Fighting people is harder than overcoming nature: why large organisations fail

I saw the Russian movie Salyut 7 movie in which a team of 2 Russians cosmonauts try to fix orbital station with same name.
Problems in cosmos are man made, we went where we are not suppose to be, with our faulty technology.
In the movie fighting communist bureaucrats was harder than to sent 2 people in space.
Alexis de Toquevile said in 1812 work "About democracy in America" that USA will overcome Russia because in USA you fight mostly with nature, while in Russia you fight against people.
Overcoming nature is easy, nature is honest, measurable, it doesn't have a position to protect, it doesn't blame on you, it is punishing you fairly if you make stupid mistakes.If an organisation is hierarchical complex, more time and effort you dedicate to politics, and more you trade off safety and technical craftsmanship for political gains to forward the project.
Kennedy had to make some facilittes in Houston TX to "bribe" Texas senators to support his space program.
Another example where political compromise had affected safety is Challenger who was launched regardless of engineering warnings because of political pressure.
Another one is Boeing 737 Max, in which management didn't ensured the safety of the plane for desire to make profits.
We can discuss the morality of  these decisions where people caved in to the pressure, despite the fact that they didn't risk deportation in Siberia.
It seems that regardless of the political system (dictatorship in URSS,democracy in USA) the organisations too big to fail make serious blunders.
The reasons is two fold:
First: they are powerful organisations and their management wasn't challenged enough. Prussian army during Bismarck was a new army and had to fight stronger opponents. The German army during WW1 was respected army and failed.
Bankers till 2008 were not challenged seriously by a crisis.
Second: concentration of power. Economies of scale and military power concentrate power in hands of few people that are unchallenged. So a bad decision is transmitted to lower level and the company crashes with terrible force.
Solution? Make things smaller an multiples as in this article.
The democracies are more robust than absolute monarchies because the leadership is shared, and limited.
The death of the king plunged the country in a civil war, the death's of Lincoln,McKinley and Kennedy didn't affect very much the american democracy.

Natural cybersecurity

The scandal of cybersecurity with Huawei made me think more about it.
The power of IT business is that if you find a solution you scale it fast.
But the weakness is that you have an error you scale it fast.
Life is scaling fast without cyber security problems, because the existence of death.
Think at a organic virus as a cyber attack. Virus enters in a host use its resources to replicate then moves to the next host,but the most greedy viruses kill their host and don't replicate.
So the epidemic dies off. The death of the host select also more "benign" viruses.
It seems that today plague,leprosy or syphilis they are less dangerous as their medieval ancestors.
What if we could implement the cell death in our chips?
Let's say that we can implement a monitor (internal or external)  that shut down devices if they are behaving strangely and reroutes the flow of information toward other devices.
The acts will have local limited impact.
But the danger is an autoimmune reaction in which protection measures could block the network.
Maybe an random reaction will limit  the capacity of an attacker to use the protection against the network.
For sure you will need hardware redundancy and this will increase costs.
But you can have also a software redundancy by using 3 different kernels using different data sources and making an arbitrage between result of the kernels.
If all the actors will adhere to security standard protocol, the 5G development will be more secure.

About identity

I just a watched a Joe Rogan podcast with Eddie Izzard, a comedian that I like for his smart jokes.
For my surprise I found out that he oscillates between being a man and a woman.
I heard about people who felt that they were a woman in male body or vice versa, but never about a person that changes its gender monthly.
That made think about identity.
I think that till 18-25 years our identity is determined by our environment.
Your gender, to what climate you were born, in which continent, in which culture, in which family you live mark your development forever.
So if you want to know who you are you should look around you and understand.
Only after you take decisions and you modify your environment, which in turn affects you, you start to have an identity that is somewhat independent of your environment.
This might explain why people rationalise their motives. Their actions make part of their identity, and since people in general love themselves and consider that they are good, this means that their actions are good or at least had good intentions.
So no wonder criminals blame the victims for their acts.
The oldest example for this is the ransacking of Troy and killing of population who was explained by Homer by the kidnapping of Helen by Paris.
Also by removing the rights to act  of a person you can prevent it from developing an independent identity and the person can be the prisoner of the group.
This can be seen in how the women were treated in world wide till second world war and how the women are still treated in some Muslim countries.Also it is evident in communist countries were private initiative was stifled and decisions were took by some bureaucrats.
Maybe the lack of options to develop an independent identity explains the Stockholm syndrome, where hostages identify with their captors, or the Nazi doctors who could  kill children because during work hours they identify themselfs as SS.
But lets return to the case of Eddie Izzard. He tells that he was harassed because he was dressed as a woman.
This makes me wonder which is the threshold were you should accept  the opinion of others and change your identity.
If you believe that you are good singer despite evidence, then you will continue to ruin your life by pursuing a career that is dead end and you will alienate you friends who don't want to hear your screams.
On the other side if you are a good singer, and everyone is bullying you, you might ruin your life because you limited yourself.
I don't have a god answer, but the best way is to try and see if it is working.
By trying I know for sure that I am not a good musician. :)

Book review:"12 rules for life" by Jordan Peterson

I just finished "12 rules for life" by Jordan Peterson and I am delighted that someone encourages people to adopt general moral values, instead just adapt an play along with the rules, as many recent US books for self-help advocate.
It seems that US americans, the most individualistic,rebellious and libertarian nation just discover the Romanian proverb "Bowed head is not cut by the sword" and the Iranian one "Kiss the hand that you cannot bite". This is a sign of stagnation and a road towards the loss of liberties, because the changes in society were made by people who had strong values like Martin Luther King or the Founding Fathers.
This vaccine shot of "secular" religion provided by the Canadian Dr. Peterson, might boost the social immune system against lie and injustice.
I will explain this below.
The main controversy is about first chapter "Stand up straight and with your shoulders back" in which he demonstrates the existence of hierarchies in nature, well before humans used social hierarchies.
Unfortunately he uses a political language from the left such as "1%", and it seems to me that the "1%" will justify their hold to privileges using Dr. Peterson philosophy as nazi's were inspired from Nietzsche or communist used Karl Marx.

I agree that in nature exist an innate hierarchy system that is determined by a clear criterion. For example the biggest and strongest walrus is rewarded with  the biggest harem.
But in human hierarchies,other hidden criteria operate.
For example in medical hierarchy the best doctors are on the top? Or at least the must compassionate are on the top?
If we study medical hierarchy in 1847 Europe we can discover top doctors of the time refused to wash their hands,when Ignaz Semmelweis proved that many pregnant women died at birth due to diseases transmitted by doctors.
The arguments of  top doctors? Gentlemen don't transmit diseases. Proofs are unscientific according with the current theory.
We can excuse the medics from 19 for their ignorance of the germ theory but we cannot forgive them for the indifference towards pregnant women and babies. The washing of hands with chlorine or alcohol was a small effort that could save hundreds of lives.

So if the hierarchy is the best way to solve thing and distribute resources, why it didn't work?
Why the top of medical hierarchy in was not filled with the smartest and most compassionate doctors?
 Hierarchies work in nature because they are always challenged.
The walrus has to defend every day its harem, once he is not able to it falls down the latter.

In human hierarchies sometimes the position  is inherited or it is given from top down.
For example: the son of the king is inheriting the hierarchy of his father. His father conquered enemies and made alliances, and the member of these alliances want to maintain the status quo and accept the king son despite his flaws.(The cardinal of Richelieu said that a new king must not change anything if he wants to stay in power)
The criterion for staying in top of hierarchy changed from father, who rise up because he was the best warrior, to the son who must be a  keeper of status quo.
The human social hierarchy depends of alliances.
The one who challenges the hierarchy challenges an alliance of individuals not an individual.
A guy trying to overthrow the king will affect the livelihood of dukes and counts.
Ignaz Semmelweis with his discovery challenged the competence of his fellow doctors. Seeming less competent they could  lose social status and maybe have less patients.
Unchallenged hierarchies are fatal for themselves and for community.

The best example of unchallenged hierarchy who destroyed it self is the french aristocracy.
A nobleman mission in Middle Age was to defend the realm, and only the smartest and strongest military men resisted.
But the state grew and kings army took over the military matters.
Now the noblemen had to dedicate only to administration of the domains and to the pleasures.
Soon they delegated the administration of their estates and focused on pleasures.
The title inherited from the father assured a good life without dirtying hands with lower occupations such as commerce and they were not bothered with taxes.
The number of these parasites grew as Louis 15 started to sell titles for money.
Of course we know that what happen a famine triggered French Revolution and most of the noblemen lost their head to the guillotine or fled.

How to handle a hierarchy?
Against a hierarchy you can either submit and perpetuate the actual state, fight against and be crushed or act on horizontally and convince the other member of society that the hierarchy is putrid and unfair and must be changed.
Radio Free Europe did this in Eastern Europe and because of that the communist regimes fell swiftly.
The social media did the same thing in Arab spring.
In both cases hierarchies didn't work anymore: they didn't provided security and they were followed by inertia.Once the social inertia consumed itself they fell.

Universal moral values limit the power that a hierarchy has upon us by creating a unity that transcends group divisions, and making people strive for a common good.
For example in World War II they were people who ignored hierarchical orders and did good things. Viorica Agarici stood in front of a death train and force it to be open, and people within to receive water, catholics smuggled jewish children from Warsaw ghetto, German military commanders refused to blow up Paris, doctors in soviets camps helped the prisoners to survive.Even a Himmler henchmen declared that it was very hard for him to shot a SS member who refused to shot some civilians.
Nicolae Steinhardt during his imprisonment in a Romanian communist  prison, said that a guard has told him, that if they would do everything what was ordered to, within a week they would be dead.

Of course punishments can make you choose between defending values or die: in 1953 a riot broke out in East Berlin, and the soviet soldiers who maintained order there were shot because they didn't shoot the demonstrators.

As any big religion or nation can testify universal moral values strengthen make the society cooperate towards against abusive hierarchies.

The enemy of universal moral values is tribalism where small group of people tied by blood relations, by narrow ethnics or by small interest cooperate to wipe out others.
Unfortunately the politicians are good at making tribes.

From Homer to Emily Bronte: how the christinity,printing press and literacy, emancipated women

I was listening the Jordan Peterson interview with Joe Rogan, and few ideas sprung on my mind:
The first epic poems of western culture Iliad and Odyssey have as men the central characters, one is merciless killer (Achilles) one is shrewd one (Ulysses).
Those were violent times were war and raids were day to day reality, but in same time life in a village was boring and dull.
Men had to go to war and be brave as Achilles and smart as Ulysses, in order that you and your family to survive.
Hector was a good husband, Priam was a compassionate leader who accepted Helen, but these more soft and somehow feminine qualities didn't stop cruel Achilles and shrewd Ulysses to conquer Troy and kill them together with  their children.
And as the victors write the history the story of male, shrewd aggressors stole the headlines.
Christianity damped somehow the male aggressive values, and the medieval tales hero could not simply storm villages, killed men and enslave women and children. He had to fight for a right cause: the christian fate and save damsels in distress.
In Christianity the Mary mother of Jesus it has an equal or even higher status than  Him. Not explicit but the sufferance of a mother to see her son tortured and killed, was added to the story.
In 17 century England due to the rise in commerce, the need for literate workforce increased. Somebody had to be a bookkeeper,to write to far away colonies to trade with them  and to speak foreign languages. The easiest and cheapest way to have your sons know such things was to have a literate mother to learn them.
In 18 century 30% of women knew to read compared with 40% of men
A market for book for women was opening and a demand for women writers.
Now the women could voice their opinions, tell their stories, women writers be economically independent and alter society.
The women were not discriminated because they were women but because they were weak.
 For example despite been a woman Helen was not discriminated because she was powerful: convinces Paris to steal her, convinces Priam to accept her and not send her back, convinces Manelaus to take her back.
 Why ? Maybe because she was the queen, she inherited the land.
During Homer time it was a transition from matriarchy to patriarchy. In same period of time because of  matrilinear transfer of propriety and power, the pharaoh had to marry his sisters.
If the male pharaoh was a god and the Egypt was a patriarchy then they should marry who they like, and we would see more foreign women involved in court's life.
Till the industrialisation the labour was physical and woman who gave birth to eight children could not produce enough to be economically independent, so it was in weaker position.
With the need for intellectual workforce, women could compete equally with men, sometimes with better results due to their innate patience.
For example:
First Bell's telephone operators were boys who got bored and made pranks. Then Bell's hired women a cheap educated workforce, who had patience  and agreeableness.

Relationships between women and men in  19 century West were interesting, the technology offered more opportunity for women, but the laws were tilted in favour of men: only they could  make politics.
When women asked politely to have the same rights, men refused because within male society  nothing is given, everything is taken.
Any fraternity,military or other male team rises obstacles in front of newcomers. The reason is 2 fold: first you see if the guy is fit to the job. You don't want a weak comrade in arms to pull you back/
Second, you increase adherence to the group. If you work hard to get in a team like military platoon, you don't run away when they are sent in the mission.
When women first wanted to enter politics and economics, the reaction of male society was similar as facing a new recruit: you are a weak, unproven cadet, show that you are worthy of us, we will do anything possible to determine you to leave.
And as a new recruit in the army ambitious women has to withstand a lot of ridicule and malice and sometimes violence. Like the Boston Marathon in 1967, when Jock Semple tries to pull out Kathrine Switzer, or Malala Yousafzai who was shut in the head. Or the girls who were spayed with acid in Afganistan.

Along the history following things empowered women:

1.Peace
The bands of raiders from Homer time and today's talibans are bad news for women and intellectual endeavours.
Peace means strengthen the military and create a code for young men to defend with their life the vulnerable. Men must be educated to be generous selfless protectors. To vilify them as member of patriarchy is counterproductive.
Who fought for American independence, France revolutionary war? And all kind of  independence war and revolutions? Men. So they are not the all members of "patriarchy" they are also rebels and revolutionaries.
Men are bred for war let's use this aggressive for good, and justice.
George Orwell said that "we sleep easy because there are men who are ready to make awful things for us".
Men must be more like Hector than Achilles.

2.Technologies who helped women
Below is chronological list of technologies who helped women.
All they were found and produced in Western Europe and United States
Now they are not spread equally.
- professional medical assistance at birth (19 century)
-medical and hygiene education (19 century)
-literacy,books (18 century Western Europe)
- running water (19 century Britain)
 -phone (end of 19 century US)
- home appliances such as washing machines (mid 18 century), vacuum cleaners (mid 20 century), fridges (mid 20 century)
- contraception method (modern condoms appeared in 19 century,birth control pill in 1960)
-access to internet (1990)
-mobile phones

3. Changes in law
- equal treatment in law
-equal treatment in courts
-right to vote
-payed maternity leave

Conclusion:
The western society benefited from education of women (Edison and Tesla were home schooled by their mothers), benefited from equal rights for women (more women became financial independent and they could support their families).
What the feminist in the west should do is to help implementing the above things above in backward countries from Middle East and Africa.
Instead of harassing harmless University professors in the West they should harass royalty and president from Middle East where women are openly discriminated.

Comment regarding book 'Antifragile' by Nicholas Taleb

Nicholas Taleb says that life is antifragile (thrives against adversities) because it regenerates itself and it is composed by mortal individuals.
But he reason behind all this is the information.
Environment can destroy life but t is hard to destroy information.
We can exterminate 99% of a virus but it can remain 1% that can bounce back.
A virus is mainly information.
The same things we see in human societies. Egyptian empire disappeared because the information was controlled by the priests.
Greece and Athens spread their culture till hour days because they distributed freely the information.
China is good example, the writing and the chronicles have maintained this big civilisation.
European colonial empires they disappeared but their metropolis didn't disappeared as Phoenicians.

Luxury items was a tax for the 18 century french aristocracy?

I read the book "The black count" from tom Reiss and within it it is described the value of the sugar in 18 century. Rich people,mainly aristocrats they went crazy about this food  that seemed to have medicinal proprieties.
The Haiti (San Domingue) was so important for the France, they preferred to loose large swaths of land in North America than to give up this island.
But how the colonial economy worked?
The central government sent troops to conquest territories in America/Indies. Then these territories were cultivated with sugar cane,coffee,tea and these goods were sold mainly to rich aristocrats from metropolis.
So the wealth of aristocrats transferred via colonies into the pockets of central government state and planter's.
Why then transfer was not done directly from aristocrats to the states?
The aristocrats had a lot of privileges and of the most important was the fact that they didn't pay taxes.
The king needed money for army, for fending off enemies abroad and rebels within, but he could not simply tax the most wealthy subjects because of fear of rebellions.(Charles I of England loosed his head because of this) France and Great Britain had enough rebellions against the central monarchy to remember the king to be cautious.
So the way to tax the aristocrats was to sell them luxury goods. This is clear in France were state's manufactures were created just for this: silk manufactures,porcelain manufactures,chocolatiers etc.
The advantage of this subtle taxation system was that the tax could be extended to other countries by exporting the fashion and the goods.Till end of 19 century the Parisians tailors were famous worldwide, and first blue jeans were made by De Nimes textile
Ironically the work of the slaves taxed french aristocrats
So it is not surprising that even French revolutionary government didn't had the interest to abolish slavery.And another irony is that the cause of abolitionism had more support within the rank of hereditary aristocrats, a class based on birth inequality.
Once the state got a grip on the aristocracy and this class weakened economically, the slaves were not needed anymore and slavery was abolished.