Review: Gödel, Escher, Bach

By Alan Go

I don't quite know how I decided that the best way to follow up Steven Pinker's epic history of violence was by picking up another 700 page mammoth, but apparently this did happen, which is why I spent the Christmas holidays trekking through Douglas Hofstadter's most famous work, Gödel, Escher, Bach: an Eternal Golden Braid. For a certain type of geek, this is as close as you can come to a sacred book, with Hofstadter as some kind of god, or at least a prophet. When mentioned online, it is referred to with reverence, as its devoted followers drown out the odd detractor, with their unrestrained praise.

That may be overdoing it a little (or a lot), but the point still stands that a fair number of people consider this book to have played a major part in their lives. Entire university courses can be based around it.

At this point, I should probably try to summarise what the book is actually about, although I confess to being slightly nervous about doing so. Whilst fairly confident that I understand its central messages, I wouldn't say that I'm certain, and it wouldn't surprise me if some subtle point has passed me by.

It is not about Kurt Gödel, M.C. Escher, and J.S. Bach, at least not centrally. Instead, the main thesis of the book concerns how meaning can arise from meaningless symbols, by using formal systems which contain tricks such as self-reference, self-replication, recursion and strange loops, and by using tools such as paradox, infinity, and isomorphism, and particularly examining how this relates to the emergence of intelligence from unintelligent neurons. Throughout the book, the works of the three geniuses in the title are used as a touchstone to which all these concepts can be linked to, showing how the same ideas are mirrored in their work, and in real life.

Review: Ill Fares the Land

By Alan Go

Something is profoundly wrong with the way we live today.

This is the opening line of the late Tony Judt’s short polemic about the crisis the Left has found itself in. Anybody who reads this and immediately begins nodding with a sincere expression will find plenty to like, and will no doubt admire the verve with which the book is written. I am sure it is a sentiment shared by many, but difficult to express with clarity; a problem to which the book tries to provide the answer.

The first chapter happens to draw largely from the last book I had read, and reprints many of the graphs from The Spirit Level in its call to reignite the fight against inequality. The message is an important one, and is referred back to frequently in the following chapters.

Judt tries to provide a brief history of the Left since the second world war, from the great enthusiasm for state planning and welfare that immediately proceeded it to the rise of individualism in the 60s, Thatcherism and Reaganism, and the decline in our belief in social democracy since then. Much of this broad brushstrokes history is told in such sweeping statements that it is easy to become sceptical of the simplicity of the narrative. In any case, I will admit to being unqualified to pronounce upon the accuracy of his account.

Is Meat Murder?

By Jack Wearing

Until recently, I hadn't given the idea of vegetarianism much serious thought. Eating meat is a widely unquestioned norm in this country, and I’ve done so all my life, as have the vast majority of people around me. Some of my friends go so far as to profess an active dislike of vegetarians, and the self-righteousness of some outspoken animal enthusiasts is admittedly off-putting (including Morrissey, even if he is one of my favourite lyricists). Consequently, I had no real motivation to examine the moral significance of eating meat. That changed when I read Practical Ethics by preference utilitarian Peter Singer, a book that forced me to consider more carefully my position on the use of animals as food.

In Practical Ethics, Singer presents a very compelling moral argument for vegetarianism. Early in the book, Singer establishes the idea of ‘the principle of equal consideration of interests’. In his words, the essence of this principle is ‘that we give equal weight in our moral deliberations to the like interests of all those affected by our actions’. The ability to feel pleasure and pain, and thus to have interests, is what makes humans equal. This view of equality justifies ideas already widely held that someone shouldn’t be discriminated against because they are of a particular race or gender, are of a particular age or intelligence, or are disabled.

The Deep-fried Mars Bar

By Rahul Robertson

Fattening. Repulsive. Or golden soft, warm, chewy wonder sticks of glory. All things you could say when describing this particular Scottish delicacy. I talk not of haggis, nor cullen skink or coq au leeky soup. I talk of that infamous sweet sickly fattening treat that is of course, the deep fried Mars bar. Invented in the Haven Chip Bar in Aberdeen in 1995, you can now find this incredibly unhealthy snack across Scotland, sold in many fish and chip shops in Glasgow, Aberdeen and other Scottish cities. 

They’re made by dipping a Mars bar in the same batter used to batter a cod or haddock, then dropping it into hot oil in a deep fat fryer for a few seconds. They come out greasy and hot, fat seeping into the brown paper bag that they’re put in before being handed over the counter. The melted chocolate often smears the inside of the bag along with the grease stains, and when they’ve been in the fryer for too long, you can see the nougat creeping out of the golden batter casing. 

Now I know that most of you will probably find this completely repulsive and my brief description will not give you any incentive to buy one. It may well do the opposite and make you never want to try one, or hear about one ever again, which actually might be a good thing because each one will increase the risk of a heart attack almost criminally considering how small it is. But I ask you to keep an open mind, the warm delicious sickly-sweet taste is almost unimaginable unless you have one, completely different from a normal mars bar or any other deep-fried snack. The crunchy batter accompanied with the soft chocolate and chewy nougat blends together like a beautiful symphony of sugar and fat. They can now be bought from a fish and chip shop in Belsize Park in North London, and I urge you to try them at least once (though more than one will almost certainly make you feel sick, and after you have one you won’t want another for a week). 

Also for those of you who are more adventurous, there does also exist the deep-fried Mars bar’s more sweet and fatty cousin, the deep-fried Creme Egg, although this is less popular and more unhealthy, so I’d suggest just sticking with the classics.

Tunisia

By Nat Maxfield

On the 17th December 2010, Mohamed Bouazizi, in protest against the confiscation of his wares by government officials and the iron-fisted rule of President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, set himself on fire in a crowded marketplace in the centre of Sidi Bouzid, in central Tunisia. While the protests this sparked started in Tunisia, as soon as they spread to the larger countries in the region like Egypt and Libya, the press seemed to forget the revolution within Tunisia and the changes that were happening. So what has happened to the country within which the Arab Spring was born, and has it really managed to throw off the chains of dictatorship and state control in place before the protests?

President Ben Ali, who had controlled Tunisia since 1987 (and was described in Wikileaked cables as ‘highly corrupt’ and ‘not accepting of international or domestic criticism’), was ousted from office and fled to Saudi Arabia (he and his wife were sentenced to 35 years in prison in absentia). The former ruling party, the Rassemblement Constitutionel Démocratique (Constitutional Democratic Party) was disbanded and had its assets seized in March, and the secret police within Tunisia, Ben Ali’s go-to measure for dealing with internal dissent and protest, was abolished. Elections were held on the 23rd October, with the Islamic Ennahda Movement (a moderate conservative Islamist party) winning the largest amount of seats and eventually forming a government in December 2011. Compared to the tragic failure of attempts to move towards democracy in countries like Egypt and Bahrain, Tunisia has, politically it would seem, begun to move down the right track.

However, Tunisia still faces many issues in the months and years to come, mainly due to economic factors. Unemployment in Tunisia, one of the key factors behind the revolution, has risen from 14% to 19%, and in places like Gafsa in Southern Tunisia, it has gone up to 30%, with riots across the region. The government argues that considering $2 billion was lost during the revolution, it will take time to rebuild the Tunisian economy and lower unemployment, although its debt as compared to GDP is 40%, comparatively low compared to the 100% of the US. While these problems are arguably transitory, Tunisia faces a crisis of national identity. While in the days of Ben Ali, secularism was enforced, often violently, Tunisians are now asking themselves what role Islam should take in their new country, with a case over whether to show and distribute the film Persepolis exhibiting these tensions. However, unlike its neighbours, Tunisia seems to have progressed as a nation after its own revolution, as it is well on the way to becoming a fully-fledged democracy, in a way that no other nation in the Arab world is.

Update on Egypt

By Zachary Weiz

One would experience a culture shock if they were to go to Egypt. For Egyptians, though, day-to-day life is still fairly normal; the only difference, as my correspondent from Egypt said, is that 'the revolution is on everyone's mind'.

To a large extent, the country is in chaos. And yet, crime levels are lower than those of any other Western country. The Egyptian public is very proud that their morals and ethics alone are holding the country together. It is quite remarkable considering there's no government or police around.

In September, the mood was jubilant. By December, the people were getting angry due to the lack of progress on the political front. Last weekend, the parliamentary elections finally took place. In the complex new Egyptian political structure, there will also be a presidential election, which is due before the end of June. In the parliamentary elections, the Freedom and Justice Party (FJP), which is under the political wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, won between a third and a half of the seats. When combined with the fundamentalist Salifist Party, which 'strictly adheres to Shari'ah law,' they won around two thirds of the seats. The Salifists performed surprisingly well, at the expense of the liberal democratic parties championed by the West.

Thus, it looks as if the FJP will be the most influential body. However, no one is really sure what their aim is. The feeling on the street is that initially they'll be quite liberal, so as to not alienate the public. This will enable them to consolidate their power, and from there they'll be able to become more authoritarian. This is why more educated, liberal Egyptians are fearful for the future.

As for the presidential election, one of the leading candidates, Mohamed ElBaradei, dropped out of the running. Backed by the West, he won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2005, having been involved in inspecting nuclear weapons for the United Nations. The absence of ElBaradei in the presidential race means there's no clear favourite for the presidency.

As for Mubarak, he remains under house arrest. Growing old, and with his health deteriorating, almost everyone in Egypt wants him to get the death penalty. This leaves the army with a dilemma; having served under Mubarak for around 40 years, they don't want to simply kill him off. At the same time, they don't want to upset the public by letting him go unpunished. As a result, they have delayed his trial. It seems as if they are hoping he dies soon from natural causes.

Libya: What happened, and why?

By Luka Vlaskilic

After the populist anti-government movements in Tunisia and Egypt, often referred to as the Arab Spring, the people of Libya took to the streets in Tripoli and Benghazi. As we saw countless times before last year, the peaceful protests were met with violence, and soon Gaddafi had a revolution on his hands. Although there were a few clashes and a few activists who spoke out in January, it was not until 15th February that the unrest and confrontation began. By 27th February the NTC (National Transition Council) was formed with the former justice minister Mustafa Abdul Jalil, as its steward.

From then until the 17th March, when the UN Resolution 1973 was passed, the Libyan rebels/freedom fighters protested and fought alone against Gaddafi. Many people still supported Gaddafi, members of his tribe and many of those in power; this led to conflicts between pro and anti Gaddafi forces. Much of the army seemed to abandon the government and Gaddafi very quickly, especially when it looked like the international community would intervene. On 19th March the NTC was no longer fighting alone, with French jets flying over Libyan Airspace. From then onwards it was a long fight for freedom, with the ‘liberation’ of Tripoli on the 22nd August and that of Libya on 23rd October. Libya’s so called ‘Arab Spring’ had ended in autumn, exactly 250 days from when the protests began. The death toll reached about 30,000 from both sides of the conflict, thousands of civilians died and although the revolution will be remembered as a victory it was paid for by the blood of its inhabitants.

Now we come to why the revolution happened. Gaddafi was once on the other end of a revolution; he ‘liberated’ Libya from King Idris and formed an Arab Republic. He pumped funds into healthcare, and promoted free education for both boys and girls. By the 1980s Libya had one of the best HDI (Human Development Index) scores in Africa, and in November 2010 was rated in the same category as Mexico, Portugal and Argentina. Yet we have seen no revolutions in these countries. What changed, you ask? Well, I think the best explanation is that the people of Libya were fed up, and after seeing the success and bravery of their neighbours in Tunisia and Egypt they decided it was their turn. Gaddafi had been oppressing his critics and in many occasions ordered their assassinations. The people of Libya wanted reform and greater freedom, and when Gaddafi responded to protest with violence his beloved people turned on him. I believe that some reforms would have reduced the support for a revolution and Gaddafi may well have still been in power on 25th January 2012.

An alternative view was put forward by Gaddafi: "They give them pills at night; they put hallucinatory pills in their drinks, their milk, their coffee, their Nescafe," he also told his poeple 'not [to] be swayed by bin Laden." But I’ll let you come to your own conclusions about why the revolution happened…