Epidemic disease is one of the themes in Jared Diamond’s fascinating book Guns, Germs & Steel: The fates of Human Societies (ISBN-13: 978-0393317558  or  ISBN-10: 0393317552). However what I found most interesting in his book was his explanation of how Western civilisation has become, and was deemed to become, dominant over all others in the 20th century.

He argued that this is mainly attributable to an accident of geography, and definitely not due to genetics and race.

If you do not have time to read this fascinating book, and to enable you to understand what is written below, his core idea is that civilisation needs trade and exchange in crops and domesticate-able animals (i.e. food sources that you can foster and have some control of) to thrive. Especially crops, and to some extent animals, have evolved to thrive in specific environments. For example in ancient times, when it was greener, it was as easy to grow wheat on the savannahs of the fertile crescent (modern Iraq and Syria) as it was in north Africa (the Nile Delta, modern Tunisia, northern Libya and northern Algeria), or even on the plains of Greece or grasslands in northern India…. and it did spread there, along with ideas and culture. However it would have been impossible to grow wheat in ancient Germany (too cold) or the Benin area of West Africa (too hot, wet and humid). As a result this exchange is more likely to do well in similar latitudes, not in similar longitudes. This is because, as a rule, climate does not vary much in the same latitude (east-west), but varies tremendously in the same longitude (north-south). For that reason the African grain sorghum spread across the Sahel region of Africa, but would not tolerate being grown further south in wetter areas, nor further north in the arid Sahara region. If you glance at a globe or a map of the world, you will notice that Europe and Asia (actually Eurasia) are joined and are roughly an east-west continent sharing a lot in similar latitudes. Africa and both the Americas are more north-south orientated continents sharing similar longitudes. Yet other continents, such as Australia are generally isolated. As a result he surmises that it makes sense that civilisation arose in Eurasia (China, India & Europe) where exchange in developed crops and livestock was easy, and not in Africa, North or South America, or isolated Australia.

In other words, if you could turn the clock back and start again, history of civilisation would likely have a similar result.

Of course we cannot do that, so we cannot prove his explanation. If we were a wise man, one who had managed to travel the world (perhaps someone like the Greek geographer Herodotus or the Moroccan explorer Ibn Battuta), we may have then been able to deduce and predict this simply through a broad understanding of world geography. Unfortunately the ability of a human to understand world geography was limited then by our knowledge, and ideas even of the shape of Earth remained in the realm of physics and astronomy until our eyes were opened, when proof of the true nature of our world became possible after the “discovery” of the Americas in 1492, followed by the subsequent circumnavigation of Earth.

Aside from predicting probability, the other part of my Where theme is to describe my dreams of where we could be in the future. This has to start with ideals – Where do we want to be? Politics, Sociology and Philosophy are useful fields to explore here. However we need to also be practical, assessing what is possible, and for this we need care, and to look at history. Jared Diamond’s book is an alternative way of reading history, leading to a clearer explanation and understanding of events.

Many historical events may not have remotely been likely to occur, and may have simply been lucky, or unlucky accidents that affected all happenings from that point forward in time. Mr Diamond’s prediction of the birth of civilisation happening in Eurasia may have been inevitable considering the shape and orientation of the continents, but who could have predicted the birth of democracy in Ancient Greece and Rome, and was that fluke?

Did it happen there because Ancient Greece was a land of common identity, interconnected by way of the Mediterranean sea, with the technology of efficient ocean-going vessels, with relatively free trade and a common language and culture, but often separated also by the sea and mountainous terrain, and run as independent city states, resulting in a plethora of choice and experimentation in how to govern any city state? One, Athens, happened to develop a democracy in 508 BC, perhaps attracting innovation, immigration, ideas and a crucible for growth of ideas. Although initially this did not last that long, Athens did lead a coalition of states to war against the greatest empire of all time, Persia, and incredibly, managed to defeat it.

At the same time, further west, on the Italian Peninsula, there were also several city states, most of which were monarchies. The most well known, Rome, dabbled with its own version of a representative democracy starting when the last king of Rome, Tarquin the Proud, was deposed supposedly in 509 BC, one year before Athens (Was that a coincidence or Roman propaganda?). This was in a time when there would have been considerable trade between the Etruscans, Romans, and others in the Italian Peninsula, and with others around the Mediterranean Sea – the Phoenicians, their semi-independent colonists, the Carthaginians (who also had a form of representative democracy), and the Greeks in Sicily and further afield. Was the democratic experiment in Ancient Greece, and the republican versions of democracy in Ancient Rome and Carthage an inevitability, or were they the result of dreams and ideals of individuals (people who being “free citizens”, and not slaves, did not fear punishment or death)?

It appears that they were practical solutions to the problem of despotic rule, in the case of Rome, and maybe in the case of Carthage to more independence from their colonial masters in Tyre. We know less of Carthage as much of their history was lost after Carthage was razed to the ground by the Romans.

The Roman Republic lasted 700 years before they outgrew it, and metamorphosed into an autocracy ruled by an emperor for a further 450 years. It too sowed the seed for the next great nation of innovators in politics, engineering and many other fields.

Then after the demise of Ancient Rome and the fall of Europe into the “Dark Ages”, when the control of power and education became monopolised by kings and the church, what precipitated the modern rise of civilisation, with the reformation and the industrial revolution? How much of the changes that happened mainly in north-western Europe are able to be attributed to the free movement of people, and the existence of many different states (like in Ancient Greece), allowing the flourishing of some that encouraged freedom of trade, thought, and ideas without risk of slavery, banishment, imprisonment or death?

How much is attributable not just to trade, since in those times Genoa and Venice were huge trading centres, but to being less under the influence of the Roman Catholic Church, to the translation of the Bible into the vernacular languages, and to safety? Galileo Galilei’s clash with the Catholic Church over heliocentricism seems to me an indicator of the dangers that novel thought posed in the areas dominated by the Catholic Church at that time. Did these changes lead to democracy in England (Protestant), France (Catholic), and the USA (mainly Protestant), and if so why did they not in Russia (Orthodox), which also had its revolution and a banishment of the old despotic order? Perhaps the balance of power has a huge part to play, and was a big motivator? After the Black Death the feudal order could no longer be sustained in Western Europe. The price of labour and craftsmen soared. A middle class arose. In the end a compromise of power had to be reached in some parts between the King, the lords, the church and the newcomers – the traders and skilled craftsmen. Democracy was given a second chance.

I think Western Europe was safer for innovators, encouraging and becoming a home to motivators who dreamed of a fairer world. No change can happen without the birth of an idea.

Martin Luther King was right – first you must dream. Then when you dream, you need to be able to distinguish between those that are pure fantasy, and those that could become reality. Lastly you must pursue and nurture those that could become reality, assuming they purport to a better world.

Why am I writing this now? Because I sense that we are living in times of huge change. As often happens in times of uncertainty, we cling to what we know.

Our world today is like a ship riding the ocean of history (from where we have sailed) and the future (the direction in which we are headed). We then sail into a turbulent storm, becoming shipwrecked (the present). We cling to the ship for safety (which is what we know – our ideals, beliefs, religions, customs, politics), but most of this is baggage, and instead of helping us, weighs us down and will mean we sink with the ship. Do we need a small light craft that will float, with clear concise ideas, free of dogma, spin and lies, our life-raft, in order to survive? If so, what is our life-raft like? What ideas do we need? And so Where should we be going?

This is the second question that this theme Where? explores. Note that although this question inevitably leads to the next logical question How do we get there?,  this theme is limited to Where? First we need to think where we should be going, before we look at the methods of getting there. That comes under another theme.

Firstly, can we predict anything?

We obviously have limited control of our lives and events surrounding them. The Christmas 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean is just one example of how little in control we really are.

Although the tsunami did happen, most of us would agree that the likelihood of such a devastating one happening next week is minimal.

So what are the contributing factors to us being able to predict anything?

As mentioned in the previous page, knowledge and facts play a part. The more information we have to build a picture, the better equipped we are to make a prediction of an event that later occurs. In other words the more likely it is that an event that we have predicted could happen.

In this sense probability also has a role. The more probable an event, the more we may be interested in the prediction. We are less likely to be interested in events that are highly unlikely to occur.

And thirdly, time or the amount of time must be involved. How far ahead is the prediction expected? The shorter the time period, the easier and more accurate the prediction is likely to be – and the more probable the event is. Also, some events that are guaranteed to happen but that we can do nothing about, such as the growing and dying of the sun are events that we can do nothing to prevent, and are so far in the future, that it makes no sense to let them bother us too much.

So the three factors determining a prediction are information, probability and time.

There is a kind of mental sliding scale, and at some point we consider that an event is unlikely enough to happen that you would not be predicting the event, as even if the event did happen, you would have been guessing. You just wouldn’t have enough of the requirements of knowledge and facts for your foretelling of the future to be a prediction. That is according to my own usage of predict, where reasoning, fact, statistics and calculation should form the basis of the prediction. As I mentioned on the previous page, my use of the word requires that it cannot be used for an unlikely event that I just happened, by luck or other unscientific means, to foresee.

This usage is not in line with normal English usage of predict, as all the word really implies is that you have foretold an event – that you have said an event will happen that did actually occur. How you have come to foretell the event is irrelevant. You could have had a vision or a premonition, seen a shooting star, or noticed any other unusual sign, and foretold the event.  I reject the use of the word in this context, especially as there are plenty of alternative words that can be used exactly in this context, such as envision, augur, omen, prophesy, and even vaticinate. Why are there several words that describe foretelling the future through spiritual, magical or other supernatural means, and none for predicting by using reason, statistics, and science? Is there a hint of power when we think of predicting, one that is perhaps more prone through a supernatural route?

Of course depending of where we are in time in relation to an event – whether before or after the event, our word (whichever one we use), can be used either to defend and support our power of prescience (if we are after the event, and it did occur), or if as in any case where it has not yet occurred, and when no specific point in time was attached to the event, as a threat or omen that could still occur at any point in the future.

Anyway, enough digressing on definitions, and I am resorting to using predict according to my definition, for want of a better word. Does anyone know a better word to use?

The purpose of this theme is to avoid a future possible event. The longer the time period, the more time you have to take preventative measures, and the more useful the prediction may be.

For example if we are able to detect a huge earthquake in an ocean using seismic detectors, we could use this scientific data to warn people of impending danger. If we detect a massive one, the further the epicentre is from the people we wish to help, the more time will elapse between the initial event (earthquake) and its probable result (a tsunami). Those people living further away would have more time to escape to higher ground than those living nearby.

Increase the time distance so that we are trying the predict the probability of a tsunami happening before the initial earthquake, and the amount of scientific information we now have, the accuracy of the prediction, and likelihood of the prediction becoming fact are all vastly reduced.

So our ability to predict anything is determined by knowledge (and facts) and time. Time and context has a role in a prediction’s usefulness to us.

Since our aim is to avoid certain events or to be prepared for them, can we predict something that is really useful to us? Or am I wasting our time?

Since I have defined its use on a sliding scale, and the whole point of predicting is to avoid or change our behaviour so that we avoid a future possible event, there must be a point where predicting something is useful.

In my opinion the only way I could use the word predict, but discard it as being useful to avoid events, would be if I believed in determinism. That is another whole topic which I may discuss later.

Leaving aside determinism, I think there must be a useful realm for prediction – a point where we can calculate, estimate or deduce that an event is likely to happen, and change our actions and the course of history as a result.

If so, what useful predictions can we make?

Information or fact, probability and time.

It seems to me that the hardest things to predict are events that involve the interplay of human emotions or random events, of which we have limited data or information to support a prediction, such as volcanic eruptions.

However more predictable scenarios seem to involve mathematics and numbers (e.g. area, water sources, populations and demographics).

An example is that we can predict with reasonable accuracy today what the human population of the World will be in say 2050. The United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs population revision in 2012 predicts that while most of the developed World in 2012 will remain with similar populations, “the 49 least developed countries are projected to double in size from around 900 million people in 2013 to 1.8 billion in 2050″. It also predicts that “Europe’s population is projected to decline by 14 per cent” in that period.

A large meteorite colliding with Earth, or a massive volcanic eruption would change this, but the likelihood of any of these happening in the next 50 years is limited.  Of course a pandemic, or war is more likely to happen, and either of these would effect the population prediction. Estimates of migrations should also be taken into account.

The last time such a devastating pandemic happened was the Black Death in the 14th Century, 700 years after the previous great plague pandemic in the reign of Roman Emperor Justinian. If that were a pattern, we would be due another today.  Our scientific knowledge of bacteria and tools combating a bacterium could be expected to delay a repeat of this, unless the threat is an airborne virus, such as the Spanish flu of 1918, which killed 50-100 million people, a far more threatening force. More importantly there is no reason why pandemics should happen at regular intervals, nor any evidence that is so. It is more probable that the driving force of pandemics is simply population density and pressure, compounding sanitation and stress levels, climate change (a warming climate increases the risk), and improved communication into isolated areas, all of which would make the likelihood of one occurring soon unfortunately high.

World war is perhaps more likely than a pandemic, since we have in the last 100 years already had 2 world wars, and it would seem that the only thing that may prevent a third would be the fear of another. This was first written before the breakdown of Syria and the rise of IS.

From the UN demographic information we can also deduce that the ageing population in Europe may have to retire later, because the states they live in will need money from their taxes to pay for the growing health bill. Other possibilities are that European countries may cease to provide the health services that people there have come to expect, or that they reduce the cost of the health bill, while somehow providing a similar, or at least an acceptable service. So far a way to do this has not been forthcoming in either private (which is a high investment business, requiring huge capital, and so has little incentive to do this), or public health services (which is often constrained by its evolution into a huge employment agency, and by bureaucratic constraints). However who in 1970 would have thought that airline travel within Europe would become so much cheaper? Aircraft have changed a tiny bit in that period. The price of fuel has increased hugely. The biggest change effecting that industry then has been the relaxing of government regulation protecting national cartels.

Returning to the human population prediction for 2050, we can deduce what sub-Saharan Africa for example, may look like then.

Its human population will be more urbanised. The numbers of wildlife, and “wild” areas (areas that today have low enough human populations to sustain large numbers and diversity in wildlife species) will be less. Today we are concerned by the numbers of elephants and rhinos being poached, and we should be. While this is a big threat to the survival of these species, the biggest threat (human population growth) is currently happening, but the effects are seen more slowly. A side effect of this depreciation in wildlife will be that many African countries (for example South Sudan, Uganda, Chad, Mozambique or even Kenya) will not have much wildlife within their borders. This will mean they will not have an option to market the existence of wildlife and “wild” areas as a backbone of their tourist industry. They will be forced to look at alternatives. They may hit a shale seam and find gas or oil, which could turn their economy around for some years, but they definitely will not have a large sustainable wildlife tourism industry.

Of course, one unlikely, possible event, can easily switch any predictions to an impossibility, such as the occurrence of a major war or the outbreak of an epidemic disease. To read more about disease, or maybe nothing about disease, read the next page.

Where are we headed, and where should we be going?

This theme firstly deals with predictions of our future – Where are we headed?

Perhaps to avoid really becoming stuck, I should first define my use of predict.

The Dictionary.com entry states the following:
Predict – verb (used with object)
1. to declare or tell in advance; prophesy; foretell: to predict the weather; to predict the fall of a civilization.
verb (used without object)
2. to foretell the future; make a prediction.

It continues by explaining – Predict, prophesy, foresee, forecast mean to know or tell (usually correctly) beforehand what will happen. To predict is usually to foretell with precision of calculation, knowledge, or shrewd inference from facts or experience: The astronomers can predict an eclipse; it may, however, be used without the implication of underlying knowledge or expertise: I predict she’ll be a success at the party. Prophesy usually means to predict future events by the aid of divine or supernatural inspiration: Merlin prophesied the two knights would meet in conflict; this verb, too, may be used in a more general, less specific sense.

Although the definition indicates that predict could be synonymous with prophesy, I am using the word predict to imply firstly that the prediction will be correct, and secondly that the prediction is based on knowledge, experience or facts, and not emotion or intuition.

Although the definition states that the prediction is usually correct, probability seems to me to play a part in its use, and so I use it when describing a future event that was likely at the time it was described, even though events later made the event unlikely or impossible.

To prophesy implies that knowledge or facts have not played a part in the statement, but some other force such as divine intervention is the source, and there is an element that probability has no role, because the event is inevitable.

Before I proceed, can we anticipate or predict anything?

More on this follows on the next page.

The second part of this theme explores  – Where should we be going?
Namely if a forecast or prediction appears not to be what we (or I) would wish, I then look at what would be a better (or an ideal) alternative, but one that I think could be possible.