All Or Nothing At All

“My way or the highway.” It has to be my way or I won't accept it. I don't care how well-intentioned you may be, or the virtues of what you suggest. My way is better and I won't settle for less. No halfway measures.

The search for perfection is never-ending. Adam Smith wrote in The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759):

A watch . . . that falls behind above two minutes in a day, is despised by one curious in watches. He sells it perhaps for a couple of guineas, and purchases another at fifty, which will not lose above a minute in a fortnight. (Cited in Gary Wills's Inventing America.)

The attitude is not new. Partial improvements are unacceptable when you're convinced that a better solution (or, at least, your solution) is possible. It's not clear what the “curious” clock-lovers of the eighteenth century would have done had the horologists of their time not been able to provide them with the fifty-guinea watch, but it's clear they would have been very unhappy. Compromise is not an option.

It's unfortunate, but this approach long predated Smith and will probably persist as long as there are any humans remaining. Not just the imperious like me, but most people, especially men (and politicians of both sexes), are single-minded in their search for perfect solutions to the problems they identify. It's often better to tolerate a bad situation than to accept a solution that isn't perfect – or as close to it as can be imagined. No deals with the devil. “The devil we know” is better than one we don't know.

There's much to be said for such a point of view, especially that it is a good way to avoid unintended consequences. But there is much to be said against it as well. As the adage goes, Half a loaf is better than none. A trip of a thousand miles begins with the first step.

But, as Congress has shown, and as our President has emphasized, there is no room for compromise. It's all or nothing. (“All or Nothing At All” in the words of Jack Lawrence's 1940 song.) The whole point of controversy is not progress, but the point to be made. Argument is better than solution. Winning is the only thing. It's better not to solve a problem than to make even the slightest move in the direction of someone with other (and therefore inferior) opinions.

What brings this to mind at the moment is the news of a death in a car using the Tesla “Autopilot” – a self-driving system still in its beta phase (still being tested). It's not perfect. But what is? There will be no progress if we wait for perfection. That doesn't mean that care should not made in the creation of solutions to the problems we face. It remains critical to be certain that the “solution” will indeed address the difficulty we seek to remedy. And we have to determine what negative effects it might have; we must avoid any additional ills it may cause. The solution has to be better than the problem. But we ought not reject a solution simply because it isn't perfect, for doing so will never let us make any progress.

According to Bill Vlasic, on the front page of the New York Times (July 2, 2016)

Even some Tesla owners, many of whom can be cultishly devoted to the brand, now question whether the self-driving technology is as safe as advertised.

“It gives you a false sense of security.” [Quoting a Tesla owner.]

What the article doesn't mention is that while Tesla tells us this is the first death in one hundred sixty-seven million miles driven using “Autopilot,” the statistics compiled by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration show a death every nine hundred ninety-two thousand miles. The system may not be perfect, but, if the numbers are correct, the rate thus far is a sixty-eight percent improvement over current statistics. It may not be perfect, but it's a big improvement over the current situation. And, according to the information in Mr. Vlasic's article, it is (at least) as safe as advertised.

In April, he [Elon Musk, founder of Tesla] told a conference in Norway, “the probability of having an accident is 50 percent lower if you have Autopilot on.”

Mr. Musk didn't claim perfection, but he made a strong case for an improvement on the status quo. And the numbers bear him out. It would be contrary to our better interests to reject improvement as we seek perfection. It would be sad if we imitated the Congress whose stalemate we all criticize. But our paranoia inspired by this accident may lead us to do so.

We damage ourselves if we keep the faulty watch when we know there is a better one available, even if it is not perfect.