Ever wonder why everything that the USA touches or attempts to do in a
particular region, seemingly tends to backfire in the worst sort of way?
Is it some kind of Crusader's curse?
Do not adjust your (sub)set... The Law of Unintended Consequences is
more than a version of Murphy's law, or even "la loi d`emmerdement
maximum" which is the more insightful Gallic version of Murphy's.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequence
Unintended consequences are often the result of laws or imposed
conditions which result in an outcome that is not at all anticipated by
the genius-politicians, Generals, "social planners," or elected
religious bigots who dreamed it up to accommodate some illogical belief
structure. Their dogma chasing my karma?
Wiki mentions as an example the Treaty of Versailles, which imposed
harsh conditions on Germany following WWI, leading some to opine that
World War II might not have occurred without the 'unintended
consequence' of that Treaty. But that view overlooks the overriding
importance of the Great Depression. Things are never so simple as
historians want them to be, and this L.U.C. is not to be confused with a
true law anyway - catch-22 takes care of that !
The state of Israel is another example of spoils-of-war gone berserk -
in today's context of finding the roots of terrorism. Makes me wish for
a hasty return to "isolationism." Elitism and Isolationism may not be PC
these days, but they would appear to be entirely logical responses - in
the eyes of a more advanced visitor from another planet.
The "law" part of L.U.C. is that all well-intentioned human schemes have
at least one unintended consequence. In other words, each cause has more
than the one obvious effect, including negative or even reversed
effects, which cannot be easily foreseen. The idea dates to the Scottish
Enlightenment - Scots being notoriously cynical anyway.
Unintended consequences can be classed into roughly three types:
1) A positive unexpected benefit (serendipity) which is rare in
politics; but curiously is often closer to the norm in the R&D
laboratory. Probably why researchers innately are aware of this situation
2) Usually the L.U.C. is merely an unending succession of mild
annoyances and nagging obstinate problems... kinda like M$ Windows <g>.
A substantial minority of humans, sometimes a majority, abhor any kind
of 'change' and fight it to the bitter end - even when they know they
are better served by the change in the long run. "Enforcement" becomes
necessary. This is the genesis of a "catch-22" circularity.
3) A negative perverse effect, which is the opposite result of what is
intended -- which is most often the case of the best-laid plans of mice
and mentchen in the political arena...
... since in 3) the slightly contrarian position of 2) above - becomes
the majority view - i.e. the Fall-wellian (im)moral majority gets into
power or is denied power; then - in the extreme situation these zealots
are willing to strap on explosives and blow up their own kin, rather
than to submit to any kind of outside "reform". Democracy may be a
desirable goal in the West, but most Iraqis would welcome a return of
Sadaam, or so it seems.
Dramatic LUC scenarios (especially in art and cinema) often focus on the
third situation of 'perverse results.' There is always cynical humor
there. This dramatic situation often arises because a special-interest
policy requires a disincentive (enforcement mechanism), and that is what
causes reactions contrary to what was desired... i.e. a 'bureaucracy'
arises to enforce the change. The Catch-22 is the general symptom of
bureaucratic operation at all levels, and the natural illogic of an
imposed "no-win situation". In the fabulous eponymous novel, "Catch-22"
the idiom refers to a military rule which constantly changes (i.e.
number of missions) serving to engender a mirrored insanity.
All of this is a preamble to say that the upcoming surprise attack on
Iran, likely to occur sometime before the next election, will assuredly
have unintended consequences - unintended by even the geniuses in the
Pentagon.... Has it not occurred to them that WE have now become the
real international terrorists?
The cynical observer of current events, might imagine that there was an
implied admission by the British - through their low-key response to the
recent hostage situation - that the enemy probably has a 'suitcase'
nuke. OTOH - Moslem extremists would prefer to use it on a more hated
target, perhaps Tel Aviv or lower Manhattan.
A non-suspecting private Yacht sailing into NYC is a possibility. A good
choice from the "send-a-massage" POV would be one owned by Richard
Branson (no doubt named 'Virgin Atlantic").
Anyway, please leave me to my own samsaric cynicism and delusional
nightmares. Maybe this episode will result in a screenplay - but the
Dramatic threat above - seems to have been pretty well anticipated for
years, going back to 007.
Speaking of screenplays, why does the 'human predicament' seem to be so
obviously "scripted" for the Law of Unintended Consequences, and/or the
Catch-22 ?
ID is not without its own lust for humor.
Jones
