The article below was written as an article intended for The Star newspaper, Malaysia. They, however, declined to publish it. So, too, did the New York Times and the Sunday Times, so decline. The latter two newspapers were not even polite enough to reply - though the Star was, at least.

I rather think that the key idea proposed within this article found disapproval with these news organs...they couldn't bring themselves, it seems, to air my suggested solution to the problem I raise and discuss. To me, that seems closed minded. My solution should, at least, be brought out into the open for discussion. Having been rejected by three newspapers, however, I think it is best if I, at least, publish this article on my blog, so that it might, at least, get a small readership...which is better than no readership at all.

If any newspaper does wish to run the article...just ask me, and I shall arrange it. Thanks.

Aaron Swartz and the failure to value genius.

By Valentine Cawley

It is striking to note that, throughout history, geniuses are more often valued dead, than alive. In life, a genius can expect much opposition, not a little hostility and a complete absence of support. Yet, in death, “Humanity” finds it in itself to heap praise on the corpse of the now unthreatening genius.

So, too, it is in the nature of genius to be apart from the mainstream; to hold different viewpoints, which, though unique at first, might, in time, become commonplace, if the genius’ ideas are ever accepted. Yet, during the course of their working lives, it is common for geniuses to strive against the “system”, to be ever seeking change, and improvement  - revolution even. It is this tendency which, of course, leads on many occasions to the persecution of geniuses, their loss of liberty and even loss of life.

What can a genius do for society? A genius, properly enabled to do their work, can bring into being a new world, a new way of doing something old, a new science, a new technology and a new culture. A genius can give us a world we would never know without them. One genius is more valuable to a society than millions of ordinary workers – because those ordinary workers will never bring anything new into being – they only ever work with what already exists and the boundaries that have already been laid out. A genius should, therefore, be treasured, however awkward it might be, at times, to have them around.

The recent case of Aaron Swartz, the internet pioneer, writer, computer programmer, political organizer and internet activist brings into focus issues surrounding the attitude of society, to genius. As many of you will know, he committed suicide on January 11^th, 2013, seemingly in order to escape from a draconian prosecution by the US government, for a rather odd “crime”: downloading over 4 million articles, which were accessible free, to him, from the JSTOR database, from an unlocked closet at MIT. He had done this because he objected to JSTOR charging significant fees for the articles, since he believed this restricted access to them. He had a point, for I argued similarly, in a journal article I published entitled: “An analysis of the ethics of peer review and other traditional academic publishing practices”,  in the International Journal of Social Science and Humanity. (http://www.ijssh.org/papers/36-H058.pdf) I found that it was unethical to charge for academic articles, since this acted so as to limit the distribution of knowledge, for the purpose of profiteering. Thus academic publishers, are making money at the expense of human progress.

For Swartz’s action in bringing attention to this issue, he had faced up to 35 years in prison and a 1 million US dollar fine. For a 26 year old, potentially looking forward to a life in prison, until his sixties, this must have seemed an overwhelming prospect to Aaron Swartz. Rather than face such an awful prospect, he appears to have chosen to end his life, by hanging.

Every death is a loss to the world. Yet, Aaron’s life was not a typical one. At just 14, he contributed to the creation of RSS, used to feed updates of blogs to the world. His code is now ubiquitous. He founded Infogami which was merged with Reddit. He participated in the creation of the Creative Commons license and he organized the Internet, to oppose and defeat SOPA (STOP ONLINE PIRACY ACT). Along the way, he also highlighted and spoke out against President Obama’s “kill list” – which perhaps did not make him popular in certain quarters in his own nation.

To many, Aaron Swartz was a genius – and he was certainly prodigious as a programmer. By his death, the world has lost all he would ever have done – and there is no guessing what that might have been. Thus, the future is undoubtedly impoverished by his passing. Had he lived, the world yet to be, would have been fashioned and shaped, to some degree by this young man’s thought. Now, none of that will ever be. We have all lost, by his death – not just his immediate family.

Was it sensible of the American government to pursue Aaron Swartz so harshly? Was a potential 35 years in prison a reasonable response to downloading some academic journal articles, which JSTOR has now made free to view, in any case?

It is clear that this sledgehammer approach of the US government to the case of Aaron Swartz, has cost America and the world far more than it stood to gain by punishing him, so aggressively. The treatment of Aaron Swartz calls to mind the treatment of other geniuses, throughout history. Alan Turing, for instance, was prosecuted by the British state, for being a homosexual. His penalty was chemical castration. Two years after his sentence, he apparently committed suicide by cyanide poisoning. Alan Turing was a computing genius, who was one of the founders of the modern era of computing. His life work changed the world. Also, by cracking the German Enigma code, he may very well have changed history too, ensuring the triumph of the Allies, and the defeat of the Nazis. The British thanked him by persecuting him and prompting him to end his own life. The cost to humanity of his loss is truly incalculable, since there is no telling what contributions he would have made had he lived out the remainder of his natural life, instead of dying at 41, by suicide.

Then, in the field of literature, there was Oscar Wilde, a writer of genius, who was also prosecuted for his sexual orientation. The two years he spent in prison utterly broke his health, and led to his death three years later. The world had lost another genius at the age of just 46. Again, we are left with the certainty of the world’s loss, but not knowing how great that loss was, for we shall never see what he never lived to write.

These three examples make clear that societies, in general, do not value genius enough, nor consider the consequences of persecuting them. The rather pedestrian individuals who take it upon themselves to prosecute them do not take into consideration the consequences for society, of those prosecutions.

This leads me to propose a principle by which society should moderate the punishments it metes out to individuals, for crimes.

The principle of least harm to society:

“No person should be given a punishment for a crime, that would cause more harm or loss to society, in consequence, than the crime itself caused.”

In a more extreme form, this could arguably be refined to: “No person should be punished for a crime in such a way as to cause harm to society, thereby.”

Thus, it can be seen, in the cases of geniuses, it does not make sense for a society to jail a genius for long periods, thereby losing the fruits of all their potential work in that period, if the creative work lost, would have been of greater value than the harm their crime caused society. What this means, in practice, is that it is foolish for society to punish geniuses illiberally, for most crimes, because, in effect, society is thereby punishing itself, by depriving itself of works of genius. To punish the genius, through extended jail sentences, is to inflict loss and harm on society itself. That is simply not a rational response to the crimes of genius.

As for my more extreme version of the principle of least harm to society, this may be wiser, since even short sentences can destroy a genius.

The examples of Alan Turing and Oscar Wilde illustrate how even short sentences can break the health of geniuses, provoking an early death, by natural means or even by suicide. Humanity lost greatly by the deaths of Turing, Wilde and Swartz. Reflecting on their wasted potential, we should be moved to reconsider the ways in which people of special talent to society are punished, should they commit what is considered a crime, in their day. It is senseless to deprive the world, of the fruits of their genius, simply because society wishes to make an example of them – as was clearly the case with Aaron Swartz and, arguably, Wilde and Turing.

Should a person of genius commit a crime, a way should be found to punish them, if punishment is thought necessary, that still allows them to do their creative work and does not limit, in any way, their creative potential. Society needs geniuses far too much, to act so as to snuff out either their lives or potential.

It should also be remembered that geniuses are often at odds with society and non-conformist, even rebellious in their actions. This attitude can lead them into trouble. Society should be understanding of their nature when they do court trouble, in this way. It should not punish them. The US military, for instance, was very understanding with Richard Feynman, the physicist of genius, when he was working on the Manhattan project to build the first atom bomb. He had the hobby of breaking into military safes containing top secret documents. He did it for sport. The military, however, did not punish him, but tolerated this behaviour, understanding that he was just playing. It is a pity for Aaron Swartz and us all, that MIT was not so understanding, when Swartz downloaded those documents. That lack of tolerance has cost the world a young genius. Never more should a genius be lost in similar circumstances. Let there be tolerance for the differences that make geniuses what they are – and perhaps, make them occasionally cross the line of what society would normally accept. The cost to society is too great, if this accommodation can’t be made. Let us be wise enough to do so.

Posted by Valentine Cawley

(If you would like to support my continued writing of this blog and my ongoing campaign to raise awareness about giftedness and all issues pertaining to it, please donate, by clicking on the gold button to the left of the page.

To read about my fundraising campaign, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/01/fundraising-drive-in-support-of-my.html and here: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/01/fundraising-drive-first-donation.html

If you would like to read any of our scientific research papers, there are links to some of them, here: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2011/02/research-papers-by-valentine-cawley-and.html

If you would like to see an online summary of my academic achievements to date, please go here: http://www.getcited.org/mbrz/11136175To learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, 10, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, 7 and Tiarnan, 5, please go to: http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html

I also write of gifted education, child prodigy, child genius, adult genius, savant, megasavant, HELP University College, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, Malaysia, IQ, intelligence and creativity.

There is a review of my blog, on the respected The Kindle Report here:http://thekindlereport.blogspot.com/2010/09/boy-who-knew-too-much-child-prodigy.html

Please have a read, if you would like a critic's view of this blog. Thanks.

You can get my blog on your Kindle, for easy reading, wherever you are, by going to: http://www.amazon.com/Boy-Who-Knew-Too-Much/dp/B0042P5LEE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2&s=digital-text&qid=1284603792&sr=8-1

Please let all your fellow Kindlers know about my blog availability - and if you know my blog well enough, please be so kind as to write a thoughtful review of what you like about it. Thanks.

My Internet Movie Database listing is at:http://imdb.com/name/nm3438598/

Ainan's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3305973/

Syahidah's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3463926/

Our editing, proofreading and copywriting company, Genghis Can, is athttp://www.genghiscan.com/This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication is prohibited. Use only with permission. Thank you.) 

Singapore's Intellectual Class.

Anyone who knows Singapore well will wonder how on Earth I could have written a title like "Singapore's Intellectual Class." Singapore doesn't really have an intellectual class...or if it does, those intellectuals were never in my class (when I taught).

Singapore's education system doesn't produce intellectuals, in my view of what an intellectual is. Singapore's "top students", are very good at passing exams and in telling you what the world already knows. However, what they are not good at...in fact, are hopeless at, is in telling you something you don't know. In other words, they are useless at independent, creative thinking. In other words, they are not truly intellectuals at all.

Now, I am not going to lay blame at the foot of Singaporeans for this. You see, it is difficult to know the cause of this lack of intellectual calibre. Is it genetic? Or is it the fact that the education system requires and trains parrots? Are they parrots by nature or parrots by nurture? I am not going to answer the question here. However, I will say this: I don't think that Singapore will ever have a truly intellectual class. There is too much momentum there, in the way things are done. Singapore will not change until it has died as a nation. Then, perhaps, something new will come of it.

Of course, there is, perhaps, a good reason why Singapore does not have a home grown intellectual class: intellectuals think - and this singularly single party state has never encouraged its people to do that. There is nothing more threatening to a monolithic state than someone able to think of alternatives. Thus it is that true thinkers are not only not found, in Singapore, but not desired, either. A true thinker is the last kind of person Singapore wants.

Given these considerations, I found it most interesting what Lee Kuan Yew had to say on the matter (for those who don't know...which is much of the outside world...Lee Kuan Yew is modern Singapore's iconic "founder" and lifelong effective leader). I say "founder" because, actually, Singapore was founded by the Brit, Sir Stamford Raffles, long ago, though Lee Kuan Yew took it in a different direction.

Lee Kuan Yew recently called for the import of an "intellectual class", specifically from China and India. He stated that this class would be three times larger than the present intellectual class. (Yes. I know. Three times zero is still zero.) He envisaged this intellectual class as being leaders in their fields and as bringing greater wealth to Singapore. This should not be much of a surprise, since wealth or "economic growth" is actually the sole consideration of Singapore's leadership. He then went on to disparage the Malays, by saying that immigrants from Malaysia were "not so bright" and that they only came to Singapore because it provided them with opportunities not found at home.

So, Lee Kuan Yew wants to increase the number of PRCs in Singapore despite the fact that it is already overflowing with them - and to specifically exclude Malaysians from this drive for an "intellectual class". Again, this is not surprising to anyone who has followed Lee Kuan Yew's past pronouncements, quite a few of which involve disparaging one race or another, directly or indirectly.

To my eyes, it is very revealing that Chinese and Indian "intellectuals" should be required and not those from elsewhere. You see, I don't think that such immigrants would be likely to "rock the boat". They are likely to be good little workers, who don't cause any kind of trouble at all. They will tend to keep their opinions to themselves, if they have any. They will just get on with their jobs, in a diligent fashion. As far as being an effective "intellectual class" that is just about the last thing they will be. China, for instance, is not famous for its intellectual class. China is about as good at making intellectuals as Singapore is. They create pretty much the same kind of hardworking, but not at all creative or independently thinking people, as Singapore does. Thus, in importing an intellectual class consisting of said "intellectuals", Singapore can hope to have a greater concentration of what it already has: hardworking, unthinking, servants of the state.

The big, unstated question, here, of course, is why Singapore feels a need to import an intellectual class at all. What happened to its own? Why can't Singapore make its own intellectuals? After all, every other country (apart, perhaps, from China...) does...

The answer, it seems, from our own experience of life in Singapore, is that Singapore does not WANT a homegrown intellectual class. It does not want a class of people with two attributes: 1) able to think for themselves 2) know Singapore well. The combination of those two attributes leads to the possibility of CHANGE...and CHANGE is what the arthritic system of the Singaporean state resists mightily.

What does Singapore do to its potential intellectual class? Well, I can only answer, from personal experience, about what it does to non-Chinese potential intellectuals. My eldest son is half-Malay...he is also Singapore's most gifted young scientist - or was, until he left. I say "most gifted young scientist", since there is no other candidate of his age, with his achievements, in Singapore...or elsewhere for that matter. Now, you would have thought that a country seeking to build an "intellectual class" would have looked after him well? But no...we faced opposition, every step of the way, in seeking a suitable education for him. What was offered by the Gifted Branch was pure tokenism - an attempt to make it look like they were doing something, whilst they actually did everything they could to delay his progress. It was immensely frustrating dealing with them. Then again, when we made our own arrangements, and progressed without their "help"...Singapore's media began to tell lies about our son, to attempt to diminish him and so, perhaps, spare themselves the embarrassment of what they had (not) done. I only hope that Singaporean readers are not so naive as to swallow what their mainstream media say without reflecting on it, themselves.

Anyway, how are we to interpret this? It does seem that Singapore certainly doesn't want a MALAY intellectual of any kind, to thrive. If it had wanted a Malay intellectual to thrive, it would have been more responsive where Ainan was concerned. No. Singapore wants its intellectuals to be non-Malay - even if that means having to import them.

Then again, there is my own experience of Singapore. I am a very creative person...but in Singapore that creativity was not best deployed. At no time, was I given an opportunity, there, to create in the way that I can, so easily. Instead, my energies were directed towards teaching students who would never, in a trillion years, ever possess one quark of my creativity. It was laughable. What kind of moronic nation cries out for an "intellectual class" - but then fails to recognize or value intellectuals within its own borders? It is hilarious, in its fundamental stupidity.

If Singapore really wants an intellectual class, it should have done everything necessary to allow Ainan to flourish. It should also have made available, to me, a position in which I could be free to think and create. It should also have repeated those steps, however many times are necessary, to accommodate all potential intellectuals - and actual intellectuals - within its borders. Were it to do so, there would be no need to import an intellectual class, because one would already have been fostered within it.

It seems, however, that both Ainan and I are the wrong race, to have been invited to participate in Singapore's "intellectual class". Neither of us is from China or India, after all. One of us even has those dreaded Malay genes...so God forbid however could he be an intellectual?

Yet, we are intellectuals. Singapore's failure to value that fact doesn't change it. The funny thing is that we are establishing ourselves as intellectuals in Malaysia, the country that Lee Kuan Yew disparaged so, in his recent speech. Here, we are valued. Ainan is being allowed to grow, intellectually - and I am working creatively as a research scientist. So, all is turning out well for us.

The question, now, of course is: how will it turn out for Singapore? Will its imported "intellectual class" actually be intellectual? Will the people of Singapore support this renewed influx of outsiders? Will these "intellectuals" actually come from China and India...after all, China is booming and India is growing fast, too...so for how long will Singapore seem an attractive prospect?

From here, in KL, the whole situation looks rather funny. You see, Singapore would already have an intellectual class, if only it had looked after its own people and their families. What kind of country so singularly fails to nurture the minds of its own people that it needs to import them, wholesale, from overseas to make up the lack?

Singapore is the kind of country that smart people leave...like we did.

(If you would like to learn more of Ainan Celeste Cawley, 10, or his gifted brothers, Fintan, 6 and Tiarnan, 4, this month, please go to:
http://scientific-child-prodigy.blogspot.com/2006/10/scientific-child-prodigy-guide.html

I also write of gifted education, child prodigy, child genius, adult genius, savant, megasavant, HELP University College, the Irish, the Malays, Singapore, Malaysia, IQ, intelligence and creativity.

My Internet Movie Database listing is at: http://imdb.com/name/nm3438598/
Ainan's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3305973/
Syahidah's IMDB listing is at http://imdb.com/name/nm3463926/

Our editing, proofreading and copywriting company, Genghis Can, is at http://www.genghiscan.com/

This blog is copyright Valentine Cawley. Unauthorized duplication is prohibited. Use only with permission. Thank you.)