Give me Skin

I've just listened to Nassim Taleb talking about his theories of not bailing out failures in the financial services, but rather encouraging those who experiment on a small scale (with less likelihood of large losses). Similarly, those who fail massively should not be encouraged to continue doing what has been proven to not work - that is, traditional dollar-following behaviour. Those who take large corporations to the brink should suffer from their own misdeeds, directly - that is, should themselves be made bankrupt before the company is. The rule of Hammurabi - the architect of a house that collapses should be punished.

The same should be said of politicians. Small failures are seen as loss of face, & those who might otherwise try something new are discouraged from doing so because the people (or media) will lose faith in them - politicians are expected to be "always right". But those who fail spectacularly by not experimenting - by taking the tried & true course of the past into an unknowable future - are simply retired or shunted aside to do it again somewhere else, with sizable pensions & their dignity intact.

Surely, this is wrong. At the least, it is illogical. The theory of evolution is all about survival of the fittest - organisms experimenting until the most apt becomes dominant. Many inapt variations will not become dominant. The previously dominant - which did not adapt - will die out along with all of the others. This is why it is such a neat theory - people understand that, to progress, we must try different things to find the best way forward.

No-one believes in a straight-line evolution where a species changes over time from one form to another, by hitting on the one & only advantage that will cause successful evolution. Note, too, that evolution is a process that we usually only see as an historical progression from the distant past to now, forgetting all of the deviations that didn't make it this far. It would be arrogant to believe that we - the mankind of today - are the ultimate end of God's plan. If that's the case, then what's the point?

If we don't change our approach to new problems, then we are not evolving. We are engineering our own extinction. Political parties that rely on their past to formulate their future are the dinosaurs of today. Some unexpected event will see their rapid demise, due to their own lack of change. If they do not have the ability to adapt, then they will not be able to face change.

Politicians who will not evolve are holding back progress. Here, progress means making the world a better place. Politicians who will not adapt should not be allowed to stand in the way of those who can. Politicians who stand in the way of progress & manage to fail, should be chastised to the point where such non-evolutionary conduct is discouraged. That's having a direct consequence of non-productive behaviour. Those with the courage to stand up for trying new things & succeeding - for evolving - should be rewarded with greater support & responsibility.

Change is inevitable. What that change is, is unknowable. Good government is about leadership in times of crisis, contingency planning in times of flux, & good management in times of short-term predictability. Without all three, no politician or political party can be a part of good government in the long term.