Dog Washing, Hair Dressing and the Future of the Australian Economy (In response to a question. Isn't it nice how interactive and multi directional communications media are these days?!

The following comment was posted in response to this post. My response is altogether too verbose to be posted as another comment, so here is is.  

Ann said...

Do you think Australia is becoming a third world country and that the balance of power and wealth will shift worldwide? We export our resources (human and physical) to India and China and dispense with our manufacturing industries. It seems to me that an economy and society based on tourism, dog washing and haircutting is not sustainable. The mining boom is a good example of short-term greed at the cost of sustainability.

4 November 2011 12:10 

Pinky's Reply: 

I'm not sure that the definitions by which economists judge which countries are third world and which aren't are all that satisfactory and it often becomes a derogatory term used by nationalistic types to brand everyone else. 

However, in general, the countries considered 3rd world have very different problems to those facing Australia, or areas thereof. In Australia, hardship is caused by the increase in prices brought about by the extremely high performance of some sectors. The overall GDP per capita figures are still good.  

As for whether 'we' should outsource manufacturing, the answer is that 'we' don't. Governments and representatives of the people do not encourage companies to move their operations off shore. The difference is that we no longer actively create barriers to them doing so in the form of tariffs. Because imports are not taxed or restricted as much as they used to be, it becomes cheaper to import goods from low cost parts of the world than to manufacture locally. Because groups of commercial entities that operate internationally have pressured governments around the world to reduce trade barriers, arguing that it will increase efficiency and reduce costs through competition, there is very little possibility of the process being reversed. 

As for whether Australia needs manufacturing to function economically, the argument usually put forward is for a 'knowledge economy' in which skilled and educated people here manage operations that generate huge profits by outsourcing menial tasks to the cheapest bidder so they can concentrate on the really important stuff like thinking and designing and being innovative. This is very appealing, since nobody would want to work in a factory anyway, would they? People like to be told they are too clever for that. It's probably true for some. 

Of course the fundamental weakness of this model is that there are of course people in China and India who can think and be innovative too. We might hope that there are getting pretty good at it by now, since one of our biggest exports is education and they are its consumers. If people like me are doing our jobs right, we are helping those who do not settle here to go back to China and India and other countries with as much cleverness and initiative and business knowledge as as anyone in the Australian work force. Indeed, because they appreciate and value our teaching, they learn more from us than many of us learn from each other.

Should we be worried then? Should we greedily keep our knowledge and ideas to ourselves? Of course not! That would firstly destroy our second biggest export industry and secondly be bad for the world as a whole, including the first world, or should I should write hole because that's a more apt description of any world without scholarship. Whenever we teach and educate people we are contributing to humanity and as a part of it we benefit. Sorry to upset those who believe in individualism, but ultimately we're all in the same boat, by which I mean planet. You'd have to be off the planet to not get that. (sorry, I know that't terrible, but it really is true.)

So there you have it: what is going on will encounter issues. Things will have to change. The changes that have led to this can't be undone. The answers? I'm still looking too. 

For further reading in relation to outsourcing, please consider the following. Buy via my links and you will support my blog too^^. Only $2.99 for the first one, in electronic form. Others are hard copies. 

Bigots' FB Page.

I can't believe people would express senseless views like this publicly. However, I still come across them from time to time. The mainstream media promote racism on a regular basis and contribute a lot to these kinds of views being held by people who don't know any better.

I encourage anyone who uses FB to report this page. It's quite blatant discrimination based on lies.

For what it's worth, the I'd just like to point out that unemployment cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be linked to immigration, as this page tries to imply. In fact our economy and the jobs we have rely heavily on it.

Political correctness is just derogatory word that racists have begun to use as a defense whenever they are told not to say offensive, idiotic or defamatory things about others in public. This is worrying. Words have consequences. Words can hurt people. If you hurt people physically, of course there are laws to stop you. The same applies if you hurt people with offensive words, for example, by creating stereotypes or misinformation about them.

When these people talk about 'Aussy Pride' what they really mean is that they have the arrogance to say they are better than other people in other parts of the world, no matter how little intelligence they exhibit, simply on the basis that they live in Australia and look something like their ideal image of what it is to be Australian. It's because of this that we need words like racism and bigotry.

Worst of all, the page uses the word 'islamification,' which presumably refers to some kind of conspiracy or agenda on the part of our friends and colleagues who believe in Islam. There is no evidence for any such agenda. All religions aim to encourage people to believe. The white majority from whom the page's creators undoubtedly derive are themselves descended from Christians and their religion has been spread world wide, often (though not always) through coercive means. For them to blame any social problems on those who practice Islam, a religion that values purity and peace, is both hypocritical and disrespectful.

So, dear readers, please take action and report the page to FB admin. The more complaints they receive, the sooner it will be removed. Also, please share this article to send a clear message to bigots everywhere about how wrong these kinds of views are.

The Highest Tower

Long ago, churches, mosques and temples used to tower over the surrounding towns. At other times it was the castles and palaces of monarchs. 

In Paris, France, the Eiffel tower stood, tall and magnificent, as a symbol of industrialisation. 

Today, we have towers of steel, concrete and glass that make all of those past structures look small and insignificant through their vast height and size. 

The size and height of buildings may reflect the priorities of a society, or at least to the distribution of power and wealth within it. The poor and powerless have traditionally lived at the bottom, in single story structures, overlooked by the wealthy and powerful in their towers. Or perhaps, society places its priority and invests its greatest effort in the areas that really matter? Like the building of pyramids by the ancients or the erection of cathedrals and domes by the pious? Where then is the priority placed in our society today?

What about these then?

Housing commission flats are tall and they are structures dedicated to welfare, to looking after the lives, theoretically at least, of those with the least power and wealth. Do they represent a high priority then? Well, they are designed, quite intentionally, to look cheap and ugly and there aren't many built these days anyway. Those that do exist are not always occupied by genuinely poor people anyway. There are ways around that system apparently. Anyway, really wealthy people want to have their own gardens and tennis courts. It is not at home, but at work that they ascend their towers and their positions of power. 

The tallest buildings in our city, and in many cities, are not for people but for commerce. The tallest are occupied by companies dedicated to the accumulation and moving about of money, closely followed by companies that mine and exploit fossil fuels. 

What's the point of all this though? Surely, for the existence of humanity to have any meaning at all, there should be two priorities held above all else: compassion and study. 

Our housing commission flats are a poor and half hearted effort to elevate (both figuratively and literally) those in poverty above the streets. They don't tackle the problem where it is at its worst, which is in developing nations, war zones and our own country's Northern Territory, though recently, poverty is a growing problem in the USA as well. 

What of study then? Well, we are hardly among the tallest buildings in the city, but the view from this university does look pretty enticing. 

Yes, there is hope here yet that study and it's goals of wisdom, knowledge and understanding, haven't completely been forgotten. We need to do a lot more, of course. Scholars are not respected or taken seriously by many powerful parts of our society. A little help from government wouldn't go astray here, but then, parliament house is so low it's half under ground. 

Poverty

If those people who starve to death or die of preventable or treatable diseases every day were our friends, would we let them suffer and die? Of course not. Your friend is suffering, you help. Where are these people's friends then? Why are we not reaching out and making contact and being their friends? Can't we communicate globally with the click of a mouse now? Can't we socially network with them? Well, not really: they have no computers or Iphones now, as well as having no food. Does that make their problem twice as bad? It may. If we do all our communicating online, then how can they participate? Could we solve the problem of world poverty by setting up a Wifi network and handing out free Iphones instead of handing out food then? Could we run tours where people pay to be shown the reality of poverty and human suffering in the hope that once rendered visible it would no longer be tolerated?

Sadly, people have tried that using photography and television and it didn't work. People got used to seeing poverty. Now it's just another annoyance and we want it to go away. Well? Make it go away. Not just away from us, back to it's forgotten corners of the earth, but away properly so that it's victims can live in peace and have something to eat and a chance to study. 

Conscience Votes for Life and Death Issues

The Star Observer, an important community publication, today published predictions by an anonymous senior Labor MP that prime minister Gillard would call a conscience vote on the issue of marriage equality. It was suggested that this was a political move, designed to minimise any possible damage to her popularity that could be caused by ongoing public debate over the issue and that she would otherwise find her own position at odds with the majority of her party.

The source quoted was apparently concerned that a conscience vote could be used in this way, as normally they are used only for matters concerning 'life of death issues.' Making a distinction of that nature though, is not as straight forward as it may sound. Certainly the prevention of marriage isn't in itself going to kill anybody. However, what is at stake here is the issue of discrimination. Upholding the right to marriage equality will bring about profound cultural change by freeing us from a sticking point that contributes to the perpetuation of socially constructed difference. Discrimination without social structure becomes an obviously unacceptable act of individual aggression and will recede. Discrimination and social stigma are life and death matters, arguably far more significant than the examples the source used, such as abortion. They are, therefore, worthy of a conscience vote. 

The prime minister's motivations in this matter are certainly going to be subject to a great deal of speculation. Political convenience is certainly a possibly, but it would seem out of character. This is a prime minister who has got a huge amount of legislation and reform passed under difficult circumstances. It's worthwhile considering that she in fact hid her support for a price on carbon until it became politically achievable. It is therefore entirely possible that she has done the same in this instance and is playing her hand carefully with the intention of making marriage equality a reality. When the opportunity does arise, change will occur and no doubt the prime minister's actions will be instrumental. The prime minister is obviously no great social conservative and probably isn't all that reverential toward the institution of marriage, since she hasn't pursued it with her partner.

Marriage equality will certainly be brought about within the next couple of years. There is enough public support and there are plenty of MPs beginning to support it. We all have to keep pushing for it in public debate, but we are now at a stage when we can do so with a great deal of confidence. 

Multiple Intelligences and Fish

Today, I participated in a discussion at the university of Gardener's theory of multiple intelligences in relation to pedagogy. I was enjoying the discussion a lot, until one of the teachers put an end to it by prescribing the exact way in which they should be considered: first decide what your lesson goal is, then think of how to teach in a way that caters to multiple intelligence.

I put is to him that perhaps the learning goal may not be the same, once multiple intelligences had been given proper thought. His response was a flat 'no.' Not wanting to be rude, I didn't pursue the matter further at the time. However, needless to say, I was far from satisfied.

The scenario we had been considering was a school in Papua New Guinea, in a small wooden building on stilts over the sea. The building had no windows, but cracks between floor boards meant that the students could look down and see fish swimming below. Fish were the topic of the unit. One of our lecturers said he had watched the teacher's first class, in which the students had read in silence about fish from a textbook.

The lecturer asked members of our class what advice they might give the teacher. Most of the responses were along the lines of introducing practical interaction with fish, visual representation, song and rhythm and interpersonal interaction through group work, each of which would suit students strong in a different one of Gardner's intelligences. Of course this made a lot of sense and would no doubt have helped the teacher a great deal.

Some students in our class also pointed out that the children being taught, being from a fishing community and having caught, cleaned and gutted fish since an early age, probably knew a great deal about them already. One of my friends suggested that the students should be taught as experts and their knowledge valued and respected by the teacher, he himself being a highlander with little experience of fishing. However, having studied biology, he possessed other kinds of fish related knowledge which he wanted to share with the students.

The point I really wanted to make though, and I don't think I did such a great job of communicating it, was that multiple intelligences have the potential to be used formatively. That is, rather than just asking 'how can students understand this set of facts through the forms of intelligence they posses?' we might also begin to ask 'which forms of intelligence are of the greatest potential value to them?' and 'how can students learn to think in new ways?'

Of course that last question goes a bit beyond gardener. We understand the brain as 'plastic' and able to be changed. We know that people can improve their score on IQ tests through training, for example. This of course brings the whole concept of intelligence as it has traditionally been understood into question. However, Gardener's multiple intelligences were never all that aligned with traditional conceptions of intelligence in the first place. Things like 'musical intelligence,' 'linguistic intelligence' etcetera are seen by many psy' discipline scholars as more like areas of talent than anything so fundamental as intelligence. In any case, it is clear that they can be learned.

What needs to be considered in the case of the class in PNG is whether the types of intelligence in which the students are strong are those which will help them in their future. Any particular culture assigns values to types of intelligence. In the west, linguistic and mathematical in ability are in broad demand because the nature of our economy and education system relies on them to a greater extent than others. There are of course niches for those who posses the other forms of intelligence, such as artists, athletes etcetera, but the relatively small numbers who succeed in these areas are determined by economic and social factors and it is generally only an exceptional few who are able to use these kinds of talents to make a living, either by becoming famous or by going into teaching.

In a fishing community in PNG, spacial intelligence and kinesthetic intelligence are likely to be of great importance for catching fish, while linguistic and mathematical intelligence may carry far less weight, though this is merely a speculation based on the nature of fishing as their primary occupation. Assuming this to be the case, the question any teacher in such a situation must ask is this: for what kind of future am I preparing my students? On the one hand, I can share with them the knowledge created by and for western post industrial society. This may change their lives and give them opportunities of which few fishing village denizens have dreamed. On the other, I can respect their culture and way of life, learn from them and seek to enhance the value of what they already own.

As educators, are we there to spread our culture, or to help students within their own, which is what we would be doing if we were educating at home. Note that the teacher in our example was not a westerner, but he was an outsider to the fishing community and possessed a western style education himself.

It's a difficult question. Perhaps it may be possible to offer both or to find some compromise, but that too would necessarily come with its fair share of drawbacks. A better answer may come in the form of a bilateral cultural exchange between teachers and students in such as context. This would require mutual respect, caution and humility. The greatest achievement of Gardener in terms of education  was, I would argue, his recognition of the value of forms of thought, activity and knowledge outside the traditional academic sphere. Calling them intelligences, controversial though it may be, has helped many to see their value and in some cases change the distribution of intellectual capital.

Helicobacter Pylori and Ulcers

I was having an interesting discussion with a microbiology student this morning about ulcers. This is how she explained them to me.

We all have helicobactor pylori in our stomachs. It is the bacterium known to cause stomach ulcers. It also causes ulcers in the duodenum. For some reason, people who get one type of ulcer do not get the other.

Getting stomach ulcers is a risk factor for stomach cancer.

It is not yet understood exactly why some people get ulcers and some don't. The mechanism by which they occur is understood as follows:

The helicobactor pylori rely on stomach acid to activate the enzyme 'urease' which they need in order to digest urea. However, to digest the urea they need an acid free environment. To achieve this, they physically burrow into the mucosa, which is the epithelial lining of the stomach. They use their flagella to propel themselves. The mucosa protects the stomach from it's acidic contents. It is the physical damage caused to it by the burrowing helicobactor pylori that allows the acid to get through this protective layer and cause harm to other tissues, thus causing an ulcer.

That is her explanation as I understood it and I'm pretty sure that it's a well accepted one based on her university textbooks, so  I have no reason to question it, but please comment if you know anything further or if I have misunderstood.

Traditionally people have associated ulcers with stress. In the past, doctors have even advised patients with ulcers to avoid stress. The problem with this is that there is no known correlation between stress and either the thickness of the mucosa or the concentration of helicobactor pylori. This means that stress is unlikely to actually be a contributing factor.

Perhaps there is a competitive relationship between Helicobactor pylori and other microbes that inhabit the stomach. That was the first though that occurred to me. Or perhaps the body's ability to regulate the thickness of the mucosa could be impaired somehow, perhaps, for example, through some form of deficiency? Further research will no doubt be required before ulcers can be fully understood and treated.

中华民国一百年 *English

Today, many Taiwanese and non Taiwanese and somewhere in between people around the world are celebrating the centenary of the founding of 中华民国 (the republic of China), which is now the official title of Taiwan. There are complexities about this which continue to be debated. Arguably Taiwan was separate from China since about 1680. However, what is clear is that the events of 100 years ago were highly significant in the forming of the amazing and unique country that we know as Taiwan today. 

Being from Australia, it's hard to see why there is so much controversy. Australia is just as new and few Australians look to their British ancestors (many of us don't even have British ancestors) in assessing our identity. We find it extremely hard to relate, I think, even to images and voices of the Australia of the 1950s. People change quickly. Language and culture change, perhaps even more quickly. Clinging to past associations, can bring only suffering.

Somehow I have to reconcile two contradictory urges. On the one hand, I hate nationalism and all it stands for. There is no satisfactory distinction between racism and nationalism, because no universally applicable definition of race exists that can stand independently of either culture or nationality and the phrases 'we are better' and 'they are inferior' ultimately convey exactly the same meaning. 

  On the other hand, I do love Taiwan. When I'm there I feel nothing by joy most of the time and when I meet Taiwanese people, wherever I am in the world, I feel drawn to them as if to my own family. 

  I wish nations didn't exist, I really do. They can't last forever and of course there will be a new world order in the future and probably sooner than we think. Will it be any better? It would be hard to do much worse and the programs of regional cooperation such as the EU are a good start, despite the complexities they involve. However, right now, in the context of how the world is, Taiwan is a bastion of inspiration, creativity, culture, friendship and education in a world where all these things are lacking. 

If new nations like Australia and East Timor can be internationally recognized, then surely Taiwan must also. Most nations are cowardly and two faced, treating Taiwan as a nation state, placing embassies and recognizing its passports while calling it part of China whenever the all powerful PRC happen to be watching. Citizens of the world need to make it clear to their governments that this kind of dishonesty and cowardice is unacceptable. Therefore, I hope that people will make a point by displaying Taiwan's national flag (you can copy and paste the one below) and making this an issue for public debate. 

Asylum Seeker Detention Unlawful and Extreme - Conversation.

Earlier I shared a link to this article on Facebook. I commented that though I have very little respect for Sky News I was glad to see someone making this point.

A response from another friend prompted me to clarify a few points. The conversation went as follows:

Me: "Hate sky news, but yes, it is certainly an extremist act to lock people up indefinitely when they have committed no crime and haven't even been given a trial."

Friend: "Do we really want those people on our roads though? If yes, you know they will keep coming."

Me: "Roads? That seems like a very strange thing to say. There have never been enough asylum seekers to make any noticeable difference to traffic congestion and wouldn't be even if their numbers doubled or tripled. Anyway, since government policy is to try to increase the population with things like the baby bonus, any extra people, especially ones who have already grown up and gained skills and life experience, should be welcomed. I'm not all that pro population, but surely giving homes to asylum seekers should be a higher priority than having more babies born here."


Friend: "I disagree with you. Bear in mind that tax payers money will go to them, and they won't have the education needed to adapt in Australian culture. before they are released, and are allowed to live within us, the government must create some sort of education system, and ensure they find a job when they are released. we simply cannot release people in a new country. It's like releasing an animal in the wild, whre they'll have to find their own prey to survive, they'll grab the first one and think that's only there is. we have to educate them on what is prey and what is not. I have got my permanent residency in Australia the hard way, and so should they. if the requirements to come to Australia is an academic transcript, it must be followed."

Me:  "There are some things you need to consider here: 1. They have a legal right to seek asylum and to have it granted if they have genuinely fled from danger. This is international law and Australia must either adhere to it or give up it's international reputation, if it has not done so already. Australia, as a country, is committing a crime by imprisoning people illegally. It's an infringement of the universal bill of human rights and of Australia's constitution. 2. There are many ways and reasons to come to Australia and academic transcripts are just one of many criteria. 3. Migrants with or without transcripts have been shown historically to be of net benefit to the economy. Many unskilled immigrants set up small businesses and others perform jobs for which labor otherwise has to be imported in the form of temporary workers from Asia because locals won't do it. Such work includes fruit picking and work in food preparation for factories that supply supermarkets. 4. The cost of detaining these people while their claims are assessed is about four times as much as it would cost to allow them to live in society and pay them social security money.

I agree that there need to be proper educational resources made available. Our primary and secondary schools can be pretty hopeless and because refugees are often allocated to a school level based on age rather than ability, it is often difficult or impossible for those who arrive as teenagers to progress through the most direct channels to university. There are other ways, but of course that needs improving. Also, two terms of specialized ESL schooling, which is what is offered with a refugee visa now is obviously insufficient. Australia has a duty of care to these people and it is in the national interest to provide better education and integration services, both because it will help the economy by enhancing skills while reducing dependance on welfare and because it demonstrates a requisite level of respect for people's livelihoods upon which the country's reputation depends.

Anyway, there is not necessarily any need to increase refugee intake in order to make the system more humane. Simply providing social security and a place to live in the community would be far less costly than detention. Once claims are processed, people who are found to be genuine refugees are currently allocated to any of the refugee intake countries, not necessarily Australia, based on their intake quotas. The only differences would be a. a reduced cost to the tax payer and b. freedom for the asylum seekers during the processing of their claims."

Other friend: "The solution's remarkably simple, really - massively increase the resources devoted to processing the claims, and pay for it by not having to pay for such lengthy detention. The only arguments I'm aware of against this plan are purely political.

The main rhetoric I hear from the other side is along the lines of "we shouldn't make ourselves a soft target", and it's only just occurred to me to think that through properly. If we actually care about our legal obligations (or, y'know, human rights and welfare), we should want to be a very soft target indeed for genuine refugees. We don't necessarily want to be a "soft target" for those we don't judge to be genuine refugees, but it's utterly barbaric to achieve this deterrence by punishing all asylum seekers (or even any asylum seekers). As a modern democracy, what we should do with false claimants for refugee status is to process their claims quickly and thoroughly, and then promptly kick them out.

*****, Australia is fundamentally an immigrant nation - we've had wave after wave of immigrants more than twice as long as we've actually had a nation, and technically we're all immigrants anyway. I've heard quite a bit of rhetoric about the newest batches of immigrants, but I've not yet heard a substantial argument for why this particular episode is in any meaningful way worse or more dangerous than any other. The numbers are trivial in context of our existing population - we've dealt with much more significant waves in the past - and in stating your argument you're making some fairly serious claims without actually providing any evidence.

As ***** notes, overall population is a separate question. I also have grave reservations about overpopulation here, but the "boat people" we're talking about here are utterly insignificant to that debate. The vast majority of refugees come by plane anyway, and the vast majority of illegal residents are people (especially students) overstaying their visas. The public panic about "boat people" overrunning the country has no basis in fact."

Me: "I'm afraid that solution just makes too much sense to ever happen." 

Hope this clears up a few popular misconceptions.