“Consider a paradigm shift,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, July 13 - 19, 2012, 19.

PARADIGM SHIFT

It used to be called a paradigm shift. This happens in scientific circles when we move from one framework where our assumptions and methods can no longer solve problems to another where they can. The shift occurs because the old paradigm can no longer accommodate new variables or solve new problems. We must change some assumptions, even our methods of inquiry.

It’s still a mystery when exactly such shifts take place. At times, there is an obvious observation that contradicts old ideas—think of Galileo and his telescope confirming a heliocentric worldview away from the geocentric one. He was considered a heretic by the Catholic Church not because of his observations, but because they shattered a Biblical view about the earth being at the center of the universe.

We don’t hear much about paradigm shifts anymore. Instead, we hear about something being a “game-changer” that eventually becomes a “new normal.” Paradigm seems too archaic and cumbersome a term, especially as the person most credited with its coinage, Thomas Kuhn, was accused of having more than thirty five definitions for it.

As the Waldo Canyon Fire recedes into our collective history—a horrific natural disaster whose price will be paid for months and years—it can be seen as a game-changer for us as a community. It has forced us to rethink who we are and what we value. Solidarity isn’t a term we might have used before, but one we can use now; government assistance is something some have dreaded, but was essential to save lives and property.

The fire will be remembered by Americans across the land, making them more reluctant to come as tourists. So, tourism as we have known it in the cool and dry summers of Colorado may change as well. Our new normal may look quite differently from what it has looked in the past, especially when the state boasted that in 2011 we claimed 2.7% of the US travel market.

The total spending on overnight trips during 2011 was $10.76 billion, hosting a record 57.9 million travelers. Of them, 29 million were overnight visitors. The Colorado Tourism Office’s budget for 2011 was $13.3 million. Not a bad return on investment!

Our local economy is diversified enough that we aren’t as reliant on tourism as, say, Breckenridge, Vail, or Aspen. But we should revitalize our own Convention & Visitors Bureau—finding young and creative leaders rather than hiring outsiders who come to retire here.

One can see this kind of transformation or paradigm shift in San Miguel de Allende. Narco-trade has given Mexico such a terrible reputation around the world that tourism has dropped perceptibly. A desired destination for Canadian and American tourists and host to about 10,000 expats (out of a population of 70,000), San Miguel suffers from many empty restaurants and galleries.

A city founded in 1542, San Miguel is old and magnificent, with cobbled streets and three-meter walls, colorful and quiet, perched on hills some 250 kilometers north of Mexico City. Its European ambience is sophisticated the way the old world has always been, knowingly avoiding the latest trends to assure the continuity of tradition. Yes, they do have televisions and Internet connectivity. But the cuisine remains seasonal.

As tourism declined in the past few years, and as money transfers from Mexicans working in the US has shrunk (estimates put the annual amount around $20 billion), San Miguel’s largest industry remains strong: dairy. The new normal there has lowered real-estate speculation, because foreigners are not flocking there as they used to. The recent rigged election of the PRI isn’t helping in assuring Americans Mexico is their favored destination.

Just as San Miguel had to adjust because of circumstances not of its own doing, so will Colorado Springs have to adjust as well. We may have to rethink our tourism industry and promote cycling, for example, more than ever. Likewise, we’ll have to rethink our dependence on national defense budgets, and develop related high-tech industries that have broader applications.

The fire has definitely been a game-changer for us: we learned what it means to be a community (despite some ugly manifestations to the contrary among burglars and thieves). Coming together we can even try and change our national image of a silly conservative holdout that refuses to invest in its infrastructure. We may not become liberals in any sense of the term, yet we can be republicans.

When Michael Sandel urges us to recall our republican heritage, he suggests we consider having a “public philosophy” that stresses building virtues among the citizenry the way our founding father envisioned them. This doesn’t mean choosing specific ends, but recognizing ourselves as members of a community that cares.

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com See previous articles at sassower.blogspot.com

“Fires and human nature,” The Colorado Springs Business Journal, July 6 - 12, 2012, 17.

HUMAN FIRES

The great Waldo Canyon fires affecting Colorado Springs is different from other wild fires in the west because of its proximity to a large metropolitan area. And this fact brings to light human generosity in the face of disasters.

Western traditions have held to one of three competing views of human nature: we are either good by nature, bad, or neither (clean slate, tabula rasa). Obviously, each view of human nature spun a set of ideas about who we are and how we should interact with each other.

If all humans are good by nature, rules and regulations are superfluous, because we’d be nice to each other whenever possible. Jean Jacque Rousseau suggested that in addition to our survival instincts we are endowed with compassion or pity, and therefore would agree to enter into a social contract.

According to one interpretation, Roman Catholics who believe in Original Sin set up numerous injunctions to ensure peaceful coexistence among us. If we are evil by nature, a police state (in addition to God) can potentially guarantee safety.

Those who assume that we are by nature a clean slate believe that we can steer people to do the right thing (nature vs. nurture). The Enlightenment ideals about education eventually made their way to contemporary culture. Prison reform is based on this view of human nature.

Business-people still want to know: why bother with three alternative views, when one will do? Knowing our nature can help organize corporate structures and incentives, help in marketing goods and services, and justify a whole range of attitudes about competition, greed, and success.

Beyond business interest, there is a broader interest in human nature as it relates to the debate between rugged individualism and communitarian collaboration. Sometimes this debate is couched in terms of minimal government intervention, at others as the nuisance of taxation.

We may never lay to rest this debate or many others that are rooted in our views of human nature. Edward O. Wilson, the famed Harvard socio-biologist who specializes in the study of ants, recently suggested that human evolution happens both on the individual and the social level, thus bridging many differences in evolutionary theory.

For him, a multi-level selection is in place or what he calls a “gene-culture coevolution.” This means that just as natural selection on the genetic level continues to remain operational from one generation to another, there is also a cultural selection where groups ward off enemies and ensure the survival of group members, retaining certain cultural traits over others.

This discussion matters especially when catastrophes come about. New Yorkers with a national reputation of rudeness and selfishness, competition and greed, distrust and fear behaved quite differently as the Twin Towers fell on 9/11. Was it their true nature? Or were they pretending to be nice in front of television cameras?

The shock of the attack made people realize that what they had in common was much more important than their differences. They came together as residents of a great city and not as individuals fighting each other. It took 9/11 to remind them of these simple but profound facts of life.

The same can be said of the Waldo Canyon fires here. The instinctive and natural responses have been quite remarkable. Perhaps these responses say much more about human nature than many textbooks can: when under fire, people seek each other’s comfort and help, and acts of selfless generosity are bound to surface.

More importantly, it becomes clear that those wanting to eliminate all government agencies or starve their funding out of existence are mistaken. They may score points at some conservative think tanks or among those listening to some radio shows. But in the real world, a world that brings about wild fires and flash floods, individual heroism goes only so far.

Only with a well-trained and well-funded Fire Department can a city like ours afford to coordinate fighting fires, evacuating residents, and rescuing those trapped in a bad situation. You can sing the praises of rugged individualism all day long, you can flaunt your handgun to protect your home, but without a unionized fire force, you’d be out of luck, overwhelmed by forces greater than yours.

And guess what? To maintain a standing force, you must pay taxes. This ensures funding that hopefully will never be used, but when needed, will be readily available. Contributions pour in during emergencies—but without prior planning and coordination, without policies and procedures in place, chaos ensues.

The Lesson of the day is that it’s not about more government or none at all, but about the optimal size that is required to maintain our social contract. May we never have to test its effectiveness.

Raphael Sassower is professor of philosophy at UCCS. He can be reached at rsassower@gmail.com See previous articles at sassower.blogspot.com