number-crunching or currently trending

As the capital city of the state of Hessen, Wiesbaden is host to a number of important offices of governmental affairs internally but also is home to a national institution, which one hears cited continuously on all topics, das Statistisches Bundesamt (the Federal Statistics Office of Germany)—also known by its short-form, Destatis.  It’s funny to be in the neighbourhood with such a voice of authority, not quite like living next door to the Encyclopedia Britannica but instead like knowing where the Harper’s Index is compiled or where the random fact factory is and where the sibilants try to triangulate all this data and bridge disparate trends.

All bureaus in all governments are mandated to report out and analyze micro- and macro-demographics, sometimes with different competency and the spin of omission, but I believe this independent institution that pries open raw figures from all sources, maintaining a one of a kind research library amongst the headquarters and field offices in Berlin and Bonn, and conducts its own surveys (Umfragen) and censuses (Volkszählungen) from inflation, immigration, birth-rate, crime, employment to include delving into people’s attitudes and sentiments and venturing into the qualitative, rather than quantitative, arenas, like happiness and overall satisfaction, by studying the meta-mines of information that factor into civics for public benefit.

pageantry or deconstructing dumbo

Proctoring and participating in something established, like a formal debate, is confounded with expectations, necessarily anticipating that one defend and champion his causes over those of his opponent and the demands of the audience to see that conviction come, that overlay the chest puffing and stepping up to the challenge not only with the notion that a leader be unflinching but also polished, rehearsed and unhesitating.

Rhetoric and delivery are the vehicles of these matches, but they are only that—shiny and serviceable and not the chosen weapons in a duel or necessarily acquainted with civil negotiations outside this particular venue.

Rhetoric and delivery are also indicative of substance and style, and aside from keeping a tighter rein on the direction of talk, which was possibly a miscalculation and under- estimating but more likely a sign of exasperation for having to play to a farce or a baiting tactic that allows one’s adversary to dispatch and exhaust all the questions with prepared answers early on, thoughtfulness and circumspection seem indeed more befitting leadership. There was not an unwillingness to engage, as opposed to the true disdain and disregard revealed on the other side and pandering to an unallied demographic, but rather a weariness similar to being pressed to action by hateful stunts, where there’s also precious little chance for listening. Personally, I find it hard to believe—not having scrutinized the show play-by-play with the benefit of pundits and talking-heads, that anyone was much out of character, and proclaiming victory in these first rounds rings pretty hollow and is just a projection of bias and foregone conclusions. L’esprit d’escalier, staircase wit, thinking of better come-backs as one is walking away, maybe cannot redeem a supposedly bad night but the will to regroup and improve is certainly more withering in the long term. Perhaps, like the manifesto that’s based on math-magic and is malleable to the magical-thinking of the what the audience wants to hear, it was important to see that the challenger can perform, though over-exposure reveals the performance.

uncanny

Surely the mad scientists in the government that have seeded the clouds with drones and brought the public dragnet surveillance have always been churning out creepy and diabolical inventions but, I guess, were made to dip their flag to publicity and P-R (or just out of pride) and put their technological achievements on display. Dexterity and upright posture are only a question of degrees and will improve, I think (barring some unknown Pinocchio principle about balance), but as with aerial drones, a robot whose mobility can outstrip man's is unsettling.

Such a contraption could round up undesirables, be an expendable cat-burglar, but I suspect that it won't be primarily deployed in search-and-rescue missions, like a fire-fighter's companion. Nimbleness and agility are exclusively human domains, but even without a modicum more of artificial intelligence, the way that man interacts with machine will change significantly. Ethicists and sociologists are drafting laws, rules of conduct to try to anticipate this new cultural shift, which I am sure will touch on all areas of human life, labour and leisure. Broadly, I am sure a lot of highly intelligent visionaries are trying to equip philosophical quivers against all contingencies and changing norms, but those robot laws that I have heard proposed so far seem naïve and inadequate and very pro-business. It is as if one is getting a parody, like the sorry and pointed lampoon of Dr. Seuss' Lorax, instead of Asimov: 'no robot should be designed primarily to kill or harm a human being; no robot should exploit the empathy of humans, nor should they be indistinguishable from humans; one should always be able to determine who has legal responsibility for a robot…' That is all well and good but seems a little shallow. Machines have been making their human counterparts redundant for some time, but advances in robotics equates to the shock the first criminal who was caught by his finger-print had and the perfect crime entailed more than outwitting a detective.  Progress cannot be legislated but it can thrive within an ethical and sufficient framework—bureaucracy is still trying to catch up to the personal computer. This next revolution needs to have creative and thoughtful architects, and the rate of progress will be exciting and catapulting.