While in Portland I had a discussion with my friend Dade. He's the guy that comments on this blog. Towards the end of that discussion he pressed upon me, despite my protestations, a large and heavy hardback book for me to carry with me back to Texas. This book is entitled The Thousand Lives of Jacob van Zoet written by David Mitchell. As with the last book given to me, I feel a responsibility to say what I think and feel about the book.
I will start with the writing style, which, for a work of literature rather than pulp, is generally forthright and straight forward. The writing is more about what happens than an ostentatious display of writing prowess. The descriptions are excellent, but brief and always for the purpose of adding to the story. There is a fair amount of dialogue throughout the book and it feels entirely natural, with each person seeming like an actual individual person rather than a piece of the author. Still, the writing has a depth of intelligence that is subtle enough that you often only notice it some time later in the book when the plot drops enough clues to put everything before it in a different light. In contrast to Tinkers, the writing is about a story and the characters within that story.
That story starts with a young Dutch clerk landing on a trading enclave in Japan at the very end of the 18th century. He is there to make an adequate fortune to return to the Netherlands to marry his sweetheart, to be achieved through a five year position for the Dutch East India Company. The plot unfolds from there through the combination of fate, and the steady removal of layers of ignorance. What was clearly so at the beginning becomes increasingly not so throughout the book. I will say nothing more of the plot since the book relies on this progression of fate and understanding for its effect. Suffice it to say the book is thoroughly researched and the story is excellent, far from cliched, subtle, and excellently written.
I can, however, put forward what I feel are the themes of the book. The first, and most obvious, theme is of aliens living within the constraints of particular societies. The Dutch trading post's dimensions are measured in yards rather than miles, and its inhabitants are forbidden from leaving it for the mainland of Japan. In addition all communication with the Japanese is through a very small group of officials, students and interpreters and all under strict Japanese law. Even the practice of Christianity is forbidden. This idea of constraint is repeated in a number of situations throughout the book, within the Japanese family, profession, caste and religion. This constraint is highlighted not only by the vagaries of fate, but also by the main characters who are all educated and seemingly reasonable people.
The second theme is an examination of honor. What is honor, and does it do us any good? Is it better to suffer for your honor or to bend the rules a little for your (and others) betterment? Are honorable actions always the right thing to do? Or even usually the right thing to do? Are people honorable? Is it possible to be honorable within the obscure complexity of humanity? What happens when the different concepts of honor inherent in different cultures come into conflict? As someone who has always despised the idea that honor is more important than people, I found this theme both fascinating and somewhat painful.
This is a very worthy book, one that I think all of you should purchase and read. It has fluid and excellent writing, a fantastic plot unveiled with patient skill, rich characterization, and thorough research that leads to a solid grounding in space and time. For its type I can only think of one "novel" (stretching to twenty one volumes) that I have read that I feel is superior, that being the Aubrey - Maturin series by Patrick O'Brian. Since that work has been called "the greatest historical novel ever written" and is among the candidates for greatest novel ever written, this is far from any suggestion of denigration for Mr. Mitchell's work.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
The Road Goes Ever On
- The Road goes ever on and on
- Down from the door where it began.
- Now far ahead the Road has gone,
- And I must follow, if I can,
- Pursuing it with weary feet,
- Until it joins some larger way,
- Where many paths and errands meet.
- And whither then? I cannot say.
- - J.R.R. Tolkien
- A short while ago I wrote that I didn't expect to write very much more on this blog. I am now happy that I was so equivocal since to anyone who has been paying attention I have been writing quite a lot recently. Why is this, you may (but probably won't) ask?
- The reason is essentially that the circumstances of my own mind have changed from then to now. At that time I wrote:
In translation, I couldn't think of anything new and interesting to say other than my own difficulties, and thought nobody cared about that. If anyone cannot work out the name for this type of mindset I think they should read this, it's important. Since then I have become able to think of things that I find interesting, and have come to the conclusion that either some people do care what I say and think, or that I want to write down my ideas anyway. This is analogous to playing music. There are times that without noticeable improvement and the chance to perform I cannot find the point in playing music. There are other times where I enjoy singing and playing for myself.
What has been the difference? The difference has been that I have gone to see a psychiatrist. This psychiatrist has been sympathetic enough to listen me, agree with my self-diagnosis of rapid cycling bipolar 2 disorder and then prescribe for me a medication called Lamictal. I have been taking this for about three months now and my total symptoms during this time are eight days of minor "down" (tired and a bit sad for a day or so) and one day of minor "up" (talking more, more energy). So, on about one day in ten I have some minor symptoms, and this at the beginning of treatment. Side effects are a decrease in the effects of caffeine and about an hour less need for sleep. That's it.
What this really means for me are two-fold: first is the most important portion that a vast amount of personal misery has been lifted from me, second is that my mood is far more consistent. The first is self-evidently good and has led me to having ideas, self-assurance, etc. The second has more subtle effects. For quite some time now I have been thinking about what I could do if I could only maintain motivation consistently. Well, with a consistent mood my levels of motivation are consistent. I can start projects with some confidence that I will be able to continue with the project for some time, days, weeks, even months. As a result I have started a few projects. I am now "inspired?" frequently to write down my thoughts. I have started studying Spanish daily with the Rosetta Stone program, previously purchased two years ago and used for a total of four days previously. I play my mandolin almost daily. I exercise almost daily, have reduced my food intake and drink less. The house is looking better too.
This doesn't mean that my motivation for any activity has increased particularly. I still find exercise hard work, studying Spanish can be very frustrating, the rewards and trials of playing the mandolin are unchanged, and I like to eat and drink as much as I have before. Chores are unfailingly chores. The difference is that I have the energy each day to do what I did the day before. It is the consistency of effort towards a goal that is different. Our efforts usually fail because we don't consistently apply the effort. If you stop doing something for a week, it probably means you will simply stop doing it. If you can do something, even badly, for fifteen minutes a day you will improve.
There is a hypothesis called the 10,000 hour rule. Basically it means that for someone to master something, that is to become truly world class, you must practice that skill for 10,000 hours. For an hour a day that means over 27 years of practice. For eight hours a day it means three and a half years. The Cariaga rule requires a lifetime of 108 years of practice. I am frequently surprised that people are often astonished at my ability to converse with strangers with a multiplicity of problems and help them almost immediately. My surprise is that other people are so bad at understanding themselves and other people. However, I have spent over twenty years of my life working at this skill, a thousand weeks. It is therefore not surprising that I am good at this.
I don't expect to be world class at any of my hobbies but the ability to give consistent effort means that my chances of getting better and perhaps becoming good at something have dramatically improved.
Monday, September 26, 2011
Global Warming Hope
A little over three years ago I wrote that while Global Warming was the greatest threat to humanity at present I wasn't that worried. I based that position on a belief in the advance of technology at a much greater speed than people project, particularly when allied to the opportunities for giant stinking piles of money. I even projected the possibility of organisms producing hydrogen, or producing fossil fuels that took in more CO2 than they produced.
My prediction was that within twenty years there would be a workable technology that could replace our present fossil fuel system.
Well, a clever man, Bruce E. Logan, has created a working prototype that produces hydrogen using common bacteria, organic material in water (as in sewage), and sea water. It doesn't require outside power to function. Now, this is simply a prototype, a small, very expensive device that demonstrates that the process works. At the moment this is quite some distance away from an industrial level system. We will not be altering our vehicles to run on hydrogen in the next five years.
However, I want you to think about the internal combustion engine. From the time of the first patent of a gasoline powered engine to the first reliable four-stroke gasoline engine was a period of 16 years, from 1860 to 1876. The four-stroke gasoline engine is what is used in the vast majority of modern automobiles. Now remember, this was in the second half of the 19th century and the four-stroke internal combustion engine is a complicated device. The hydrogen producing device requires salt water and sewage to be separated by at least one membrane (for osmosis), and the first prototype has eleven membranes, and collection of hydrogen and the other gases (more on this later). It is a simpler device than the internal combustion engine, but does require what are now very expensive membranes. Again, think of the computer chip, and the expense of the first prototype computer chip compared to the cost of a modern computer chip.
It therefore seems more than reasonable to expect that a working hydrogen-producing plant, economically viable and powered by sewage and sea water, will be in production within fifteen years. However, there seems to be a bit of a catch. Bacteria produce methane and carbon dioxide both greenhouse gases. Hydrogen burns and produces water, and so the fuel production is greenhouse gas safe. What should we do with these greenhouse gases? Well, methane is natural gas, and is used in heating homes. This produces 30-45 percent less carbon dioxide than coal or gasoline, and produces the fewest of other pollutants among fossil fuels. So the process produces another fuel, which is cleaner than other fossil fuels. The result could be huge numbers of localized mini-power plants that produce both hydrogen fuels for vehicles and natural gas for electricity generation and home heating. This would increase the efficiency of electricity production in the home removing the energy loss from transporting energy long distances.
What to do with the final big problem, the carbon dioxide? Well, the process feeds on organic matter. What does organic matter need in order to grow? Carbon dioxide. Increased carbon dioxide in plants increases the rate of growth. So pumping the carbon dioxide into greenhouses of plants for the bacteria to feed on will produce fast growing material for the process to feed on through recycling.
The overall system could quite reasonably produce fuel for vehicles, natural gas for electricity and heat, be partly self-sufficient, have very low CO2 emissions, and could produce locally-grown tasty vegetables in greenhouses. Seriously.
Remember, this is only one of the possible futures of alternative energy.
My prediction was that within twenty years there would be a workable technology that could replace our present fossil fuel system.
Well, a clever man, Bruce E. Logan, has created a working prototype that produces hydrogen using common bacteria, organic material in water (as in sewage), and sea water. It doesn't require outside power to function. Now, this is simply a prototype, a small, very expensive device that demonstrates that the process works. At the moment this is quite some distance away from an industrial level system. We will not be altering our vehicles to run on hydrogen in the next five years.
However, I want you to think about the internal combustion engine. From the time of the first patent of a gasoline powered engine to the first reliable four-stroke gasoline engine was a period of 16 years, from 1860 to 1876. The four-stroke gasoline engine is what is used in the vast majority of modern automobiles. Now remember, this was in the second half of the 19th century and the four-stroke internal combustion engine is a complicated device. The hydrogen producing device requires salt water and sewage to be separated by at least one membrane (for osmosis), and the first prototype has eleven membranes, and collection of hydrogen and the other gases (more on this later). It is a simpler device than the internal combustion engine, but does require what are now very expensive membranes. Again, think of the computer chip, and the expense of the first prototype computer chip compared to the cost of a modern computer chip.
It therefore seems more than reasonable to expect that a working hydrogen-producing plant, economically viable and powered by sewage and sea water, will be in production within fifteen years. However, there seems to be a bit of a catch. Bacteria produce methane and carbon dioxide both greenhouse gases. Hydrogen burns and produces water, and so the fuel production is greenhouse gas safe. What should we do with these greenhouse gases? Well, methane is natural gas, and is used in heating homes. This produces 30-45 percent less carbon dioxide than coal or gasoline, and produces the fewest of other pollutants among fossil fuels. So the process produces another fuel, which is cleaner than other fossil fuels. The result could be huge numbers of localized mini-power plants that produce both hydrogen fuels for vehicles and natural gas for electricity generation and home heating. This would increase the efficiency of electricity production in the home removing the energy loss from transporting energy long distances.
What to do with the final big problem, the carbon dioxide? Well, the process feeds on organic matter. What does organic matter need in order to grow? Carbon dioxide. Increased carbon dioxide in plants increases the rate of growth. So pumping the carbon dioxide into greenhouses of plants for the bacteria to feed on will produce fast growing material for the process to feed on through recycling.
The overall system could quite reasonably produce fuel for vehicles, natural gas for electricity and heat, be partly self-sufficient, have very low CO2 emissions, and could produce locally-grown tasty vegetables in greenhouses. Seriously.
Remember, this is only one of the possible futures of alternative energy.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Review of Blog Views.
Blogger changed a little while ago, and now it is really easy to see how many views each post gets. I strongly believe that this data was available before, but it would have required some sort of effort and expertise to find. This data is not entirely accurate. There are quite a number of posts recorded as having zero views, which seems odd since I am certain that at least two people have read every post. I think this is because people "save up" their reading of the blog and read multiple posts at the same time.
So, most posts get between zero and ten views. My estimate is that eighty percent of posts fall into this category. These posts are the ones viewed by friends and family, catching up and mildly interested in what I am thinking. There are then a few posts that get into the thirties or even forties, and I believe these must be posts either promoted by one of my friends or family to read, but more likely simply the result of a Google search by a tiny proportion of internet users.
In reverse order, the top five viewed posts.
#5 It's Not Fair! 56 views. I attribute this post's popularity to the title, and the ubiquitous nature of on-line moaning and complaining.
#4 How to Write an Irish Song. 61 views. I attribute the popularity of this post to it being instructional for the 150 people on the planet trying to work out how to write an Irish song.
#3 Critical Thinking, Reason, and Logic. 66 views. I attribute the popularity of this blog to people having to write papers on philosophy and logic. Although it wasn't available while I was in high school or college, I imagine a fantastic method of writing papers is to look on-line for blog posts and articles about your subject and then pretty much just copying them. because of the vast amount of material on the internet your chances of being caught approach zero. However, I do think this is one of my better posts.
#2 Genuine People. 382 views. On this one I have no idea at all. I'm simply baffled.
#1 Suicide Letter. 417 views. I'm pretty sure this was "popular" because it was the only place where many, many people who knew Scott could read his letter. I posted it because I could see how it helped people who knew him to cope, and also because in the letter he wished people to know what he thought and so make the world better.
So, most posts get between zero and ten views. My estimate is that eighty percent of posts fall into this category. These posts are the ones viewed by friends and family, catching up and mildly interested in what I am thinking. There are then a few posts that get into the thirties or even forties, and I believe these must be posts either promoted by one of my friends or family to read, but more likely simply the result of a Google search by a tiny proportion of internet users.
In reverse order, the top five viewed posts.
#5 It's Not Fair! 56 views. I attribute this post's popularity to the title, and the ubiquitous nature of on-line moaning and complaining.
#4 How to Write an Irish Song. 61 views. I attribute the popularity of this post to it being instructional for the 150 people on the planet trying to work out how to write an Irish song.
#3 Critical Thinking, Reason, and Logic. 66 views. I attribute the popularity of this blog to people having to write papers on philosophy and logic. Although it wasn't available while I was in high school or college, I imagine a fantastic method of writing papers is to look on-line for blog posts and articles about your subject and then pretty much just copying them. because of the vast amount of material on the internet your chances of being caught approach zero. However, I do think this is one of my better posts.
#2 Genuine People. 382 views. On this one I have no idea at all. I'm simply baffled.
#1 Suicide Letter. 417 views. I'm pretty sure this was "popular" because it was the only place where many, many people who knew Scott could read his letter. I posted it because I could see how it helped people who knew him to cope, and also because in the letter he wished people to know what he thought and so make the world better.
Statistical Ignorance Part II
People don't know what random looks like. People think they know what random is, but generally they are wrong.
To start, the definition of random:
To start, the definition of random:
1. Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective: random movements. See Synonyms at chance.
2. Mathematics & Statistics Of or relating to a type of circumstance or event that is described by a probability distribution.
3.
Of or relating to an event in which all outcomes are equally likely, as
in the testing of a blood sample for the presence of a substance.
Let us take the rolling of a die. It meets all the criteria for the definition of random. Now, what would be the general thought if rolling a die three times came up with the same number all three times? I believe most people would think something non-random is happening. either the dice are loaded, or there is some supernatural quality attached (luck). Now, how about if you rolled two ones in a row, would anyone think that was non-random? However the odds of these two events happening is exactly the same, 1/36th. (chance of rolling the same number three times is 1/6x1/6x/1/6 (the odds of rolling a particular number three times in a row) x6 (the number of numbers for which this could happen) = 1/36), (chance of rolling two ones is 1/6x1/6=1/36).
Why do people think one is non-random and one is not? It is because of the power of coincidence in the human mind. People are pattern seeking machines. The human brain is not only able to detect patterns, it actively seeks patterns. The human brain actively tries to find patterns, and if it finds something that looks somewhat like a pattern the default position is to think there is one until something comes along to show otherwise, and as I have said before, the chances of the new information being convincing is pretty low. What produces the idea of patterns? It is usually coincidence, meaning that one thing happens nearly at the same time as something else.
In human evolution that was almost certainly extremely useful. Imagine hunting for game. Say you find the same animals in the same spot three times in three hunting expeditions. The human brain will then see a pattern, animals to hunt in one location, and so return frequently to that location. Now, if there is a pattern this is extremely useful. However, if there is not a pattern and the location of animals is random, the hunters are no worse off returning to the site than any other location. In very simple tasks with limited information a bias towards patterns does little harm and can do lots of good.
In the modern world lots and lots and lots of things happen. This gives a vast number of opportunities for coincidence. Human beings ignore and don't remember non-coincidences. If you go to the store for an entire year and don't see five red cars in a row and then see such a sight one day you will probably ask yourself "Why did those five red cars all park next to each other?" Various scenarios will occur in your mind until you come up with an explanation that satisfies you. It is very likely that the explanation will not be that in a random distribution of cars over a long period of time some part of that distribution will share a quality.
My best evidence for the difference between randomness and what people think is randomness is the story of the music setting of "random." At first the designers of musical devices did actually set the choice of songs at random. If you had an hundred songs each one had an equal likelihood of appearing next. There were massive objections to this setting because people said it wasn't random. What would happen is that from time to time the same song would be played twice or three times in a row, or that a series of songs from an album would appear, or that a series of songs in the same genre would appear. To people this did not seem random, because people think random means all the different items spread out in a way where there aren't any shared qualities. This is, of course, very different from random. As a result the "random" setting changed to the "shuffle" setting and was programmed to remove these coincidences. The shuffle setting is less random than random, but people feel like it is more random.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Statistical Ignorance
To start off, I am not a statistical expert. I did poorly in my statistics classes, mostly because the first half was so easy I only started going after it suddenly became much harder. I don't know what a chi squared regression is, or even a correlation coefficient. This is very common with me, I am not an expert in any field, but I have a better grasp of the basics of many different things than most people. I am a generalist.
So what do I know that most people don't know about statistics? I know the difference between an anecdote and a double blind study testing the correlation between two characteristics. Most people actually value their own anecdotal experience over a statistical study. So, if all the climate scientists in the world agree that the world is warming, a person experiencing a cooler winter than normal in one part of the world is likely to say that the world isn't warming because they go outside and it is cooler.
Here is an absolutely classic case of this, from an intelligent person with an advanced degree, "The research may say that X has nothing to do with Y, but I have noted with A that an episode of Y, sometimes happens after X."
So what we have here are some data points that a person feels apply (it seems like Y follows X), and some other data points which don't apply (Y does not follow X) and (Y happens without X). We don't know any of the numbers involved. This means that we have stuff that wouldn't even count as data for a study and, even if it did, would not have anything like enough data to draw a conclusion.
On the other hand we have a statistical analysis of multiple studies, with multiple people, with clear parameters, from people unable to have bias towards the people involved by the nature of the studies.
Imagine you have dangerous cancer. You know a friend who says that she thinks she survived cancer by eating lots of bananas. The doctor says bananas don't do anything for cancer, and gives you the results of multiple studies that say so. Would you then eat bananas and not go with the medical advice? Of course not, because choosing anecdotal evidence over sophisticated statistical analysis is stupid.
Why do people do this? Because the brain is wired up to do this. Before there were statistical studies, how people learned things was by noticing what happened to them, and the stories of what happened to people they knew. People actively looked for patterns in this information in order to be better prepared for the future. This is a very sensible and efficient means of finding out about the world if you don't have better methods. It's like having a hoe for planting crops is really good if you don't have a plough.
This method of thinking is innate in people. But as I have said repeatedly on this blog, lots of innate things in people have been surpassed by better things. looking for patterns in the world around you is smart, and what we do naturally. Deliberately choosing this method over statistical analysis is simply dumb. the world would be a better place if we stopped doing it.
So what do I know that most people don't know about statistics? I know the difference between an anecdote and a double blind study testing the correlation between two characteristics. Most people actually value their own anecdotal experience over a statistical study. So, if all the climate scientists in the world agree that the world is warming, a person experiencing a cooler winter than normal in one part of the world is likely to say that the world isn't warming because they go outside and it is cooler.
Here is an absolutely classic case of this, from an intelligent person with an advanced degree, "The research may say that X has nothing to do with Y, but I have noted with A that an episode of Y, sometimes happens after X."
So what we have here are some data points that a person feels apply (it seems like Y follows X), and some other data points which don't apply (Y does not follow X) and (Y happens without X). We don't know any of the numbers involved. This means that we have stuff that wouldn't even count as data for a study and, even if it did, would not have anything like enough data to draw a conclusion.
On the other hand we have a statistical analysis of multiple studies, with multiple people, with clear parameters, from people unable to have bias towards the people involved by the nature of the studies.
Imagine you have dangerous cancer. You know a friend who says that she thinks she survived cancer by eating lots of bananas. The doctor says bananas don't do anything for cancer, and gives you the results of multiple studies that say so. Would you then eat bananas and not go with the medical advice? Of course not, because choosing anecdotal evidence over sophisticated statistical analysis is stupid.
Why do people do this? Because the brain is wired up to do this. Before there were statistical studies, how people learned things was by noticing what happened to them, and the stories of what happened to people they knew. People actively looked for patterns in this information in order to be better prepared for the future. This is a very sensible and efficient means of finding out about the world if you don't have better methods. It's like having a hoe for planting crops is really good if you don't have a plough.
This method of thinking is innate in people. But as I have said repeatedly on this blog, lots of innate things in people have been surpassed by better things. looking for patterns in the world around you is smart, and what we do naturally. Deliberately choosing this method over statistical analysis is simply dumb. the world would be a better place if we stopped doing it.
Friday, September 16, 2011
Perceptions Are Comparisons
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)