With a Dictator's Death Comes a Delicate Balance

source

In a New York Times Op-Ed entitled "What to Do, and Not Do, About North Korea," Robert Gallucci explores the question that pretty much every American had on their mind after Kim Jong-il's death-what does this mean for the U.S. and what do we do about it?

Most of us would like to see North Korea's "horrendous totalitarian government," as the author calls it, fall - but we want it enough to do something about it? Would that be a good idea?

The answer is, of course, unknown. Whenever there is awful human suffering in a country, the U.S. seems to at least consider doing something about it. Sometimes the government does, and it ends up being a really bad idea, like in Mogadishu. Sometimes it doesn't or does too late and then regrets it later, like in Rwanda.

Galluci, despite admitting the "horrendous" nature of what is occurring in North Korea, things that this is definitely a case when U.S. should not get involved. He states that "we should not be in the business of teaching other governments lessons. We should adopt the best policies to protect our national security." And in this case, that entails "entering a serious discussion about the North’s nuclear weapons program, aimed at its dismantlement." But not to "openly advocate the overthrow of the government in Pyongyang."

I am definitely inclined to agree with him. For all that I firmly believe in human rights and that I, as an individual, have just as much obligation to help someone from Indonesia as the United States, the government interfering is generally not a good idea. From what I know of U.S. history, it seems to me that cases where involvement in other countries' domestic conflicts has led to regret or puppet governments outnumber those where intervention has led to good. The U.S. is not some sort of superhero country, it doesn't and shouldn't go around helping out everyone else - normally "helping" really means trying to get oil or something else, or leaving before the problem is solved because the public has lost interest. All countries are out there to protect their national security and their interests, the U.S. is no different. "Teaching other governments lessons" is not a good idea from our perspective or a human rights one.

So I say we let North Korea do what it's going to do - while urging change, of course, but not really pushing. What do you think?

Neuroaesthetics

I recently read an op ed article on The New York Times website called "Art and the Limits of Neuroscience." It discusses the new field of neuroaesthetics, which studies art using neuroscience. The author, a professor of philosophy, is skeptical of the new field.


I agree with him insofar as neuroaesthetics has definitely come too soon. There is a fundamental lack of understanding about how the brain works, what thoughts are, how memories are stored, even the specifics of the biochemistry of it all. As the author points out "neuroscience has yet to frame anything like an adequate biological or “naturalistic” account of human experience — of thought, perception, or consciousness." I agree with him in that there is simply no way to tackle a problem as complex as our interpretation and experience of art without being able to understand the basics of thought and perception. So certainly the field is pretty much going to be a "fad science" kind of thing, with most books being published for the average reader and mostly just interesting anecdotes, not research that advances scientific knowledge all that much.

I disagree with him in claiming, as support for his skepticism of neuroaesthetics, that "there can be no all-purpose account of what happens when people communicate or when they laugh together." I, for one, see no justification anywhere in his article for this claim, and would say that these are probably some of the most attainable goals of neuroscience. Outside stimuli are much easier to explore and understand than the more introspective aspects of our consciousness. I think that it is quite possible for us to get an "all-purpose account" of communication. Great leaps have been made in understanding language and such, why on earth would this be impossible?

What do you think? Is an "all-purpose account" of human communication and laughter within the reaches of neuroscience?