Society « The Ramblings of An Eternal Student of Life

Thursday, October 4, 2007

Psychology ... Society ...

I’ve been watching the Ken Burns series on WW2 lately (“The War”, on PBS TV). It definitely is powerful. Burns is trying to show you what that war was like from two perspectives – from the homefront and from the front lines. The homefront stuff is interesting; it shows how life had changed in four typical American towns because of WW2. So far, our modern war on terrorism hasn’t changed our daily life in America too much, aside from the increased security irritants (e.g., more paperwork to get a drivers license, more airport check-in procedures, more metal scanners at office buildings, etc.). But WW2 definitely made a big change relative to the way that things were in the 1930’s, during the Great Depression. In some ways things got better because of the war, in some ways things got worse, but they definitely were different.

Again, that’s all quite interesting. But Burns goes for the gut when he turns to the war front. He wants you to imagine what it was like to be in a cold mudhole getting shot at, or up in a bomber plane over France with an engine on fire, or on a Navy ship in the Pacific with a kamikaze plane diving in at you. He wants you to know that war is in no way fun. It’s gruesome work done in awful conditions. He wants you to imagine the blood and screams when the guy next to you gets his face blown off by shrapnel. He wants you to know about field amputations for gangrene. He wants you to imagine being alone in the Pacific Ocean without a lifeboat, watching the last remains of your burning destroyer ship sinking under the waterline.

I have had some trouble sleeping after watching all this. One way to feel better is to lionize these men, think about all the sacrifice they made for their nation and their fellow soldiers and sailors. Praise them for their great love of country and their incredible bonding with the other guys in the trenches. In other words, try to think about how some of the best human behavior shines through the awfulness of it all. E.g., Tom Brokaw’s “Greatest Generation”.

I just read an article in the Atlantic that makes me ponder how war paradoxically brings out the best in people. Olivia Judson wrote a somewhat optimistic article called “The Selfless Gene”, surveying various studies indicating that humans have inherited from their ape ancestors an instinct to cooperate with and even sacrifice for the group they belong to. Ms. Judson concludes that this instinct can be directed by human intelligence to make things better for us. But there is a dark side, which Ms. Judson alludes to in the middle of her article. She says that the “inherent selflessness” of humans may well have developed as a tactic of war. Charles Darwin himself hypothesized that because of all the warfare that goes on between groups of apes (and humans), the groups that cooperate the most (to the point of self-sacrifice to save the group) will do better than groups where everyone is out to save their own behind. The former groups will usually beat the latter groups, and given the deadly nature of warfare, this means that more people willing to sacrifice themselves for the group will have children than the folk who didn’t want to.

Ms. Judson then reviews a number of formal scientific studies that confirm this Darwinian theory. And from that she draws a sunny conclusion. But after watching the Burns series on war, I draw a much less optimistic conclusion. All this willingness to suffer and die for one’s country and one’s fellow soldier is great, on one level. But on a higher level, it assumes that we are always going to form groups (based on nationality, religion, race, ideology, whatever) and make war against each other. That is also in our genes. The theory espoused by humanists and religious idealists that humankind is one big family that shouldn’t fight amidst itself never gains traction.

Living in peace appears to go against our nature. There have been a few short periods in human history where there wasn’t much warfare going on. The 20th Century, and now the early 21st Century, hardly had any such periods. But even when there was relative calm throughout the world, just a few changes in weather or technology or ideology got one group upset with another, and the bang-bang started all over again. It doesn’t take much to get this species marching its sons off to the battlefield. And it doesn’t take much to convince them that they put their lives on the line. We get talked into war so easily. Again, it seems to be in our genes.

Humans are the one species that can appreciate the notion “it doesn’t have to be this way”. Once in a blue moon, humanity does go against its nature when intelligence indicates a better way. But with regard to warfare, I don’t see much willingness to question it anywhere in the world. And that’s not good, given all the mega-problems that are now brewing (global warming, nuclear proliferation, oil shortages, religious fundamentalism, unregulated global capitalism, etc.).

I’m not going to be alive to see the year 2100 come in (not even the 2050 mid-point). But I hope it all somehow turns out OK for today’s kids, who possibly will. I hope that future Ken Burns’ won’t have to keep making documentaries like “The War”.

◊ posted by Jim G @ 11:59 am No Comments Yet / Leave a Comment

Thursday, September 20, 2007

◊ Linkin Park’s Dark Future

Art & Entertainment ... Society ...

I recently watched a video of Linkin Park’s “What I’ve Done” and found it to be quite interesting. It actually seems anti-patriotic, perhaps somewhat of a protest song. Wow, the popular music culture hasn’t done anything like that since maybe 1974 or so. The most daring scene is towards the end, showing a group of children waving American flags – followed by a child in the Middle East holding a gun. Amazing; they imply that waving American flags is not a great idea anymore, perhaps even a stupid idea. It looks like young folk are finally moving away from the unquestioned patriotism of the last 25 years; e.g., I don’t hear Van Halen’s “Yankee Rose” on the local rock station anymore.

Lots of other heavy imagery in this video – atomic explosions and industrial wastelands and melting polar ice and birds in oil slicks and starving Africans. Soldiers at war and a junkie readying his arm for the needle and an aerial bombing run, maybe from Vietnam. And my favorite juxtaposition – the remains of an old Roman Empire temple, followed by a shot of the World Trade Center.

If the Linkin Park video is any indication, then American teens and twenty-somethings are quite disgusted about being handed a future that will surely include terrorism, continuing warfare in the Middle East (with continuing US involvement), environmental degradation, possible catastrophe from global warming, nuclear proliferation, gross economic inequities, resource depletion, etc. They appear not to like the idea of inheriting a world that has been used up and sucked dry by the previous generation or three.

Well, I think that’s good. They should indeed blame my generation. We really should have thought more about what would be left behind for our kids. But no, we kept living the high life and burning up the future. And now the burned-out future is coming into sight, and sharp musicians like Linkin Park are making a buck playing off the disgust of those who see what’s in their future.

Unfortunately, Linkin Park is unrelievedly dark. They offer no hope at all, no “we can make it happen” endings. Ultimately, they’re just there to entertain, to make some cash and enjoy it while they can.

In the “What I’ve Done” video, young musicians jump around and emote at an impromptu concert stage out in the middle of a post-apocalyptic wasteland. What’s more ironic than their intended irony is that their performance co-opts the ways of the broken world they condemn. They are surrounded by towers of lights and amplifiers and speakers, all needing lots of electricity. They utilize guitars and drums made of high-tech plastics and composites, and wireless microphones utilizing the latest chip technology. Their performance is tightly woven within the techno-establishment (now there’s a phrase from the 60’s – “the Establishment”) which they blame. They don’t stop to wonder how much greenhouse gas their musical excursion produces. Their video rightly implies that everything ties together – war, terrorism, famine, American greed, lack of concern for the rest of the world, environmental collapse. But Linkin Park themselves seem immune from their own equation.

Overall, however, they do have a point. I’m not sure if “the center can hold” for America very much longer. Just a quick example: Iran is now preparing to bomb Israel if anyone tries to stop its nuclear weapons program.

“Let mercy come, and wash away – – – – WHAT I’VE DONE”.

◊ posted by Jim G @ 8:02 pm No Comments Yet / Leave a Comment

Sunday, September 16, 2007

◊ Talkin’ Bout My Hypocritical Generation

Current Affairs ... Society ...

Let me admit it; I’m a “Baby Boomer”. That’s something to be rather sheepish about these days. My generation (remember that song by the Who, “Talking ‘Bout My Generation”?) was supposed to “change the world, rearrange the world”. And it didn’t. It turned out that we were an extremely self-centered generation. We liked being young and sexy and wild and crazy, but now we’re not. But we’re trying to still pretend that we are, and that we’re just as “hip” as the young folk.

The young trendsetters are now called Generation ZQYBX or something like that. They have the right to quote one of our mottos back at us: “WHY DON’T YOU ALL FADE AWAY, DON’T TRY TO DIG WHAT WE ALL SAY” (yes, indeed, that line is from The Who). We didn’t in the end offer them any lasting wisdom about life to latch on to. We got all upset in the late 60s about how terrible the world was being run. But that was mostly because Uncle Sam was sending too many of us to Vietnam, a war-gone-bad like today’s Iraq war (but about 10 times the magnitude); and was arresting us for smoking pot. Once we got past all that, we wanted tax cuts and SUVs and McMansions and welfare reform (elimination). That’s how we rearranged the world.

I took a look recently at some of the “networking” web sites that attempt to cater to Baby Boomers. These include Eons.com, Rezoom.com, Multiply.com, Boomj.com, and Boomertown.com. I’m not including links to any of them here because I don’t think that they – or the Baby Boom generation in general – are worth it. Not that the young digital generation has any wonderful alternatives – MySpace and Facebook get me dizzy and make me nauseous. And all that stuff on them about accumulating “friends” and being popular – how phony is that?

But when I see all those pix of graying people with big smiles and great bodies and interesting lives on the Boomer sites, it doesn’t do my stomach any good either. I look at the services offered and topics discussed – health, lifestyle, dating, travel, vacations, investments, real estate, mortgages, careers, celebrities, spiritual living – and it all seems so self-centered. It’s so Bill Clinton. Why aren’t there pages for FAILURE. SELF-DISAPPOINTMENT. REGRET FOR NOT DOING MORE FOR THE FUTURE. LACK OF COMMITMENT. STUPIDITY (INCLUDING OUR ONE-TIME ATTITUDES ABOUT SEX AND DRUGS). NEW-FOUND RESPECT FOR OUR ANCESTORS. LONG-DELAYED REALISM. MEA CULPA WORLD, WE WEREN’T SO SMART AFTER ALL. And finally, WHAT CAN WE YET DO TO LEAVE SOMETHING POSITIVE BEHIND.

That’s the Baby Boomer web site that I’ll sign up for. It would have to be certified Bill Clinton Free (I’m still hoping that Hilary will redeem the family name). I’ll take it seriously if you don’t have to give away a bunch of personal information to register, as you do with the typical Baby Boomer web sites. Obviously, the folk who run those sites know that Boomers have $$$, and info about them can be sold for marketing purposes. Yea, the Boomer sites are just so Boomer-ish. Yep, that’s “My [hypocritical] Generation, Baby”.

◊ posted by Jim G @ 11:10 am No Comments Yet / Leave a Comment

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

◊ Global Warming – We’re Not Out of the Woods At All

Current Affairs ... Science ... Society ...

There’s a strange attitude here in the USA about global warming these days. Almost everyone has given in to its existence. Even the Republican leadership in Washington no longer challenges the scientific validity of the theory that gasses created by human industrial activity have raised the world’s temperature and could cause some really nasty problems later this century. But they are trying to minimize its potential by claiming it to be just another technical problem.

Even some of the more thoughtful writers assume that the success that America has had in controlling atmospheric pollution problems (e.g., CFC’s and nitric oxides) will surely repeat itself with regard to greenhouse gasses. And some of the more fervent “internationalists” support this notion by blaming the USA and western Europe for entirely causing the problem. They thus assume that the force of their United Nations-flavored wrath will stimulate the technological fixes and investments that will cool things down. On top of all that, the idealistic pop musicians are organizing concerts to save the planet, bringing back that good old “we are the world” spirit that makes everyone feel nice and cozy. We’ve admitted our guilt, we’ve put out a concert video, we’ve seen the Al Gore movie, and the problem is solved (other than a few loose ends that the scientists and engineers can take care of).

I recently read a handful of articles hinting that global warming is going to be much tougher to deal with than the public seems to think. There is a group of academic researchers working with the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change who put out a study showing that the causes of global warming are more evenly spread over all of the inhabited continents than is popularly believed. The new analysis still shows that the average North American and European citizens have polluted the skies with greenhouse gasses much more than their Asian, African and Latin American neighbors have. But even if the industrialized nations get a handle on the problem with their technology, concentrations of greenhouse gasses could still continue to rise toward a “tipping point” where all sorts of bad stuff will start happening.

That is because of such things as methane emissions from certain types of food production (e.g. rice fields and cattle), crude means of producing charcoal (the most popular form of fuel in Africa and the poorer areas of Asia and South America) and deforestation. Another problem is that the developing nations are hell-bent on industrializing without much regard for the side effects. Thus, India and China are building lots of coal-burning electrical plants and factories without adequate pollution controls. And more and more people in those places are now driving autos and buying larger homes farther from work. They’re taking up our suburban habits, and that’s not good.

Here are some rough numbers from a 2005 article published by some UN-affiliated scientists: if you consider all of the recognized factors that contribute to global warming, the causes of unnatural planetary heating during the 20th Century would be split as follows: OECD countries (USA, Canada, Mexico, Japan, Korea and western Europe as far as Poland and Turkey) – 38 %; Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union – 14 %; developing Asia (w/o Japan and Korea) – 26 %; Africa and Latin America (w/o Mexico) – 22 %. By comparison, the present population of the world breaks down as follows: OECD, 18%; former Soviet Union, 4%; developing Asia, 57%; and Africa / Latin America, 21 %. Some quick math shows that the Russians and their friends did the most damage per person; OECD denizens came in second, Africans and Latin Americans placed third, and developing Asians finished fourth.

What does that say about the future? Well, OECD is the home of technology and wealth. But even so, they can’t (and won’t) turn their capitalistic economies around on a dime. By 2100, perhaps they can cut their “greenhouse footprint” by one-eighth or one-sixth, one-quarter tops. The former Soviet region isn’t doing as well, although they may at least keep their footprint from getting bigger (especially since their population is not growing). As to Africa and Latin America – these places are so poor and so hard to reach, it’s doubtful that they can do much to stop the damage they are causing. And their populations are expected to grow significantly, which means that their “footprint on the sky” could well get worse. As to developing Asia – that’s where future of global warming is going to be determined, simply because of the sheer size of its population (and their continuing although slowing population growth rates).

Developing Asia is quickly increasing its impact on greenhouse warming. Let’s say, however, that over the next 50 years it doesn’t get worse, on a per-person basis, than the 20th Century average for Africa and Latin America. Let’s also say that the OECD nations manage to cut their average impact by one-quarter; that the Russian-zone impact comes down by a tenth; and Africa and Latin America stay the same. Where does that leave us? According to my back-of-the-envelope calculations, it leaves our planet fifteen percent worse than today. Instead of leveling off later this century, as the UN reports on global warming assume, global warming would then accelerate, hurling us toward ecological breakdown. The worst case scenarios of 20-foot sea rises and arid deserts across China, the USA and middle Europe, start to look more feasible.

We’ve clearly been saved from our folly thus far by Asia’s poverty. And now they’re starting to figure out how to leave that poverty behind. They’re using the same techniques that we used, which messed the atmosphere up so much in the first place! They’re locking-in on our own bad habits by setting up fossil-fuel intensive economies and competitive ways of life. Unless we here in the west quickly develop some alternatives for living modestly and cooperatively in an ecologically responsible fashion, the developing world is going to pave the road to hell with high-carbon bling-bling, just as we did. And this time, the road is going to go all the way there.

PS — If you don’t believe me in regard to Asia and global warming, check out Tom Friedman. And thanks to the NY Times for allowing us cheapskates to read him for free once more on their web site.

◊ posted by Jim G @ 10:04 pm No Comments Yet / Leave a Comment

Sunday, September 9, 2007

◊ A New Bin Laden Video

Foreign Relations/World Affairs ... Religion ... Society ...

OK, so Osama Bin Laden is back with a new video. This time he’s giving us a lecture on the errors of our ways. He’s urging Americans to convert en mass to Islam. That guy has some imagination. But he’s not issuing any threats. Well, that’s different. Is this a kinder and gentler Al Qaeda that we’re seeing?

Yea, right. I’m not an expert on Islam, but I do know that Al Qaeda is trying to justify its brand of violent jihad to the “establishment” of imams and Moslem scholars who define and interpret the Qur’an for the faithful. One theory that seems popular in some quarters of the Islamic world is that violence against dangerous infidels can sometimes be justified, but only after they’ve been warned of the errors of their ways. Thus, I can’t help but wonder if Bin Laden has something big up his sleeve, and wants to get the imams ready to take some heat once the blood starts spilling, once the regular citizens and even children who pose no direct threat to any Moslem get slaughtered. (Even some local Moslems might well get caught in the mix, as happened on 9-11).

But who knows. Maybe he’s just going thru the motions; maybe he can’t really get anything big going with US Rangers just a couple of klicks to his west (but a friendly Pakistani intelligence service to his east). Let’s just hope.

The unfortunate thing is that Bin Laden is playing to an audience (i.e., the clerics and scholars in the Islamic world) that we have no idea how to impress, or even how to get a hearing from. If we could get them to sit down and watch a 30 minute video about “the way of the west”, just what would we say?

That’s the problem. Just what do we stand for? Democracy? A government with elected officials is good, but it still leaves a whole lot of woes (as we see in both Gaza and Iran, two VERY democratic nations). Capitalism and wealth? Yes, capitalism has served the western world rather well; but again, not without causing a whole lot of nasty side effects (e.g., poverty in a rich land is sometimes worse than general poverty, given the insult-to-injury factor; the poor start doing crazy things for some “bling-bling”). Liberalism, in the classic sense of freedom, justice and individual rights? Yes, this stuff is good, but again — it also gives you the right to be terribly poor and to be shut out by the wealthy and enfranchised “old guard”. In America, you have the right to buy excellent health care — if you can afford it. Otherwise, so sorry; you stay sick and die early. Liberalism in the other sense, i.e. increased governmental protection against scams and toxic chemicals and pollution and dangerous workplaces and all that? We tried that, but the voters wanted tax cuts.

I wish I could say that there is one really good thing that we strongly believe in here in “The West”. As an “eternal student”, I propose that to be EDUCATION. If we could say to the Moslem world that WE BELIEVE IN EDUCATION FOR ALL, then maybe the other things would start to fit together. I’d like us to be able to say that education is so sacred in “The West” that everyone can get as much of it as they want regardless of their ability to pay, and they get the same quality regardless of economic status or family connections. Education makes all the other stuff fall into place. Education makes better citizens, better workers, better government officials, better entrepreneurs, better teachers. It just plain makes people better. Not just richer, not just more employable, not just more able to play the system and elect better governments and choose wiser religious beliefs. It does all that — but it adds up to something bigger. It adds up to people living fulfilled lives, doing and being at their best. THAT is what I’d like to tell the Moslem world that we believe in. THAT is what I’d say is their alternative to Osama Bin Laden.

(We could thus call the Islamic world to remember it’s own rich scholarly heritage during it’s golden age!)

Once upon a time, we could honestly tell the world that this was true. When I went to college, at a decent state engineering school, the tuition was next to nothing. The State and Federal Governments were so committed to education that literally anyone who could pass the classes could get a degree. But guess what? That was 30 years ago.

Times have changed. Even the state schools have become awfully expensive. You can still get a scholarship if you’re a real goody-goody. But what about those poorer, lazier types who don’t have such impressive high school records? I went to law school with a guy who was basically a lout; he barely got out of high school and went to work in a factory. Between bouts of partying, he took some evening classes in a community college and he hated it. It was back to partying and factory life for him. But a few years later, he tried again. And that time around, he met a professor that “found” him. Then it was on to completing a four-year college degree, and then on to law school. Today he has a very successful legal practice and is a local councilman. That’s what you get when you let people go to college on the cheap.

I wish I could tell the imams about that guy, how anyone here in the USA can do that. But no, today that can’t be done. The guy would have needed to sign his life away for an education loan. Forget it, it wouldn’t happen if he had to play by today’s rules. People want their tax cuts. People want to shop. That was George Bush’s answer to the last big attack on our country by Al Qaeda — keep on shopping. And so we did. But can we buy protection against a Moslem world that thinks that’s all we stand for? We shall see.

PS, Bush’s homeland security adviser, Fran Townsend, was on TV today taunting Bin Laden for being on the run and powerless. Senator John McCain tried to inject a dose of reality afterward when he said that Townsend’s comments were “not helpful”.

◊ posted by Jim G @ 5:18 pm No Comments Yet / Leave a Comment

Thursday, August 30, 2007

◊ Lesbian Shock

Religion ... Society ...

A lot of midwestern newspapers, and even some coastal rags (like the Washington Post) have run stories in the past few days with titles such as “Lesbian Being Considered As Next Episcopal Chicago Bishop”. Here’s an example. Just for shock effect, they always begin with the word “lesbian”. I don’t think that most people are at ease with that word yet. The subtext is that it’s bad enough for men to be gay, but for women to go bad like that . . . .

That mentality was drilled into my head by my parents and teachers. They hardly ever used the term “lesbian”. It was something so bad, so far removed from normal life as to be unspeakable. And since my genetics never took me on the journey of homosexual urges, I had little reason to question this notion.

Until I went to law school in 1979, I don’t think I’d ever even seen a “lesbian”. Not that I’d know, anyway (I obviously did see them, given that they make up around 4% of the female population). Only in the legal mill did I encounter any openly gay women and men (some woman named Linda and a guy known as Mitchell – definitely not “Mitch”). And it took another 5 years until I actually started talking to people who I knew were gay or sort-of gay (lots of blurriness out there). By 1990 or so I actually had some gay friends, people I could stop thinking of as gay when I was around them.

And then around 1993 or so I met Tracey Lind — the Reverend Tracey Lind that is. The LESBIAN Reverend Tracey Lind. I was trying out the Episcopal faith and I was looking for a parish with some electricity, some voltage, some juice. Most Episcopal parishes run on AAA batteries in that regard. After reading an article somewhere, I decided to try out St. Pauls in Paterson (NJ), specifically their mid-week evening Eucharist. And guess what? There was some voltage in the air. And most of it was emanating from the presiding minister – none other than the good Reverend Lind.

I hung out at St. Pauls to varying degrees for the next 5 years, and I got to know Tracey — more or less. I can’t say that we became best of friends. I became involved in a handful of parish activities, and I had to deal with Tracey in a variety of ways. To be honest, she could be quite grating at times. And she definitely was a publicity hound. She had her own little cult of followers, comprised of some other bona fide lesbians, some gay guys, some down-and-outers from the inner city looking for a break, and some well-intentioned genteel Anglicans from the middle class looking for “relevance”. I think there was even a transexual in the mix. I used to call this motley crew “the Trace Cadets”. Obviously, I was not one of them, and thus never got the attention and consideration from Tracey that they did.

And yet I kept on schlepping up to Saint Pauls every week or two, to see Tracey up on the altar and to listen to her sermons. Why did I do that? Because she was damn entertaining. Sometimes she could be insightful, sometimes she was humanistic and caring, and sometimes she was just plain off-the-wall. But she was always entertaining. And at bottom, I always sensed that she had a good heart.

Well, finally it was time for her to leave for bigger and better things in Cleveland. And now she’s in the running for even bigger things in Chicago. And not only that – it’s like the whole future of the Anglican Communion is riding on what happens with her. If the Diocese committee were to select her, it would get the Anglican bishops in Africa and England royally peed off, given that she’s quite open about her sexual orientation and is openly living with a female partner. Then the Episcopalian Church in the USA would get tossed out of the “World Communion”, and the local parishes would start choosing whether they were “American Episcopalians” or “International Episcopalians”.

To be honest, I just don’t see what the big deal is. It’s just Tracey Lind. So what if she lives with a woman, and who cares what they do in private (or don’t do – I’ve heard that most lesbians don’t have anything like the scintillating sex life that teenage boys, and the many web sites catering to them, would imagine). And if they hug or kiss in public, well, we don’t have to watch it.

Whatever she does with her partner, Tracey is still a pretty good priest. She has a lot of spirit in her. She’s not afraid to relate to heterosexuals and to minister and preach to them. Despite my quibbles with her, I enjoyed my time at her parish. If she were still in the area, I’d probably still go to church despite my disagreement with the core Christian myths. I still haven’t discarded the most central of those myths, i.e. that God exists. And Tracey definitely hasn’t either. She is a woman of God, a woman who serves God well despite a lot of flaws. It’s sad to see her caricatured in the papers as “LESBIAN”. It’s so impersonal, so political. Well, Tracey is tough; she can handle it. She will land on her feet one way or another. But I do hope that the good Episcopalians burghers of Chicago will decide to take advantage of her talents.

Is Tracey Lind worth having a schism over? Well, if you gotta have a schism, it might as well be over someone ultimately likable, like Tracey. History has seen so much worse.

◊ posted by Jim G @ 8:05 pm No Comments Yet / Leave a Comment

Monday, August 20, 2007

◊ Gott versus the Black Swan

Society ...

According to Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s definition, a black swan is a large-impact, hard-to-predict event that is beyond normal expectations. Taleb claims that almost all consequential events in history come from the high impact events. And yet, in a recent article, J. Richard Gott III claims that in thinking about the future, it’s best to assume that there is nothing special about the particular moment that you’re observing. Dr. Gott says that for on-going things (like Al Qaeda, or the Internet, or the US space program), the future can best be predicted on how long something has lasted already. He recently said that we need to get a colony up and running on Mars within 46 years in order to ensure human survival. If we don’t do it within 46 years, chances are (based on his method, which a lot of people take seriously) that we won’t do it.

These two ways of looking at history and the future seem a bit inconsistent, but that’s not necessarily the case. The world is shaped both by momentum and by big changes. Things go steady for a long time, and just when you think things will never change, BAM. The unexpected happens. Something reaches the tipping point (another book, by Malcolm Gladwell), and yesterday is irrelevant. Then the Gott approach begins anew. Evolution and revolution. Yin and yang. Yada and yada. I better stop here.

◊ posted by Jim G @ 5:54 pm No Comments Yet / Leave a Comment

Thursday, August 9, 2007

◊ GROUP THINKING, religiously

Religion ... Society ...

One of the reasons why I don’t have much desire to be involved with religion right now is because of GROUP-THINK. I don’t like group-think. Group-think is when a group of people believe in some common idea or set of ideas because everyone else in the group believes in it. If you trace out the logic of it, you wind up with a big circle. John believes because Judy believes; Judy believes because Andrea believes; Andrea believes because Phil believes; Phil believes because . . . and eventually, the trail leads right back to John. Everyone feels good talking about Jesus and the saints (or Moses and the prophets, or the Buddha and the bodhivistas, or Mohammed and the caliphs, or Krishna and all his friends). They feel confident in believing in the sacred myths, because everyone else in the room believes. Loops and loops and loops. Loops from the ancient past making their way across time into the present, and cruising on into the future. No the circle won’t be broken.

But as I’ve said before, I haven’t left religion because I’m an atheist. At best (or worst) I’m a somewhat skeptical agnostic. But I still want there to be a God, and I still haven’t heard an air-tight explanation as to why God doesn’t exist. Some atheistic rationales for the non-existence of God are just as laughable as what the snake-handling Pentacostalists way back in the hollers of West Virginia ever said or did. For example, Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson (of the Hayden Planetarium and PBS’s NOVA series) gives a presentation citing a long list of reasons as to why the Universe could not have had an intelligent creator. One of Dr. Tyson’s complaints is that for most animals, including humans, the sexual organs are located near the waste excrement apparatus. Personally, I can’t help but wonder if there is a wise lesson in that fact; something along the lines of “remember human that you are dirt, and to dirt you shall return”. Perhaps it was intentional to have the flowery pleasures of new life and the revolting stuff of death juxtapositioned. I myself see a lesson in it, a lesson that a wise creator might well have intended after designing the bubbly, mindless feeling of sex.

(And furthermore, I’ve never heard of anyone deferring from sex because the main physical events occur too close to where the yucky stuff comes out. In fact, certain people seem to enjoy that fact . . . . but I’ll stop there.)

The “new atheism” movement is the only thing worse than group-think religion. The modern anti-God voices (Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris … and Elton John, ugh) seem to be growing a group-think of their own. Here’s a blog devoted to debunking it. And I say bravo! I hope the guy will post some more.

The thing for me is that God is too important to pursue through group-think. I personally feel that philosophy is a better approach to God than religion. It’s too bad that philosophy is such a small and limited institution, existing as a rare hot-house flower in a far corner of the academic grove. You can find churches on every other street; but you can go for hundreds of miles before you can find a place where theistic philosophy is discussed and debated. Socrates would surely find that to be a shame; certainly Lao Tsu also (if there was a Lao Tsu). And I think so would Jesus, and Mohamed, and Moses, etc. Ultimately, I believe that they were well beyond group-think religion, and really didn’t want to condemn their followers to drowning in such a mental whirlpool. Too bad that’s what ultimately happened.

◊ posted by Jim G @ 8:46 pm No Comments Yet / Leave a Comment

Monday, July 23, 2007

◊ BETTER READ THAN DEAD

History ... Society ...

About a week ago, my cousin and I got together to visit the old industrial neighborhood where our grandparents lived after coming over from Poland in 1912 (i.e., the Dundee section of Passaic). We brought our cameras and did some photography, as the place has just a bit more character than your typical modern suburb. It was a hot, humid afternoon, so we didn’t stay too long. We got some interesting pictures and got out, luckily unscathed (the area is still a low-income immigrant neighborhood, now hosting Mexicans and other Latinos; although most of them are good, hard-working people, there is some crime, and even some street-gang activity has been reported).

A few days later, we swapped a handful of e-mails about some family history questions that came up during our little walkabout. My cousin’s mother had worked in one of the big textile mills in Dundee, a factory called Forstmann. We both wondered where those mills were. My cousin vaguely remembered that they had been torn down, maybe in the early 1960s (one of the other big woolen mills, Gera, had survived until the huge 1985 fire that took down a huge chunk of the old Dundee factories; the other big mill, Botany, survives to this day, although being used for other things). But other than that, we were stumped. So, it was time for a bit of Googling. In went the key words “Forstmann” and “Passaic” (or “Dundee”, as an alternate). And surprisingly, out came a lot of interesting information.

It turns out that Forstmann has a significant place in the history of the American industrial labor movement. In 1926, the management of Botany and Forstmann decided » continue reading …

◊ posted by Jim G @ 4:21 pm No Comments Yet / Leave a Comment

Wednesday, July 18, 2007

◊ Technology For Peace?

Society ... Technology ...

I was reading an article today on the BBC web site saying that a huge underground lake has been found under the Darfur section of Sudan, and it may bring an end to the terrible violence that has plagued that region for the past 5 years or so. The BBC thinks that if wells are drilled and everyone gets enough water for farming and such, the Arabs and native Africans can settle down and put their guns aside. Let’s hope so.

If this were to happen, it would be one of the first times I know of that a war was ended peaceably by technology. Warfare has become more and more deadly over the past two or three centuries because of technology. But in Sudan, radar and satellite photography and computer analysis were used to find water where no one thought it could be (versus sending bombs and missiles to their targets with pinpoint accuracy).

Technology sometimes appears to be sending us on a one-way ride to doomsday. It’s nice to see that it might at times help humans to reclaim their humanity.

PS — of course, the New York Times is a bit pessimistic about whether the big water find is really going to stop the oppression and make things better in Sudan. I hate to say it, but they could yet be right. Perhaps it is still too early to break out the optimism.

◊ posted by Jim G @ 7:39 pm No Comments Yet / Leave a Comment

TOP PAGE - LATEST BLOG POSTS
« PREVIOUS PAGE -- NEXT PAGE (OLDER POSTS) »