First Blog

An eternal impossible problem/situation of the conflict variety Suppose there is an ascending, aggressive appearing, nation emerging and building military might. Their threat is ominous though they assert no claims for territory are in their plans. The developments are only for defense. What is the response of the other nations? There are two. Type A. We should fortify this location or making alliances with nearby nations thereby hedging in this imminent threat, making clear our intent to delimit any strategies they may have, and demonstrating the severe cost to territorial ventures. Let us negotiate from strength. Type B. We should not fortify because it will anger and possibly even enhance their build-up making them more dangerous. It may even trigger a venture for territorial gain. Let us accept their word that they do not seek aggression with other nations. Let us negotiate from good will It is remarkable how consistent these strategies with variations have sustained over most

Trolley problems – revisited   This is a problem, an impossible problem,   purported to conflict with our moral system, which is only a part of one’s belief system. It is a part of how we solve problems.  See,http://used-ideas.blogspot.com/2013/02/problem-solving-your-marvelous-brain.html and recent writings on impossible problems in this blog. The original problem is due to Philippa Foot who devised the Trolley Problem in her article "The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of the Double Effect" (1967) . You are at a railway switch high above the tracks, with the ability to route the oncoming train to one route or exactly one other.   You cannot stop the oncoming train.   On, say route A, there are five people basically tied to the tracks, meaning they cannot move from their current position.   On, say route B, there is but one person in a similar situation.   Whichever route the train follows, either five people or one person will die.   However, you can select

The Transportation Security Agency (TSA) is on the horns of a dilemma, and a big one it is. In the early days after 2001, just after the TSA was created, a huge corps of highly zealous officers was recruited to monitor those boarding our airlines. (Similar screening is now in place worldwide.)   They looked for the slightest violations in the rules.  Any breach meant the perpetrator would be awarded a thorough search.   Taken aside in front of all travelers, the "perp" was given quite a thorough going over.  With over 50,000 employees the TSA faces formidable problems. Forget to remove your shoes, you were searched; forget to remove your belt, you were searched; forget to remove your computer (horror-of-horrors), you were searched.  That is, you were taken aside and given a careful inspection.  But there is more, there were the pat-downs, sometimes bordering on sexual assault. People complained, and in large numbers.  More was involved in the general search for bombers.