To what extent is it acceptable
to determine fate with mathematics? The neutral tweaking of numbers until they
present a logical and precise conclusion, a simple solution to the most
complicated of problems. It seems…natural,
right? How else can one ever come to an objective conclusion without
calculating probabilities and the effects of external variables, without
forming an equation, like a question, and a solution, like an answer. In the
movie the Imitation Game, Turing and his team of cryptologists, in conjunction
with the British Secret Service, determine which populations to save, and which
to abandon, using cold, hard maths. As someone who relies on lists and values straight
and logical answers to every problem, this method of determining the future
seemed acceptable to me. These people had true power – they were playing God,
and helped the Allies win the Second World War. And there is a sense of comfort
that these people were only using statistics and mathematics to wield that
power; perhaps if more mathematicians and cryptologists were in government, or
if the politicians listened to them more, the outcome of various current situations
would be different. I think a lot of issues would be treated differently on a
global scale if utilitarian ethics were employed (the greatest good for the
greatest amount of people) by people who only looked at the facts and figures.
Take climate change, for example.
The numbers would show that the effects of climate change would change the
lives (negatively) for billions of people in future generations, and perhaps
even some people now (take the island of Tuvalu, for example, which will be
shortly under water due to rising sea levels). So, instead of climate change
becoming a political issue, which is manipulated this way and that for votes
and popularity, the theoretical mathematicians, scientists and statisticians
that are in charge would put measures into place immediately, for the greatest
good to the greatest amount of people. Future circumstances would be considered
over current ones (like profits gained from oil and fossil fuels) and in
general, the larger masses of not-so-rich people might benefit, as opposed to a
small and privileged few becoming still richer.
I can’t say I’m a politician, or
a mathematician, or even particularly well versed in global issues. I do think,
however, that on a large scale, cutting out all the ‘politics’ behind politics,
and just assessing a situation objectively through mathematics and statistics,
could turn out better in the long run. Alan Turing and his team couldn’t
publicly announce that they failed to stop the bombing of Coventry because it
would mean the Germans would realise they’ve cracked the Enigma code, hence causing
the war to be delayed. The politics behind that statement is just a nightmare. But,
in reality, the employment of their objective techniques severely shortened the
war, and hence minimised the amount of lives lost regardless. The problem comes
into it when people point fingers, and ask the question: “what makes them able
to choose who lives and who dies?”
In this case, I think my line of
argument can only be successful in large scale situations. Emotions, compassion
and subjectivity are important in everyday life, and must in no way be diminished
or looked down upon. They are the cornerstone to social interactions, and emotional
intelligence is vital in understanding the issues that must be addressed in the
first place. So perhaps, from a grassroots level, emotional intelligence is
important in affecting social change, but from a top-down approach, calculated
mathematics can be the most effective way to solve a problem.
