Veneration of our Elders – No Longer in Vogue?

There was a time when it made sense for the young to venerate their elders.  In centuries past, the elders were typically not all that old anyway – maybe between 40 and 60 for the most part.  But they possessed knowledge and life experiences that they could pass on to the young.  The world changed very slowly in those days, if at all.  The skills and experience that one developed over a lifetime were relevant to the next generation.  The young could sit at the feet of the masters and learn.

The modern world is quite different.  The pace of change has become so rapid that even ten years can be enough to make skills or experience obsolete.  Just take a look at an AARP magazine today and the painful efforts it makes to explain technology to aging souls or explain how they can avoid the hackers and phishing expeditions that victimize the hapless oldsters.

 

Physical aging has always diminished the elderly, but the raging juggernaut of today’s technological change is rendering the experience of older adults more or less useless and giving the appearance of mental or intellectual fragility as well. Gen X, Y and Z’ers roll their eyes as boomers or greatest gens attempt to keep up with the latest social media apps or tech devices. It takes about 5 seconds of us tapping clumsily on our virtual keyboards until they grab our smart phones and do the job for us.

 

And even if older adults have non-technology experience that might be valuable - business acumen, negotiating skills, emotional intelligence, etc. – their embarrassingly pathetic skills in technology diminish their stature in the eyes of the young and they may find any other possible expertise they have discounted as well.  Moreover, the style of business and the skills necessary to conduct it are changing in concert with the technology.

 

In 1987 I was running the development, computer and media departments at a rapidly growing Habitat for Humanity.  We had volunteers of all ages coming in to do various tasks either in the office or out on the construction site.

 

One of the volunteers was a late-fifties man who had been a Navy pilot in the Vietnam War and was now retired.  I thought he might enjoy doing some of the computer work. I explained the process to him but he had no experience with computers and was completely perplexed.  I tried working with him but very quickly his self-confidence was shot and he found it impossible to master the techniques.  He was embarrassed and very uncomfortable.

 

Here was a man who had flown bombing missions over Vietnam in a very sophisticated aircraft, one of the most demanding and challenging things one can imagine.  Naval aviators are a very confident and capable group. But the computer world was alien to him and had left him behind.

 

I realized then how easily the changing circumstances of our lives can strip away the veneer of worldliness, competence or sophistication that we pretend to have.  And the last 35 years have confirmed that realization.  

 

Perhaps that is why older adults today are starting to more often cling to their professional lives and put off retirement.  The lure of world travel and weekday golfing may be tempting, but the recognition that one loses one’s relevancy and dignity in the bargain gives one pause.  With retirement likely to last twenty, thirty or even forty years, the thought of sliding further and further into insignificance in the eyes of much of the world is sobering.  Becoming a walking boomer meme and object of eye-rolling amusement is not what we envisioned when we contemplated our golden years.  

 

I know this lament is a bit exaggerated.  Families still generally adore their senior members and children eagerly anticipate visits by or to their grandparents.  Longevity itself has a certain intrinsic value that most people respect or at least appreciate.  The old can fill in the details of the ever-increasing treasure trove of family photos and videos (though the stories may get repeated a bit too often . . .).   The oldest generation provides a sense of continuity and a linkage to the past.  We have a place of some honor in society by virtue of having gone before and made our contributions to family, friends, community and workplace.  We can enjoy our final phase of life even if the technical world laps us several times.

 

 

Artificial Intelligence – The Good and (Mostly) the Bad

It is accepted wisdom that all technological advances have their pros and cons.  It is my goal in this thought piece to analyze the potential impact of AI over the coming years and to predict both the benefits and the possible negative consequences that will one might expect.

The last few years have heralded the arrival of AI with incredible fanfare, and there has been a fierce competition to see who can most dramatically proclaim its future impact – “bigger than the computer”, “bigger than the transistor”, “bigger than the steam engine”, “bigger than fire”!  

 

The progress made in recent years in AI has indeed been remarkable, particularly in electric vehicles and in generative AI applications like chatGPT.   The technology is still in its infancy, but has already proven itself a rather precocious toddler.  We are only just starting to investigate the possible applications of this technology and if, like other technologies, it has the exponential growth in power and scope that one might expect, then it will indeed change the world in ways that we cannot even imagine now.

 

AI will probably be employed on a professional, industrial and personal level to save time and labor, much like earlier technologies.  There are many jobs that can be completely eliminated by AI devices or applications and there are others where AI will augment or assist.  Giving people more free time is seen as a worthy goal for technology, and certainly the march of human progress in technology has freed people from much of the drudgery of the past.

 

But is there a point at which displacing human labor, effort and creativity becomes detrimental? In the early industrial revolution, the replacement of skilled trades by machines sparked the Luddite movement, whose members protested and destroyed machines as they saw their wages decrease and their skills become obsolete.

 

We may view the replacement of assembly line workers by robots as a salutary advance because assembly line work is mind-numbing, but will more engaging, so-called ‘knowledge jobs’ actually be created?  Won’t AI actually be able to do much of that knowledge work with little guidance or input from humans?

 

And if one argues that AI will simply reduce the overall amount of human work necessary to produce the things we need, there are two interesting questions that arise.  One, will society prove capable of dividing up the remaining work in a way that allows everyone to participate and receive their share of the benefits?

 

And two, once we are relieved of the burden of working for 30 or 40 hours a week and perhaps need only show up for 5 or 10, what shall we do with our free time?  If the last 30 years are any indication, the great mass of humanity is unlikely to burst into creative enterprise and find ever more enlightening ways to express itself.  Binge-watching Netflix series, playing Minecraft and interminably scrolling Instagram reels are the more likely activities, and one wonders what kind of society will evolve from this pseudo-Eden of no more work.

 

In past technology revolutions one can argue that the jobs eliminated were more than compensated for by the creation of new jobs that supported or were corollary to the new technology.  But AI may be different, in that it is not merely a device or a piece of software, but rather combines both a task and the human intelligence necessary to create, maintain and modify itself.

To the extent that AI can assist human beings in performing tasks or creating things and NOT replace them entirely, then one can hope that the benefits will outweigh the dangers.  But I don’t think it is hyperbole to contemplate the more extreme outcome of partially or even totally sidelining much of human endeavor.  

It may be that humans need to have meaningful work, and not just activity, and that by reducing or eliminating that need we are attempting to short-circuit evolution.  It is common for retired people to fight depression when they face endless days of free time.  The societal instability that arose out of the Great Depression or other periods of large scale unemployment may have been partly or even mainly due to desperate need and poverty, but as the old saying goes - idle hands are the devil's playground.  

 

The use of AI in the military sphere is nightmarish to imagine.  And there is absolutely no doubt that it will swiftly inhabit every aspect of that world.  Terminator type scenarios are probably a decade or two off, but AI use in drones, combat vehicles, weaponry and decision-making is already upon us and will no doubt increase exponentially in the next few years.  The overwhelming amount of information, sensor data and tactical options in warfare have increasingly become almost impossible for humans to process.  AI may already be taking over command.

 

In the world of social media and the arts, AI is being hyped and sold as a boon for creators, but will it soon re-define what creativity is and make it a cheap commodity?  If I can ask chatGPT to write a poem for me, tweak it a bit, and then parade it as my own creation, will AI soon lead to the Walmartization of culture?  And why learn how to write if my AI app can do it for me?  Are we gleefully welcoming our own obsolescence?

 

And we all know what bots, deep fakes and other early forms of AI have done to civil discourse and politics, not to mention the incredible harm that tiktok, Instagram, YouTube, discord, facebook and other social media have done to the vulnerable teenage psyche.  Are more advanced forms of AI likely to wreak even more havoc?

Another concern is what impact AI will have on education.  We have already seen that newer generations have lost the ability of map orientation, cursive writing and mental math.  Why learn algebra or calculus if AI can do it faster?  No need to master grammar, AI will make sure anything you write is correct.  When every fact and concept can be accessed immediately through vocal interactions with Siri or her brethren, why study history or political science or literature?

 

I have been using chatGPT’s mia for practicing my French and German.  I say something and mia responds appropriately, posing questions to push the conversation along and correcting me if I ask her to do so.  It is not yet quite the same as speaking to a language teacher, but it is close.  And it takes away all the nervousness and shyness that one normally needs to overcome to conduct a conversation.  How seductive is that?  But is it a slippery slope to isolation and social disintegration?  Will we all choose to inhabit a world of AI-produced acquaintances, friends and lovers.  None of the messiness of real human relationships – what could be better? 

 

Yes, AI is upon us and there may be some wondrous things that make our lives better.  But beware, all that glitters is not gold.  The tech billionaires who argue for unfettered development of AI see the world through a lens focused on corporate profits and unimaginably high valuations of AI startups.  Their short-sighted arrogance needs to be tempered by more sober analysis before Pandora’s box is entirely open.

The Insidious Nature of Today’s Neo-Fascism

The word fascism is tossed around with gusto by both sides of the American political landscape these days. The historical memory of the fascist regimes of the 20^th century – Germany, Italy, Spain, and to some extent Japan – provides strong images evoking ruthless dictators and police states.

A definition of fascism typically mentions the following: extreme nationalism, a narcissistic, aggrieved dictator, an autocratic, all-powerful state, state-controlled media, the elimination of political opposition, a focus on enemies of the state, a militaristic foreign policy and some sort of secret police and informant infrastructure.

 

In recent years right wing pundits and news sources in the USA and in other nations have claimed that fascism is a characteristic of the left.  They note that the Nazi party’s name was the National Socialist German Worker’s Party and that both Hitler and Mussolini were, in their early days, associated with socialist groups.  They also point to the Stalin and Mao dictatorships and the personality cults and police states that surrounded these megalomaniacs.  They depict the so-called cancel culture and woke political movement as forms of ‘thought control’ and a threat to free speech.  They consider current government spending an indication of an all-powerful state and they believe that religious freedom is under attack.

 

It is true that dictators and police states have emerged from both sides of the political spectrum.  Revolutions that have been precipitated by communist or socialist movements have been just as likely to create horribly cruel and repressive states as the ones created by the true fascists.  These regimes, whether originating from right or left, end up becoming a type of fascism. 

 

However, the historical truth is that fascism was diametrically opposed to socialism and communism, and that the pitched battles of the 1920’s and 1930’s were fought between those two political ideologies.  Socialism’s focus is on the worker, international cooperation and a more egalitarian society.  Fascism promotes nationalism and the state.

 

What is clear in the history is that repressive regimes, whether fascist, Marxist, Stalinist or any other ideology, have similar characteristics:  a personality cult centered around a narcissistic leader; a tendency to reject or eliminate credible media and create a world view oriented around the leader’s political agenda; a habit of accusing political opponents of doing the things that it is guilty of; extreme nationalism; a continual state of alarm over external and internal enemies; and a rigidly controlled society.

 

Given these criteria, the MAGA world of Donald Trump would seem to have a strong potential to veer toward this kind of autocratic rule, which one may define as neo-fascist.  There is no more narcissistic, aggrieved political figure in the world today than Donald Trump. He has transformed immigrants as well as many minority groups within the country into enemies of the state.  He alienates our allies and disparages the UN and efforts by the global community to solve international problems such as climate change.  Although he does not control it directly, the right-wing news media has many of the characteristics of a fascist, state-controlled media, in that it has limited interest in seeking out truth and reports everything through a very Trump-friendly lens.  He demands and obtains absolute allegiance from his party.  He has also promised to seek out and eliminate political opponents and to take revenge on a variety of groups if he is reelected, a classic fascist tactic.

 

The depiction of woke and cancel culture as fascist has been effective on the right, but it is a perspective that doesn’t pass scrutiny.  Most of the culture war has played out in social media and very little has passed into law or any sort of forced behavior.  No one is forced to ponder or acknowledge the legacy of racism; no one is forced to be gay or transgender; no one is denied the right to worship, pray or espouse fundamentalist religious views; no one is forced to have an abortion; no woman is forced to work outside the home; no one is forced to be sympathetic to the plight of immigrants and refugees.  The so-called radical left has not even been able to increase taxes on the wealthy to help slow the vast and growing disparities in wealth and income.

 

The latest accusation of fascism from the right focuses on the Trump legal cases and the supposed weaponization of the justice department.  The fact that both the defamation and hush money cases were tried in state courts with no relationship to the federal justice department makes a mockery of this accusation.  Add to that the fact that all of the election fraud cases from 2020 that were brought before various jurisdictions were found to be without merit and it is abundantly clear that the right’s arguments in this sphere have absolutely no basis in fact or reality.

 

The clearest path to fascism is a growing allegiance or obeisance to a dangerously unpredictable and vengeful leader.  The quasi-religious personality cult around Donald Trump is striking in its similarities to past demagogues and tyrants. The craven acquiescence of many tech, finance, political and business leaders and other former anti-Trumpers is also depressingly similar to the insidious capitulation and miscalculation of the 20’s and 30’s.   Trump may not have an army of storm troopers yet, but the radical fringe of his supporters has shown itself ready to answer the call.

 

America still has a strong economy and a history of weathering highly partisan political times, but I don’t believe it is hyperbole to say that a second term of Donald Trump could herald the arrival of neo-fascism to the home of the brave and the land of the free.