For each drone kill, the “home of the brave” might become more vulnerable.

I refer to Karen J. Greenberg’s review of Grégoire Chamayou’s “A theory of the drone”, Washington Post’s Outlook of March 22.

In it Greenberg writes: “Drones are the opposite of warfare… a warrior culture in which readiness to kill has been inseparable from the willingness to die. With drones the ethics of warrior cultures have been superseded, and the warriors have turned into invulnerable, cold-hearted executioners.”

As to “invulnerable”, I am not sure. For each drone kill, as opposed to a combat kill, the executioner distances himself more and more from the real world, and so becomes perhaps more and more vulnerable to it. What we already so often hear about “not wishing boots on the ground” might be just an appetizer of things to come.

Currently many kids, by the web, walk the whole world, but rarely set their feet out in the real world. Others have no access to the web, but keep on learning how to fight it out on the streets. When push comes to shove, who are going to prevail… those handy with drones, or those handy with pliers able to cut the power lines off?

@PerKurowski

PS. My father would never have been liberated without corageous boots on the ground

A letter not published L

Yes! to the Call for a Global Constitutional Convention Focused on Future Generations

Stephen M Gardiner makes “A Call for a global Constitutional Convention Focused on Future Generations” to avoid the “tyranny of the contemporary”. In general terms Gardiner bases his argument on that “current decision-makers, and indeed the current generation more generally, face a serious temptation: they can take benefits now (for themselves), but defer many of the costs of their behavior far into the future (to others), even when this seems ethically indefensible”. And as a specific example he puts forward the challenges of climate change. 

I agree very much with his arguments and would propose the following two items are put on the agenda of that convention.

First to analyze the possibility of awarding all citizens, including children, the right to vote. The fact that for instance mothers or fathers could exercise the voting rights of their children under a certain age, like 15, would presumably put some pressure on parents to consider more their children’s future... for instance with respect to climate change.

Second, to exhaustible present as clear evidence of the tyranny of the contemporary the case of current bank regulations. With these, baby-boomers concerned exclusively with the immediate safety of the banks, imposed credit risk weighted capital requirements, which de facto stop banks from financing the “risky” future and have these only refinancing the “safer” past. We do not need climate change to evidence the costs of shortsightedness, when millions of young unemployed Europeans are currently threatened to become a lost generation. It would be a good opportunity to make a call for bank capital requirements based on job creation and sustainability ratings.

It would also be a good opportunity to make clear that, were we to put the climate change challenge into the hands of something as little accountable as the Basel Committee for Banking Regulations, then most likely planet earth would be toast.

PS. And if it was for me to decide, given that so much would have to do with ethics, I would try to squeeze in a session on the need for ethic ratings, since I am fed up with banks and regulatory authorities only using credit ratings, as if financing the construction of concentrations camps would be morally permissive, as long as its credit risk has been adequately priced.

The anti-corruption experts are but another sublime form of corruption.

I am opposed with passion to corruption, how could I not be, I come from Venezuela, and I fully support with all my heart the valiant work of all those anti-corruption warriors out there in the world. But, having said let me also unequivocally state that anyone who sells himself as an anti-corruption expert is in my opinion just engaged in another though perhaps more sublime version of corruption.

Corruption is about life and human weaknesses and should therefore always be fought by people and not by experts.

The World Bank deserves more than a banal political row

The Ethics Committee proposed a solution to Mr. Wolfowitz’ “conflict of interest” that could have the poverty fighting World Bank paying out US$1.950.000 over the ten years of what could be his presidency (US$ 130.000 plus 50% benefits per year), while receiving absolutely no services at all. No matter how delicately you phrase it as a secondment, this sure must be a crazy and an unethical proposal. How come they did not just help her (or Wolfowitz) find another job for which the Bank did not have to pay? Should that have been so difficult?

Mr. Wolfowitz, who as President should know that something is not right just because an Ethics Committee proposes it; then went on influencing so as to raise the potential cost of this proposal for the Bank to US$2.700.000. For this Wolfowitz should resign; and most seem quite clear about that.

It is hard though for me to understand why there has been so little discussion about the Ethics Committee’s initial proposal. Although I was an Executive Director at the World Bank, 2002-2004, I came there from the private sector, and so I might not possess sufficient intimate knowledge of all the nuances of diplomatic affairs… (which could perhaps just be lucky me).

I sincerely believe that the overwhelmingly good staff, management, board members and presidents, present or past of the World Bank, as well as a world that needs a respected multilateral institution where global challenges can be discussed, they all deserve that this affair is handled correctly, on the basis of what is right or wrong, and not just as a banal political row, of a for or against Wolfowitz.

The World Bank, though in a hole, needs to dig deeper.

As a former Executive Director of the World Bank it is with much sadness that I have followed the Wolfowitz affair. It is clear that he should not have played a role in deciding the terms on which his girlfriend was seconded to the US state department and that he should now leave the Bank.

Having said that, I also find it important to question the appropriateness of the primary idea, put forward it seems by the Ethics Committee, since it does not seem to be correct either that the World Bank should be seconding anyone anywhere, even on reasonable and non interfered terms, as a tool to solve this type of conflict of interests, so as to allow someone to have his cake and eat it too.

In contrast while an Executive Director, we had to spend millions of dollars of the Board’s time just in order to debate a “measly” forty thousand dollar a year increase for the then World Bank president James Wolfensohn, just so that he would be able to earn as much as his counterpart in the IMF.

Now, after so much procrastination, by all parties, the only real solution for the World Bank, with or without Wolfowitz, lies in appointing a committee of true outsiders to dig deep and review all the World Bank’s current work related policies. The World Bank, when compared to other similar institutions, is very clean but of course, after 64 years of accumulating problem solving compromises, it should be time for a good scrubbing.

The world needs the World Bank to come out of all this smelling like roses, and the staff also deserve it.

The ethics of solving the shortage of caretakers

An older population, many of whom will experience longer periods of chronic illness and dependency before dying will require a growing number of caretakers. If there are enough caretakers, the issue will be to find the resources to compensate them. However, if there are not enough trained caretakers, no financial resources would suffice, and you have to find practical solutions.

The practical solutions available for solving the shortage of caretakers in developed countries are the following four:

1. Increase their productivity, but unless you wish to run the risk of being dehumanized on a Charlie Chaplin Modern Times assembly line cared for by robots… there might be a limit to how much this can help.

2. Move the careneeders to another place (if there are caretakers available anywhere else), and this you should do as early as possible if at an older age you do not appreciate finding yourself in strange surroundings as much as you did when younger.

3. Import caretakers, and this you should do as early as possible if when older you do not appreciate finding yourself in the company of strangers as much as you did when younger.

4. Give incentives for having more children and grandchildren—which is not such a crazy idea when you start considering how much society is, one way or another, currently rewarding people for not having children. (Talk about externalities!)

The Presidents Council of Bioethics www.bioethics.gov (USA) published in September 2005 its report titled Taking Care. It makes all types of thoughtful recommendations about the issue of Ethical Caregiving in Our Aging Society. As much I appreciate its effort, I do not think that the report spells out sufficiently the need for much more forceful and immediate work on achieving practical solutions. If those solutions are not found, the frontiers of what is currently considered ethical caretaking will just have to move to take up for the slack. No matter how horrendous it sounds, euthanasia and other flexibilities needed to bridge intergenerational conflicts might then turn out to be thought of as the only ethical solutions to the problems. In this respect, the most clear and real unethical behavior today is that of not anticipating and providing timely solutions.

Extract from my Voice and Noise