The Emperor’s New Early Warning Systems
March 28, 2008Conventional conflict early warning systems, their underlying methodologies, and their uses of ICTs have prevented dozens of violent conflicts worldwide and have saved thousands of lives each year since the thawing of the Cold War. If only this were true.
Like the story of the Emperor’s Clothes, both hype and hubris have driven our false perceptions. The prevailing belief was (and regrettably still is) that sophisticated warning systems, advanced quantitative methodologies and computer databases can together predict the escalation of political tensions and violence. Today’s early warning models originate from the political sciences but perhaps ultimately begin with Thomas Hobbes; and therein lies part of the problem.
The West has traditionally viewed conflict as the result of natural forces among discrete and independent units. This perspective stems in part from the atomistic-mechanistic and linear worldview championed by Galileo, Descartes and Newton. Their writings had no small influence on the evolution of Western political philosophy and classical political theory. Thomas Hobbes, for example, publicly glorified Galileo, and praised the scientist for his groundbreaking work on the physics of moving bodies; going so far as calling the Italian luminary the most important person ever. Hobbes was so awed by the power and simplicity of Galileo’s science of kinetic motion that he took it upon himself to develop an equivalent (necessarily linear) science of society.
In subsequent political writings, Hobbes therefore uses the analogy of a watch and “portrays humans as mechanical systems that pursue what they take to be good; but in cases of scarce resources, conflicts inevitably arise just as bodies in motion in a confined space will eventually collide,” hence the apparent need for a Leviathan. In short, the metaphor for the early political universe is that of the mechanical pocket watch. Later, the revolution in knowledge continued by Isaac Newton led to the formulation of a deterministic billiard ball universe. Shortly thereafter, converts of the Enlightenment would boldly claim that scientists would soon “be able to look into the future and see what course of action is best for humanity.” This may sound familiar.
