We Hold These Truths to be Self-Evident

But are they?  And do we really?  Self-evident truths are hard to come by these days and for that matter, glorious as the words may sound, even at the time they were written they were a flight of fancy more than a claim of fact.

Jefferson was writing these lines and the ones to follow at the height of the Enlightenment and they reflected the fairly revolutionary idea that human beings should not be put into categories based on birth or station, and that governments should be created in support of these values. These concepts, already well established among enlightenment illuminati, signaled the eventual end of absolutist monarchy, a fixed aristocracy and a peasant class.  But Jefferson's pithy construction is hardly a definitive description and it raises more questions than it answers.

All men are created equal.  It sounds like it should be true, but is it?  Is it a self-evident truth?  Some men are created with good health, some with infirmities.  Some are gifted with intelligence, some not.  Some are physically talented, some are totally uncoordinated.  Some are born amidst wealth and parental love, some in poverty and abuse.  Not very equal I’m afraid.

 

But perhaps Jefferson didn’t really mean ‘created equal’.  Perhaps he just meant that they should all have the same ‘unalienable rights’, among which are ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’.  

 

Since anyone born is by definition living, the right to life is a given.  I suppose that Jefferson meant that one’s life should not be taken.  That is fairly self-evident, yet society takes life from people quite frequently through wars, capital punishment and neglect.  However, there is no doubt that Enlightenment thinking and Jefferson’s claim heralded a more enlightened view of one’s right to live without others controlling that right.

 

The right to liberty is more complex, and I would say, not very self-evident at all.  One man’s liberty may be another’s torment.  If the person in the apartment above me plays ear-splitting music day and night and claims that he should have the liberty to do so, then my liberty to live in tranquility is certainly severely compromised.  Liberty and freedom are continuums with compromises required from all parties to make the whole thing work.  

 

That Jefferson was imagining a liberty from excessive government, taxation, monarchical fiat and other societal rules and controls is clear, but to say that we are born with the right of liberty is a fairly simplistic statement for a rather nuanced concept.

 

But how about the pursuit of happiness?  Is that right self-evident?  Isn’t the pursuit of happiness firmly imprinted in our DNA?  I suspect that Jefferson was saying that our right to pursue happiness should not be unduly constrained or thwarted by external entities such as governments or societies.  But what government believes that is NOT allowing citizens to pursue their happiness?  Pursuit of happiness is simply a subset of liberty, and we know that is not an easy thing to describe in absolute terms.

 

The factory owner who pursues his happiness by keeping wages low for his workers and imposing harsh working conditions and 60 hour work weeks is not contributing to the pursuit of happiness for his or her workers.  Whose pursuit of happiness is more valued?  Pretty quickly we run into the question of larger social compacts, greater good and the calculus of general prosperity.

 

So ultimately, for all of their lofty eloquence, these sacred lines of our declaration of independence are more fluff than substance, more form than content.  They are useful for stimulating our quest for a better world and they provide a romantic aura around our founding principles, but they are hardly a blueprint for government or society.  Nothing in human relations is simple.

The World Cup and the Dive – A Question of Basic Sportsmanship and Ethics

I have been a soccer/football player for most of my life.  Alas, the years of play have eliminated all the cartilage between two bones in my left mid-foot and I can only play infrequently in the future, but the memories linger.

As a former wrestler and a person whose center of gravity is lower to the ground (i.e. short), I was very proud of being physically robust and difficult to knock off the ball.  I also had tremendous speed (he says modestly), which is probably the most desirable natural attribute in soccer.  In my playing days I never ‘took a dive’.  It was a matter of pride to me and also a recognition of basic sportsmanship. I was challenged on the ball many times and sometimes knocked off of it, but unless I truly felt there was a foul, I never feigned being hurt or fouled.

 

A dive is a lie in physical form.  A player is depicting a foul that did not occur, play-acting to deceive the referee and obtain a free kick or penalty.  There may be nuances, but there is no doubt that ‘diving’ is commonplace in the sport today.  There have been efforts to curtail it, but it is, if anything, flourishing, and growing in frequency.

 

Many of the most talented players are known for their dive histrionics – Cristiano Ronaldo comes immediately to mind.   But there are also players that almost never dive.  Lionel Messi is one such player and this is one of the reasons (they are numerous) why he represents for me the best of all qualities in a player.

 

Sports commentators and journalists tend to smile and joke about dives when they occur.  They seem to accept it as ‘part of the game’, just as they accept holding and other subtle and not-so-subtle fouls as ‘part of the game’.  This has always astonished me.  Any game is all the worse for every lie, every falsity and every element of conscious bad faith that occurs.  

 

We all know that the stakes are high in the World Cup.  We all know that a lot of money and prestige are on the line.  It is human nature to push and test the boundaries of what is permissible in achieving a win or a goal.  But when we outright sanction the dive or the hold in the name of winning and beating the opponent, then we are abandoning our ethical principles and becoming lesser human beings.  It may not seem a big thing, but I am certain that it truly is.

 

 

A Few Thoughts on Porn

Pornography is a click away these days.  There appears to be no way to accurately assess just how much of Internet traffic is porn-related, with estimates ranging from 10 to 70%, but there is little doubt that porn sites are visited frequently.

Is pornography a healthy way for men and women to learn about sex and fantasize or is it a pathway to sexual addiction, violence, perversion and disfunction?  The answer is most likely complicated.

 

Religious groups have mounted an almost hysterical campaign against pornography and brandish frightening statistics about the amount of viewing, the impact on children, the exploitation of women, the endorsement of sexual violence and extreme practices, and the effect on family life.  They portray pornography as one of the key components in a perceived moral decline of our society.

 

On the other hand, many psychologists and sexual health workers feel that this portrayal is highly exaggerated and that pornography on some level is a healthy outlet for our sexual curiosity and desires.  

 

The subject is rather complex and multi-faceted.  Here is a list of some questions I would pose:

 

1.     Is exposure to pornography a problem for children?  Does it hamper or distort their natural progress into the sexual awakening of adolescence and adulthood?  Does it create an early addiction in vulnerable minds.

2.     Does the porn industry’s focus on sexuality without relationship and/or love contribute to the growth of purely recreational sex?  Is that a problem for society?

3.     Are women in the porn industry generally exploited or are they simply sex workers who have chosen this path for a variety of legitimate reasons?

4.     Does pornography encourage more extreme forms of sexual interaction and lead to increasingly risky or violent behavior?

5.     When is pornography viewing harmful?  At what point does it become an addiction or an illness?

 

A series of Netflix documentaries have painted a rather disturbing portrait of the porn industry.  The most well-known – Hot Girls Wanted – is a grim chronicle of day-to-day life as a novice female porn video performer.  I watched the series and came away feeling rather disheartened about the whole affair.  What saddened me is that young women (typically recruited soon after their 18^th birthday) chose this path with the exciting prospect of getting views and followers on social media or porn sites and escaping what they perceive as their hollow or depressing existence in their home towns. 

 

Regardless of their motivations for signing up, their lives as porn stars struck me as horribly shabby and soul-sucking.  This may be partially my own bias and somewhat sexist, but I felt so sorry for these young women. I could not shake the feeling that their involvement was a desperate cry for a better life that would never meet expectations and only lead to longer term disappointment for most of them.

 

There was no profile of the men involved in the sex industry.  Would I feel similarly about their lives?  Are they exploited or reveling in their opportunity to earn money having sex?  Are men fundamentally different from women in their sexual nature?  Am I perpetuating a double standard by viewing women as victims and men as untroubled participants?

Even if we come to the conclusion that the porn industry has many negative implications, how can it be regulated?  Censorship is a fool's errand and is generally doomed to failure unless draconian steps are taken.  Even the task of preventing impressionable youth from accessing porn seems daunting and unlikely to succeed, given the current state of personal technology that almost every child possesses.

 

We are still struggling as a human race to come to terms with our sexuality.  It is clear that a repressed, guilt-ridden view of sexuality is neither healthy nor practical.  But is it ‘healthy’ for sex to become just another form of recreation with no holds barred?  As in much of life, there are no easy answers.  If sex, like any other part of our lives, becomes an obsession, then it is unlikely to provide positive experiences.  But drawing a line or making ‘rules’ is also tremendously difficult and likely to fail in its intent.  We are, as always, faced with ambiguity and the challenge of finding the best path possible in a changing world.                                               

A Skeptic’s Thoughts About Crypto

Disclaimer:  I am no expert on crypto currency or the blockchain technology underlying it, but I do have 45 years of experience in a world driven by technological change and hype.

Part of the early allure of crypto currencies like bitcoin was the idea that they could replace and improve upon the existing financial world of banks, currency exchanges, and other financial service components that were seen as bureaucratic, costly and archaic.  Blockchain technology offered the tantalizing prospect of money flowing in the world without third party inconvenience and control.  The technology would allow two entities to exchange funds directly with an assured chain of custody and security that would be impervious to fraud, theft or scrutiny.

 

To me this type of perfect world hypothetical is reminiscent of so many of the software technologies that I saw come and go over the last 30 years.  And like so many of its predecessors, the blockchain technology that launched the crypto coin world does indeed have some very attractive features.  It promises to allow transactions to be conducted in complete security with an impenetrable and unalterable ‘ledger’ or chain of custody.

 

But the immediate application of this super-hyped technology to a form of currency unleashed a torrent of speculation and get-rich schemes evangelized by messianic tech wizzes and, later, various famous talking heads.

 

A currency utilizing blockchain technology and avoiding standard banking and financial markets may seem blissful to many stick-it-to-the-man types, but it doesn’t take a lot of insight to realize that there is a reason for financial markets and regulating organizations.  When there is no referee at all, the game becomes wildly chaotic and is easy prey for the most unscrupulous characters – the drug gangs, the scam experts, the tax-cheats, the porn industry, the con artists.  It also becomes one huge pyramid or ponzi scheme.

 

The human notion of 'value' is strange and abstract in many ways.  Gold and art are traded as 'fungible' items but their value is purely a construct of human imagination.  Food, shelter and clothing have value that is at last partly based on actual utility.  Currencies are also constructs, but they have utility as a means of facilitating commerce and exchange.  When they change radically it is typically because the country associated with that currency (and guaranteeing it) is experiencing economic problems.

How in the world can one believe that a currency rising and falling as wildly as cryptocurrency can become a trusted means for normal commerce?  While it is true that all currencies, and for that matter all things that we put a price on, have a value that is tied to a perceived worth, the world currencies at least have a basis for their valuations – the economic and political systems that back them up.  A crypto currency has nothing but the lemming-like tributes from true believers and a pseudo-techie aura of inevitability.  And FOMO can only go so far in sustaining a fad or a movement.  At some point reason must prevail.

Is there a role for blockchain technology?  Definitely!  There are many transactions that would benefit from being conducted through blockchain.  And there is definitely money to be made in a more traditional sense by investing in the technology itself and earning real world profits as it finds means to provide a service.

 

But in my view, using blockchain to move money would create more problems than it would solve.  We already have rapidly growing inequality of wealth and income in the world.  Crypto currency would make financial dealings and wealth accumulation even more opaque than they are now, making it significantly more difficult for nations and municipalities to tax and monitor the situation.  We may all hate the bureaucracy and intrusive nature of taxes, but imagine a world that no longer has the ability to monitor and redistribute wealth for purposes of social progress, infrastructure development, education and healthcare.

 

Technological bandwagons are very seductive, because they lend an air of sophistication to their promoters and create a fervent desire for others to become part of the in-crowd.  It is so easy to compare each new idea to past technologies that made millions for those who were courageous and wise enough to embrace them.  Toss in a lot of technobabble and concepts that most people don’t really understand, and you have a perfect scenario for conning millions out of their hard-earned savings.  

 

And like all pyramid schemes, the stories of fantastic earnings by the few at the top of the pyramid are enough to pull in the hordes at the bottom.  But at some point, the magic fades and the music stops.  It is only a matter of time. 

 

 

 

 

The World Needs More Imposter Syndrome

There are two psychological terms to describe the opposite traits of lack of confidence and over-confidence.  If people question their abilities or accomplishments and worry that they do not deserve credit or accolades, then they may have ‘Imposter Syndrome’.  If, on the other hand, they are over-confident and consider their accomplishments to be extraordinary and their talents to be under-rated, then that is termed a ‘Dunning-Kruger Syndrome’.  

Most people have experienced the imposter syndrome at some time in their lives.  When you receive compliments or an award you may humbly accept the accolade but feel secretly that you are really not so special and that you are a bit of an imposter.  You may feel that you were lucky or had the benefit of some set of circumstances that enabled the achievement – that you should really not be singled out for praise.

 

This type of reaction can become pathological in some cases, reflecting a general inferiority complex, and this is why there is much written about women and minorities having the imposter complex and thus limiting their achievements or success because of self-doubt.  This is an unfortunate occurrence and society should make every effort to affirm any achievement in a healthy manner.

 

But I believe there is a more pernicious tendency in this realm.  Once people begin to gain recognition, success or wealth they may initially be surprised and delighted.  In this early phase, they may have moments of imposter syndrome as they realistically appraise the nature of their achievements.  

 

But as their success grows, the steady drumbeat of reward and adulation has a corrupting influence.  They begin to believe what they hear as others gush over their accomplishments.  The lens through which they see the world and themselves begins to warp and the image of their prowess begins to dominate their view.  They forget that success has a large component of good fortune and that wealth begets more wealth and fame begets more fame.

 

Soon they believe that they have a unique gift or unerring intuition. They begin to imagine that their success implies a much broader genius at work than the domain in which their achievements lie.  They are soon convinced that they are simply more capable than the rest of humanity.  They grow weary of the folly of lesser beings.  They yearn to impose their brilliant thinking on the world in ever greater ways.

 

This ever-expanding self-aggrandizement is the opposite pathology of the imposter syndrome, and it is much more dangerous to humanity.  The Trumps and Putins and Musks of this world no longer experience the braking effect of self-doubt, and the juggernaut of their egotism goes unchecked.

 

But it is not only the most notorious cases of out-of-control vanity that trouble our world.  The increasing centralization of wealth in finance and technology has launched a thousand ships of freighter-sized egos.  Being suddenly bloated with hundreds of millions of dollars, an entourage of sycophants and endless social media adulation is a short path to narcissism and a conviction that the world simply must benefit from one’s genius.  We see these people everywhere and they wield their wealth and prestige in ways that roil our society, exacerbate tensions and waste valuable resources.

 

Yes, the world would be a much better place if every hedge fund mogul, real estate tycoon and  tech titan were to fall prey to the imposter syndrome and abandon their master-of-the-world fantasy.  There is something very healthy and cathartic in recognizing that one is at least partly an imposter. We are all only human after all, even those most showered with wealth and fame.  A little (or a lot) of humility is in order.

Risk and Reward

Life is full of risks.  A risk, by definition, is an exposure to danger, harm or loss.  There are financial risks, transportation and travel risks, adventure risks, health risks and many others.  When one speaks of a risk, there must be uncertainty in an outcome of some event or behavior.  There must be some probability that a bad outcome could occur.  The level of risk is based on how high the probability is of that bad outcome.

A risk is typically undertaken because there is some expected reward associated with the event or behavior if things go well.  The reward may have significant monetary, psychological or experiential advantages, or it may simply be the completion of an ordinary but necessary task in one’s life.

 

Some people are described as risk-takers.  They are not afraid of taking ‘chances’ with their money or their health or even their lives.  Others are described as risk-averse.  It is interesting to contemplate what these descriptions really mean and what is the thought process involved in taking or avoiding risk.  

 

When I drive a car each day, I am taking a risk.  If I ride a bicycle on a street with cars, I am taking a risk.  If I clean the gutters on my roof, I am taking a risk. Do we internally calculate or otherwise estimate the probability of being hurt in these activities? 

 

Is driving a car an acceptable risk because it has a low probability of producing an accident with injuries, or is it simply something we do without thinking about the risk?  If I were to be paralyzed in a car accident, would driving all those years have been an acceptable risk?  I cannot imagine anyone blithely conceding that point.  Something is an acceptable risk only before a bad outcome occurs.  In most cases we use the term acceptable risk to describe a risk that is low enough to feel reasonably secure that the bad outcome will never happen.

 

Mountain climbers or hang-gliders who consider their death-defying acts as acceptable risks are also making the assumption that they will not die.  They love the activity of mountain climbing enough to take the risk, but it is doubtful they would say in retrospect that the risk was worth it if they are horribly maimed in an accident.  It seems the risk was only acceptable when nothing bad happened.

 

Men gleefully enlist and march off to war for the reward of unique experiences and perhaps a chance for exhibiting their courage.  But if they lose a leg or two, I highly doubt they will say that the risk was an acceptable one or that the experience or possibility of an award for valor was worth the lifetime of suffering they will now endure.

 

Financial investments and employment changes are also interesting versions of risk-taking.    The many well-publicized rags-to-riches stories make financial risk-taking seem very exotic and exciting.  But one wonders how many financial failures and hard-luck tales there are for every successful entrepreneur or investor.  Did the failures consider their doomed exploits to have been a ‘reasonable risk’?

 

Risk-taking may also be somewhat age dependent.  I know I was much more of a risk-taker in terms of physical challenges in earlier years.  And I capriciously experimented with drugs in my teens and early twenties in a way that I would never do today.  As age progresses our awareness of the consequences of our actions is better informed and applies the brakes to certain types of risky activity.

 

For the most part I doubt there is a way to quantify or even comprehend risk when one embarks on a new venture of any type.  There may be a gut feeling or an instinctual sense that the activity is worth doing.  The risk-takers are those who seem to have either no fear of failure and retain that feeling of youthful immortality, or are so driven by the need for change, recognition or wealth that they are compelled to choose the path of higher risk. The risk-averse are either more peacefully content with their lot or more sensitively aware of the potential for true damage, harm or loss.

 

There are extremes on both ends of the risk scale.  Wingsuit base jumping and free soloing would certainly seem to be examples of risk-taking that border on suicidal behavior.  And there are lots of people who timidly avoid any risk and thus severely limit their life experiences.

 

In the end, it seems that risk-taking is primarily a personality trait that has little analysis behind it.  It is difficult to say what kind of effect one’s willingness to take risks has on quality of life or one’s sense of fulfillment.  We are all unique creatures and must find the balance of risk and reward that makes sense for us and not feel compelled to emulate others.

 

 

On the Absurdity of Relying on Polls and Other Election Nonsense

Despite all the recent election evidence that polls are more or less worthless we seem to make them the basis of our political machinations.  Let’s explore why they have so little value.  And while we’re at it, let’s look at whether TV or Internet ads are a good use of money.

Number one, a poll with a relatively small number of respondents compared to the total population is statistically weak, and most polls fall into this category.  It only can be accurate if you believe that the respondents are strongly representative of the total population.  This brings us to the second point, that the people who respond to polls are most likely not even close to being a representative group of the general electorate.

 

Think about it!  Who answers their phone at all unless it’s a number they recognize?  In this time of spam, botmails, robocalls, and endless attempts to gain our attention, not to mention malicious attacks, scams, viruses and phishing, there is a totally understandable reluctance to engage with unknown entities.

 

And who has the time to respond to a survey?  What with Facebook, Insta, TikTok, YouTube and a thousand other claims to our precious time weighing heavily on us, who is going to be willing to submit to the drudgery of taking a survey?  This is clearly a self-selecting group, not a random collection of voters.  I’m not exactly sure what defines this group, but it must be a rather strange and motley crew.

 

Given the amount of money spent on polls and the consultants who make up the political money machine, I am sure there is a wealth of quasi-scientific efforts to justify poll-taking.  But I don’t buy it.  They are rubbish.

 

And of course, the polls then feed into the whole machinery of opinion influencing – the attack ads, the mailbox fillers, the TV portrayals, the mind-numbing drivel on social media, the even more outrageous YouTube slander and outright falsehoods.

 

Let’s face it, our election process is a colossal waste of time, money and good will.  Probably 99% of people make up their minds based on opinions and biases that are unaffected by the billions and billions of dollars spent.  We would be better served as a nation to dismantle the whole political process and start over again.

The Sad Inevitability of Liberal Democratic Decline

The wolves are at the door.  Authoritarian regimes are multiplying.  Nativist political movements are on the rise.  A lifeboat mentality is beginning to take hold in formerly open, progressive societies.  Fear is taking hold.  Is there nothing to be done?

Perhaps the most powerful warning signal of the precarious position of our world is the recent success of the anti-immigrant, far right party in Sweden, a country that had been the bastion of liberal democracy and an example of successful efforts to form an equal, peaceful and thriving society.  But recent immigrant waves and increases in crime and gun violence have heightened tensions and created a tide of nationalism and nativism that threatens to profoundly change Swedish society.

 

The rise of populism is not recent or surprising.  The uneven balance sheet of globalization, free trade, outsourcing and technological progress over the last 30 years left much of the middle and lower middle class frustrated and resentful.  Then came the added burden of refugees from a long series of wars in the 1990’s and 2000’s as well as the ever-increasing waves of immigrants from countries with broken political systems and drug-gang infested cities.

 

But now the world is grappling with even greater threats on multiple fronts.  Three years of pandemic, a Russian war of aggression in the Ukraine, global inflation and climate change have created ideal conditions for a toxic political backlash against liberal democracies and globalization.

 

These latest crises have accelerated the refugee and immigrant flow and crippled the economies that these asylum seekers have pinned their hopes on.  There is growing resentment in the industrialized nations of these ‘outsiders’, some of it xenophobic and racist, but some of it simply a fear that there is not enough work or resources to share.

 

Refugees and immigrants can be assimilated in small numbers without destabilizing a nation, but the modern tidal wave of desperate Middle Eastern, African, Eastern European, and Central American people has overwhelmed even the most kind-hearted nations.  The developed nations that they flee to now have their own problems – inflation, a looming recession, increased political unrest and general disenchantment.  The milk of human kindness is running thin.

 

As global warming puts even greater pressure on many poor countries this flood of refugees will only increase.  This will in turn fuel the careers of power-hungry demagogues.  There is no easier target for fear-mongering than immigrants and refugees.

 

This sad progression seems inevitable at this point.   There is always hope that we will somehow maintain our civility and find a way to make the lifeboat of earth work for all of humankind.  But Sweden’s transformation may be the canary in the coalmine for a type of political change that bodes ill for us all.

Vacation Travel and a Guilty Conscience`

In Scandinavia they have a term for it:  flygskam – flight shame.  This expresses the guilt feelings and shame that many are beginning to have over the use of jet travel to indulge one’s wanderlust.  Another expression, tågskryt - train brag, is the corresponding positive feeling that one has when utilizing a more ecofriendly transportation option.  The Germanic languages have such a lovely way of encapsulating complex concepts in a single word.

Now I could argue that it is easy enough and a bit disingenuous for Europeans to indulge in such fine-tuning of conscience given the compact nature of their countries, the travel distances and their delightful train network.  But how the world travels and what impact it has on hydrocarbon emissions and global warming is a reasonable thing to ponder.

 

I won’t go into the details, but a little simple math yields the fact that an airplane is about 4 times as efficient as a car in taking people from A to B.  The average miles per gallon of an airplane is about 100, whereas it is closer to 25 for a car in round numbers.  Sounds good, right?

 

The problem is that air travel racks up the miles much, much faster than car travel.  If the average American puts 10-12,000 miles a year on his car, then a trip to Europe more than doubles that mileage.  Even a trip to California and back from the east coast increases it by half.

 

Between business travel and pleasure travel jet engines contribute about 2.5% of global emissions of CO2.  This seems like a small number, but when normalized to a per capita statistic it takes on a different meaning.  A small percentage of the world’s inhabitants use air travel.  In 2018, 11% of the global population took a flight, 4% flew abroad and 1% was responsible for half of global aviation emissions.

And private jets are the worst offenders – with a typical private jet owner emitting on average 540 times the hydrocarbons the average person will emit.  So it is not so much the total impact I and others are having through our privilege of our travel, but the unfairly disproportionate share we so blithely take as our own.

Yes, of course we all worked hard for our success.  And business and tourism travel are major engines for the world economy.  A world without jet travel would be a very different world.  Nothing is simple.

 

Unfortunately, airplanes are unlikely to go electric in the near future – the battery and motor technologies are a long way from being capable of powering a large plane over any distance.  There are efforts to optimize fuel economy and there have been significant improvements, but air travel will never get close to zero emissions. 

 

As a relatively recent retiree and avid traveler, I struggle somewhat with the pangs of conscience.  But those air travel specific pangs are just part of a package of guilt that anyone who is honest and logical has for having won the lottery of birth and opportunity.  I could stop traveling, just as I could give all my money away or live in a 'tiny house' or stop taking showers or never eat meat again or spend all of my time working in homeless shelters.  But I won’t.

 

I rationalize that I will only be doing this type of extravagant travel for a few years and will eventually ramp down to domestic road trips in an electric car.  But in the meantime, I will just have to wrestle with flygskam along with all the other contradictions and paradoxes in life that confront me.

Population Growth - Too Much or Too Little?

As if the world didn’t have enough of Elon Musk’s musings, he recently made the news with the claim that population decline is a greater problem than climate change.  He was quoted as saying (which I must admit is a somewhat clever turn of phrase) "If the alarming collapse in birth rate continues, civilization will indeed die with a whimper in adult diapers." 

The global birthrate is indeed declining.  The graph below shows the change over the last 70 years.  It has basically been cut in half.  

Developed countries have seen their birthrates fall particularly quickly, as seen in the second graph. Japan has had such a rapid decline that it is predicted that their population will be cut in half by the end of the century.  They are particularly vulnerable because they do not generally allow immigration.

It is interesting to compare Musk’s dire warning with previous hysterias that have posited almost exactly the opposite point of view.  In the early 1800’s Robert Malthus developed a theory that population growth would overwhelm the world’s ability to produce food and that a natural collapse due to famine and/or war would result.  He argued that population growth is exponential whereas the growth of resources is more linear.  At the time, any curbs on fertility such as birth control were considered immoral so the birthrate would naturally approach exponential growth.  

 

Malthus described what has since been termed the ‘Malthusian Trap’ - that technological progress in agriculture and industry would allow human population to explode and eventually outpace production of food.

 

When one looks at the history of population growth in human society it is not hard to believe that Malthus was correct on the effect of technology on population.  See the graph below:

The danger of over-population was embraced and ratcheted up several notches by Paul Ehrlich in the 1970’s with his explosive book ‘The Population Bomb’.  The opening paragraph read:

 

The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate.

 

Paul Ehrlich appears to have been a bit hyperbolic in his prediction, but his description of the stress that a growing world population puts on resources and the environment was prescient.

 

So, who is right?  Are we facing imminent disaster from over-population or is civilization going to implode due to a declining birthrate?  Well, both!

 

The problem with a declining birthrate is that it has the potential to create nations of old people who drain resources while a diminishing number of young workers struggle to support them and keep the economy afloat.  This is a very real danger and is already having significant effect in Japan.  

 

The problem is not with a lower birthrate, but with how rapidly the birthrate decreases.  Stability is the key word here.  Given how desperate the global warming crisis is, there is no doubt that the world would be better off with less people demanding energy and using up natural resources.  There is no a priori need for world population to continue growing to prop up the economy and maintain civilization.  But if it slows down too rapidly, the economic and social/cultural effects will be de-stabilizing and possibly catastrophic.

 

The best method for stabilizing populations and gradually reducing total population would be to allow more fertile immigrants from lands where climate change, poverty and political instability are rampant into countries where lower birthrates are threatening to have destructive consequences.  This would kill the proverbial two birds, and even a third, with one stone – solve immigration problems, stabilize declining populations, and mitigate climate change.  The sad fact is that such a remedy is completely out of the realm of possibility in these times of populism, authoritarianism and governmental paralysis.  And so it goes.

Energy - the Paradox of Social Responsibility and Personal Freedom

One of my daily French podcasts mentioned the goal of the French government to reduce energy use 10% by 2024 and 40% by 2050.  The following laws were put in place last month:

• No store or business may operate air conditioning while an outside door is open
• No store or business may cool below 26 deg C (78.8 deg F) or heat above 19 deg C (66.2 deg F)
• No lights are allowed to be illuminated from 1-6 am.  
• The speed limit on highways has been decreased from 130 to 120 km/hr (78 to 72 mph).  The limit on rural roads had already been decreased by from 90 to 80 km/hr (50 mph).
• Individuals are strongly encouraged to observe the same restrictions (though not legally bound) and are encouraged to do the following:
• Take showers rather than baths
• Minimize use of lights
• Optimize use of dishwashers and washing machines (i.e. use when full)

How do you think these measures and recommendations would go over in the USA?  Would there be howls of outrage and indignation?  Would there be cries of ‘big brother’ and ‘police state’?  Would people vow to oppose these restrictions in the name of freedom?

 

The answer is yes.  Americans don’t like to be told what to do.  Don’t tell us we can’t buy a gas-guzzling SUV or pickup truck.  Don’t tell us we need to recycle.  Don’t tell us we can’t use a leaf gas blower in our yard.  Don’t tell us we can’t put our A/C or our heat at 72 degrees.

 

The world is in a climate crisis.  The effects of global warming are already quite significant and promise to increase in severity year by year.  We must face the fact that the earth is not simply our playground, but a living organism to which we must adapt our behavior.

 

The USA is by far the largest user of energy per capita in the world.  The table below shows the per capita total energy usage (in kWh) as well as oil/gas usage (in barrels) for the major industrialized countries.  We use almost twice the amount of energy per capita as any other country.

Most Americans seem to believe that they should be free to buy anything they want and use any amount of energy or water as long as they can afford it.  Occasionally, we are willing to observe water restrictions during a local drought, but I am doubtful that support for such restrictions could be sustained over a longer term as a general commitment to water conservation.

 

We Americans can be very generous in a crisis, but we chafe at any longer-term sacrifices for the common good.  We are suspicious of global efforts to reduce hydrocarbon emissions and have eschewed a leadership role in the fight against global warming.  

 

With our wealth and power, we may be able to perpetuate this bunker mentality for some years to come and mitigate some of the disastrous effects that have already been visited upon this ailing planet.  But we are in the wrong on this issue and we have already lost a great deal credibility on the world stage because of our stubborn refusal to act with any real commitment.  A day will come when we will be forced to recognize that social responsibility and obligations to the common good must ultimately trump some aspects of personal freedom.

A Dysfunctional Society - Guns, Violence, Inequality, Incarceration

Murders and violent crime are increasing.  One hears it all around, neighbors voicing their concerns – “The streets aren’t safe anymore”, “I just bought a gun to protect my house”, “The police are afraid to do their job anymore”.

Societal problems are complex.  America has a many times greater percentage of its people in prison than other developed nations.  It has much more gun violence.  It has a greater disparity in wealth and income than other wealthy nations and that disparity has grown rapidly over the last 30 years.

 

The last few years have added other huge problems to our list of woes – the continuing saga of COVID, rampant inflation and the multiplying effects of climate change.  We are not unique in our afflictions.  Every nation is struggling with some mix of problems.  But they seem particularly acute and paradoxical in the wealthiest and most powerful nation on earth.

 

When crime increases in the United States, we demand stricter enforcement, more police, longer sentences, less leniency.  We manufacture more guns.  It’s a vicious circle.  

 

Ironically, in recent years we had finally begun to see a bi-partisan effort to address the problems of over-incarceration.  And there seemed to be at least some recognition that we could begin to decrease inequality through investments in infrastructure, education, healthcare and childcare.  But those efforts will probably go dormant now, as fear overtakes reason.   No one will be in the mood for reform.  Indeed, there will be indignant calls for aggressive police action and tactics, and for tightening the belt of government spending.

 

Why is there so much crime here?  Why do we have so many firearm deaths?  Why are we the undisputed world leader in mass shootings?

 

Until we understand and acknowledge that these problems have deep roots in our culture, our economy and our government we are destined to repeat the cycle again and again.   

The Anti-Abortion Movement Reflects a Deep Fear of Changes in Sexual Morality

The abortion rate reached a high in the early 90’s and has been going down ever since.  The increasing effectiveness of new birth control devices, in particular birth control implants, has been accelerating the decline of abortions.  The logical way to minimize abortions would be to encourage utilization of effective birth control methods, make them widely available and disseminate information about them through sex education classes.  Everyone wants there to be fewer abortions.

 

So why is the anti-abortion movement so determined to criminalize abortion, creating a new, never-ending, unwinnable conflict like the Prohibition Era or the War on Drugs and risking all of the horrible consequences that have historically been associated with back-alley abortions?  They will say that is because abortion is murder, but I believe there is another more fundamental fear that motivates this crusade: the rapid changes in sexual morality.

 

Sexual practices and societal views on sex have changed radically since the 60’s due to several factors – introduction of effective contraception, later marriages, changes in women’s role in society, cultural openness and media coverage, scientific understanding of sexuality, etc.

 

These shifting values on sex, sexuality and gender generate a deep unease in fundamentalist Christians (and probably in fundamentalist Muslims and Jews as well). They threaten the very foundation of Christian beliefs for people who crave a very unambiguous definition of proper personal morality and adhere to a non-scientific view of the world.

 

I can understand their discomfort.  In a single generation, or perhaps two, the Christian ideals of marriage, virginity, chastity and gender have undergone radical change.  Casual sexual relations are common; premarital sex is almost a given; homosexuality has become accepted and even mainstream with transsexuality, drag queens, bisexuality and transgender issues surfacing as well.  It is in many respects a strange new world.

 

It was comforting to have a set of well-defined rules to live by, but it was also unrealistic in many ways, and never truly very simple. As our understanding of the human body, sexuality and psychology have advanced, so has our recognition that life and relationships are neither simple nor static.  

 

Has the pendulum swung too far?  Is sex and all of its manifestations such an obsession in our society and our culture that there needs to be a counter-revolution that will bring things back under control?  I believe this is the underlying impetus of the anti-abortion movement.  It is a desperate rear-guard action to hold the line in the evolution of sexual behavior.  

 

This misguided effort to stem the tide will fail.  The genie of sexual openness is out of the bottle.  It will never go back in.  The current wave of experimentation and re-definition of gender and sexuality may temper in the future, indeed there are signs that it already is beginning to do so, but we will never go back to a society where chastity and virginity are prized and homosexuality is condemned and vilified.

 

The biblical literalists have lost battle after battle against the march of science and reason.   It is time for them to join the rest of the world in trying to comprehend what is the most humane and loving way to lead lives in this world.

 

Of course we all want less abortions!  Of course we all want less sexual violence!  Of course we all want to be super careful in how we handle new ideas about gender identity and transitioning. Of course we want to avoid having sex become a damaging addiction or obsession. 

 

We need to view sexuality and gender though the lens of what will make people happy and fulfilled, and most importantly not hurt people.  It won’t be easy or simple, and we will make mistakes along the way, but it certainly won’t be based on arbitrary rules or writings from thousands of years ago.

  

The Logical Absurdities of the Idea of God's Plan

 I am all for spiritual quests and faith.  Life is often difficult and we grow increasingly aware of our mortality with the ceaseless march of time.  If spirituality, whatever that term may mean, gives us relief from life’s woes and death’s approach, then by all means let us seek it.  I have been a very ardent Christian adherent in the past, and though my theological point of view is much more abstract and ambiguous these days, I still choose to believe there is something eternal, something 'godly' in ourselves and our universe.

But I am not a fan of the concept of God’s Plan.  I believe it is employed to cover a multitude of sins and is often divisive and hurtful.  The idea that God has fully planned out this world and our lives seems patently absurd to me.  There is no logic in it and one simply has to abandon all rational analysis to hold to this belief.  In the end, it is another human system of defining winners and losers.

To interpret life's events in terms of a Godly plan is to beg the question of why some are favored and some are not.  This is reminiscent of the ancient belief that the righteous are rewarded and the wicked punished, that there are the chosen and the discarded.

 

‘God has a plan for all of us’, ‘Inshallah’, ‘Everything happens within God’s plan’, ‘God has done great things in my life’, ‘God’s plan is good!’ – these are the expressions one hears that give voice to the idea of God as a great planner.  But these same voices contradict themselves.  When asked if God’s plan is also responsible for evil, then they say that there is free will and God is not a puppet master.  But if God is not a puppet master, then how can He or She ensure that the plan is carried out?  The standard answer to this question is that this is a mystery and we cannot understand the nature of God, which is of course a total copout. 

To associate God's plan with some events but not to others makes no sense.  Many events in this world are unfathomably sad or brutal.  Is the child who dies at birth part of God's plan?  How did God's plan work out for the serial killer or the drug addict or the quadriplegic?

And to say that God has a plan but that our free will and our actions may alter this plan doesn't hold water either.  That is a goal or a hope, not a plan. If God's plan can actually be altered by actions then there are a billion such actions that we make in our lives and no plan would ever be carried out exactly as 'God planned'.  Either God is in full control or has no control.  Having a bit of control isn't a plan.

 

Some people say that God knows our hearts and knows what will happen.  But this is omniscience, not planning!  If everything happens within God’s plan, then He or She must be in full control, not merely an observer. 

 

There is a broader question of whether God intercedes at all in our lives, which again confronts a logical conundrum.  What would cause God to intercede?  When does He decide to cure someone’s disease or get them a good job or grant them admission to the first-choice school or cause them to win the championship?  And why would he decide not to do the same for someone else?  What kind of scorecard of good deeds, bad deeds, prayer circles, and other metrics would God need to have to make any sense at all out of interceding in human affairs?

If one argues that God's love can have an impact on the world and in an indirect way influence events or create something good after misfortune or tragedy, then I find no logical contradiction there.  It is a consolation and an appealing aspect of spiritual faith to believe that some sort of higher power of love and kindness imbues human beings with the will to do good things.  However, this is not a plan, except in a very broad sense.

 

And if one says ‘God’s will be done’ or ‘Inshallah’ as a way of expressing resignation to life’s vicissitudes, there is no harm in it.  We must all come to terms with the fickle nature of life and must use any tools available to achieve some level of solace.  

But the rational basis for the interpretation of life events in terms of direct intercession by God does not exist and I find it hard to believe that assigning either misfortune or good fortune to God’s plan can ever be anything but respectively profoundly distressing or obscenely egotistical. 

Evil

The concept of evil is one that has intrigued me for some time.  The word ‘evil’ falls into that category of words that are often invoked but generally plagued by ambiguity or even misuse.  What do we mean when we call someone or something evil?  Is evil a trait, a character flaw?  Or is it a distinct entity or force, something that possesses or animates someone to be evil?  Is there an ‘evil one’ that seeks to turn people into ‘evildoers’?  Or is evil simply a way of classifying acts or deeds or intentions that go against societal norms or morality?  Can something be ‘definitively’ evil?

Evil is both a noun and an adjective.  Its definition is ‘profound immorality and wickedness’, or ‘profoundly immoral or wicked’.  But like so many other definitions, this one relies on other fairly complex definitions – those of morality and wickedness.  And as I have argued in the past, these concepts are difficult to pin down.  One person’s immoral act is another’s heroic act in many cases.  

 

There are some acts that seem to fully deserve to be termed evil in all cases.  I would call rape evil under any circumstance.  Murder, when done out of hatred or anger, or for material gain, is also evil.  A person who robs and murders someone on the street is definitely committing an evil act.

 

But is murder for a cause evil?  General Curtis Lemay ordered the napalm bombing of Tokyo, which resulted in the death of about 100,000 Japanese, expressly for the purpose of killing massive numbers of civilians in WW2.  Was that evil?  Was it any less evil than Osama bin Laden ordering the twin towers attack of 9/11/2001?  Both men believed they were serving a higher cause and sacrificing people for a perceived greater good.

 

Ronald Reagan referred to the Soviet Union as an ‘Evil Empire’ in 1983, and George Bush later coined the term ‘Axis of Evil’ to describe Iran, Iraq and North Korea in 2002.  Did these men truly believe that the force of evil or the devil himself was acting on these nations and their leaders, or were they simply employing the terms for political expediency?  

 

We have a long history in the USA of believing that we are a holy nation and a chosen people, carrying the torch of morality and piety in a world that is growing dark with secularism and immorality.  Yet there are numerous examples of deeds and events in our past that could qualify as evil and that had horrific consequences.  Does it really make any sense to label a government or nation evil?  Isn’t most of humanity searching for the right path but simply making errors along the way?

 

On an individual level, we see some people who do incredibly wicked things – serial killers, rapists, gang-bangers, child molesters, etc.   One does not hesitate to call them evil and certainly they deserve the label. Are these people under the control of some evil force or ‘devil’, or are they simply mentally deranged in some manner?  Are their heinous acts the consequence of some genetic defect, the result of a brutal or perverse childhood, or some combination of the two? 

 

If we try to understand depravity in terms of environmental factors some will accuse us of moral relativism.  But attempting to understand the nature of psychotic or anti-social behavior is not a way of rationalizing or condoning it, but rather a means of gaining better insight into how to prevent such behavior in the future.

 

There are aspects of human nature that make all of us susceptible to anti-social behavior or acts – avarice, sexual drive, envy, anger, pride.  Every human being must balance their natural impulses, desires and needs with the constraints of society by developing a conscience with a moral and ethical framework.  Whether this conscience or moral integrity is linked to a higher power is a question one cannot answer definitively, though I do believe we have some evidence to support this idea.

 

I do not believe there is a ‘devil’ or some external evil force that is vying for our allegiance.  There is no Mephistopheles exhorting us to perform evil deeds in one ear while angelic beings whisper kindhearted suggestions in the other.  There is evil in the world – wicked and immoral acts – but they are the expression of broken human beings and a broken world, not of some supernatural malevolent power.