Trying to Make Difference

By Duane Gundrum

Years ago, when the AIDS scare was just beginning, I was studying genetics and archaeology in college. Realizing the implications of this disease, I created a theory to trace back the virus to Patient Zero, the first case of someone with the disease, and then eradicate the disease by following its original mutations.

I turned in the theory to my professor at the time, who was actually one of the main people instrumental in forming one of the first AIDS conferences. A few days later, I was asked to speak to a number of doctors who were interested in this theory and ended up being asked a bunch of medical questions about T-cell counts. I answered all of the questions to the best of my ability, and they were all impressed.

Then, one of them asked from where I received my medical degree. When I informed them I was only an undergraduate studying genetics and archaeology, they immediately wanted no more to do with me, and that was the end of that. The AIDS crisis then exploded, and 20 years later, I read that someone was attempting to eradicate the virus via a method very similar to the one I had proposed, but so much time had passed, the investigator did not think it would be possible to trace the disease to Patient Zero.

Why am I bringing this up 30 years later? Well, because it keeps happening to me, and it's really frustrating. During the Reagan administration, I had an intelligent plan for dealing with the growing problem of terrorism. I received a glossy photograph of Reagan, thanking me for supporting his administration. That was it.

Years later, I had an idea to fix the economy of Michigan, using a method of game theory involving a pretty simplistic interpretation of computer modeling. I received a message back from the state's national senator, thanking me for supporting her stance on fossil fuels. To this day, I still don't know what her stance is on fossil fuels, so I'm not sure how I was supporting it.

Unfortunately, this is how representatives in government tend to respond to the common constituent. The politicians only seem to need you when they need votes. After that, the constituent is a roadblock and irrelevant.

Recently, I completed a theory for sustainable world peace that doesn't require being an analytical genius to handle its implementation. It involves several disciplines, some advanced game theory mathematics and an outcome that can be easily obtained. In other words, carrying out the peaceful project is easy; I did the math.

My colleague and I sent this theory to the Obama people during the 2008 campaign, explaining this is change that could make a serious difference. No response. None. Not even a glossy photo or a thank you for supporting his fossil fuel policy.

We presented the theory at a national communication conference, and other scientists showed serious interest. Unfortunately, people don't think that much anymore. They keep trying to do things the old way, hoping that unlike the definition of insanity (doing the same thing over and over and hoping for a better result), we might be successful if we keep making the same international moves we've always made. And yet, we're not getting better results. We end up with more enemies and more people who we have to categorize as people who hate us for whatever reasons we can think of. Rather than moving toward peaceful co-existence, we move towards a sustainable lack of hostilities that can change at a moment's notice.

This is why the average person gets really frustrated with trying to make a difference. I have been trying to make a difference for most of my adult life, and I've discovered that I might have been better off just trying to profit off of all the gullible people and exploiting those who didn't know better, because that's what so many other people do, and they're seen as successful, and even worse, they become powerful enough that they're the people to whom the rest of the country listens. It's almost as if the one who screams the loudest but has the least to say is the one who gets the most attention. And we reward that.

I don't see that anyone really cares for solutions to the bigger problems in the world. Instead, I see a lot of people who are more interested in pretending to focus on those problems without actually doing anything. We've become very good at rewarding reactive politics and shunning preventative actions. With that being the case, is it all that surprising that people have given up on trying to make a difference?

The writer is a political scientist and communication scholar currently working in South Korea with a Ph. D. in political science from Western Michigan University and an M.A. in communication from the University of the Pacific. He can be reached at duane.gundrum@gmail.com