Don't people want to learn anything?

Editorial by Dave Hayes


A long time ago, when humans were not as plentiful as they are now, there were two villages separated by an impassable mountain. These two villages were alike in most ways. Each village contained many who thought, acted, and believed alike. Each village felt a sense of community, which was expressed by bonding joyfully to each other and reinforcing each other's beliefs. Each village even believed that they were God's chosen beings, and that this bonding was God's Will for them.

In fact, the only difference between these villages were the content of their belief systems, or the actual text of their beliefs. For an instance relevant to our story, one village believed that trees were so sacred that cutting one down was an offense against God, and that rocks were there for building houses. The other village believed that trees were there for building houses and that rocks were so sacred that moving one was an offense against God. There were many such examples of this belief dichotomy between the two villages.

One day, for some strange reason, both villages woke up and beheld a path through the mountain. Both villages were so enamored with the notion of a path through the mountain, that they thought it must be God's gift. So each village gathered a small group of brave explorers and set them to explore the path.

Thus it came to pass that the two groups of villagers met at the peak of the mountain. The view was so astounding, the villagers were in wonderment and awe and not a word was said. Such beauty was never before seen in the history of either village. In fact, not only was it clear that there were two villages, but much unexplored world that lay beyond the boundaries they had set for themselves. Was that an ocean in the distance? Were those clouds seen from above?

The perception of this beauty lasted precisely until one of the villagers, momentarily overwhelmed by the grandeur, accidentally kicked a rock out of it's place.

The next thing anyone knew, shouts of "infidel" and "evil one" marred the silence of the peak. The villagers quickly gathered to their respective sides, swore oaths of feality to God and against "anything that would blaspheme Him", and proceeded righteously back the way they had come.

When news of this encounter reached home, both village councils immediately decided to block the path of beauty "against the infidels". Large barriers were erected at various stages on each side of the path, and anyone moving on the path was subject to terrible questioning to ensure that they were "of the Right and True Village". Very soon, neither path could ever be used again. And everyone forgot about the wonderous things they had seen at the peak of the mountain.

Does this sound familiar?

It should. It's a metaphor for the current state of global communications. I'm not just talking about Usenet, but Email, web bulletin boards, web pages, IRC, and any form of communication which has the potential to involve hundreds of thousands of people.

Humans have different beliefs, customs, and communication habits depending on the environment and training they come from. No two humans believe alike, think alike, or process sensory data alike. We all have different ways of looking at things and even more ways of being who we are.

Given this, how can anyone logically or honorably say "you are not allowed to say that"? Have we learned nothing from the days of the Spanish Inquisition? Of course it's going to offend someone when someone else expresses their belief system. Sure, you are going to get people who will appear to be there just to annoy others. Yes, you are going to see those who's purpose in life seems to be to detract from whatever you are saying.

So what? The world will not stop spinning, even if they do get to say what you don't want.

Last I checked, genetic diversity is hardwired into our design specifications. It's how we survive, as a global organism. It's also how we learn. There is a wealth of hidden knowledge in the differences between belief systems, which is being destroyed and blocked by those who have no idea what they are missing.

Let's say it again, mathematically

Consider the set of all beliefs W. Let X be an arbitrary belief in W. Let C(k) be the subset of W that person k believes in currently.

Now consider any arbitrary subset of all beliefs F(k). We will define this subset as "the subset of beliefs that person k wishes to have for whatever reason". Note that the entire contents of F(k) are not guaranteed to be known to k, but all of C(k) is. (This is observed when you "learn something new".)

How do we make C(k) approach F(k)? Clearly we have to choose from beliefs in the set W - C(k).

However, we cannot do that if we restrict our input to C(k) alone. We can't even make the choice to restrict or not restrict if we do not have full and open access to W in the first place. Any restriction on full and open access to W is commonly called censorship.

So if we don't want to learn anything, restricting W is precisely the way to go about it. That way, nothing new can be learned. That way, the road to the wonderous pinnacle of beauty remains blocked.

Dave Hayes
Editorial Copyright (c) 1999, Dave Hayes. All rights reserved. Reproduction without permission is done only by your dishonor.