The High-Tech Racket

Technology companies are some of the wealthiest and most successful businesses in the world.  Their executives are rich beyond all comprehension and account for much of the obscene accumulation of wealth in recent decades.

The development of computer hardware and software technologies has indeed been an amazing phenomenon and has provided significant benefit to humankind.  There have been many ingenious innovations.  But once the initial innovation is past, the ongoing business of high-tech is basically a racket, not unlike the automobile racket of the 50’s and 60’s.  The operative word is guaranteed obsolescence.  Here are some examples of how it works.

The primary software on almost all personal computers is a combination of Microsoft Windows, the operating system, and Office, the combination of office software tools that most people use – Email, Word, Excel and Powerpoint, along with a few others that very few people use.  This software runs on personal computers, made by a variety of companies such as Dell, Apple, HP, Acer and many others.

It is safe to say that a healthy percentage of the computer-using population uses their computers for the same functions today – basic office functions, Internet surfing and social media, email – as they did twenty years ago.  The word processor and spreadsheet have seen only tiny improvements in recent years and most people use the same features they used 20 or even 30 years ago.  Even the major advances in online media and streaming could be handled by much older computers and their operating systems and browsers. People could, in theory, be using the same computers and software they purchased in 1999 and have all the functionality that they need.

Instead, most of us have purchased computers every 2-4 years, paying from $400 to $1500 each time for very marginal, if any, increases in functionality.  And why have we done that?  Because the memory, storage and processing requirements for running the software have grown exponentially and require ever increasing hardware capabilities.

And why have we continued to add the software that makes our computers obsolete, which, by the way, costs quite a bit of money as well?  Because the software companies, Microsoft being the primary culprit, come out with new versions that add modest or even unwanted new features.  And once these new versions are on the market we feel compelled to purchase them in order to stay ‘current’ with the technology and to be able to interact with the world around us.

A behemoth like Microsoft is dependent on this revenue (and its obscenely high profit margins) and has, along with one other company – Apple – a monopoly on the operating system and basic software.  There are no viable competitors, thus allowing these two companies to dictate wildly extravagant pricing in relation to the effort needed to maintain and modestly upgrade this software  In recent years they have switched to a subscription service to guarantee the ongoing successful extortion of fees, even though the great majority of us uses each new version of software for exactly the same purposes and gains no benefit whatsoever from these payments.

This ecosystem of quickly obsolete hardware and software is similar to the way that General Motors and Ford conducted the automobile business in the 50’s and 60’s.  People were indoctrinated in the habit of purchasing a new car every 2 or 3 years.  That mode of automobile purchasing is still somewhat operative today, as people are easily tempted by the allure of a bright new car, but the average duration of ownership is now close to seven years and has slowly climbed over the last 70 years.

The ubiquitous smart phone is another example of the high-tech racket.  The maturity of the smart phone has now reached the point where successive generations bring very marginal additional benefit, yet the public races to purchase each new shiny version, perhaps for some prompted by the small cachet of being the early adopter, but for most simply a lemming-like response to the release of a new gadget and the endless need for more storage and power that comes with bigger photos (who needs a 10MB photo?!!), our addiction to social media and legions of apps.  At least in this market there is a reasonable level of competition.  But the guaranteed obsolescence will be more non-sensical as time goes by.

Isn’t all of this just smart business?  Doesn’t the world need this type of frenzied, unwarranted consumerism to feed the engines of commerce?  Perhaps, but one might theorize that our treasure would be better spent on other more necessary items, and that the profit from these purchases would be better spread among a vast number of smaller, modest enterprises rather than add to the bloated coffers of the software and hardware plutocrats.

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly of Robin Hood Economics

Recent proposals from aspiring 2020 presidential candidates have focused on decreasing the income gap by various forms of taking from the rich and giving to the poor.  One suggestion was a general tax (2%/year) on the wealth of the richest Americans, those whose net worth is over $50 million.  Another proposal is to re-introduce much higher marginal tax rates into the federal income tax, similar to those that we had in the 1950’s. 

The reactions to these proposals were no surprise.  Epithets with ‘socialism’ and ‘communism’ were hurled angrily and all the failed so-called socialist states (Venezuela, Cuba, the Soviet Union, North Korea, etc.) were invoked to dismiss these ideas as horribly misguided if not outright immoral and evil.

But polarizing sound bites aside, what are the virtues, the pitfalls and the cautionary tales for trying to make the income game a bit less extreme?  And why are even many middle to lower middle class people so violently against the concept?

The first question to answer is whether the income gap is indeed a problem that needs solving.  I would argue that it is, because a widening income gap creates a society of distinct classes with less upward mobility and a growing frustration of unrealized potential and expectations in those who are not part of the elite.  And as I have often speculated before, all indications are that middle-class jobs are disappearing, and that automation will only accelerate this process, resulting in even more extreme income disparities.

Taking wealth from the super-rich is a tricky business, because the rich will find myriad ways to foil any attempts to take what they view as rightfully theirs.  But let’s assume, for arguments sake, that there is a fair and effective way to do this. How will this wealth be used?

It is an axiom among conservatives that our government is bloated, bureaucratic and inefficient.  One has only to look at growth in the Washington D.C. area to get the impression that there is some validity in this point of view.  It is a sad truth that most non-competitive entities tend to grow ever larger and become less efficient over time.  It is very difficult to rein in that kind of sprawl.  So it is understandable that the thought of taking large amounts of money from the rich and giving it to the government to spend is anathema to conservatives and even gives pause to many liberals.

But what about a direct transfer of wealth from the rich to the working (or even non-working, but that is another even more polarizing discussion) poor and lower middle class?  This could be achieved by reducing or even totally eliminating taxes for the recipients and giving credits to the lowest income group. 

From a basic economic point of view, one could argue that this wealth would be more rapidly spent on basic goods and services and stimulate the economy, thus having a positive feedback effect of creating more jobs and lifting more people into the middle and upper middle class.  The counter argument would be that the wealth would no longer be available for investment in new enterprises or expansion of existing ones.  But it seems to me that an increase in demand must come before an increase in supply is warranted, and the amount of wealth that is already stockpiled in the coffers of the rich must surely be sufficient to meet the investment needed to balance any increase in demand.

This direct transfer from the super wealthy to the non-wealthy would have to be carefully done to achieve maximum effect, but it would avoid the further bloating of government (other than a modest increase necessary to manage the transfer).

 

Another argument against this method would be that it would have a negative effect on the ambition and work ethic of the recipients, creating more of a welfare mindset.  This is a corollary to the free market theory that wages must be market driven to avoid coddling the working classes and artificially creating inflation or other market damage.  But we may have already reached a state in our economy where ambition and a strong work ethic will no longer guarantee a better job or higher wage, if such guarantees ever really existed in an ideal form.

The low level of wages for most service sector jobs is due partly to the absence of the collective bargaining options that raised wages in the latter stages of the industrial revolution and rescued the manufacturing sector from imminent revolution!  It would be more effective to accomplish this wage increase through a top-level transfer across society than to leave it to the slow machinations of the myriad disparate collective bargaining groups that are currently facing a significant headwind due to the general retreat and poor reputation of unions.

The entrenched myth of the rich ‘deserving’ their grotesque incomes needs to be debunked, as does the quasi-religious mystique of the free market.  One look at the growth of CEO salaries in the past 50 years is enough to convince anyone of the capricious nature of the ‘market’.  We may have learned from the failures of centralized economies that some form of capitalism and the free market is the most efficient system, but that does not mean that we should not continue to smooth its very sharp edges and use our best understanding to make it as humane as possible.

Philanthropy

I have struggled for most of my life with the question of how I should balance my own life and interests with the ‘call’ to do ‘good’.  I will use the term philanthropy as a catchall for this, as its basic definition is ‘the desire to promote the welfare of others’.

The first 26 years of my life were spent in what I would describe as a totally self-indulgent fashion.  I believe I was then, and have always been, a kind person and quite considerate of the feelings of others.  However, in those first 26 years I never performed tasks that specifically benefited others and I never gave any money to charitable causes.

When I left the Navy and entered graduate school, I was suddenly seized by a strong inclination to investigate and/or cultivate a spiritual life and with it, a sense that I should do something philanthropic.  Thus began a new phase of what I would term ‘philanthropic anxiety’ in my odyssey of self-discovery that continues to this day.

During my two years in graduate school I became a Big Brother, mentoring a 9 year old African-American boy from the projects in Boston.  The cultural divide was enormous, but we managed to have a nice relationship.  I have no idea whether I had any real impact on his life.  It could be that my entering and leaving his life in such quick fashion was more detrimental than helpful.  I just don’t know.

Soon after that I met and married Karen, who was a ‘giver’ by nature.  Indeed, part of her allure for me was her commitment to good works.  Together, we became super-involved in starting a Habitat for Humanity affiliate in Melbourne, Florida.  This work became a second job for both of us and left little time for other endeavors.

During that time in Melbourne, my fervor for serving humanity reached a climax, and I made a frenzied but short-lived effort to emulate Albert Schweitzer’s late evolution into a medical missionary by studying for and taking the MCATs.  I corresponded with several medical schools to determine how many courses I would have to take to apply as a 31 year old student.

Karen and I ended up going off in a different direction though, temporarily abandoning our careers (we were childless after all!) and moving to Americus, GA to work with founder and charismatic leader Millard Fuller at Habitat for Humanity’s headquarters.  Soon after our arrival I became the head of fundraising and publicity for Habitat International.  This was an exciting time for us, being part of a very dynamic organization and interacting with people like Millard and Jimmy Carter as well as a group of zealous and fascinating volunteers.

During these years in Melbourne and at Habitat for Humanity I became convinced that the only path for me was to commit myself fully to helping others and that any other pursuit was somehow trivial or less noble.  It seemed to me at the time that once one became aware of all the need and brokenness of the world, then the only honorable path was to abandon selfish, worldly pursuits and commit oneself fully to serving humankind.

The exhilaration of working with other idealists in a noble cause was a powerful attraction for Karen and me, and we believed that our life’s work would be focused on ‘good works’.  Our co-workers at HFH were similarly passionate about their commitment and the organization pulsed with idealistic fervor.

Unfortunately, I began to experience a strong recurrence of the respiratory infections that had plagued me intermittently throughout my life and had forced me out of the Navy.  Eventually I made the decision to leave Habitat and pursue a career in academia, which led me to complete a Ph.D. at Georgia Tech and ironically back into industry upon realizing that research wasn’t my passion.

In the interim I began to question some of my assumptions about charitable work, both in terms of my own motivation and the purpose and/or efficacy of the work itself.  When we arrived in Americus, HFH was still a relatively small organization with a small full-time staff and a large number of volunteers who worked for a small stipend and housing.  (The short-term volunteers received their pay as checks made out to the local Piggly Wiggly grocery store and these were truly ‘sty’pends!)

What began to bother me about HFH, and other charitable organizations that I became very familiar with during that time, was that these organizations quickly evolved away from their idealistic roots and took on many of the corporate trappings of traditional businesses.  The mission no longer influenced the nature of the people and organization that was executing it.  And this, in turn, would cause the mission to become less revolutionary and more a part of the general charity ecosystem.

I continued to work with HFH even after I left full time employment.  While a graduate student I served on the Atlanta HFH Board of Directors and spoke at numerous events.  I also helped start up both the Georgia Tech and Emory Campus chapters.

But as time passed, my ardor for philanthropy ebbed.  I found it increasingly difficult to believe that ‘charity’ was likely to be the remedy for the worlds ills and I began to question my own motives.

There are two important questions to be raised about philanthropy.  The first is why do we feel the call to ‘do good’ and how does it impact our lives.  The second is what does philanthropy actually accomplish and how effective is it.

It is a rite of passage for every successful person to eventually succumb to the call of philanthropy.  I recall Ted Turner goading Bill Gates back in the 90’s to ‘do something good’ with his fortune, challenging him to join him in various philanthropic efforts, invoking clichéd bromides of the ‘better to give than receive’ genre.  Since that time Bill Gates has indeed risen to the challenge, establishing a foundation that is very active in several big causes – the eradication of polio being the most well-known.

I am afraid that I cannot revere Turner nor Gates, nor any other tycoon philanthropist for their largesse.  I view foundations and philanthropy with a hefty dose of skepticism, both for their motivation and their efficacy.  Being a recognized philanthropist is the crown of glory that is sought after all the other accolades for wealth, success, fame and business acumen have been collected.  It is the legacy and near-immortality that people with large egos crave. I recognize that my critique is tinged with irony, as I would assuredly be following the same path as Turner and Gates if I had amassed a fortune like theirs.  These are not bad people.  I am not demeaning them, but I am also unwilling to put them on a pedestal.

I acknowledge, on balance, that it is certainly better for these absurdly wealthy individuals to move some of their outrageous treasure to a foundation that is doing ‘good’ than to simply hoard it for themselves and their families.  But in a world that is increasingly polarized between the wealthy and the poor, the philanthropic model is a stark and grotesque reminder of the basic structural and economic imbalances that plague this sad planet.

Henry David Thoreau addressed the topic of philanthropy somewhat dismissively in Walden.  He wrote, “There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root, and it may be that he who bestows the largest amount of time and money on the needy is doing the most by his mode of life to produce that misery which he strives in vain to relieve. It is the pious slave-breeder devoting the proceeds of every tenth slave to buy a Sunday's liberty for the rest. Some show their kindness to the poor by employing them in their kitchens. Would they not be kinder if they employed themselves there?”

Putting aside vast riches in various foundations (or worse yet, giving them to bloated educational foundations) creates monuments to the philanthropist, but does it really change the world or bring us any closer to a just and healthy society?

In recent years, much of what we have praised as ‘charitable works’ has been shown to be ill-informed at best, and often downright detrimental to the very people whose lives it hopes to improve.  The movie Poverty Inc traces the explosive growth of NGO’s and an entire poverty ecosystem that appears to have routinely retarded all organic development efforts and worked, however unintended, against the very goals it promotes.

Every successful person is encouraged to ‘give back’, and our civic and religious traditions strongly endorse and even require charitable acts and generosity as a fundamental duty of a moral and ethical life.  Certainly, we cannot stand by while the poor and marginalized suffer a thousand different torments and misfortunes.  But it is also increasingly clear that the traditional model of philanthropy and charity is neither efficient nor healthy, and is probably guilty of perpetuating the ills that it wishes to amend.

The call to philanthropy goes to the very heart of our quest for meaning in life.  What is our purpose? Why do we exist?  We sense that total self-indulgence is not a very healthy or noble pursuit, so we assuage our middle (or upper) class guilt by spending a Sunday morning or two at the soup kitchen, or writing a few checks to charities at years end.  But is philanthropy – i.e. an intentional effort to help those in need or improve the world in some way – something everyone should embrace?  Would it be better, as Thoreau suggests, for us to live a life that promotes an equitable world and avoid the practices that lead to injustice and poverty?  Is our passion for ‘doing good’ just another means to bolster our egos and beat back the guilt of our pampered lives, which we know to be more the result of good fortune and circumstance than the result of our clever actions or hard work.

There is no easy answer to the question of how much one should dedicate oneself to philanthropy.  Contradictions and ironies are everywhere.  Altruism, like humility, is a golden ring that is always out of reach.  Each person must seek his or her own path and find the balance that feels right.

The Paradox of Happiness

It is an axiom of our culture, and indeed enshrined in our founding documents, that a primary goal of life is the pursuit of happiness.  But what is happiness?  How do we measure it?  Do we ever really achieve happiness in any long-term sense, or does it cleverly elude us in the very moment that we seem to have attained it?

Each person may define happiness differently.  For most it seems to involve comfort and physical well-being, as well as some sort of fulfillment in terms of work and activities.  For many, having a good family life seems to be an important component of happiness. 

We generally assume that peace and prosperity are fundamental to happiness and that conflict and deprivation are to be avoided.  We dream of a world where harmony prevails, and people can find a permanent sense of happiness.  We imagine heaven to be such a place, and humans have for eons attempted to ease their earthly suffering with dreams of an afterlife where they will be truly happy.

But are human beings ever continuously happy?  Doesn’t the very first moment of an achieved happiness already have in it the seed of an unsettling disquiet, a desire for something different, a new experience?

One need only regard the lives of the very wealthy, who by all normal measures should lead very happy and fulfilled lives.  Yet they seem mainly to be mired in all forms of unpleasantness and plagued with heavy doses of unhappiness!

Or I think of the idyllic American small-town environment, portrayed as a utopia of friends and neighbors, fulfilling work, a safe and calm environment.  Yet how many stories depict the restless young man or woman, suffering miserably under the suffocating blanket of all this supposed happiness, who yearns to break free and experience changes, challenges and new frontiers.  The American small town has in recent years decayed into a nightmare of opioid addiction, joblessness and reactionary politics – hardly a utopia anymore!  But perhaps it never was.

Does happiness require bouts of unhappiness to define it?  Are the vicissitudes of life necessary if we are to have any real satisfaction?  In moments of despair or despondency we may long for calm and stasis, but as soon as it arrives we are bored and restless once again.

The cycle and co-dependency of happiness and un-happiness is never more vividly depicted than in the case of drug addiction.  The addict is perfectly happy the moment he or she shoots up, but the high rapidly ebbs, leaving in its wake a horrifically devilish need for a new fix.  And the irony is not lost that the most potent addictive drugs are those that conquer pain as well as provide euphoria.  Addiction is the perfect metaphor for our joy/sorrow dialectic, played out at its extreme edge.

The Buddhists seek to evade this mercurial roller coaster ride of pain and pleasure, joy and misery.  This dukkha, a craving which can never truly be satisfied, seems an apt description of our lives.  In my simple assessment of Buddhism, I discern an attempt to get beyond this craving and achieve some sort of blissful state of transcendence, much as mystics in other religions seek to focus on the divine and leave the worldly pain and temptation behind.  But is it really practical or desirable to eliminate this craving?  Isn’t life by its very nature a dynamic, ever-changing process?  Will any enduring transcendence just end up as a numbing of our sensibilities, a true opiate of the masses?

I don’t see any panacea for life or happiness.  It is a battle that we all must confront in good faith, doing our best to exult in the highs and courageously endure the lows.  There may be ways to flatten out the curve, but it is not clear that this will make life any more palatable.

Just the Facts Ma'am! - A Short History of Truth

Recent political conflicts have forced us to confront the elusive and uncertain nature of truth.  How does one determine what is fact and what is fiction?  In an age when information is so easily disseminated and manipulated, how can we ever be sure that what we read, see or hear is true?

In the beginning, there was no ‘media’ to capture or spread information.  People talked to one another and information was relayed person to person, mouth to mouth.  Oral history and folklore were the only means to record historical events.  And anyone who has ever played the game of Chinese Whispers (or the Telephone Game as it is called in the U.S.) knows that a chain of oral retellings has a high probability of introducing error even when no one is intending to change the story.

Historians suspect that much of the folklore and mythology that came out of the period of human oral history is significantly embellished or outright fiction.  Something happens, but when people talk about what happened they tend to relate the event in a way that embodies their own biases, wishes and interpretations.  Or they may simply invent something out of whole cloth that serves their purposes.

Once the written word was invented, that provided the opportunity to record facts or fiction in a less alterable medium.  It did not ensure that what was written was factual, but at least for the duration of the medium’s existence it prevented it from being capriciously altered.  But sadly, all media are prone to degradation, and new copies must be made, which of course re-introduces the opportunity for modification.  All our ancient historical documents – e.g. the Upanishads, the Bible, Greek and Roman classics – have been copied repeatedly and there is no way to know what has been added, modified or deleted, though certainly historians and other social scientists have their theories.

Much of what we now accept as historical fact has been compiled and authenticated by historians via multiple sources – newspaper accounts, magazines, books, letters, official documents, court records, photographs and video – which certainly increases the odds for achieving accurate portrayals. There is never absolute agreement about historical events and they are of course interpreted by different people in different ways.  The perspective of observers and scholars may change as time passes, which is the reason why we often see ‘revisionist’ interpretations of history long after an event has occurred.  But the basic facts of our history are reasonably well preserved and held inviolable.

Before the advent of the Internet, there were a limited number and type of media outlets for obtaining information – books, magazines, newspapers, and radio and TV stations.  The capital and labor costs of mass producing printed material, or producing radio and TV ensured that it was mostly well-funded enterprises and/or serious historians that participated in the reporting and associated commentary of events.

These well-funded media sources were captive to their markets and needed to achieve a profitable business success.   Therefore, one could always expect an element of showmanship in magazine, newspaper, television or radio reporting.  More serious scholarship in books and periodicals was less subject to the fickle nature of the viewing public and thus more likely to avoid sensationalism.  Scholarly writings are also reviewed rather aggressively by one’s peers, which may eliminate much of the temptation to embellish or distort.

Journalistic standards evolved over time, and credible newspapers and magazines, as well as TV and radio news shows, could generally be relied upon to provide factual content, with perhaps a modicum of either liberal or conservative bias, depending on the political leanings of the publisher.  By the late twentieth century there was a general perception in conservative circles that much of the media had liberal leanings.  I would argue that this is not a bad thing, as the press is the fourth estate and may be seen as playing a role of counterbalance to the influence of corporations and the rich and powerful.  The journalist who aligns him or herself with the poor, the powerless and the downtrodden is performing a noble function that may indeed be quite necessary in modern society, as long as his or her basic presentation of events is still accurate.

However, the modern era of Internet media has unleashed a veritable maelstrom of information, much of which is passed on by casual reference without reference to any reliable source, or worse yet, a false reference.  Angry blogs, anonymous emails, rogue news sites, conspiracy theorists and a thousand other would-be pundits produce mountains of ‘news’ that may have little or nothing to do with actual events.  The effort required to verify sources and veracity is prodigious, and the public’s penchant for embracing and forwarding any views that align with their own, no matter how uncertain their origin, makes policing the Internet an almost impossibly complex task.

It is a sad irony that the Internet, while on the one hand providing a fantastic resource for enrichment and education, is also a rapidly growing dystopia of propaganda, hate speech, ‘fake’ news and outright falsehoods.  True journalism may be found amidst the trash, but it grows ever more difficult to guide an easily bamboozled public to authentic, trustworthy information.  And the rapid emergence of authoritarian regimes that exert a powerful influence on media does not bode well for the future.  Let us hope that a recognition of the pitfalls in our current path will awaken in all of us a desire to seek out facts and truth.

Globalization - The Third Great Disequilibrium

One may look at human history through many different lenses.  There is a lens for the evolution of human myth and religion, one for human discovery and invention, one for art, literature and philosophy, a few for political and social transformations, and endless lenses for wars and conquest.

I am interested in viewing the world through a lens of disequilibrium –  a look at the periods of history where the world has been cast into paroxysms of chaos and uncertainty with cataclysmic results.  There are, of course, many cataclysmic and tragic events in history, so finding specific, causative points or periods of disequilibrium may seem like a fool’s errand.  And history is ultimately a continuum, so any effort to identify and separate historical trends and epochs is doomed to eye-rolling dismissal on one level.  However, it can be illuminating to look at events from different perspectives, so I will forge ahead with my own hypothesis of disequilibrium!

I do not classify run-of-the-mile empire building and conquest as disequilibrium, because the history of the world up until modern times has suffered a continuous stream of such events.  If one were only to measure death and destruction, then these empires and conquest would certainly be the focus.  But my objective is to understand other critical factors in the way that the world has evolved and I believe that some insight may be obtained by looking at the following periods of disequilibrium.

I propose that the first major period of global disequilibrium was the result of the collision of myths and religions.  Civilizations developed their myths and religions over many centuries starting at the very dawn of humankind, and the migration, proliferation and evangelism associated with individual religions is an interesting topic unto itself.  But the disequilibrium associated with the clash of these religions and myths mostly plays out over the several centuries from the crusades, through the spread of the Ottoman empire, through the voyages of discovery and periods of Christian and Muslim conquest, and ends with the reformation, the inquisition, the pogroms and the long European wars that resulted.

The chaos, conquests and carnage associated with the collision of myths and religions were a result of a rather unholy alliance of religious fervor and hunger for power and dominion. The conquistadors may have found part of their inspiration to conquer and plunder in their Christian beliefs, but it is likely that piety was more of a justification than a driving force, and that their lust for gold and other more worldly treasures was often the motivation.

The tally of death and destruction due to this disequilibrium is beyond measurement.  The brutal slaughter in the Holy Lands; the depopulation through both disease and murder of much of the Americas; the spread of slavery (due to both Muslim and Christian efforts); the savage colonial empires inflicted upon less technologically advanced peoples; the wholesale carnage of the Thirty Years War in Europe after the reformation which exacted a toll of up to 1/4 of the population; and many other religious or quasi-religious conflicts paint a portrait that is ironically the clear antithesis to the basic tenets of the religions and myths that authored it. 

These conflicts continue to haunt the earth and its peoples through periodic confrontations, but other disequilibriums have become more dominant and, in the case of globalization, incorporate religious conflict as part of their chaotic effect.

The second disequilibrium period is that of industrialization, which in my interpretation begins with the enlightenment and the age of scientific awakening, goes through the industrial revolution and the associated conflict between capitalism and Marxism and between religion and humanism, climaxes in the two world wars, and then ends with the cold war.

The seeds of the great conflagrations of the twentieth century were sown in the two hundred years preceding.  The opening of the human mind to science and to intellectual progress in non-religious directions, combined with the timeless and bottomless appetite that humans have for material wealth and power, led to dramatic changes in political, economic and social arrangements and consciousness, and ultimately to a rising tension between haves and have nots, between capitalists and workers, between the religious and the atheists, between aristocrats and the common people, between the lovers and the haters .  These tensions spawned the multiple political eruptions of nationalism, socialism, anarchism, fascism and populism that dictated relationships both within and between nations.

One of the most liberating, but also disorienting aspects of the age of industrialization was the scientific evidence – astronomical, geological, biological/evolutionary, psychological – that cast doubt upon the myths and religion that had dominated both personal and social behaviors since the dawn of humans.  Humanism and Darwinism were quickly interwoven into the dynamic forces of the various economic and political movements that swept the globe from the mid-nineteenth century up through the cold war.

The end of the cold war and the disintegration of the Soviet Union brought about the acceleration of what we now term ‘globalization’.  This is the third great disequilibrium.  Globalization takes on myriad forms, but it is generally characterized by an increasing interaction between states, cultures, religions, ethnic groups and economies.

The economic impact of globalization began in the 1980s as industrial nations began to utilize cheaper labor markets in developing nations.  This had the triple impact of increasing middle class opportunities in these developing nations, decreasing the price of many goods, as well as increasing profits for the international companies that outsourced the labor.  But lurking behind the euphoria of this classic capitalist strategy was the loss of middle class jobs to the industrial nations and the malaise that eventually resulted from steadily increasing wages for the elitist classes and stagnating wages for the middle classes or lower classes.

The second economic impact of globalization was the opportunity for developing nations such as China to take advantage of free trade and their own cheap labor pools to compete (sometimes with dubious tactics such as state-supported price cutting and the theft of intellectual property) successfully with their own manufactured goods in the global markets.  This upended the decades long dominance of Europe, the U.S. and Japan in world trade.

In theory, free trade should allow all nations to benefit in the long run with optimized production and pricing worldwide.  Additionally, free trade should allow developing nations to modernize and join the world economic force as a somewhat equal partner with the benefit of growing middle class populations.  But transitions are always difficult.

The second disrupting aspect of globalization is the relatively free and large flow of immigrants and refugees across borders and the growing diversity in formerly homogeneous populations.  This mixing of cultures, ethnic groups and religions is occurring at both the lower and upper ends of the social spectrum, though more heavily and dramatically at the lower end because of the economic and political crises across the globe.

The third dramatic impact of globalization is the international rise of women in social, educational, political and economic importance.  This trend emerged during the industrialization period, but is now sweeping across the world because of globalization and colliding against traditional cultural views of a woman’s place in society. 

Another major trend is the change in views on gender and sexuality.  Industrial nations have dramatically liberalized in their acceptance of homosexuality, abortion, family planning, gender variations and increased sexual activity.  The globalization of this trend is not assured, and it is a significant point of disequilibrium.

The last attribute of globalization that I will describe is the slow movement toward an international community that attempts to solve world problems and ease the transition to a more global society.  The U.N., multiple economic groups and forums, aid groups, special organizations for prosecuting war crimes, conventions to address climate change and joint peacekeeping operations are all examples of this aspect of globalization.  International efforts to ease economic hardship and famine, to apply pressure to countries to eliminate graft and corruption, to adopt joint agreements to combat climate change and promote free trade are all part of this somewhat awkward and often bureaucratic quest to create a global community.

These characteristics of globalization have created dramatic upheaval in many countries in the form of economic distress, as well as a multitude of reactionary ills – xenophobia, homophobia, misogyny, populism, nationalism and authoritarianism.  Industrial nations are not willing to cede their dominance or their independence, and accuse this world community of incompetence, bureaucracy and the cynical promotion of special interests.  Developing nations accuse the industrial powers of greedily clinging to their power and economic status and maintaining a colonial attitude to the rest of the world.

There is a growing concern that the formerly assumed triumphant progress of liberal democracy across the globe is now in serious jeopardy and that reactionary forces with authoritarian and nationalistic leaders such as one sees in the U.S. with Trump, in Poland, Hungary, Italy, Turkey, Brazil, the Philippines and other nations, are rapidly creating a dark counter flow propelled by fear and uncertainty.

As the final point of my analysis, I note that periods of disequilibrium are growing shorter and more dramatic in an exponential manner.  This is not surprising, as the pace of change in our world has been accelerating in a continuous, disquieting manner.  The first two periods of disequilibrium I described each had, slowly but surely, a positive, increasingly harmonious impact on our world, an encouraging sign of our ability to adapt to and embrace change.   Even at the dawn of the new millennium we had some reason to be optimistic about our future, as the new disequilibrium of globalization seemed to be manageable and appeared to be on a trajectory that would ultimately lead to a more just and equitable world.

But things have gone awry since that time.  It is certainly not clear how the current disequilibrium of globalization, which has emerged and had dramatic consequences in three short decades, will conclude.  It has the potential to unify the world in a common goal of peace, prosperity, harmony and cooperation.  However, it is not at all clear that it will achieve this lofty goal.  The changes may simply be too rapid for our human institutions to accommodate.  And if we are unable to stabilize our beautiful little planet in the next ten or twenty years, then the fourth disequilibrium, whatever it may be (climate collapse, automation and artificial intelligence, who can say?) may come upon us so quickly and mercilessly as to completely outrun our human ability to adapt.

An Open Letter to My Conservative Friends

The increasingly rancorous interactions between conservatives and liberals cry out for some sort of mediation or reconciliation, but I wonder if it is still feasible to find middle ground.  Have things gone so far that empathy and compromise are impossible?

I know that my conservative friends are not bad people.  I know that on a personal, one-on-one level they are good people with compassion and basic values that are very similar to mine.  So why do they come to such radically different conclusions about public policy than the ones that I reach?

One aspect of the current polarization that I find difficult to move past is the Faustian bargain many conservatives have made in embracing Donald Trump.  I understand that they were frustrated and yearning for a strong voice, and that they see Trump as a game-changer for the conservative cause.  But the man is a dangerous demagogue who has character traits that seem to me to be the exact opposite of the morality and integrity that conservatives have long celebrated.  His lack of humility, incivility and reckless rhetoric can only further divide this nation.  I know that many of my conservative friends see him as a means to an end rather than a sterling example for humanity, but this is a very dangerous game they are playing and there are potentially tragic consequences at stake.

The rhetoric on both sides has become so vitriolic that it makes sensible discussion very challenging.  The right (most notably Trump) has villainized the immigrant with images of gangs and crime to make its case for stronger borders and deportation of undocumented workers.  The left has portrayed the right as hateful xenophobes who have no compassion or conscience.  Not long ago there were bi-partisan efforts to craft a reasonable immigration policy but we are now so polarized that any compromise seems a distant dream.  

But are we really so far apart on this issue?  Liberals understand that there must be some control of immigration and I believe conservatives can understand and sympathize with the desperation and fear that propels immigrants to our country.  Can we not jettison the divisive rhetoric and sit down and find a reasonable path forward?  Does it make sense for us to demonize the other side (or the immigrants) to make our argument? 

Abortion, gay marriage and other hot button religious issues are also blown out of proportion.  Pro choice proponents are not eager to see abortions occur.  On the contrary, they want to see less abortions through an increased availability of contraceptives, family planning and sex education.  I am sure that most conservatives realize that going back to the old days of coat hanger, backroom abortions is not a viable option.  The abortion rate has been decreasing steadily over the last thirty years and is only slightly higher than the rate before Roe vs. Wade!  There is certainly an opportunity to work together to minimize abortions without creating draconian legal consequences.

Gay marriage and transsexual rights are difficult concepts for conservatives to accept, but there is now a large body of scientific evidence that sexuality and gender identification are not binary but rather a continuum, and that these behaviors or preferences are innate and not ‘choices’.  Liberals should be empathetic with conservatives who struggle to accept these cultural changes, as they do conflict with sincere religious beliefs, but I believe this is an area where the younger generation, regardless of political or religious orientation, has already accepted these facts en masse and will lead the way forward.

Gun control is a very difficult issue for me to find common ground with conservatives.  I doubt that we will truly reduce the epidemic of gun violence in this country until we have rigorous licensing and control of guns, something that appears to be anathema and a non-starter for many conservatives, even when hunting rights are assured.  The evidence from other developed countries where such rigid controls effectively eliminate gun violence do not seem to have any effect on conservative thought.  The only way forward I would recommend is a truly bi-partisan study of gun violence in this country, but any attempts to do such a study have been blocked by mcongress.  On this topic it is difficult to find any reason for optimism, but perhaps some very timid beginnings will be possible with the new congress.

The climate change issue is also one that deserves a less adversarial approach.  It appears that many conservatives now accept the scientific evidence for human-caused climate change.  But they are understandably concerned with the negative effect that any actions to address the problem might have on our economy and they are suspicious of treaties or commitments that would hamstring our country in comparison to others.  Wouldn’t it make sense to have a bi-partisan group of legislators, scientists and economists work together to craft policy on this hugely important crisis? 

Economic, tax and entitlement issues, including healthcare, will continue to defy consensus.  Any three economists will come up with three different analyses.  And when politicians enter the fray careful analysis is no longer possible.  Both liberals and conservatives understand the basic concept that bureaucracy should be minimized and that economic freedom is to be highly prized.   But any reasonable person can also see that in a complex, integrated, global society some level of government involvement is necessary to prevent injustice and to create a more equitable society.  Add to that the thirty-year-long growth of wage disparity and the looming crisis of automation and the disappearance of middle class jobs and you have a situation that clearly demands bi-partisan action. 

I do not believe that conservatives are greedy, lack compassion or are insensitive to economic hardship or disparity.  But neither are liberals conniving socialists who want to steal a wealthy man’s hard-earned riches to give to the idle poor.  These are stereotypes that are useful for whipping up partisan outrage but they serve to harden our biases and make reasonable compromise ever more difficult.  

Social and economic engineering are complex and uncertain, but we have no choice if we are to avoid the potential devastating effects of the social, scientific and economic issues that confront us.  It is time to stop the puerile name calling and the perpetuation of stereotypes and vapid generalizations.  The hard work of governing demands that we abandon our partisan antics and roll up our sleeves to work together.  We owe it to our children.