The Search

Originally published in the Informanté newspaper on Thursday, 21 April, 2016.

The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle famously said, “Man is by nature a social animal.” And since the earliest societies, we as a society have always been lonely, with us being the only intelligent beings we’ve encountered. Explorers scoured to the furthest reaches of human civilization to see who or what lies just beyond. And when we couldn’t explore, we imagined, and myths were born.

The Greeks had their gods live high up on a mountain, but all recognizably human with human motivation. The Roman and Norse gods, similarly, lived just out of reach of the human world, and even when we consider the Abrahamic god, we see recognizably human characteristics reflected in his visage. It appears that in our search, we unwittingly created our gods in our own image, in our search for others like ourselves. 

But as we slowly explored our own world, uncovering more and more, yet meeting no other comparable to ourselves, we started looking outwards. As astronomy opened up more of the galaxy to our inspection, we had new hope. But sight does not equal communication, and once again, we imagined. The literary genre on Science Fiction was born from this hope, with Jules Verne’s ‘From The Earth to the Moon’ an early example of mankind’s yearning to find others like ourselves.

By the early 20^th century, science had finally given us the means to speak over long distances, and almost immediately, we endeavoured to reach out to the universe around us. Nikola Tesla, Guglielmo Marconi, Lord Kelvin, and David Peck Todd believed that radio could be used to contact Martians, and the United States even had a "National Radio Silence Day" during a 36-hour period from August 21–23, with all radios quiet for five minutes on the hour, every hour, so that we could potentially pick up radio signals from Mars.

But science marches on. By the 1960’s, the Space Race was underway, and American and Russian Space probes had established as fact that in our solar system, Earth was the only planet that had produced intelligent life. We now had to cast our gaze even further, to the stars.

In 1961, Dr Frank Drake hosted a conference to start the first co-ordinated scientific search for extra-terrestrial intelligence. Attending were several prominent scientists, among them J. Peter Pearman, Frank Drake, Philip Morrison, businessman and radio amateur Dana Atchley, chemist Melvin Calvin, astronomer Su-Shu Huang, neuroscientist John C. Lilly, inventor Barney Oliver, astronomer Carl Sagan and radio-astronomer Otto Struve.

It was at this conference that Dr Drake unveiled the equation that would soon become the backbone of humanity’s search for an equal amongst the stars. Now known as the Drake equation, it is stated simply as follows: N = (R_*)x(f_p)x(n_e)x(f_l)x(f_i)x(f_c)x(L)

Some of these coefficients have over the years become much more clear as our understanding and exploration of the universe has progressed. NASA and the ESA has calculated the first of these, the rate of star creation in our galaxy, (R_*) as around 7 stars created per year. Recent analysis of Microlensing surveys has found that the fraction of those stars that have planets (f_p) may approach 1 – thus, that there are one or more bound planets per Milky Way star.

Based on Kepler space mission data, the estimate for the average number of planets per star having planets that might support life (n_e) as 0.4, with the nearest planet in the habitable zone as little as 12 light-years away. Unfortunately, after this term, the estimates start varying quite a lot, due to our incomplete understanding of the universe. 

The next coefficient, the fraction of the above that actually go on to develop life (f_l), is known to be above 0, since we exist, but unfortunately, the study of abiogenesis (how life arises from inorganic matter) is still in its infancy, but thus far shows that life originated on Earth from a single source. The current missions to Mars to find life there would be a tremendous help to this coefficient, as it would place it close to 1. 

This ties in closely with the fraction of the above that develops intelligent life (f_i), since on Earth we’ve only found one species (homo sapiens sapiens) that displays intelligence. Similarly, the fraction of the above revealing their existence via signal release into space (f_c) also provides some difficulty, since while humans have existed for over 100 000 years on Earth, we’ve only within the last 100 had the technological capability to send signals into space. 

The final coefficient, the lifetime of such a civilization wherein it communicates its signals into space (L), is of interest in general as well. Some scientists suggest that any species that reaches our level of technological achievement would be able to weather any threat to its survival, whereas others point out that our propensity for war and environmental damage could also be a hallmark of civilization, and that nuclear annihilation or environmental catastrophe would limit the survival of any intelligent civilization.

In the final analysis the answer to the Drake Equation, the number of planets with detectable signs of life (N), has varied wildly from 1 (we are alone in the galaxy) up to 36 million given the most optimistic values. Dr Drake himself estimated it could be as high as 10 000, while Carl Sagan hoped there were more than a million. But in 2010, the Italian astronomer Claudio Maccone published in the journal Acta Astronautica the Statistical Drake Equation (SDE). 

Maccone estimated with his SDE that our galaxy may harbour 4,590 extra-terrestrial civilizations, and that the average distance we should expect to find any alien intelligent life form may be 2,670 light-years from Earth. But even 500 light-years away, the chance of detecting any signal from an advanced civilization approaches zero. But that hasn’t stopped us.

Drake’s original group of scientists started a movement, and today the SETI Institute (Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence) coordinates the search worldwide, across nationalities and wherever a radio telescope has time available to search the skies. Even individuals across the globe can and are contributing, via the SETI@home program, whereby people download a computer client program that downloads and analyses SETI data collected around the globe whenever a home computer is idle, essentially donating computer power to this vast task.

Why do we do this? Of what use is it? Carl Sagan said, “For as long as there been humans we have searched for our place in the cosmos. Where are we? Who are we?” We hope that by searching for other life, we can determine our own place in the universe. Is there a general theory of living systems, a universal biology as there is a universal physics? Only by answering these questions, can we discover perhaps not only who we are, and where we are, but perhaps even why we are.

A Man, A Plan, A Canal - Panama

Originally published in the Informanté newspaper on Thursday, 14 April, 2016.

A week and a half ago, the biggest data leak ever occurred. 11.5 million confidential legal documents from the Panamaniam law firm Mossack Fonseca found its way into the hands of journalists from an anonymous hacker, exposing the shell companies the wealthy and the powerful have used to hide their assets from scrutiny. This follows the 2013 Offshore Leaks, where 2.5 million records of 130 000 bank accounts were leaked that also exposed tax fraud by powerful government officials. 

So far, Namibia has emerged relatively unscathed from the revelations, but leaks of this nature are becoming more and more common.  In the past, Wikileaks had published classified US diplomatic cables, there were the HSBC and Luxembourg leaks exposing tax avoidance schemes, and of course we should all be aware of Edward Snowden’s leaks of the United States’ National Security Agency’s modus operandi in clandestine surveillance. 

And these leaks will keep coming. Information technology has grown exponentially over the past 50 years, and it’s set to continue for some time more. When the Pentagon Papers on the Vietnam War was leaked in 1971, it was only about 7 000 pages of documents – and it was leaked by photocopying the documents. In 1972, the state-of-the-art computer storage system was the IBM 3330 Direct Access Storage Device, which was the size of a file cabinet and could hold about 100 MB (or could hold about 10 copies of the leaked documents.) It’s purchase price was US$ 74 000. Much more unwieldy than a stack of photocopied paper. 

By 2005, a 320GB hard drive capable of holding the 2013 Offshore Leaks was produced, costing only US$130. It could hold the equivalent of 286 million pages of text, or 1.4 million books. By 2012, the first hard drive capable of holding the Panama Papers sold for US$150. With a capacity of 3 TB, it could hold 3 billion pages of text, or 15 million books – or 233 DVD’s. 

Right here in Namibia, you can buy a 3TB portable disk drive capable of holding the Panama Papers for a mere N$ 3200, and it could fit in your pocket. With the amount of storage capacity now available to individuals, it is not surprising that companies are finding it difficult to contain secrets that formerly were too bulky to copy and take off their premises – and with the internet now an additional vector, someone might simply compromise your systems remotely and copy your documents that way. 

In fact, there are several cloud computing companies that allow you to upload data, and rent computing power. It is thus a trivial matter to upload the data to a provider like Amazon Elasticsearch Service and mine the documents for selected names and details – especially compared to the Pentagon Papers, that had to be read page by page to find information. 

Of course, such a wholesale release of data would contain a lot of personal information that could be utilized by identity thieves, and thus the information is only released piecemeal as the ICIJ sees fit. And as they rightly point out, “There are legitimate uses for offshore companies and trusts. We do not intend to suggest or imply that any persons, companies or other entities have broken the law or otherwise acted improperly.”

But it is important to remember that just because something is legal, that does not make it right. Slavery was legal at one time. So was Apartheid. And even Hitler’s actions in Germany during the Third Reich was legal. Similarly, tax avoidance is quite legal – it’s only tax evasion which is illegal. It should therefore come as no great surprise that people perceive those who have benefitted greatly from their success in society, and then constructing tax avoidance schemes to avoid paying your dues to the society that allowed you your success, as shirking their duties and untrustworthy. 

As Dr Quinton van Rooyen has said, your credibility and your word should always be above question in business. It is a lesson every organisation and government should take to heart in this day and age of leaks. You should conduct your business in such a way that even when a leak occurs, you can hold your head up high. 

After all, doing the right thing is a matter of honour. It’s been said that reputation is what other people know about you, but honour is what you know about yourself. As Aral Vorkosigan said, “There is no more hollow feeling than to stand with your honour shattered at your feet while soaring public reputation wraps you in rewards. That's soul-destroying. The other way around is merely very, very irritating.”

And so it is with these whistle-blowers as well. As a collorary to my above point, what is illegal is not always wrong. Edward Snowden lost the life he built in his country by exposing the NSA’s illegal surveillance, and had to take refuge in Russia, while President Barack Obama’s ‘most transparent administration in history’ has jailed more whistle-blowers than any other in history. Is it any wonder that the Panama Papers whistle-blower has opted for anonymity? 

Namibia itself has embraced transparency to root out corruption in government, with President Geingob even declaring all his assets. And yet the Witness and Whistle-blower Protection Bill is still languishing in parliament. Let us hope that his admirable commitment to transparency is not merely a short-term aberration, but a quality that he is able to instil into the very fabric of Namibian culture. After all, transparency and accountability are two sides of the same coin, and if the Harambee Prosperity Plan is to succeed, what we need above all is accountability.

Gambling with Namibia’s Future

Originally published in the Informanté newspaper on Thursday, 7 April, 2016.

As I read through President Geingob’s State of the Nation address, I remained in awe at what our president had accomplished in such a short time, and at how well thought-out the Harambee Prosperity Plan seemed to be. I remained in awe until I stumbled across a paragraph that made me stare slack-jawed at the speech in confusion, as it seemed to be completely at odds with the stated objective of the Harambee Prosperity Plan. 

I refer, of course, to the following: “…and investigate the establishment of a State Lottery. The objective of the State Lottery will be to supplement State revenue and ring-fence income for poverty eradication and social developmental programmes. Revenue collected through the State Lottery will therefore, like the Solidarity Wealth Tax, be strictly directed to poverty eradication activities under the supervision of a Special Tax Committee.” 

After the initial jaw dropping moment, I realised that the President was merely investigating the concept, much my relief. Lotteries aren’t a new concept. The first mentions in history of lotteries were from the Han dynasty in China, about 205 BCE, referencing a game of chance called “the drawing of the wood” or as we now know it, drawling lots – a lottery. The modern concept of a state-run lottery comes from England and France during the 1500’s. These games were originally sold via tickets, with the draw to be in a few years’ time – essentially granting the government an interest-free loan. Over time, however, the payout ratio was reduced from 100% in order to fund other projects from the proceeds – in South Africa, for example, only 50% is paid out in prizes - and a lottery is more palatable to the citizenry than a tax. After all, it is voluntary. Or is it?

Lotteries prey on several of the deficiencies of the human psyche, most obviously our inability to properly comprehend probability. In layman’s terms, it is often stated that lotteries are a tax on those suffering from innumeracy – mathematical illiteracy. For example, in South Africa, the odds to win the lottery is about 1 in 14 million each week. With a population of 52 million, someone could win every week! Why not you? Because the odds show that if you play every week, for 50 years, the chance you’ll win the jackpot is 0.02%. So out of 10 000 people who buy tickets every week for 50 years, only 2 will win. Thus, when you consider just how counter-intuitive the results of probability can be, you realise that it can even flummox mathematicians. But I contend lotteries are worse than a tax on innumeracy – it is a tax on hope.

Lotteries have been around long enough that statistical studies could be done on lottery players, and the results are anything but a prosperity plan. In the United States, it was found that lottery sales are the highest in the poorer areas of the states. Uneducated players made up a disproportionate share of the players. Since lotteries are supposed to be a game, people should play for fun, but 25% of the poor players were playing for the money! Lotteries were more popular among blue collar workers and least popular amongst professionals, and tickets were more likely to be bought if a person was out of work than if a person was employed or retired. In fact, unemployment correlated with higher lottery ticket sales. Only on rare, ‘Super’ jackpots were the rich found to swoop in to buy tickets.

Lotteries, in fact, are a regressive tax on the poor – i.e. the poor bear the brunt of this tax, the exact opposite of what the Harambee Prosperity Plan intends. When you think about it, it makes sense. A N$10 ticket is 10% of the N$ 100 a poverty stricken person might have to live on, whereas it’s a tenth of a percent of the salary of someone who earns N$ 10 000 per month. For the poor, it might seem like the only way out, and they might forego buying that bread their starving children so desperately needs, just for the chance to be lifted out of poverty.

Lotteries are also a form of gambling – a game with financial rewards. Burrhus Frederic Skinner, back in 1930, showed how conditioning with unpredictable rewards for completing repetitive tasks affects animals, when he showed how rats pushing a button to receive food repeated this behaviour even more intensely when the food was delivered irregularly in his operant conditioning chamber. BF Skinner’s work was shown to be effective as well in humans, and his work is extensively used in the reward structures in online video games. Unfortunately, it is also evident in our love for slot machines which work in a similar manner. And, self-evidently, in lotteries, which has us repeating a ritual of buying tickets, with small prizes to be won, and repeating it while waiting for the big win. This is more commonly known as gambling addiction.

But perhaps the tax on the poor does not concern you, and you consider the rising spectre of gambling addiction among the Namibian populace a non-issue, because, after all, the payout will raise some lucky individuals out of poverty. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the effect among lottery winners. Statistics show that 70% of lottery winners end up bankrupt after 5 years. After all, the poor have had to rely on the help from others to survive for many years – those friends and family are now going to demand that that help be repaid in kind. When you consider the extended families that Namibians have, this can quickly become overwhelming. 

And who among us have had to manage that amount of money? For a person whose average monetary transactions were a maximum of N$ 500 in a single transaction, the ability to distinguish between transactions of N$ 20 000 and N$ 200 000 is difficult. Who of you can distinguish between a home valued at N$5 million and one valued at N$ 7 million? If you’ve never had to practise financial discipline, it is going to be difficult to learn it while you feel like you’re on top of the world. And even then, only 55% of lottery winners report being happier two years after their winnings than before. 

The state lottery hides an even worse consequence, though. And that is the message it sends to the people of Namibia. A message that proclaims that you should not work hard to lift yourself from poverty, just pay your lottery tax and the government will provide. Don’t try to save and start your own business, just pay your savings to the state lottery and you’ll win big. Don’t be entrepreneurial and try to do something else, simply do the same thing over and over again, while expecting different results. Some would say that is the definition of insanity. 

A plan that involves taxing the poor while addicting them to poverty and sapping their savings does not sound like a Harambee Prosperity Plan to me. It sounds like a Harambee Poverty Plan. Perhaps the government has a brilliant plan that circumvents the issues I’ve raised above, then it could be considered, but as it stands now, let us hope that the government investigation realises that this is an ill-advised idea, and instead focuses on the rest of the Harambee Prosperity Plan, based on the excellent State of the Nation address.