My main focuses recently on this blog have been the lack of appreciation for what we have, the lack of optimism among people, and the willful ignorance that produces this perception of misery. I have posted about the difference between a depression now and the Great Depression. The difference between the same GDP as 1990 and 1930 is immense, and is the same percentage of economic reduction in both cases. The average welfare recipient, by definition living in poverty, has a refrigerator, a television, a cell phone, and some form of health care. This is in many ways a more affluent life than the middle class of the "Golden Age" of Americana, the 1950's.
I have written about the enormous transformation of the lives of women, from a life of ignorance, hard labor, and lack of choice to a life of knowledge, education, freedom of choice, and freedom from hard labor.
I have written about the astonishing improvement in conditions worldwide, in everything from health to food to education. Essentially every indicator that matters points to an amazing improvement in the lives of most people around the world.
I have written about this being the time of greatest peace and security that the world has ever known.
I highly recommend the lecture below, part of what I consider an essential resource for someone who wants to be an informed and knowledgeable person, TED, Technology, Entertainment, Design. It's sixteen minutes long and talks about where we are, possible futures and the problem of scientific ignorance/denial.
Michael Specter lecture
I am actually more optimistic than even this guy (and I would definitely choose to go forward rather than back) because while I agree that the US is becoming more plagued by science denial than it has been in decades, this is not as true for other places around the world, like Europe, and the emerging giants of China and India. The consequences of science denial in the US are not so much that the necessary advances won't happen, but that they will happen elsewhere in the world. Technological innovation drives economic growth and education drives technological innovation.
So, even during a prolonged economic downtown, in general things are getting better over the long term. So why is a negative outlook so prevalent to seem almost universal? The reason is that all judgments of worth etc. are based on comparisons. Someone is a good woman compared to other women. The economy is bad compared to Japan. Violence is up or down compared to five years ago. These comparisons are choices, although almost certainly unconscious choices. In general we don't really seem to sit down and think about what time period, location, and population we are selecting to compare our situation against. We simply have a feeling about how things are going, and we tend to base that feeling on a comparison between how we feel now and how we felt in the past.
The problem with this comparison is that human beings naturally tend to forget the bad things in the past and remember the good things. The reason why I think this is that consistently over history people pine for the good old days (which were worse) and are terrified of the terrible future (which is usually better). However, people are so unaware of this process that they ask themselves why they remember bad things more than good things, even though this is false.
The advancement of human civilization has been based on the examination of our natural feelings on the basis of evidence. We may naturally want to rape teenagers, fight for property, enslave others, and unthinkingly follow tall men, and hate our neighbors, in fact I think all of those are true. However, upon examination of these ideas through the lens of reason we have largely squashed these concepts. We have managed to direct our innate sense of disgust towards these actions, and quite rightly so.
This means that it is possible to change how our minds work. We can use our conscious minds to reason and come up with different ideas and methods of thinking. We can change our perceptions based on the comparisons we make, and we can choose which comparisons to make. We can also decide to make these comparisons through evidence and fact rather than how we feel.
My most basic idea then is that there is an axis of optimism upon which you can choose to make your comparisons. You can choose to focus on the negative elements of the moment (so the relative decline of the middle class in the richest country in the world in comparison to the general rise of wealth worldwide) in comparison to your rose-colored view of the recent past. Or you can choose to focus on the positive elements of the present (the greatest amount of healthcare for Americans ever, increasing lifespans, new technology and discoveries, treatment for mental illness like never before, enormous improvement social values for races, homosexuals and women, better health, wealth and education in general around the world) and compare them to the history of humanity across the world.
One method will result in you feeling sad, pessimistic and hopeless. The other will make you excited and optimistic. Both comparisons are true in and of themselves. Which is a broader and more complete view of the circumstances? Which makes you happier? Which gives you more hope and motivation to improve the world? The choice is yours.
Friday, September 16, 2011
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
Cannabis
This post isn't really going to be about the legalization of cannabis/marijuana/weed/ganja/pot etc.. The drug is perfectly safe (zero overdoses ever), is not physically addictive, psychologically addicted simply means you really want to do it all the time (like being in love, or listening to music, or watching tv). While smoking marijuana seems like it should cause cancer because of the smoke, apparently it seems that the cannabinoids are cancer reducing (which makes sense as the resin that is smoked is there to protect seeds from the mutating effects of sunlight as marijuana is a high altitude plant and more subject to the sun's rays). A study of decades long pot smokers actually found a slightly lower rate of lung cancer than in the general population (I was as surprised by this as anyone). The prohibition of marijuana throws tens of thousands of people in jail and causes an illegal trade that results in the deaths of innocents, police officers and drug dealers.
The most reasonable arguments against marijuana are driving impairment and it being a "gateway drug". Marijuana reduces concentration, reflexes, and coordination, all important things for driving. However, drivers under the influence of marijuana (which is different from testing positive for weed, the effects of marijuana last for a few hours but the metabolites can stay in the blood for weeks) are aware of these impairments and drive more cautiously. Police are given lists of clues to tell if someone is drunk (weaving, excessive speed, sudden changes in lane, late braking etc.) and the ones for pot are slow driving, early braking, early signals for turns etc.. In other words pot smokers drive like old people. They have poor reflexes, concentration and coordination but drive very cautiously. In statistical studies drivers with marijuana in their system are no more likely to be in a crash than those who are drug free. The reason why marijuana is a gateway drug, to the extent that this makes sense at all, is that kids are told that marijuana is an evil drug that causes harm, even psychosis. When kids then smoke marijuana they discover it is essentially harmless, and lots of fun. This tends to make them think that what they have heard about other drugs is also bullshit.
So, marijuana is essentially harmless, the prohibition causes lots of damage, and people really like to smoke marijuana. Basically, if you are in favor of marijuana prohibition for consenting adults you are either really uninformed, personally don't like it and think therefore it is bad for everyone, or are a complete moron. I think a more sensible question, and I mean this quite seriously, is whether we should put THC in drinking water. THC makes people happier, more aware of their surroundings, and less prone to violence. I don't actually advocate drugging the general population, but it would make more sense than prohibition.
So, I didn't want this post to be about the first bit above. I wanted to talk about what marijuana has done for me. That's right, I smoke pot. Is there anyone who either didn't know this or is surprised in any way by this revelation? It is actually rather like coming out as a gay person. Almost every enlightened person doesn't have a problem with it, but people still keep it secret, as if it was seedy in some way (pun intended). Most of the people in my life either smoke pot, have smoked pot, or regularly hang out with people who smoke pot. I have smoked pot in Costa Rica, Mexico, Ireland, the USA and the UK, without a moments trouble (other than being sold oregano once).
Why do I smoke pot? Well, 95% of the best, most beautiful, most wonderful experiences in my life have been while high. I have meditated at times consistently for more than a year, studying mindfulness, the art of being here now and appreciating this very moment. At my highest peak of this work it was mostly like being stoned on good pot. Time slows down, things are more intimate, beautiful, complex, fascinating. The sky is literally more blue, and the grass more green. The breeze is not just wind but a caress. People are truly astonishing when high. Just complex and interesting, and funny, and I love them so much more easily. I don't get angry when stoned. My thoughts (while far more disorganized) are free-flowing, creative, artistic, and free from the mundane. If I am blue, getting high cheers me up. If I am happy, getting high cheers me up.
I have thought repeatedly while staring intently at a shrub, with a beaming smile on my face, that I live separate lives. One involves chores, and work, and news, and politics, and bills etc.. This isn't a bad life, just usual, normal, mundane. The other life is the interspersed, but always connected, moments of being high, full of beauty, laughter, companionship, and joy. It literally is very difficult to overstate how importantly wonderful getting high has been in my life. Short of love (and weed has been around far more constantly and faithfully than love) I would say that getting high from smoking marijuana has been the best thing in my life. My favorite thing to do (yes, even better than that) is to get high and then ride my bicycle around in the sunshine with my MP3 player set to random.
Here at the bottom comes the warning label, with advice. Marijuana works by essentially increasing the activity of the brain, largely through the increase in serotonin. This means it intensifies your experiences. If you are experiencing stressful things it will make them more stressful. If you are generally anxious, smoking pot will generally make you more anxious. Smoking pot is not for everyone. If you hate the idea of smoking pot then actually smoking pot will probably be awful for you. If it sounds like a good idea then it will probably be better than you expect. The paranoia that people talk about is simply the intensified anxieties that you experience normally.
The increase of serotonin production while high means that after you are high you will have a drop in serotonin. If you smoke weed all day long you will get tired, dull, drawn out. If you smoke weed all day every day you will feel like this most of the time and after a while your brain will think being high is normal (not through physical tolerance but through getting used to the experience). Going to work high just makes it feel longer and more like work and therefore is a stupid idea.
The first time you smoke pot you should find a friend you trust who knows how to do it. Being high properly is a skill, and how you start will influence how you proceed. Don't just smoke a ton of weed and go to the mall. Getting high is an intense change in mental experience and so large amounts of stimuli can be frightening. Find that friend. Go to a safe but pretty place, I highly recommend a park or meadow. In fact I recommend eating a meal right before you get high (to prevent munchies) and then going outside as your default method for getting high as outside is much more fantastic than inside. Smoke a little bit of pot and wait fifteen minutes or so. If you don't feel anything (very common for the first few times, my friend in college actually gave me fourteen water bong hits to get me high the first time) try some more, but slowly. Look around at the beautiful world, relax, and just let it happen.
My final few words are a paraphrased quote from Sam Harris, a neuroscientist and philosopher, and a lyric from a song by the Beastie Boys.
"I have never met anyone who smokes pot every day who wouldn't be better served by smoking less, or anyone who doesn't smoke pot who wouldn't be better served by smoking more."
"Phone is ringing, oh my God!"
The most reasonable arguments against marijuana are driving impairment and it being a "gateway drug". Marijuana reduces concentration, reflexes, and coordination, all important things for driving. However, drivers under the influence of marijuana (which is different from testing positive for weed, the effects of marijuana last for a few hours but the metabolites can stay in the blood for weeks) are aware of these impairments and drive more cautiously. Police are given lists of clues to tell if someone is drunk (weaving, excessive speed, sudden changes in lane, late braking etc.) and the ones for pot are slow driving, early braking, early signals for turns etc.. In other words pot smokers drive like old people. They have poor reflexes, concentration and coordination but drive very cautiously. In statistical studies drivers with marijuana in their system are no more likely to be in a crash than those who are drug free. The reason why marijuana is a gateway drug, to the extent that this makes sense at all, is that kids are told that marijuana is an evil drug that causes harm, even psychosis. When kids then smoke marijuana they discover it is essentially harmless, and lots of fun. This tends to make them think that what they have heard about other drugs is also bullshit.
So, marijuana is essentially harmless, the prohibition causes lots of damage, and people really like to smoke marijuana. Basically, if you are in favor of marijuana prohibition for consenting adults you are either really uninformed, personally don't like it and think therefore it is bad for everyone, or are a complete moron. I think a more sensible question, and I mean this quite seriously, is whether we should put THC in drinking water. THC makes people happier, more aware of their surroundings, and less prone to violence. I don't actually advocate drugging the general population, but it would make more sense than prohibition.
So, I didn't want this post to be about the first bit above. I wanted to talk about what marijuana has done for me. That's right, I smoke pot. Is there anyone who either didn't know this or is surprised in any way by this revelation? It is actually rather like coming out as a gay person. Almost every enlightened person doesn't have a problem with it, but people still keep it secret, as if it was seedy in some way (pun intended). Most of the people in my life either smoke pot, have smoked pot, or regularly hang out with people who smoke pot. I have smoked pot in Costa Rica, Mexico, Ireland, the USA and the UK, without a moments trouble (other than being sold oregano once).
Why do I smoke pot? Well, 95% of the best, most beautiful, most wonderful experiences in my life have been while high. I have meditated at times consistently for more than a year, studying mindfulness, the art of being here now and appreciating this very moment. At my highest peak of this work it was mostly like being stoned on good pot. Time slows down, things are more intimate, beautiful, complex, fascinating. The sky is literally more blue, and the grass more green. The breeze is not just wind but a caress. People are truly astonishing when high. Just complex and interesting, and funny, and I love them so much more easily. I don't get angry when stoned. My thoughts (while far more disorganized) are free-flowing, creative, artistic, and free from the mundane. If I am blue, getting high cheers me up. If I am happy, getting high cheers me up.
I have thought repeatedly while staring intently at a shrub, with a beaming smile on my face, that I live separate lives. One involves chores, and work, and news, and politics, and bills etc.. This isn't a bad life, just usual, normal, mundane. The other life is the interspersed, but always connected, moments of being high, full of beauty, laughter, companionship, and joy. It literally is very difficult to overstate how importantly wonderful getting high has been in my life. Short of love (and weed has been around far more constantly and faithfully than love) I would say that getting high from smoking marijuana has been the best thing in my life. My favorite thing to do (yes, even better than that) is to get high and then ride my bicycle around in the sunshine with my MP3 player set to random.
Here at the bottom comes the warning label, with advice. Marijuana works by essentially increasing the activity of the brain, largely through the increase in serotonin. This means it intensifies your experiences. If you are experiencing stressful things it will make them more stressful. If you are generally anxious, smoking pot will generally make you more anxious. Smoking pot is not for everyone. If you hate the idea of smoking pot then actually smoking pot will probably be awful for you. If it sounds like a good idea then it will probably be better than you expect. The paranoia that people talk about is simply the intensified anxieties that you experience normally.
The increase of serotonin production while high means that after you are high you will have a drop in serotonin. If you smoke weed all day long you will get tired, dull, drawn out. If you smoke weed all day every day you will feel like this most of the time and after a while your brain will think being high is normal (not through physical tolerance but through getting used to the experience). Going to work high just makes it feel longer and more like work and therefore is a stupid idea.
The first time you smoke pot you should find a friend you trust who knows how to do it. Being high properly is a skill, and how you start will influence how you proceed. Don't just smoke a ton of weed and go to the mall. Getting high is an intense change in mental experience and so large amounts of stimuli can be frightening. Find that friend. Go to a safe but pretty place, I highly recommend a park or meadow. In fact I recommend eating a meal right before you get high (to prevent munchies) and then going outside as your default method for getting high as outside is much more fantastic than inside. Smoke a little bit of pot and wait fifteen minutes or so. If you don't feel anything (very common for the first few times, my friend in college actually gave me fourteen water bong hits to get me high the first time) try some more, but slowly. Look around at the beautiful world, relax, and just let it happen.
My final few words are a paraphrased quote from Sam Harris, a neuroscientist and philosopher, and a lyric from a song by the Beastie Boys.
"I have never met anyone who smokes pot every day who wouldn't be better served by smoking less, or anyone who doesn't smoke pot who wouldn't be better served by smoking more."
"Phone is ringing, oh my God!"
Friday, September 2, 2011
When Did People Stop Trusting Experts?
A minority of Americans believe that the Theory of Evolution is true, despite the almost universal acceptance of it by biologists, the experts.
About one third of Americans believe that global warming simply isn't happening despite the combined opinion of all the academies of science around the world.
About one quarter of Americans believe that vaccines are harmful to children despite the World Health Organizations statement that vaccines are the greatest health success of all time, and the elimination of smallpox and polio by vaccine.
About one third of Americans believe the Bible is inerrant, without a single mistake, despite the Bible factually contradicting itself repeatedly and if taken literally it contradicting geology, biology, cosmology, some history, and probably more than that. Many Americans believe the gospels were written by the Apostles and have remained unchanged since that date despite the evidence from Biblical scholars.
Now, I am not talking about a lack of trust in a particular expert. There is an enormous slew of charlatans, honest people in error, nutjobs, the mistaken, and independent thinkers with impressive credentials. I even think it is good to an extent that such people exist. A great example is the vaccine scare. Essentially, a paper was written and published by an Andrew Wakefield M.D. that suggested there might be a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. he then gave a press conference saying MMR probably caused autism. The media published papers stating this as fact and vaccination dropped from 93% to 75% and cases of measles rose to 24 times their previous number in Britain. How is this a good thing? It is good because scientists then tested for a link between vaccines and autism, established there wasn't one and also established that not giving vaccines dramatically increases illness. Knowledge increased and therefore over the long haul health will increase as a result.
What I am talking about is the lack of trust in experts en masse. That the far less educated and intelligent are more correct than not just an expert, but the combined opinion of almost all the experts there are. This stance actually decreases with increased education. In other words, those least able to make an informed opinion on a subject are the ones most likely to hold their opinion above that of the experts.
Paul Krugman, a Nobel prize winning economist, attributes this in his New York Times blog to the vast increase of cable tv news programs. On cable news the problem is that the default method for discussion is to always get two opinions on a subject and then have a debate as if both debaters had equal justification for their positions. So you get instances where Richard Dawkins, a respected biologist, will discuss evolution with Bill O'Reilly, a talk show host with degrees in history and journalism, as equals on the subject. Krugman's essential point is that opinions are not equal. If you ask a cosmologist and a plumber how to fix your leak the plumber knows more than the cosmologist. If you ask the cosmologist and the plumber about the early stages of the Big Bang the cosmologist knows more than the plumber.
I think equally important is the rise of the "authority on everything." I think two excellent examples are Oprah Winfrey and Bill O'Reilly. Now, neither of these people are flash in the pans. They both have been around for at least a decade with a large and loyal audience. That audience trusts these people as authorities. When Oprah endorses Deepak Chopra as a spiritual and medical authority millions of people take that on trust, because Oprah said it. When Bill O'Reilly says that Hilary Clinton wants to control every facet of your life millions of people take that on trust. The thing is that in order for this trust to happen the "authority on everything" has to seem like "one of you." On other words they have to not talk in big words, or say things are complicated, or actually be qualified in the subject.
The sad thing is that once these opinions are established in someone's mind (yes, even you) it is extremely difficult to change. Research has shown (and a cursory look around facebook or internet forums should confirm for you) that a logical argument against an opinion, backed up by evidence, actually increases the strength with which that opinion is held. That's right, the more dumb you make the other persons opinion look, the stronger they will hold to it.
How can this change? Well, for a start I think it important to note that the opinions of populations do change over time, and generally towards the arguments supported by evidence. So there is hope, but only over time. Unfortunately I think that this happens through the process of shaming. Over time what happens is that those who are undecided generally are moved by the controversy to look at the evidence objectively and have an opinion. This usually means that over time a majority of people think the opposing view is foolish, and then they laugh at those who hold it. At some point there comes a tipping point when having an opinion makes you a laughing stock. Being a laughing stock is a far, far better method of convincing someone to change their mind than objective information.
Do you trust experts? A great way to test this is to think about whether you have any opinions that derived from experts with which you agree, but really wish were not true.
About one third of Americans believe that global warming simply isn't happening despite the combined opinion of all the academies of science around the world.
About one quarter of Americans believe that vaccines are harmful to children despite the World Health Organizations statement that vaccines are the greatest health success of all time, and the elimination of smallpox and polio by vaccine.
About one third of Americans believe the Bible is inerrant, without a single mistake, despite the Bible factually contradicting itself repeatedly and if taken literally it contradicting geology, biology, cosmology, some history, and probably more than that. Many Americans believe the gospels were written by the Apostles and have remained unchanged since that date despite the evidence from Biblical scholars.
Now, I am not talking about a lack of trust in a particular expert. There is an enormous slew of charlatans, honest people in error, nutjobs, the mistaken, and independent thinkers with impressive credentials. I even think it is good to an extent that such people exist. A great example is the vaccine scare. Essentially, a paper was written and published by an Andrew Wakefield M.D. that suggested there might be a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. he then gave a press conference saying MMR probably caused autism. The media published papers stating this as fact and vaccination dropped from 93% to 75% and cases of measles rose to 24 times their previous number in Britain. How is this a good thing? It is good because scientists then tested for a link between vaccines and autism, established there wasn't one and also established that not giving vaccines dramatically increases illness. Knowledge increased and therefore over the long haul health will increase as a result.
What I am talking about is the lack of trust in experts en masse. That the far less educated and intelligent are more correct than not just an expert, but the combined opinion of almost all the experts there are. This stance actually decreases with increased education. In other words, those least able to make an informed opinion on a subject are the ones most likely to hold their opinion above that of the experts.
Paul Krugman, a Nobel prize winning economist, attributes this in his New York Times blog to the vast increase of cable tv news programs. On cable news the problem is that the default method for discussion is to always get two opinions on a subject and then have a debate as if both debaters had equal justification for their positions. So you get instances where Richard Dawkins, a respected biologist, will discuss evolution with Bill O'Reilly, a talk show host with degrees in history and journalism, as equals on the subject. Krugman's essential point is that opinions are not equal. If you ask a cosmologist and a plumber how to fix your leak the plumber knows more than the cosmologist. If you ask the cosmologist and the plumber about the early stages of the Big Bang the cosmologist knows more than the plumber.
I think equally important is the rise of the "authority on everything." I think two excellent examples are Oprah Winfrey and Bill O'Reilly. Now, neither of these people are flash in the pans. They both have been around for at least a decade with a large and loyal audience. That audience trusts these people as authorities. When Oprah endorses Deepak Chopra as a spiritual and medical authority millions of people take that on trust, because Oprah said it. When Bill O'Reilly says that Hilary Clinton wants to control every facet of your life millions of people take that on trust. The thing is that in order for this trust to happen the "authority on everything" has to seem like "one of you." On other words they have to not talk in big words, or say things are complicated, or actually be qualified in the subject.
The sad thing is that once these opinions are established in someone's mind (yes, even you) it is extremely difficult to change. Research has shown (and a cursory look around facebook or internet forums should confirm for you) that a logical argument against an opinion, backed up by evidence, actually increases the strength with which that opinion is held. That's right, the more dumb you make the other persons opinion look, the stronger they will hold to it.
How can this change? Well, for a start I think it important to note that the opinions of populations do change over time, and generally towards the arguments supported by evidence. So there is hope, but only over time. Unfortunately I think that this happens through the process of shaming. Over time what happens is that those who are undecided generally are moved by the controversy to look at the evidence objectively and have an opinion. This usually means that over time a majority of people think the opposing view is foolish, and then they laugh at those who hold it. At some point there comes a tipping point when having an opinion makes you a laughing stock. Being a laughing stock is a far, far better method of convincing someone to change their mind than objective information.
Do you trust experts? A great way to test this is to think about whether you have any opinions that derived from experts with which you agree, but really wish were not true.
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Hiding From The News
In 2003 I became very interested in politics with the invasion of Afghanistan (to which I was opposed) having been underway for two years, with the results I had expected (initial military success followed by protracted guerrilla war that is essentially unwinnable), and the impending invasion of Iraq. I was part of the largest human demonstration in all of history which spoke out against the illegal and immoral prospect of the invasion of Iraq. It turned out that the Iraq invasion was more successful than the invasion of Afghanistan, but only if you don't count the hundreds of thousands killed, the collapse of US military standing and the consequent out of control spending that has contributed greatly to the current worldwide financial crisis. Imagine how large the stimulus package would have been without the cost of these two wars. We would probably be back to normal by now.
However, in 2004 there was a US presidential election, and the man that had been the most disliked president before 9/11/01, and then the most popular president in history because terrorists were successful, and then started two unnecessary wars was re-elected over a decent man, John Kerry. I was so disgusted by the idiocy of the US electorate that I decided to simply not watch or read the news anymore. I concentrated on sport and my personal interests. I became detached.
Three years later there came the prospect of finally removing George Bush Jr.. I became interested in who would replace him, confident that it would be a Democrat, but scared that it would not be a Democrat. My hopes were initially for John Edwards who had correctly decided that the greatest issue in the US was the increasing disparity of wealth. Once he was gone I thought either Hilary Clinton or Barak Obama would be fine, and I leant towards Obama with his message of hope, reason and reasonableness, and his policies of investment. Obama won, but only as the economy had collapsed through the greed of Americans both rich and poor (people often forget when assigning blame that mortgages are agreements between TWO parties) and the costs of the two wars. Since then I think Obama has done a remarkable but thankless job, unable to do what he wants in the face of unending opposition, while keeping the world out of depression, and be castigated from the right and left. Remarkably, in polls, Obama is still ahead of every Republican presidential candidate but Mitt Romney, with whom he is essentially tied.
The Right hates the Left for taking away their country as societal norms inexorably move to the Left, as they have done for centuries. The Left has a new-found hatred of the Right as a result of the disastrous Bush years. Both sides hate intensely, beyond any concept of reason, and without any regard for compromise or pragmatism. The middle, who actually decide elections, simply hate their government. Obama is disapproved of by the majority of Americans but remains the most popular politician in the US. The US hates the US Congress, with 16% of Americans approving of the job they have done. For an idea of how universal this hatred is, a greater number of Americans believe that the sun revolves around the earth than approve of their Congress.
The thing is for me that the answers are so simple. With social security simply change the date at which you get social security to a percentage of life expectancy. Social Security was designed to help those who could not work because of age, in a time when most lived less than ten years after retirement. People used to live 1/7th of their life on Social Security while now it is about 1/3rd of their lives. Clearly this is unsustainable and my solution simply adjust for the greater lengths of lives. Socialized health care is much cheaper and has better results. Schools and social services pay for themselves many times over through the entire lives of people, while also increasing health, happiness and economic success. These are areas where investment is only worthy, but necessary. Military spending in the US is ridiculous and should be cut by two thirds, as the US is in zero danger of being invaded. Your average plumber in Europe knows these things. Europe has now surpassed the US in the things that matter, health, knowledge and happiness.
I am again too disgusted with the news to pay attention until it becomes impossible to ignore in the last few months before the next election. I mean, Michelle Bachman is a serious candidate for President, and she is literally batshit crazy.
However, in 2004 there was a US presidential election, and the man that had been the most disliked president before 9/11/01, and then the most popular president in history because terrorists were successful, and then started two unnecessary wars was re-elected over a decent man, John Kerry. I was so disgusted by the idiocy of the US electorate that I decided to simply not watch or read the news anymore. I concentrated on sport and my personal interests. I became detached.
Three years later there came the prospect of finally removing George Bush Jr.. I became interested in who would replace him, confident that it would be a Democrat, but scared that it would not be a Democrat. My hopes were initially for John Edwards who had correctly decided that the greatest issue in the US was the increasing disparity of wealth. Once he was gone I thought either Hilary Clinton or Barak Obama would be fine, and I leant towards Obama with his message of hope, reason and reasonableness, and his policies of investment. Obama won, but only as the economy had collapsed through the greed of Americans both rich and poor (people often forget when assigning blame that mortgages are agreements between TWO parties) and the costs of the two wars. Since then I think Obama has done a remarkable but thankless job, unable to do what he wants in the face of unending opposition, while keeping the world out of depression, and be castigated from the right and left. Remarkably, in polls, Obama is still ahead of every Republican presidential candidate but Mitt Romney, with whom he is essentially tied.
The Right hates the Left for taking away their country as societal norms inexorably move to the Left, as they have done for centuries. The Left has a new-found hatred of the Right as a result of the disastrous Bush years. Both sides hate intensely, beyond any concept of reason, and without any regard for compromise or pragmatism. The middle, who actually decide elections, simply hate their government. Obama is disapproved of by the majority of Americans but remains the most popular politician in the US. The US hates the US Congress, with 16% of Americans approving of the job they have done. For an idea of how universal this hatred is, a greater number of Americans believe that the sun revolves around the earth than approve of their Congress.
The thing is for me that the answers are so simple. With social security simply change the date at which you get social security to a percentage of life expectancy. Social Security was designed to help those who could not work because of age, in a time when most lived less than ten years after retirement. People used to live 1/7th of their life on Social Security while now it is about 1/3rd of their lives. Clearly this is unsustainable and my solution simply adjust for the greater lengths of lives. Socialized health care is much cheaper and has better results. Schools and social services pay for themselves many times over through the entire lives of people, while also increasing health, happiness and economic success. These are areas where investment is only worthy, but necessary. Military spending in the US is ridiculous and should be cut by two thirds, as the US is in zero danger of being invaded. Your average plumber in Europe knows these things. Europe has now surpassed the US in the things that matter, health, knowledge and happiness.
I am again too disgusted with the news to pay attention until it becomes impossible to ignore in the last few months before the next election. I mean, Michelle Bachman is a serious candidate for President, and she is literally batshit crazy.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
End of the Road
I don't expect to be writing on this blog very much in the future. I feel that I have essentially said what I have to say that might be interesting with regards to my philosophy, how I see the world, and so on. What I might be interested in writing about would either be commentary about current events, and there's no shortage of available opinions in that arena, or talking about my life, and it's pretty clear to me that this is of limited interest to anybody.
The things that matter most to me, the emotional turmoil of a mental illness and the exploration of how an intelligent, rational person can deal with that, is unfortunately still an embarrassment to most people. I have thought it a worthy cause to be honest about what goes on in my life, but it turns out that this has largely been an inconvenience. Those around me would have been happier with secrets and platitudes and politeness. This is the lesson I continually fail to learn.
I am proud of this blog in that when I go back and read it again I find that the ideas expressed are clever ideas, written in a way that I enjoy reading. I think the central message of the blog is that while humanity is often a collection of bumbling fools, those bumbling fools are not different from you or I in any really important sense. We want safety, happiness, love and community and all around the world we show the willingness to help each other out. We also fear and condemn what is different in a reflex action rather than attempt to understand. These qualities of humanity are transforming the world around us in a genuine miracle of positive improvement unnoticed by most people and generally rejected because people emotionally feel differently.
A simple review of comments from previous posts will show what people are actually interested in from my writing, generally music and politicians. Good news about the world and personal difficulties are less interesting. There's a reason that newspapers are full of bad news and people who complain have no friends.
I find it a great irony that I am a person who spends substantial amounts of my time so personally miserable that I don't wish to be alive and yet I am also the person most positive about people and how the world is going that I have ever met or read.
It is quite possible that who I am as a person will change in the next few months and I may be led to try writing again. If so I hope that it will be in a different format and that I will have the discipline and consistency to write fiction, and perhaps that will be of interest to some of you.
Enjoy this moment, today, and I hope that you feel that joy and beauty continually through your life.
The things that matter most to me, the emotional turmoil of a mental illness and the exploration of how an intelligent, rational person can deal with that, is unfortunately still an embarrassment to most people. I have thought it a worthy cause to be honest about what goes on in my life, but it turns out that this has largely been an inconvenience. Those around me would have been happier with secrets and platitudes and politeness. This is the lesson I continually fail to learn.
I am proud of this blog in that when I go back and read it again I find that the ideas expressed are clever ideas, written in a way that I enjoy reading. I think the central message of the blog is that while humanity is often a collection of bumbling fools, those bumbling fools are not different from you or I in any really important sense. We want safety, happiness, love and community and all around the world we show the willingness to help each other out. We also fear and condemn what is different in a reflex action rather than attempt to understand. These qualities of humanity are transforming the world around us in a genuine miracle of positive improvement unnoticed by most people and generally rejected because people emotionally feel differently.
A simple review of comments from previous posts will show what people are actually interested in from my writing, generally music and politicians. Good news about the world and personal difficulties are less interesting. There's a reason that newspapers are full of bad news and people who complain have no friends.
I find it a great irony that I am a person who spends substantial amounts of my time so personally miserable that I don't wish to be alive and yet I am also the person most positive about people and how the world is going that I have ever met or read.
It is quite possible that who I am as a person will change in the next few months and I may be led to try writing again. If so I hope that it will be in a different format and that I will have the discipline and consistency to write fiction, and perhaps that will be of interest to some of you.
Enjoy this moment, today, and I hope that you feel that joy and beauty continually through your life.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Fear.
My fear today is that I will be in a mental ward soon. That may not be a rational fear, but it's not far off. This link goes to the scene that has always been the most frightening I have ever seen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXXbIOc9h4g
My dreams are beginning to look like this.
By the way, there is no treatment for what I have. We must just hope I get better. I expect that to happen by Tuesday. That is what would be usual.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXXbIOc9h4g
My dreams are beginning to look like this.
By the way, there is no treatment for what I have. We must just hope I get better. I expect that to happen by Tuesday. That is what would be usual.
Friday, May 6, 2011
Attitude and the Arrow of Morality
This week I have been fighting against a negative attitude. Physically I have felt exhausted even after a full night's sleep. Psychologically I have been fighting against a general disdain for humanity, a disappointment in people. When I am at the low pole of my bipolar disorder it isn't so much that I am automatically sad, it is that I am very vulnerable to negative thoughts and experiences.
My disappointment with people is that there have been examples of people still thinking in terms of "Us" and "Them". The first example was people celebrating the death of Osama bin-Laden, people not thinking of him as a person, either directly (I have read someone stating that he wasn't human) or indirectly (calling his assassination the "death of evil"). It isn't often that I follow the lead of the Catholic Church but I thought this release from the Vatican Press Office was excellent,
"Osama Bin Laden, as is known, claimed responsibility for grave acts that spread division and hate among the peoples, manipulating religion to that end. A Christian never takes pleasure from the fact of a man's death, but sees it as an opportunity to reflect on each person's responsibility, before God and humanity, and to hope and commit oneself to seeing that no event become another occasion to disseminate hate but rather to foster peace."
The second example was a blog by my good friend Dade in which he used this opportunity to disparage George W. Bush and his failure to kill Osama bin-Laden. While I am no admirer of George W. Bush I am in no doubt whatsoever that he tried to kill Osama bin-Laden, and if he had the same opportunity as Barak Obama to do so he would have taken the chance. There's no doubt in my mind that George W. Bush was as prepared as Barak Obama to take political risks in using the military, after all how else can you describe invading Iraq in the face of the largest worldwide popular and political opposition of all time? When two people doing the same thing are described in almost opposite ways then what is going on is "us versus them."
The reason that this bothers me is that I think the best way for the world to be is that there is not an "us or them" but simply a we. Within that we, people will have different opinions, sometimes enormously different opinions and sometimes with terrible consequences. Deaths, misery can result from stupid, ignorant and unpleasant opinions. But there simply isn't a significant number of people in the world who do things because they think it is the wrong thing to do. The people who do horrible things are still trying to make the world a better place, just a better place from their point of view.
The thing about "Us versus Them" is that it is a built-in default position within humanity, but it enables people to think that other humans are not really human. When you think that people aren't fully human it enables you to do things to them that you would never do to a person. It enables you to be outraged at how your mother, or son, might be treated while cheering someone else's mother or son being treated in the same way. It closes the mind to the ideas of entire groups, it removes sympathy for their position and it makes understanding, compassion, negotiation and compromise almost impossible. When you think there are the white hats and the black hats it enables you to think anything the white hats do is OK. In my opinion if you are willing to do anything you become the black hats. White hats versus black hats makes everyone a black hat. "Four legs good, two legs bad" as George Orwell put it in 1984.
So that's why I was feeling disappointed, because these are good people, kind hearted, warm, intelligent people caught up in this natural feeling. It is one of the characteristics of Us versus Them that people can be beautifully good people to those within the group and awful to those outside of the group. These aren't crimes, or sins. These are simply attitudes that I find disappointing.
However, I bucked myself up by remembering the direction of the Arrow of Morality. The lesson of history, particularly more recent history, is that of moving away from Us versus Them. It is a movement that expands what it is to be human, deserving of all the love, protection, and respect that any human is due. It is but a few centuries since it was considered morally reasonable to own human beings. It is around a century since women were first considered human enough to be able to vote. It's only one hundred and fifty years since the Geneva Convention was first enacted in which the idea that the enemy had rights. In our lifetime the idea that you might be homosexual is moving from being an abomination to simply a part of some humans.
The world is not a utopia, and the human animal is still an animal that evolved in a frightening, violent and confusing world. It is a wonder how much we have been able to overcome and I am certain that we will progress as time goes by. What is the namby-pamby liberal, wet blanket of the present is the foundation of the moral values of the future conservative.
My disappointment with people is that there have been examples of people still thinking in terms of "Us" and "Them". The first example was people celebrating the death of Osama bin-Laden, people not thinking of him as a person, either directly (I have read someone stating that he wasn't human) or indirectly (calling his assassination the "death of evil"). It isn't often that I follow the lead of the Catholic Church but I thought this release from the Vatican Press Office was excellent,
"Osama Bin Laden, as is known, claimed responsibility for grave acts that spread division and hate among the peoples, manipulating religion to that end. A Christian never takes pleasure from the fact of a man's death, but sees it as an opportunity to reflect on each person's responsibility, before God and humanity, and to hope and commit oneself to seeing that no event become another occasion to disseminate hate but rather to foster peace."
The second example was a blog by my good friend Dade in which he used this opportunity to disparage George W. Bush and his failure to kill Osama bin-Laden. While I am no admirer of George W. Bush I am in no doubt whatsoever that he tried to kill Osama bin-Laden, and if he had the same opportunity as Barak Obama to do so he would have taken the chance. There's no doubt in my mind that George W. Bush was as prepared as Barak Obama to take political risks in using the military, after all how else can you describe invading Iraq in the face of the largest worldwide popular and political opposition of all time? When two people doing the same thing are described in almost opposite ways then what is going on is "us versus them."
The reason that this bothers me is that I think the best way for the world to be is that there is not an "us or them" but simply a we. Within that we, people will have different opinions, sometimes enormously different opinions and sometimes with terrible consequences. Deaths, misery can result from stupid, ignorant and unpleasant opinions. But there simply isn't a significant number of people in the world who do things because they think it is the wrong thing to do. The people who do horrible things are still trying to make the world a better place, just a better place from their point of view.
The thing about "Us versus Them" is that it is a built-in default position within humanity, but it enables people to think that other humans are not really human. When you think that people aren't fully human it enables you to do things to them that you would never do to a person. It enables you to be outraged at how your mother, or son, might be treated while cheering someone else's mother or son being treated in the same way. It closes the mind to the ideas of entire groups, it removes sympathy for their position and it makes understanding, compassion, negotiation and compromise almost impossible. When you think there are the white hats and the black hats it enables you to think anything the white hats do is OK. In my opinion if you are willing to do anything you become the black hats. White hats versus black hats makes everyone a black hat. "Four legs good, two legs bad" as George Orwell put it in 1984.
So that's why I was feeling disappointed, because these are good people, kind hearted, warm, intelligent people caught up in this natural feeling. It is one of the characteristics of Us versus Them that people can be beautifully good people to those within the group and awful to those outside of the group. These aren't crimes, or sins. These are simply attitudes that I find disappointing.
However, I bucked myself up by remembering the direction of the Arrow of Morality. The lesson of history, particularly more recent history, is that of moving away from Us versus Them. It is a movement that expands what it is to be human, deserving of all the love, protection, and respect that any human is due. It is but a few centuries since it was considered morally reasonable to own human beings. It is around a century since women were first considered human enough to be able to vote. It's only one hundred and fifty years since the Geneva Convention was first enacted in which the idea that the enemy had rights. In our lifetime the idea that you might be homosexual is moving from being an abomination to simply a part of some humans.
The world is not a utopia, and the human animal is still an animal that evolved in a frightening, violent and confusing world. It is a wonder how much we have been able to overcome and I am certain that we will progress as time goes by. What is the namby-pamby liberal, wet blanket of the present is the foundation of the moral values of the future conservative.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)