UPDATE: This will image be unavailable until I arrive back in Australia :-(

Anyone short of fanatical tends to agree that fundamentalism, often with the resulting extremism, is dangerous in any form.

Fundamentalism is a threat to any society, because its divisive nature breeds intolerance and even fuels (often violent) hostility towards non-conformists. Clearly such things are not healthy (especially in the non-homogeneous societies that are pre-eminent today), and do little to promote harmony between people.

Why do people turn to fundamentalism? Fundamentalism is the simplest interpretation of an idea. It is easy to grasp by anyone, since taking things literally requires little in the way of mental effort. Fundamentalism offers a degree of supposed “stability” in a seemingly crazed world. People find it hard to accept change, let alone adapt to it. Fundamentalism offers comfort in the company of like-minded people. Never mind that they are proverbial dinosaurs.

Like many social phenomena, fundamentalism is self-perpetuating. It is passed on from parents to children (who are infinitely malleable) and so on and so forth. Additionally, when there is fundamentalism, there is a suppression of introspection and critical thought. Ultimately, fundamentalists are incapable of questioning their world-view because it is deeply ingrained and because of their conscious will not to.

What is shocking is the fact that many people who are from an educated background, (who one may presume to have a degree of healthy scepticism regarding various interpretations and viewpoints, especially the more radical ones) are often keen fundamentalists.

For example, the rise of the “Family First” political party in Australian politics is a demonstration of worrying elements present in a fairly stable society, as most of it’s supporters hail from the middle (and thus supposedly higher-educated) classes. From this, it could be said that fundamentalism is independent from socio-economic background and education.

Where things begin to fall apart is that fundamentalist interpretation is still, after all, an interpretation. Language is constantly evolving: meaning, spelling and usage of words change over time.

There is a somewhat sad irony regarding the fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible, for instance. The original tomes were written in many different languages, including Hebrew, Aramaic, and Ancient Greek. They were subsequently translated into Latin, and then into English for wider consumption (though some modern translations derive from the “original” sources). However, it is not surprising of the possibility of things being “lost in translation”, despite the rigorous efforts of translators and theologians. At the end of the day, fundamentalists are relying on the words of men.

Part II of this essay will be continued in a future post.

In capitalist societies, goods and services have a cost (not necessarily the same as value) determined in theory by their supply as well as demand. Professionals essentially deliver a service (application of their often specialised knowledge in a particular field), to their consumer (eg: client, employer, etc).

The knowledge monopoly derives from the fact that it is inefficient or not economical for the client to undertake the training and gain the experience to carry out the service themself, but also that there a limited supply of the professional in a particular field. Some fields are much more difficult to enter than others’, with examples of the former being the medical profession in particular.

Obviously being an accredited doctor brings a large set of responsibilities to the patients dealt with, and thus it is in the best interests of the patient to be under the care of a qualified and competent doctor. However, there is a severe lack of doctors in the public system, leading to more work pressure per doctor, which leads to higher renumeration (high demand, limited supply). Indeed, it is the monetary reward that inspires many to enter the profession. The question must be asked: do stressed and overworked doctors necessarily deliver a better service?

So why not more doctors? The medical profession is the one of the most difficult to enter. A high school student must either produce a near-perfect ENTER score, or be able to invest signficant amounts of money for a full-fee paying place (and a slightly lower score). These hefty requirements are again driven by short supply and high demand.

Why not offer more places? Universities can maximise their revenue by maintaining a lucrative service, offering more places reduces that, and thus it is not in their best interests to do so. (Especially given there is chronic underfunding of Universities and other Tertiary institutions…)

Notice the catch 22? Less places leads to fewer doctors, leads to higher sallaries, leads to greater demand to become a doctor, and so forth. Those in the profession also establish “professional” organisations which on one hand “ensure” a level of qualification and quality control, also essentially establish a monopoly on the trade of that particular service.

As a side note, public hospitals are also underfunded, and it is ultimately the patient who foots the bill and covers the costs of increased sallaries. A problem is when some cannot afford treatment (even with some government subsidies), which then undermines the equity of an important public service.