Anonymity

Should bloggers be anonymous? Can they be trusted to disclose conflicts of interest when needed?

Grog (http://grogsgamut.blogspot.com/), a fine and honest blogger, was recently identified against his wishes. As he notes, he works for the Government in a portfolio whose minister, Peter Garrett, he defended from attack over problems with an insulation program.

This issue has been written about comprehensively, but I want to offer my take; anonymity is a right, and disclosure of interest is a duty. That is, I have no problem with someone keeping their identity hidden. And, irrespective of anonymity, disclosure of conflict of interests must always be made, since the conflict is sometimes evident only to the author.

I like my anonymity because it affords the discretion in how I conduct my personal and public affairs; this is very much passion for me that I am proud of, but I don't want this to colour the relationships I have with others. For instance, my family would never understand that I intend to give the majority of my (very small) fortune away to charity. At some point, I'll need to discuss this with them, but I intend to do this at my convenience, not because I'm actively pursuing such an end.

More importantly, I don't want this to infringe on my ability to attain a job in Economics, or to work with people in that profession. People respect Warren Buffet and Bill gates no less because they intend to give away their money, but this is only because their business acumen and will is known. For a newcomer, this isn't possible. One day, this won't be the case, but that day is not today.

The Globalisation of Empathy

Empathy is the capacity to share in another's happiness or sadness, and is therefore dependant on proximity to the other. This is one reason why some people feel intuitively that charity should start at home; one has more solidarity with one's family than with one's countrymen and more again than with the people of distant nations. And yet, most people would agree that the person more deserving of charity is the more needy, irrespective of where they live or who they are. That is, most feel that a starving stranger should be fed before a near-content friend.

The benefits of (peaceful) globalisation are well documented (as are the undesirable consequences), and includes the wider dispersion of empathy. Once, literature made it possible for a nation state to form and integrate. As this video explains, the internet may continue this trend:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g (Jeremy Rifkin and RSAOrg).

Both helpful and harmful resources and information are peddled subjectively through the internet, but certain ideas are objective in that they are true independent of conjecture; democracy, human rights, equality, and so forth. The internet is the wind through which these truths might find fertile minds, and germinate.

Also on that on wind is empathy. Shared video especially, since humans are intrinsically visual, abets the forming of narratives that cut through to the conscience.

In the short term, though, I fear that the benefits of the internet will be out of reach to the developing world, where they are most needed. I feel that economic development and technological endowment of the developing world should be of equal priority. The latter is certainly easier and cheaper to implement, and certainly would help sustain all other progress made.