phaedo2000.com Blog

We are all (or all used to be) aware of the manner in which fascist Germany and Communist USSR took away the freedom of their people; it was violent and brutal, led by and orchestrated by the government; at least that’s the part we are aware of.  I say used to be because I am afraid that knowledge might be alluding our younger generations that have been brought up with a different menu of history.  And perhaps they have reason; they see that as behind us and unlikely to happen again – at least in quite the same form.

In reading about Zimbabwe I encountered another form.  Zimbabwe (formerly Rhodesia) is intriguing because its government has so quickly and completely destroyed a free economy, but in a manner apparently a bit different from those we used to know about, at least in how it has come about.  Peter Godwin (Crocodile That Ate the Sun) describes how the process occurred.  What impressed me was that most of what happened there, though encouraged by the government, was pushed by thugs officially independent of the government, and about whom the government refused to do anything.  Thus instead of being a police state stomping, it was more like a collapse of authority, at least initially.  On the other hand maybe NAZI Germany and Communist Russia felt a lot like that in the early stages; police states don’t just happen, they have to be organized, developed.  But the results are similar: a ruling elite takes over and ultimately dictates everything according to their lights.  The question in all cases is, what can individuals do to combat such violence against them when their government will not take any action to assist them?  One must realize that such violence although likely to be seen as loss of rule of law – as we practice it - the law doesn’t go away; it just becomes arbitrary and final; that is, without any recourse to those on the receiving end.

When thugs show up at the door and tell you that your home or farm is now theirs, and no one in authority can or will do anything about it, what can one do?  Individually, shoot them, perhaps, but it’s easy to see where that ends.  Organize?  How?  We have no idea what it is like or how it unfolds and the frustration it entails, as all that matters is what the government edicts on the one hand or will not do to protect citizens against thugs on the other.  How do men suddenly gain that kind of power?  It’s pretty much always the same: they make promises, build up loyalties, eliminate personal freedoms, and either create or support the unlawful elements that evolve to support them.

We like to say, or we used to, that with free opportunity anyone can succeed.  Well, ok, not anyone; some don’t have the capacity, but many more don’t have the motivation of willingness to make the effort; but they want the fruits nonetheless.  Envy is part of being human; countries with these kinds of systems have just made it work for them, and that is the basis of their success.  In the end freedom and liberty are fragile and can disappear faster than we realize it is happening.  It happened in Zimbabwe, Cuba, North Korea and is happening elsewhere, in many different ways; with the freedoms and liberty that might have existed not appreciated until they are lost - or longed for when they have never been held.  Do we realize this; do we appreciate the fragility?  I am concerned that we do not, and are doing so less as time goes on; we are complacent; it can never happen here.

Can it?  Zimbabwe makes me wonder; so does Venezuela.

An old concept, indexing.  It was all the vogue in South America a number of years ago, and has been used elsewhere.  The idea, to ease pain on the people, is to index pay raises to inflation.  In fact they would measure inflation then automatically adjust salaries to match it.  Makes sense, right?  Since money has no intrinsic value, by equalizing the two ends everything stays pretty much the same.  Only even then there was a global economy and it kind of missed the point that it screwed up exchange rates; it also kind of discounted supply and demand, particularly of commodities.  Argentina almost expired as a result, and the pain was heavy in many other countries as well.

So why do we automatically raise social security benefits and government retirements with cost of living escalators?  Same logic, same short-sighted ignorance.  A little inflation, after all, is a good thing, right?  It makes people feel like everything is getting better.  We just have to make sure it stays under control.  Yeah, right.

While riding in my car today I tuned in a station on the satellite radio from BBC that was broadcasting a live meeting of the British Labour Party; the subject was taxes and the basic question was do the rich pay enough?  One needn’t question what the answer from Labour Party aficionados was, and their offensive against more moderate and conservative contributors was as might be expected.  But on returning home I dialed up the Wall Street Journal and was treated to a story about – you guessed it, taxes on the rich, and it cited studies that pointing out that 1% of the population (of the U.S.) pay 40% of the taxes, meaning, I believe, income taxes.  But it added that since 1980 the increase in income of this group had been several times higher than the increase in taxes paid, suggesting that this fact, though valid enough be presented in context.

I was left with the opinion with which I had begun, that if we are to pay off our debt before it seriously impacts our economy we must address spending and taxes at the same time.  That apparently is the prevailing opinion, albeit simplistic, of the American public.  Why simplistic?  Because on the one hand most discussions about taxes are limited to those on income and there are many many others, some of which are hidden, and they are increasing as we speak; and, on the other hand it is difficult to defend the stupendous salaries, bonuses and dividends that our top earners are pocketing while enjoying tax deductions that soften the blow, often tax deductions not available to others.  Within our government structure the obvious answer is a serious discussion and intelligent compromise of the challenging problem, including a look at deductions and even perhaps a shot at a flat tax.

Unfortunately that is more difficult than it sounds because no one seems to want to give up anything, and most seem unwilling to even admit the problem is serious enough to get serious about.  It is, of course, and it will be, addressed eventually as the pain that is inevitable becomes more severe; and unfortunately inflation will likely play a part in whatever evolves, making the pain even greater.  I make neither recommendations nor opinion observations, I merely point out the challenge, assume the implications will be obvious enough, if not now, soon; and offer my expectation that we will continue to actively delay necessary action due to the reluctance to do so.  Politicians, after all, will be responding to their constituents on the matter, as designed in our political system of representation; that’s the way it works.

Of course I must add, as I think I might have in the past, that the pain will not and cannot be equally borne.  There are those that are already truly suffering; and there are those that are gaming the suffering to their advantage; there are also those who are not suffering at all, or relatively little, and will be able to afford the changes that will necessarily occur better than others.  That is life.

I actually mentioned the above because of the coincidence of the two inputs to me, and the fact that the second definately influenced my reaction to the first, and reminded me of how important it is to keep an open mind, be flexible, and be realistic.

I spent some time this afternoon pouring over a map of the world.  Weird, eh?  Probably; I do it from time to time.  Actually, this time is was prompted by working with a fourth grader who was required to select a city to discuss in class, and he chose Saint Petersburg, Russia, formerly Leningrad, formerly Saint Petersburg, formerly Petrograd.  Anyway, Saint Petersburg is sort of defined by the water that pretty much surrounds it: Gulf of Finland where the port is that made the city a member of the Hanseatic League: Lake Ladoga with its thousands of individual lakes and rivers that create it – and make it essentially a swamp; and the river Neva that joins the two and flows through the city.  But you knew all that.

I had to look it up to get it straight, but I regularly have to look at the map to get the stans straight too (stan means land in Central Asia): Kyrgistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkistan and Kazakstan.  And I have been trying to get the Kurile Islands in my mind – and found that all this time I have had them confused with Aleutians.  Then there is Indonesia; ‘ever looked real hard at Indonesia?  wow.  And it goes on from there.  The fourth grader informed me that Antarctica is the world’s largest desert.  There is another desert in Chile that is the world’s driest.  The Balkans are interesting too; it’s all interesting.

Why?  Because it’s the world we live in and we don’t understand it, most of us, all that well.  In fact most of us have little feel for just what’s out there, because, let’s be honest: who cares?  We are all that matter; well, that’s an exaggeration, but some students today, I have read, cannot even identify the continuous state to their own.  Many too many really don’t care, but we should, at least a little, don’t you think?

Africa also intrigues me.  I just started reading a book called When a Crocodile Eats the Sun (Peter Godwin) about his and his family’s life in Zimbabwe; it reminded me of another book I have read (and mentioned previously), The Coming Anarchy; Robert D. Kaplan writes intriguingly about countries that he visits, including in West Africa, often with a pack on his back.  It is a big and complex world, with many cultures, lots of controversy – and an incredible amount of ignorance.  Natives of Zimbabwe were circulating the rumor not so long ago that AIDS was a disease white people (U.S. CIA created) designed to kill black Africans, and I’ll not begin to tell you about the things they use to try to cure it (or used to).

But no one has a corner on ignorance; it abounds everywhere, with different degrees of intensity.  That, however, is another one of my pet peeves; I hate ignorance.  Now don’t get me wrong there; everyone is ignorant.  There is no way any individual can know everything about everything, so there are necessarily things of which we are all ignorant, although there are degrees and some ignorance really is inexcusable; but it’s still there, seriously.

So what?  What’s my point?  Oh, nothing in particular; I am just taken with the breadth and complexity of the world and it intrigues me.  I am reminded how much when I look at a map.

I nominate for the unintended consequence of the year our obsession with democracy.  Does that sound seditious?  The problem is not with democracy per se, but our naive and opaque view that anyone who utters the word in the perpetration of whatever brand of violence they might espouse are doing it for democracy.  Democracy that they neither understand nor embrace, other than as a way to gain power.  Am I wrong?  I could be; we shall see sooner than later.

Although we have seen some indications already: Russia?  the newest entrant; so they didn’t turn out to be so democratic after all: vote for Putin and all problems are solved - the state way, which somehow is the way all Russian problems have always been solved, including overthrowing the state and creating another.  China?  the new and improved form of democracy; well, not actually democracy, but free enterprise; eh, sort of; at least some are permitted to make private money, with restrictions of course.  But hey, it’s big money and they are doing well; again, sort of.  But then where does all this money come from?  ah hah.

And Europe is having its troubles too with its voter induced welfare state; the clearer heads have always intimated that unsupported give aways to voters could not continue forever.  But the most exciting is Arab Spring, where all the young, eager, unemployed dissidents figured that the answer was democracy.  Well, voting anyway, voting out their governments and replacing them with…well, no one really knows, or cares for that matter; everything is suddenly going to get better.  Of course democracy is inconsistent with Islam where there is no distinction between religion and government, as it is all one; but we’ll address that at another time.  First test will come in Libya where all those angry rabble are suddenly going to create a peaceful government of the people.  Uh huh.  Then Egypt where the Muslem Brotherhood are already working to succeed the army.  I wonder what’s happening in the Ivory Coast; we don’t hear much about them any more.  In fact, we don’t hear much about anything that doesn’t agree with our preconceived notions of what should be; democracy is good, the people rule and everything works out for the best.  Why?  because we said it would.

The unintended consequence is that democracy, and all it entails, is messy at best and difficult at the very least; it ain’t easy.  We are even having trouble understanding our own, much less dealing with it.  Might I remind us of the debt we have – and are continuing to – put together?  So what’s going to happen?  I don’t think the world is suddenly going to come to an end, or, for that matter, that the West is going to suddenly become irrelevant, but I do believe we are in for a difficult time – and we haven’t even faced up to that yet, which will likely up the unintended factor at a fairly good clip.

Why don’t we think of these things?  Because we are too busy thinking of ourselves and our rosy wishes for mankind, that neither appreciates or understands, and may have little perception, as they do not, of the unintended consequences they – the new guys – are about to face – at least most of them don’t; meaning that for most the consequences are unintended; for others they are just as they knew and planned they would be.

As has been discussed previously, moderation and compromise are not typically the human way, unless it is forced upon them.  Recognizing that the founders of our country attempted to manage it through checks and balances of various kinds, believing that the less actual governing was done, at least at the federal level, the better.  So federal politics in the U.S.A., at least at and around election times, is a noisy and argumentative affair – by design.

Is it worse now than ever?  Don’t bet on it; things have been pretty noisy in the past.  But today there are some differences.  Two primary political parties and professional politicians are something that was not anticipated, and probably would not have been welcome at Constitution writing time; politics at that time was seen as a duty, performed without remuneration, as in England.  But on top of that, air travel and communications have become much more prevalent, expected, simpler, and MUCH more expensive, bringing powerful (and essential if it is to be successful) change to campaigning.  In short, it cannot be successfully accomplished without a great deal of funding: MONEY.  So?  Well, money means fund-raisers and fund-raisers benefit from controversy; how, after all, can one fire up contributors to part with their money when the competition is between people who basically agree with each other on what needs to be done?

So worse than ever or not, the competition is strong, focused and expensive; it is also far more sophisticated than it was in the past thanks to computers, advertising, television and a vast development of skills in selling candidates and positions.  And one of these skills entails focusing on the extremes – the fringes – and thus the far ends of the normal distribution of opinions, damping the effectiveness of the moderate center, which receives relatively less attention.  And shouldering out moderation effectively undermines the will to compromise.  That has already happened.

Now, compromise, although it has its adherents, has never been terribly popular, because it requires watering down strongly held opinions.  The period just prior to the Civil War is a case in point and a classic example of the art at its highest point in our history, albeit ultimately unsuccessful.  We have taken that a step further recently, however, (perhaps at the urging of the fund-raisers) through concerted efforts to discredit moderate compromisers.  But then it’s easier to do too, since the basic positions are so radically different in that they encompass emotional spending based on needs, and opposition to spending beyond the country’s means, something that everyone can identify with – and understand.

But can they?  Economics as it exists today is something very few really understand because it has grown so far beyond personal experience.  $14 trillion dollars of debt for example, or is it $16 trillion now?  But that is on top of a $14 trillion gross domestic product, or is that now $13 trillion.  Keynes preached debt because economics today cannot be practiced without borrowing; but $14 trillion of it?  Maybe, maybe not; who knows?  And who can we believe?  And how much taxes are reasonable?  And paid by whom, at what rate?  And at what point does it drive off investment?  That points to another interesting conundrum; we talk of tax rates as if they are fixed across income and of course they are not; higher income begets higher tax rates on amounts above a certain level, with everyone paying the same rate on incomes at a lower level; who mentions that these days?  And when discussed it is made to sound like amounts rather than rates.  Then there are the big ones: Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid that together are breaking the bank, but on which we have come to depend.  All emotional issues because they are pocket book issues – our individual pocket books.  There are compromise positions, but they are resisted almost to the death because we CANNOT live without these entitlements.  Well, we could, most of us, but we don’t want to.  Although some probably cannot; what about them?  Who are they?  And how do we know they are in the position they say they are?

And that is the tip of the iceberg; there is much more.  But what most of it comes down to is that we have been conditioned (and encouraged) to panic when it comes down to our personal situation, and with justification because most budgets have become stretched – mostly through overindulgence, but that doesn’t change the impact when it hits.  So much comes down to the fact that we have lived too high for too long and now don’t know how to stop – certainly not immediately because any adjustment takes time.

I am not embarking upon any position to push, merely observation of where we are and how we got there, and the means that will be necessary to deal with it: compromise.  Fixing the problem will be difficult, cause selective pain (it never hits equally), and take time; and we are demanding that our representatives solve it, while telling them they had better not touch ours or we’ll vote them out of office.  What would you do in that position?  Meanwhile we destroy the moderators and join the radical fringes because there are very few any more who defend moderation, and make compromise a dirty word in the process.  We cry for leadership, and attack anyone who tries to lead in a direction that impacts us individually.  And at the same time we ignore or marginalize those who do make suggestions – that might impact us individually.

The answer is moderation and compromise, but we have lost the interest in moderation and the ability to compromise, and that has been taking place over a long, long period of time.  It may take awhile for the pendulum to swing back – if we let it.  And if we don’t it will only get worse – although there are some who refuse to admit that, or don’t want to; and here we go again.

We don’t like moderation and we despise compromise.  I guess we’ll just have to wait and see who is right and where it will take us.  I think it will be a rough ride.

According to Forbes Magazine, as collected from international rating agencies, the ten most corrupt countries in the world are: Somalia, Afghanistan, Myanmar, Sudan, Iraq, Chad, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Iran, and Haiti.  Any surprises there?  But they also added that several other countries, although not included within those ten, deserve to be mentioned as the size of their economy and the scope of their corruption sets them apart; they are: Russia and Venezuela.

The scope of corruption throughout the world is staggering.  Does it exist everywhere?  Surely it does, wherever there are people.  Perhaps instead of complaining so much we in the West should appreciate how lucky we are.

This was the name of a book (without the question mark) written by Robert D. Kaplan, a correspondent with Atlantic Magazine, published in the year 2000.  He wrote, he said, as grappling “with how the world actually works, rather than to describe a better world that may never be.”  I am anxious to see the sequel; things, in my opinion, have gotten considerably worse.

Consider “Arab Spring;”  riots in Great Britain; very recent challenging of the government by students and teachers in Chile; the antics of leaders in Venezuela, Palestine, Iran and North Korea; and of course terrorism almost everywhere.  What is happening?  Other than the instant communications I have discussed before.  Although all of it may have to do with people in the world getting too much information too quickly without proper understanding of either what it entails or what dealing with it requires.

Basically, (my opinion) is that it all has to do with gross self interest and ignorance, based on envy.  Too simple?  Everyone wants change, change of course that immediately benefits (or favors) them – a better life, as defined by them; a good job (meaning one that pays enough for them to enjoy the luxuries of life as they perceive them), freedom (to do mostly as they please), security (on their terms) and governments that take action in accordance with their life-view.  I exaggerate; sure I do; many are only trying to survive in a difficult and unfair world.  But few people who have not been there have any idea of the difficulties in governing – or even managing – people, and thus oversimplify by focusing on one or two issues about which they are passionate, but do not really understand in terms how to actually get there and of ramifications once they have.

I shan’t go over the difficulties of creating wealth as opposed to distributing that which already exists and was created by others, but it is central to the problem; or the inequality that exists among the talents, drive, intelligence, skills, motivation and abilities of people, something which many either challenge or just don’t believe.  How about the difficulty of building an enterprise, particularly where the infrastructure does not exist to support it?  Doing away with corruption (which they often misrepresent)?  Favoritism?  There’s a good one, favoritism.  Or discrimination.  Where is the line between selecting a candidate based on qualifications and prejudicial selection?  Sure there is prejudice; there always has been and always will be, because we all have strong preferences, different experiences, and stronger dislikes both justified or not.  Better is what businessmen call cost benefit analysis; many will argue that cost is no object when the ends they seek are involved – who can place value on: fill in the blank.

So back to anarchy; what is it?  Lawlessness, indulgence of total selfishness, absence of rules and laws.  Rules and laws, after all, favor one or another party do they not?  They are man made and who is not biased in one way or another?  This is Kaplan’s illusion to a world that “may” never be.  Reality is much less palatable; it is people as they are, doing what they do, with an attempt to force some kind of compromise among them.  Much of it, probably most of it, is economic and this takes us back to envy.  You can’t take away my: fill in the blank.  It’s not fair to make me pay more for: fill in the blank.  Taxes are unfair.  Salaries are unfair.  We need better: fill in the blank.  Who pays?  The government; without any understanding of how government achieves funding to do so.  Everyone, it seems, knows exactly what the government needs to do, but most have not a clue as to how it can be done.

Ignorance reigns; selfishness drives; envy defines.  Pity those poor humans that have to govern their fellow man, with all their own shortcomings, ignorance, selfishness and envy that we absolutely refuse to tolerate.  The end game, in the short run, can be anarchy as each does what he will; but in the long run anarchy is unstable.  And what happens then?  We have oodles of examples and all involve strong men who assemble the violence necessary to make THEIR will law, for their benefit.  Is that where we are heading?  In some places we are already very close and the proponents of democracy are finding it much easier to talk about than to impose it.  Will Libya be democratic or anarchic?  And Syria once “they” succeed in destroying order.  It is surely much easier to create chaos from order than it is to create order from chaos.

It has been said many times, oh worshippers of change: beware of what you wish for.

What’s cultural?  Whatever.  One philosopher from the not so distant past suggested that “cultural” is what we do, a total of all that we are.  And what and why is that?

First where does it come from?  Religion?  Parents?  Schools?  Of course, and more.  Today contemporaries contribute to our cultural mores, as do the media, computers, celebrities and even music.  We are pack animals and generally want to be like others, so we act like others, and even try to think like others and do what they do.  So?  We are readily influenced; so what?

Obviously there is more and that’s what makes the concept so confusing.  Why are some “cultures” more corrupt than others?  More violent or brutal?  More placid?  More disciplined or motivated?  I would suggest because there are long and short term influences.  The Western cultures are clearly influenced by automobiles and will be for a long time.  We are influenced by the wealth our societies enjoy, that change only slowly.  Air travel?  Entertainment?  Vacations?  That’s the medium horizon.  Specific entertainers?  Current fads?  Recent gimmicks (electronic communications and games).  That’s the short term.  But there is a longer term as well: our history, our form of government, our respect for laws and justice, basic respect for each other?  How about those?

It is difficult to say that cultures do not develop over time and last, if not forever, then for a long time (whatever that might be), but they are also influenced in the short term: long wave and short wave – and plenty of other waves in between.  Our culture is changing; yes and no.  It will change completely within the next several decades; probably not.  The German and Japanese cultures changed dramatically after the war; in some ways yes, in others probably not.  Yet the Asian cultures seem to have greater respect for learning than, say, the Indian cultures of Latin America.  Is that changing?  Perhaps it is, but if so, probably slowly.  Corruption is inherent in many cultures and seems to resist changing; Afghanistan for example;how about that?  Are many cultures beginning to change with the rock music craze that is sweeping the world?  Perhaps, but more than likely only superficially, with the changes more often  reflecting the underlying cultures upon which it has been introduced.

How long does it take for a culture to change completely?  Does it ever?  What effects do technology and modernization have on cultures.  I submit that first, it depends, on the effects and the culture; but more importantly we don’t have enough data to be able to say with any certainty.  We haven’t even thought in those terms for all that long – culture – it really is a rather complex concept.  But, I would contend, an important one.  Why, for example, is corruption so resistant to change in some cultures?  Perhaps it is resistant to change everywhere depending on how successfully it can be employed.  Human nature?  The social scientists don’t even like to admit there is such a thing; is there?  How resistant is it to change.  Is human nature different in different cultures or is there an underlying commonality among all of us as it relates to our human nature?

Yet many are insistent that modernity is improvement and we are making progress; but then others might argue that the simplicity of the past is preferable to the changes of the present; so are cultural changes good or not?  Not only do we not know, we don’t even agree on what we do not know – or believe.  And we wonder why there are so many problems in the world and why there is so much difficulty in “solving” them.  Maybe some “cultures” don’t even think they are problems.

Sigh.

Strange world we live in, isn’t it?  Always in an uproar of some kind; but then that’s what people are like, and it’s unlikely to change.  But why now?  Well, it really isn’t just now, it’s pretty much always been in turmoil, but we have short attention spans and forget quickly.   We also have limited data bases and when statistics are quoted they don’t go back far; but that’s mainly the result of rapid technology development, as we are looking at things today that we didn’t even understand, much less be able to measure, not so many years ago.

So where are we headed?  If anyone tells you they know, they lie; simple as that (no, it’s actually not that simple because many believe their own lies).  But that doesn’t keep them from trying; that’s another way we are.  Those with knowledge want to talk about it, whether it is useful or not (and derive benefit from it).  And many have a great deal of knowledge (even if not always right) and that’s another good thing: the incredible increase in knowledge that has been gained over the past couple of decades, particularly scientific but in other technical areas as well.  Regrettably it often doesn’t go too much deeper than that.

Education is still limited and for the most part propaganda trumps it; and since there is much more propaganda disseminated than facts that poses challenges.  Why is that so?  Well, manipulation for one; man (generic man, that is) has always pursued his own interests and top place among interests is power, power to enhance his interests and ambitions.  That will never change, and always roil the waters of human relations – at all levels.

Whither China?  Take your pick of opinions.  Whither the United States? the same.  And Europe?  Yup, more of the same.  Or the Middle East and Africa?  Let’s not even go there.  All have run into difficulties and are challenged by them, but that doesn’t mean they are about to collapse; it doesn’t happen that way, as man is much more resilient than that.  But that doesn’t mean there won’t be pain; there will be pain and it will be selective.  Selective by whom? or Whom?  Depends on understanding, interests, beliefs – faith that is beyond proof – but that doesn’t make the emotion associated with them any less.  We’ll just have to wait and see.

But clearly what has happened is that we have come too far too quickly and gained ability to broadcast it too widely and also quickly; and man being man the broadcasting is and has been heavily flavored by opinion – propaganda – as all that think they can, let everyone know what they think – or wish, and the ignorant may believe almost anything.  Are we going to destroy the planet?  Likely not right away, and once serious problems arise there will be attempts made to deal with them; that’s called survival.  Unfortunately one man’s survival is another man’s opportunity and we know from history (not yesterday’s but that which goes way back) that that means struggle, if we bother to look into it.  Also unfortunately, unlike science and technology we too often lose track of history or misinterpret it because history begets disagreement of the facts as there is no hard (inarguable) proof to turn to.  As a result we keep doing the same stupid (or ignorant if you prefer) things mainly because they benefit someone with power, or the people who do them just don’t know any better.

Read knowledgeable articles or listen to worldly experts; that, after all, is where much of knowledge comes from – but they don’t agree.  And there is the rub; they have different experiences, interests and agendas, and around and around we go.  Are things getting better?  At one level they are.  Will we ever get on top of it?  Uh uh, that leads to a prediction, that no one can really make because there are too many variables; no one knows how man will react to a given emotional stimulus, or even physical stimulus.  Man is unpredictable.

And maybe that’s why it realy truly is a strange world.