited capacity, and everyone assumed he was on the way to recovery.
Today, we find out that the same tumour has caused his passing at the age of 55.
The unusual thing about 'public life' is that it can make total strangers feel as if they know someone they've never met. For those of us who have grown up on Nintendo games, this is undoubtedly true for Iwata. From the moment he became the head of the company, Iwata was out on stage (and later on video) with a smile, telling us what Nintendo was doing next. You could feel his attachment to what he was doing.
As a programmer alone, he appears to be one of gaming's early greats. He programmed Mother 2/EarthBound from scratch, saving it from the development bin. He developed the battle code for Pokemon Stadium within a week, despite having no documentation to go off of. He was responsible for Kanto existing in Pokemon Gold and Silver, as after he had compressed Johto, which was at previously point filling more space than its cartridge could fit, there was enough space left for a whole second region. And, after he became the head of the company, he managed to debug Super Smash Bros. Melee on his own in three weeks to get it out on time.
As a president he was responsible to the change in direction that brought us the Wii and DS. It is commonplace now to say that the expanded market that these consoles tapped into has now disappeared again, but what has really happened is that they have shifted towards mobile devices. They still exist, and they still play games. Both of Nintendo's rivals were so worried by the advent of motion controls with the Wii that they decided to implement their own (worse) motion systems too, while the nifty and versatile DS was able to out compete the more
'classic' PSP, paving the way for the the 3DS to eat up what remained and leaving the Vita for dead. The failure of the Wii U, too, seems to have led to what the NX appears to be. Nintendo wanted to grab the tablet market, but due to the console release cycle was already too late. If NX is what it threatens to be, they can rectify that with rapid releases of hardware.
While his programming ability is underappreciated, and his presidency has been criticised, it seems all are unanimous on Iwata the person. Whatever he did, he always seemed to care. He gave us Nintendo Direct and Iwata Asks, offering regular insights into a company that had previously been locked up tight. Iwata was always front and centre in these, and gave us plenty of (laughs) and total honesty. He was reluctant to ever fire anyone, believing that this would affect those that remained in the company, making them worry about their jobs instead of concentrating on making games. Every story that people share about Iwata suggests a man who loved people, and was eager to see them enjoying themselves. This is the ultimate legacy he leaves behind, and there can be no doubt that this is the form that Nintendo itself holds dear today.
Whoever next leads Nintendo, we can only hope that Nintendo will continue to understand the value of their relentless focus on games that are fun. It doesn't make them popular with shareholders, who care only about money, or with certain sections of the games media, who care only about looking mature, but it makes them far more valuable than any other company in games.
We've known for some time that Satoru Iwata, President and CEO of Nintendo, was dealing with a serious illness. Last year he'd reported that he had a bile duct tumour, but that he'd found it early and an operation had been successful. He then returned to work, albeit in a limited capacity, and everyone assumed he was on the way to recovery.
Today, we find out that the same tumour has caused his passing at the age of 55.
The unusual thing about 'public life' is that it can make total strangers feel as if they know someone they've never met. For those of us who have grown up on Nintendo games, this is undoubtedly true for Iwata. From the moment he became the head of the company, Iwata was out on stage (and later on video) with a smile, telling us what Nintendo was doing next. You could feel his attachment to what he was doing.
As a programmer alone, he appears to be one of gaming's early greats. He programmed Mother 2/EarthBound from scratch, saving it from the development bin. He developed the battle code for Pokemon Stadium within a week, despite having no documentation to go off of. He was responsible for Kanto existing in Pokemon Gold and Silver, as after he had compressed Johto, which was at previously point filling more space than its cartridge could fit, there was enough space left for a whole second region. And, after he became the head of the company, he managed to debug Super Smash Bros. Melee on his own in three weeks to get it out on time.
As a president he was responsible to the change in direction that brought us the Wii and DS. It is commonplace now to say that the expanded market that these consoles tapped into has now disappeared again, but what has really happened is that they have shifted towards mobile devices. They still exist, and they still play games. Both of Nintendo's rivals were so worried by the advent of motion controls with the Wii that they decided to implement their own (worse) motion systems too, while the nifty and versatile DS was able to out compete the more
'classic' PSP, paving the way for the the 3DS to eat up what remained and leaving the Vita for dead. The failure of the Wii U, too, seems to have led to what the NX appears to be. Nintendo wanted to grab the tablet market, but due to the console release cycle was already too late. If NX is what it threatens to be, they can rectify that with rapid releases of hardware.
While his programming ability is underappreciated, and his presidency has been criticised, it seems all are unanimous on Iwata the person. Whatever he did, he always seemed to care. He gave us Nintendo Direct and Iwata Asks, offering regular insights into a company that had previously been locked up tight. Iwata was always front and centre in these, and gave us plenty of (laughs) and total honesty. He was reluctant to ever fire anyone, believing that this would affect those that remained in the company, making them worry about their jobs instead of concentrating on making games. Every story that people share about Iwata suggests a man who loved people, and was eager to see them enjoying themselves. This is the ultimate legacy he leaves behind, and there can be no doubt that this is the form that Nintendo itself holds dear today.
Whoever next leads Nintendo, we can only hope that Nintendo will continue to understand the value of their relentless focus on games that are fun. It doesn't make them popular with shareholders, who care only about money, or with certain sections of the games media, who care only about looking mature, but it makes them far more valuable than any other company in games.
Tuesday 7 July 2015
The three choices facing the troika
Well, as it turns out, the Greeks did indeed say όχι. The size of the victory, especially (60/40), has undoubtedly brought great joy to those who care about democracy and good economics. It has also, for the same reasons, undoubtedly annoyed the troika even more, as they now have to go through their options.
As I see it, they can go one of three ways.
1) Ignore
This is the option where the troika simply continue to offer the same 'deal' to the Greeks as though no referendum had ever happened.
Currently, it seems to be the favoured option of the northern economies in the Eurozone. Jeroen Dijsselbloem, head of the Eurogroup, has said today that "regardless of the outcome, difficult measures are necessary in Greece." The Finnish foreign minister, Timo Soini, has been more unequivocal: "If they want to hang on in the euro, which I think they do, they must obey the rules and play by the rules. It is a big moral hazard if they can vote in Greece and send the bill of that result to Finland."
That phrase, 'moral hazard', is often used in such arguments. The claim being that by agreeing to negotiate with Greece to bring down their debt (that they can't pay), they are paving the way for Greece to be profligate in the future, as they know that they will be rescued. But what is the alternative? That the Greek people are weighed further down by a debt imposed on them and austerity measures that have only shrunk the economy? That seems to be more of a genuine moral issue, rather than the hypothetical of the greedy Greeks. Furthermore, has the initial moral hazard not already been pushed through anyway? The initial bailout was not of Greece. It was of their lenders. So, way back in 2010, the moral hazard of saving the various banks that had lent out money they shouldn't have was apparently not that important.
This scenario is entirely political, as the hardliners cannot be seen to back down domestically, lest their approval ratings plummet. It uses the underlying assumption that because Greece is wedded to the idea of remaining in the Euro, they will have no choice but to agree to the demands being put forward, no matter how much they dislike or disagree with them.
2) Spin
This option was dependent on the strength of the result. Had turnout been lower and the result been closer, we may have heard language along the lines of 'Greece has not really voted no,' such as was used when France and the Netherlands voted against the European Constitution.
Because of the strength of the result, it cannot be spun this way. Instead, there may simply be spin of a different kind. With Yanis Varoufakis gone, some of the more conciliatory creditors may seek to at least offer to resume 'extending and pretending' for a little while longer, in order to see if the two groups at loggerheads will come to an agreement.
Other spin that will continued to be used will be the idea that the Greek people are the ones to blame for this crisis, another politicised claim that takes advantage of some of the backwards parts of the Greek economy to suggest that it is those parts of the economy that caused Greece to enter into a debt that is 180% of their GDP. This is, of course, simply not true, but it has been a politically useful tale to tell. Just look at the opinions on the BBC live updates blog to see how widespread the idea is.
3) Accept
This option may well be in the realm of pigs flying. The Eurogroup, in particular, seems most unwilling to accept that the Greek people deserve a say over something they have never had a say over. But fractures may be emerging amongst the troika. The release by the IMF of a document which clearly states that debt relief is necessary was the first indication. The second indication(s) can be seen in the responses of the governments of other southern European nations. While the northerners are taking a hard line of austerity and rules, the French, Spanish and Italians (amongst others) have indicated a greater openness to meeting Greece part way. Why? Partly, as with the previous options, it is political. These nations do not have such fiscally conservative governments in place. For those that see politics in the old left vs right spectrum, the southern countries currently lean towards the left, just like Syriza.
The other reason is economic. These nations are the ones that will be affected the most by Greece exiting the Eurozone. Once the Euro ceases to be an indissoluble monetary union and instead becomes a currency peg, the question will become not "will it survive?" but instead "who is next?" This means that attention will turn to the other PIIGS - Portugal, Ireland, Italy and Spain - and if they, too, are sent flying out of the Eurozone, the future of not merely the Euro, but the European Project too, is at stake. National sovereignty has already played a vital role in the most recent part of this crisis, and it could well totally re-establish itself on the continent if the dominoes fall one by one.
So, which of these is most likely? I don't think spin is a realistic possibility any more, as it seems like its time has been and gone. Ultimately it will depends on who gets their way. Greece holds the moral card of referendum, but it is the Eurogroup who will have the final say. If they do not budge, the ECB will do nothing. If neither of those troika members do anything, the IMF will be loathe to go it alone. If none of the troika members do anything, it's off to the Drachma. This may well be a decade defining moment.
As I see it, they can go one of three ways.
1) Ignore
This is the option where the troika simply continue to offer the same 'deal' to the Greeks as though no referendum had ever happened.
Currently, it seems to be the favoured option of the northern economies in the Eurozone. Jeroen Dijsselbloem, head of the Eurogroup, has said today that "regardless of the outcome, difficult measures are necessary in Greece." The Finnish foreign minister, Timo Soini, has been more unequivocal: "If they want to hang on in the euro, which I think they do, they must obey the rules and play by the rules. It is a big moral hazard if they can vote in Greece and send the bill of that result to Finland."
That phrase, 'moral hazard', is often used in such arguments. The claim being that by agreeing to negotiate with Greece to bring down their debt (that they can't pay), they are paving the way for Greece to be profligate in the future, as they know that they will be rescued. But what is the alternative? That the Greek people are weighed further down by a debt imposed on them and austerity measures that have only shrunk the economy? That seems to be more of a genuine moral issue, rather than the hypothetical of the greedy Greeks. Furthermore, has the initial moral hazard not already been pushed through anyway? The initial bailout was not of Greece. It was of their lenders. So, way back in 2010, the moral hazard of saving the various banks that had lent out money they shouldn't have was apparently not that important.
This scenario is entirely political, as the hardliners cannot be seen to back down domestically, lest their approval ratings plummet. It uses the underlying assumption that because Greece is wedded to the idea of remaining in the Euro, they will have no choice but to agree to the demands being put forward, no matter how much they dislike or disagree with them.
2) Spin
This option was dependent on the strength of the result. Had turnout been lower and the result been closer, we may have heard language along the lines of 'Greece has not really voted no,' such as was used when France and the Netherlands voted against the European Constitution.
Because of the strength of the result, it cannot be spun this way. Instead, there may simply be spin of a different kind. With Yanis Varoufakis gone, some of the more conciliatory creditors may seek to at least offer to resume 'extending and pretending' for a little while longer, in order to see if the two groups at loggerheads will come to an agreement.
Other spin that will continued to be used will be the idea that the Greek people are the ones to blame for this crisis, another politicised claim that takes advantage of some of the backwards parts of the Greek economy to suggest that it is those parts of the economy that caused Greece to enter into a debt that is 180% of their GDP. This is, of course, simply not true, but it has been a politically useful tale to tell. Just look at the opinions on the BBC live updates blog to see how widespread the idea is.
3) Accept
This option may well be in the realm of pigs flying. The Eurogroup, in particular, seems most unwilling to accept that the Greek people deserve a say over something they have never had a say over. But fractures may be emerging amongst the troika. The release by the IMF of a document which clearly states that debt relief is necessary was the first indication. The second indication(s) can be seen in the responses of the governments of other southern European nations. While the northerners are taking a hard line of austerity and rules, the French, Spanish and Italians (amongst others) have indicated a greater openness to meeting Greece part way. Why? Partly, as with the previous options, it is political. These nations do not have such fiscally conservative governments in place. For those that see politics in the old left vs right spectrum, the southern countries currently lean towards the left, just like Syriza.
The other reason is economic. These nations are the ones that will be affected the most by Greece exiting the Eurozone. Once the Euro ceases to be an indissoluble monetary union and instead becomes a currency peg, the question will become not "will it survive?" but instead "who is next?" This means that attention will turn to the other PIIGS - Portugal, Ireland, Italy and Spain - and if they, too, are sent flying out of the Eurozone, the future of not merely the Euro, but the European Project too, is at stake. National sovereignty has already played a vital role in the most recent part of this crisis, and it could well totally re-establish itself on the continent if the dominoes fall one by one.
So, which of these is most likely? I don't think spin is a realistic possibility any more, as it seems like its time has been and gone. Ultimately it will depends on who gets their way. Greece holds the moral card of referendum, but it is the Eurogroup who will have the final say. If they do not budge, the ECB will do nothing. If neither of those troika members do anything, the IMF will be loathe to go it alone. If none of the troika members do anything, it's off to the Drachma. This may well be a decade defining moment.
Saturday 4 July 2015
Will the Greeks say όχι?
After years of lurching here and there, it appears Greece may be reaching some kind of ending. Maybe, possibly. The situation seems to change by the minute, but at this stage a referendum seems likely (though not guaranteed) for Saturday.
The Greek government has been the master of the mixed signal of late. On the one hand, Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras has been consistently pointing out how terrible Greece's creditors are. On the other, his government continues to offer further concessions, well beyond their original intentions.
As it stands, no-one really knows what will happen. Not Syriza, not the troika, not the Greek people, not economists and certainly not you or me. This is territory untravelled. No economy within the Eurozone has defaulted since joining, and there is no mechanism to leave the Euro. There is also no conceivable end to Greece's depression if they continue the pattern of scraping through their monthly repayments with continued austerity at the level of debt they have.
Should the referendum happen? I see no reason why not. Syriza was elected on a platform of ending austerity. Given that the acceptance of the troika proposals would mean further austerity, it is reasonable that the government should want the people to decide whether they want the government to renege on this promise. It would also be a rare occasion in the history of the European Project where the people get a say in their future. Generally when this happens, it doesn't go the way those inside the EU want, which is precisely why it is a rare occurrence.
That the referendum is rushed and somewhat unplanned goes without saying. The entire response to Greece for the past five years has seemed fairly unplanned. Certainly, there has never been established a point at which Greece will have returned to having a functioning economy. That a referendum should happen in a similar manner in order to decide the fate of such a lack of planning seems appropriate. (This is assuming that the troika were not entirely complicit the whole way through of ensuring that there wouldn't be an end to the crisis, a point which some would argue. Personally, I doubt the troika have such far-sighted abilities, though it seems clear they were quite happy to place an enormous burden on Greece for personal gain.)
So in the case it does happen, as it should, what will the result be?
It will be a matter of which emotion is stronger: fear, or pride. Fear what could result from the saying no to the troika, institutions which have essentially controlled Greece for five year; or pride in the belief that enough is enough, and no matter the consequences, it cannot be worse than what they are already experiencing.
It's a tough choice, but it's one they should never have been put in the position to make in the first place. It is hard to believe that Germany's finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, genuinely believes that further austerity is truly the solution to Greece's woes. You do not get that far by being unintelligent, and anyone can see that austerity is what has caused Greece's economy to spend years shrinking, putting them in an even worse position to pay off the debt that has been loaded onto them than when they started.
But the primary reason Schäuble and his compatriots across the Eurozone have been pushing austerity harder and harder has little to do with economics, and much more to do with politics. Austerity in other countries is popular at home. Schäuble's personal approval rating in Germany is through the roof, so why would he not continue down that path? There are no bad domestic political consequences for him in doing so, and thus his personal stake in the matter is secure, and the same is true for the rest of those pushing austerity.
Does it seem right that the future of a nation and its people should be used as a political device by other sovereign states who routinely intervene in the nation's affairs? Of course not. It completely contradicts the idea of sovereignty, and indeed of statehood. That this is a regular theme of the actions European Union should not go unnoticed. At this point, it is clear what a yes vote means for Greece: further austerity, further intervention with no end in sight. When such an option is given, the unknown suddenly becomes less fearful.
This, I believe, is why the polls are so close. Fear is a powerful emotion which many politicians and other powerful people have used to their advantage since time immemorial. But the Greeks have now known fear for so long that even such a strong emotion may have lost its power.
The Greek government has been the master of the mixed signal of late. On the one hand, Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras has been consistently pointing out how terrible Greece's creditors are. On the other, his government continues to offer further concessions, well beyond their original intentions.
As it stands, no-one really knows what will happen. Not Syriza, not the troika, not the Greek people, not economists and certainly not you or me. This is territory untravelled. No economy within the Eurozone has defaulted since joining, and there is no mechanism to leave the Euro. There is also no conceivable end to Greece's depression if they continue the pattern of scraping through their monthly repayments with continued austerity at the level of debt they have.
Should the referendum happen? I see no reason why not. Syriza was elected on a platform of ending austerity. Given that the acceptance of the troika proposals would mean further austerity, it is reasonable that the government should want the people to decide whether they want the government to renege on this promise. It would also be a rare occasion in the history of the European Project where the people get a say in their future. Generally when this happens, it doesn't go the way those inside the EU want, which is precisely why it is a rare occurrence.
That the referendum is rushed and somewhat unplanned goes without saying. The entire response to Greece for the past five years has seemed fairly unplanned. Certainly, there has never been established a point at which Greece will have returned to having a functioning economy. That a referendum should happen in a similar manner in order to decide the fate of such a lack of planning seems appropriate. (This is assuming that the troika were not entirely complicit the whole way through of ensuring that there wouldn't be an end to the crisis, a point which some would argue. Personally, I doubt the troika have such far-sighted abilities, though it seems clear they were quite happy to place an enormous burden on Greece for personal gain.)
So in the case it does happen, as it should, what will the result be?
It will be a matter of which emotion is stronger: fear, or pride. Fear what could result from the saying no to the troika, institutions which have essentially controlled Greece for five year; or pride in the belief that enough is enough, and no matter the consequences, it cannot be worse than what they are already experiencing.
It's a tough choice, but it's one they should never have been put in the position to make in the first place. It is hard to believe that Germany's finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, genuinely believes that further austerity is truly the solution to Greece's woes. You do not get that far by being unintelligent, and anyone can see that austerity is what has caused Greece's economy to spend years shrinking, putting them in an even worse position to pay off the debt that has been loaded onto them than when they started.
But the primary reason Schäuble and his compatriots across the Eurozone have been pushing austerity harder and harder has little to do with economics, and much more to do with politics. Austerity in other countries is popular at home. Schäuble's personal approval rating in Germany is through the roof, so why would he not continue down that path? There are no bad domestic political consequences for him in doing so, and thus his personal stake in the matter is secure, and the same is true for the rest of those pushing austerity.
Does it seem right that the future of a nation and its people should be used as a political device by other sovereign states who routinely intervene in the nation's affairs? Of course not. It completely contradicts the idea of sovereignty, and indeed of statehood. That this is a regular theme of the actions European Union should not go unnoticed. At this point, it is clear what a yes vote means for Greece: further austerity, further intervention with no end in sight. When such an option is given, the unknown suddenly becomes less fearful.
This, I believe, is why the polls are so close. Fear is a powerful emotion which many politicians and other powerful people have used to their advantage since time immemorial. But the Greeks have now known fear for so long that even such a strong emotion may have lost its power.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)