Reaching From The Margin: Why the "KISS Principle" is Just Plain Wrong

Many people in both the libertarian and the transhumanist cultures -- but far moreso in the libertarian -- feel that the amount of "pull" with society that we have is far, far less than it ought to be; that we have failed fundamentally to reach the popular mindset. Furthermor, it seems that if you put three libertarians in a room you'll get seven opinions as to why, five of which are mutually exclusive.

There is a statistic that gets thrown around the country with great frequency: it seems that roughly 9-14% of Americans hold libertarian political beliefs, according to Cato's analysis of public polling data from multiple sources. And yet, according to other polls, only 2% of people self-identify as libertarian. In terms of outreach, this is clearly an abysmal failure. And it is a well recognized one: libertarians spend a great deal of time and effort attempting to "get the word out". The Libertarian Party, for example, has for some time had as one of its major factions a group of people who attempt to use political offices as nothing more than preaching platforms from which to have their ideology heard by the masses.

The debate rages on and on, in both libertarian and to a lesser extent transhumanist circles: how do "we" get our message out to people, without having it misunderstood -- let alone rejected as pure fantasy? A recent commentor on my blog, one Kitty Antonik Wakfer, represents someone who, like myself, is both libertarian and transhumanist; and, as evidenced by the conversation, seems to have a strong grasp on the ideas she is espousing, which isn't really all that uncommon in either arena. She also brought up the work of her husband, Paul: "Social Meta-Needs*: A New Basis for Optimal Interaction". This is a clearly well-thought out and perhaps well-parsed essay. And in context, wholly appropriate: while I have not yet had the time to read through the entirety of the essay in the manner it deserves, I am certainly someone whom has the interest and am of the appropriate "target audience". So no problems there. However, what does this have to do with the debate of how to get the message out?

It seems that at the moment, that essay -- like so many others out there -- simply cannot be parsed. Hayek, Mises, anyone whom has attempted to define the term, "Technological Singularity", et al. -- they all have/had this issue. Comprehensive precision has its value and its place. Initial outreach isn't one such. But does this mean that the message need must be "watered down"? Are we condemned to the tyranny of the KISS principle? I say, "No!". The key, perhaps, can be found in an application of Occam's Razor, outside of the realm of logic debate. To do this, we must return somewhat to the original phrasing of Occam's Razor. Rather than, "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one", we must consider: "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity" (Trust me, it sounds "brainier" in latin -- but then, isn't that tautological? Everything sounds "brainier" in latin.)

It seems that in the drive to find a way to get their pet "message" out, everyone -- not just libertarians and transhumanists -- tends to forget the difference between the terms; "simple", and "fundamental". For brevity's sake, here's what came up from a google definition search of the word, "fundamental":

cardinal: serving as an essential component; "a cardinal rule"; "the central cause of the problem"; "an example that was fundamental to the argument"; "computers are fundamental to modern industrial structure"

being or involving basic facts or principles; "the fundamental laws of the universe"; "a fundamental incomatibility between them"; "these rudimentary truths"; "underlying principles"

the lowest tone of a harmonic series

far-reaching and thoroughgoing in effect especially on the nature of something; "the fundamental revolution in human values that has occurred"; "the book underwent fundamental changes"; "committed the fundamental error of confusing spending with extravagance"; "profound social changes"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

This is, in fact, something that people such as Albert Einstein and Leonardo daVinci understood: simplicity as elegance is nowhere near the same as "dumbing down". Certainly, everybody today knows the idea,E=mC². For most people, that's enough to convey the idea once the terms are explained on their own. No further explanation need be given.

To stray from "pure" libertarianism or transhumanism for a short while, take for example the idea of renewable energy. This is clearly, on its face, such a good idea that one has to ask; why is it, precisely, that we aren't already using primarily such energy resources? The answer, we are told, lies in "economic factors". To the average person, this is a totally dense answer. They simply aren't interested in hearing, for example, just how much oil energy goes into growing one calorie's worth of ethanol or biodiesel. Nor are they interested in hearing how increased demand for foodstuffs as created by the increasing use and production of ethanol and biodiesel is driving food-prices up, thus making food-aid more scarce for areas such as much of Africa which has been painfully reliant on foreign aid for decades. Which of course draws us to foreign aid. The simple idea has been, "send Africa money & stuff. That'll help 'em." Hence Bono of U2's efforts. What's fascinating here is, for example, this interview with a premier Kenyan economist, James Shikwati. To quote Shikwuati on foreign aid: ".. for God's sake, please just stop."

Is Shikwati insane? Does he hunger for the poverty and misery of his fellow Kenyan, and of peoples across subSaharan Africa? His answer is complete, but can be fundamentally summarized as so: "Give a man a fish a day, and he will become a beggar for life. Teach a man to fish, and he will be fed for life." And that's the point: While "pithy", such tools are good opening points for the in-depth answer. And for those familiar with Shikwati's argument, that's a very good summarization of it -- yet I still have my breath left!

So, to all you libertarians, transhumanists, or just people with ideas you think need sharing: What is the fundamental essence of that idea? How do we capture, en brevis, the essence of that idea, without reams and reams of paper?

Too often, we focus on "Keeping it simple." I say, simple's not the answer; rather, "Fundamentalize." (Not to be mistaken with a fundamentalist's "proselytize".)