Paul Zak: Trust, morality -- and oxytocin | Video on TED.com

This TED Participant Speaks about a chemical (oxytocin) in our brain that incites trust in us when the chemical gets released. He suggests that trust and moral consciousness can be positively enacted when an activity as commonplace as a hug increases the levels of oxytocin in our brains. It is an interesting view on how trust may be encouraged but the being of trust and trustworthiness is left unexplored. Also, the speaker does not deal with, what I feel is an important element in trust or moral judgments: the understanding that the trustee and the truster share similar worldviews--same systems of valuation that would make one trust or be trusted. This may not be the case and how do we deal with such a situation. Interesting take nevertheless. People, hug, hug.

Paul Zak: Trust, morality -- and oxytocin | Video on TED.com

Political Two Cents: On Toxicity Regulation and its Role in Society/Government…On the Concept of Regulation Itself

On Toxicity Regulation and its Role in Society/Government…On the Concept of Regulation Itself

The growing argument, usually presented by the Republicans, about the EPA abolishing American jobs, needs an alternate examination.

We hear the claim that EPA's regulatory stranglehold on businesses diminishes jobs.  We also hear the counter-claim that the EPA is keeping us healthy from pollutants and saving us money in the long run because the health of the nation is not as toxic.  I offer a few more viewpoints not often mentioned.

What part of a business is harmed by regulation?

We know that many businesses work globally.  Some elements of multi-national businesses usually come from abroad: a raw material is made elsewhere, the labor is done elsewhere, the customer service is done abroad, etc.  When the EPA regulates a businesses' toxicity, it is not necessarily regulating things manufactured or serviced in the US (Lead paint on toys for example).  Therefore, the jobs that we might be killing are not necessarily here in the US.  

There are some cases where the EPA does enforce regulations on things manufactured in the US.  But one must analyze whether the things being regulated are automated, mechanized systems that do not have people working in it.  The EPA usually regulates pollutants from machines.  Most machines are automated.  Therefore, there is a large probability that the EPA regulates machines and not the people who might be working in the business.  One can argue that there are people controlling those machines and they might lose their job through regulations.  That claim is still possible.  If the company cannot find an efficient and cost effective way to control those systems that the EPA regulates, then the company may relocate elsewhere or close, laying-off workers.

Can the process of regulation be outsourced?

The EPA is a national regulatory agency.  Its purpose is to regulate toxicity in the US.  Therefore, the workers and machinery used to regulate and control toxicity are being used and operated in the US.  It is highly unlikely that Indian workers, for example, are regulating toxicity in Oklahoma City.  The jobs that the EPA manufactures seem to be definitely local, US jobs.  The EPA argues that it is a job creator, and to this extent, it is.  Anything that requires regulation or controls can only be done locally.  The engineers or managers that companies hire to keep the regulations and controls in line can only be placed and hired in the US.

The question, then, is not a question of who kills what jobs.  The question is whether the regulations and controls can be implemented efficiently and cost effectively and whether or not the government and the companies can work together to make it so.  It should not be an "us vs. them" battle, but rather a co-operation.

We understand that regulation enforcement is a benefit to society.  We understand that regulation may be an expensive element that some businesses may not handle.  We also understand that regulations and controls are fully localized, enabling jobs both in the companies that are being regulated and in the government that is doing the regulating.  The question is whether or not we can unify—government and businesses—to address the problem of toxicity, efficiency, and cost effectiveness.

My suggestion is simple: 1) Let the EPA enforce and regulate toxicity, creating jobs and keeping us safer; and if the companies being regulated demonstrate that they cannot handle the extra costs and complications in order to stay afloat, 2) provide government assistance to those companies which will create and retain existing jobs and keep us safer.  This can be done by a variety of ways including: research and development, sharing technological advances and systems to help the controls of toxicity, etc.

We should make the EPA part of the infrastructure planning and development. 

Some say that the responsibility of government is to provide the atmosphere where businesses can thrive.  We build roads, pipes, electrical grids, etc., to allow commerce to flourish.  Without piping, for example, most of the waste would be tossed haphazardly in the ground, causing a wide range of toxicity.  Without roads, we would be harming our soil and land.  Without electrical grids, business would find other ways to produce energy, most likely, through toxic means.  Many of our infrastructure works are done so that our commerce and industry work better and healthier.  When EPA enforces regulations, it should be doing so as a directive for infrastructure development and not as a punishment for businesses.

As infrastructure, the people can provide support to companies who need to keep toxicity under control.  This benefits our land, it creates jobs, stimulates the economy and keeps businesses in the US, it keeps toxicity under control and ultimately continues to let entrepreneurs and businesses strive at what they know how to do: produce novel products effectively and efficiently here in the US.

----------------------------------------------------------

The Wrench and the Rabbit Hole

Aside from my 2 cents of making the EPA part of infrastructure, I would be interested in examining how the tools that the EPA uses are manufactured and where they are manufactured. 

For example, the EPA regulates air pollution.  Where are the devices they use to regulate air pollution manufactured?  Are those industries in the US and thereby EPA regulated?  It is an interesting wrench and rabbit hole to explore. 

It would be rather hypocritical to discover that the tools we use to regulate toxicity are themselves produced toxically.  It would also be absurd to discover that the tools we use to regulate toxicity are produced abroad—creating jobs elsewhere.

One can argue that we should regulate the regulation tools and methods to make sure that they are not toxic and that they are made in the USA.  If that is the case, we need to make sure that the tools and methods of the regulators that regulate the regulators need to be toxic and made in the USA.  The rabbit hole looks deep and infinite at this point, “wrenching” the whole project.

The greater question, philosophically speaking is: What does it mean to regulate?  Can anything really be regulated?  What are the limitations of regulation—supervision?  At what point does trustworthiness simply become blind and foundational.  Is regulation a delusional act?

While we investigate and attempt to solve the role of regulations in our nation, we also need to examine how it is that we place trust on other entities to supervise or oversee.  Why is it that I can trust the EPA to protect me from harm, and not the businesses?  What credentials does the EPA have that makes them worthy of my trust.  How do I trust that the EPA’s effort is sufficient or adequate?  Do I know the supervisor—the observer who is examining the contaminates?  Does he or she have the same values of health that I have?  At what point do I just leave it up to blind faith and hope that a random entity is sufficiently prepared to keep me safe?  How does that ability in us work?

Your thoughts?

A Blatant Contradiciton: The Web and Chain of Trust and Responsibility: A Rubert Murdoch Contradiction

The Web and Chain of Trust and Responsibility: A Rubert Murdoch Contradiction

In his parliamentary committee hearing, Rubert Murdoch claimed that he is not responsible for the hacking, etc. that has been conducted under one of his many branches of his corporation.  He states that those who he trusted (and those who they trusted) failed on their duties and therefore are responsible.  The parliamentary committee failed to notice or failed to note that this seems like a selected cessation of a chain of responsibility. 

I present a basic inherent chain of responsibility of any corporation or business here in the US and I believe in the UK as well: The owner is responsible for those he hires not because he trusted those he hires, but because we—the people who gave the government the authority to make the business establishment legitimate—trusted the owner.  Therefore, the chain of responsibility does not flow downwards from the top and stops right under the owner or leader of the business, but it continues upwards, perhaps even passing the business owner himself, to those in government who did not appropriately oversee these negative acts and the people who allow the government such lax responsibility.  For Rupert Murdoch to deny any responsibility is inconsistent and inaccurate.  Also, for the government and the people to also refrain from responsibility is also flawed and contradictory.

Another way one can see the chain of responsibility more clearly is by following the money trail.  If one of his many employees brings forth a brilliant report, coverage, show, segment, presentation, sale, etc., the monetary benefit—the chain of responsibility—does not stop prior to Murdoch.  Murdoch benefits handsomely.  He benefits because those he trusted, provided an excellent product that brought him financial gain.  Furthermore, the society in general benefit from such gain because the government collects taxes from those gains which, in theory, gets divided into the many programs people benefit from.

It is disturbing to me that the parliamentary committee and government in general, fail to see the upward trajectory of trust and responsibility.  Rubert Murdoch does have a broad business empire he oversees.  Just as any segment of this empire brings him financial gains, any segment of this empire that brings him negative effects, must bring Murdoch a significant level of responsibility.  This seems obvious and apparent.  That the parliamentary committee did not address this evidence to Rubert is a blatant failure of the committee and therefore of the government and of the people of that nation. 

The chain of responsibility and trust always has its selective cessation, but it does not make it legitimate or consistent.  We should all take note of the vast expanse any action effects us and how we are also trusting and responsible for many actions.  I hope the actions the Murdoch et al. committed have their deserved repercussions.  I also hope that one day we become more aware, in an active fashion, that we all have a significant role and responsibility as well.  If Murdoch suffers from this scandal, we as a people and a government should ingest significant repercussions as well.

In the beginning of his July 19^th show, Keith Olbermann (Countdown with Keith Olbermann) presents how Rubert Murdoch always illustrates pride and responsibility in his family’s actions going back to his father’s war reporting in Gallipoli, but now is denying responsibility of the hacking incidents.  Mr. Olbermann does bring to “air,” albeit very briefly, that the chain of responsibility and trust not only falls on the hand of the individual in charge, but it also goes beyond one man and beyond one frame in time.

We trust.  It is perhaps the most fundamental and primal element of our being.  We trust that what we feel and sense is the case.  We trust that people around us sense and feel in similar fashions.  We trust that our leaders have our own set of principles and have our welfare in consideration.  As such, the burden of responsibility lies not on the other people who we have placed trust on, but to each and one of us.  We have allowed our being to trust.  Although the Murdochs et al. are responsible for their laps of leadership, we also need to place the burden of responsibility much more potently on us.  We trusted.  We need to become more keenly aware of this insight.