Happy Easter!

Just in case you were wondering, I have to admit that I'm enjoying this Easter a little more than some in the past. Oh, sure, the weather is more or less cooperating (I remember snowstorms, frost, sleet and rain on some); but I am also sort of enjoying the squirming some of the non-Orthodox Christians are going through this year. This isn't schadenfreude, it's merely an observation.

You will recall that the Roman Church and most Protestants would rather celebrate Christmas than Easter. For many of them, as is the case for many moderns regardless of persuasion, spirituality is a bit difficult to deal with. By focusing on the physical we can avoid all that messy metaphysical stuff. Up until now, the Paulites had the say: Jesus was killed for your sins; own up to it, accept it, proclaim it (preferably loudly) and you're home free (as far as the Protestants were concerned; you had to register this, so to speak, with the authorities and the Catholics considered you part of the club).

Unfortunately, this is just one view: Paul's. There are still some "weirdos" out and about, however, who think that Christianity has something to do with what Jesus said and did while he was alive, that what was important was not so much what you say, but what you actually do. The way I see it, this is precisely the approach that Papa Frank is pushing. I can't begin to imagine that he's making a lot of friends with it either. And that's why I'm feeling a little more upbeat today than usual.

So, whether you're getting ready for spring, looking for hidden eggs with the kids, having a special dinner, or simply wondering what others might be celebrating, I hope you have fun doing it, and I hope you have fun doing it with others. Easter should be, in my view, a family holiday. It's as good a reason as any to simply get everyone together and to spend some special time, eating, drinking, and being merry.

Yes, live it up. After all, that's what this particular holiday is supposed to be about.

Maundy Thursday

It is clear to me that many who read these posts regularly are bothered, if not downright offended, when I compare our current plutocratic capitalism to a religion. What is interesting, to me at least, that some of the upholders of that view are bothered as well as others of faith are bothered. That's a good thing. We should be bothered by ideas from time to time.

The advocates of "the system" like to think they are not religious, but I think it's pretty clear they are. They simply have a different set of beliefs that those who believe they are religious. The patterns are the same, the mechanisms are the same, there are rituals and professions of "true belief" involved, and -- most unfortunately -- the outcomes are pretty much the same (more death and destruction than life and growth). The religionists don't like it because they think being compared to a secular club somehow denigrates their religion. It only does if you allow it to, or if you practice what you call religion in such a way that it is hard to distinguish from its secular counterpart. That's where we are by all who believe that their religion is the true religion. This applies to fundamentalists of all stripes, but considering the real-life timing of this post, we're going to concentrate on our Christian friends.

Today marks the real beginning of the Passion of Easter. It should be, by all rights, the highest four days of devotion for all those who call themselves Christian. We need to remember: no Easter (that is, no death and resurrection) there's no Christianity. It's very existence depends on the events of these days 2,000 years ago. As it is, it is the Eastern Church, the so-called Orthodox varieties, who make this holiday the high point of the year. For the Roman Catholics and Protestants, it's Christmas; that is the celebration of the physical birth. If we look at the contention that Jesus was crucified, put to death, buried and arose again on the 3rd day, well, then what we are dealing with here is a spiritual birth. Religions, being by nature spiritual, you'd think that today would be the kick-off of the time of greatest celebration, but it isn't. We're going to spend a lot more time looking for hidden eggs and eating chocolate.

It's not exactly clear to me why, but I do have my suspicions.

The new religion

Don't get me wrong. I am more than aware of the power of beliefs. I may say that these are "simply" things that some folks believe, but "mere" beliefs have been the root of some of the most heinous atrocities in the history of humankind.

The problem is that it is an extremely small step from "belief" to "true belief", from "believers" to "true believers". True believers are not be questioners. By that I mean that they are not renowned for questioning those beliefs. Not only are they believed, they are accepted as true, they are taken as fact, and, in the end, it becomes heresy (or some kind of crime) to call them into question at all, to even hint that they may, well, questionable. And that's where we are with neoliberalism these days.

It would seem that we are confronted with a new religion. Neoliberalism, as currently advocated and practiced, has all the trappings of religion and its power is comparable, if not in excess, of its religious predecessors, be it the Islamic Expansion after the death of the Prophet Mohammed or the Inquisition of the Middle Ages. More specifically, it exercises its power through violence.

How many infidels were converted by the sword? How many non-believers were brutalized, tortured and executed for challenging the authority of the Church? And today, be it through the outright dictatorial oppression that the peoples of Chile, Argentina, Bolivia, Poland, Russia, Southeast Asia, and post-Colonial Africa were (and in many cases still are) forced to endure, or the ravaging of whole economies by the World Bank and IMF, as is happening to Greece, or the militaristic corporate state that has taken root in the United States, how many of been beaten, arrested, imprisoned and persecuted for resisting the Power of the Market?

No, the pattern, the motivations, the modus operandi, the justifications, the argumentation ... it is all the same. Whereas the victims of religious zeal were at least promised a life of peace and happiness in the hereafter, in the New Dispensation you are condemned to Hell on Earth: insecurity, fear, pain, poverty, illness and arbitrary violence as the preferred means of control.

Or, as the new High Priests like to proclaim: or so have you chosen. Only you are to blame for your plight.

Oh, how far we have come.

When the inmates run the asylum

Now, for those of you who have "drunk the (neoliberal) Kool-Aid", so to speak. I'm sure you've got your undies in a knot over how I can just slough off things you so dearly believe in. My point is simple: each of the 10 items I listed as central to a neoliberal world view are, at bottom, nothing but beliefs, articles of faith, if you will, because they have no justifiable basis in reality. None of them are true. None of them are facts. They are, simply stated, just things you believe.

So, for the anal-retentive types among you, my point-by-point refutation:

1. Individuals act solely in their own self-interest.
   Please explain altruism to me. Provide any evidence that, say, evolutionarily speaking cooperation is not advantageous.
2. This self-interest is "enlightened".
   What does "enlightened" mean in this context? How does everyone looking out for him/herself automatically become "for the good of all"?
3. Markets should be free.
   What does "free" mean? If left to their own devices, where is the historical evidence that markets work to the benefit of the majority, not the minority?
4. Deregulation is desirable.
   See previous point.
5. Allowing private interests to dominate over government interests leads to more efficiency in the market.
   What does "efficiency" mean? Name one privatized sector in which public services are being provided at costs lower and more people are served with fewer resources than if the government were doing it.
6. Social spending is wasteful.
   Since social spending is, by definition, for the good of all, define "wasteful" in this context. Explain how spending $3bn on food stamps, for example, is "worse" than providing companies with $4 billion in tax breaks and subsidies.
7. Trade liberalization benefits all.
   Any evidence whatsoever would be appreciated.
8. When the owners of capital benefit, everyone benefits.
   If neoliberalism works, why do we have wealth/income inequality in the first place?
9. Those who capitalize more, deserve more.
   Based upon which criteria?
10. Property rights take precedence over all other rights.
    Why? Why is property so important to begin with?

In other words, where are the facts to back up the assertions? Where is the evidence to support the principles? If you can't show it, I am perfectly justified in thinking that these are not things that "are", rather they are simply things that you believe.

The fruits of delusion

The most extensive and exacting look at Friedman's and The Chicago School of Economics' approach has been presented by Naomi Klein in her eminently readable book The Shock Doctrine. She traces the path of influence and implementation of Friedman's and neoliberalism's activities over the past 40+ years, starting withe Chile, moving on to Argentina, Bolivia, Poland (post Solidarity Movement), Russia (and Yeltsin), South Africa, the Asian "tiger economies", through Thatcherism, Reaganism, up to the financial crash of 2008. I'm not saying that this isn't a controversial book. It is. But, it's well documented, well argued, and, in the end, pretty much on target.

Practically every principle or precept that neoliberalism holds to be true fails to hold up in reality. Free markets don't exist, but it's not that they haven't been free enough. Instead, we see that without massive government intervention (for example, as in Iraq), markets are not capable of organizing themselves. Without regulation, businesses, left to their own devices, will seek protected markets, government subsidies, and monopoly status to protect their interests, not the greater good. It turns out, in practice, that self-interest is anything but enlightened, rather Gecko's maxim, "Greed is good", prevails. Yes, a few benefit -- greatly, even outrageously -- but most of us are left by the wayside.

Yes, the neoliberal program has been forced through again and again, and the result is always the same: unfree markets, dictatorial governments, the widespread abuse of human and other rights, oppression, destruction, and, if necessary (or not), war to provide the shock that is needed to ... well, it is not clear what the real goal is. The non-violent, non-military, non-CIA-induced regime-change applications of the theory, say, in the UK or USA, has produced nothing more than rising unemployment, demonization of the poor, and a wealth inequality unparalleled in the history of the world. If there has ever been a failed mode of thought, this is it, yet it lives, thrives and is perpetuated, in particular in organizations such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. The (now discredited) policy of austerity is their non-military application of their principles. The Greeks are the latest victims, but, I can assure you, they will not be the last.

If so many lives were not at stake, we could afford ourselves the luxury of intellectual refutation, as Sheldrake's case against science demonstrates. These principles of neoliberalism, however, are not mere intellectual postulates. It is possible, rather easily, I might add, to demonstrate clearly how incredibly inapplicable any one of these "dogmas" are. Not a single one holds true. Not a single one is supported by any real-life evidence. Not a single one is defensible on realistic or real-life ethical grounds, but they are the New Gospel of Salvation.

Those who believe, however, are those who benefit from such ideas. Those who believe have access to the power brokers and law makers worldwide. Those who believe are responsible for the pain, suffering and even death of so many innocent human beings. If there has ever been a system of faith, a system of belief, a "religion" that broaches no other, neoliberalism is it.

References
Klein, Naomi (2007) The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, Picador, New York.

More on economics' delusion

It should be becoming clearer that this science of economics is a bit difficult to pin down. A lot of what happens in the world and what happens to all of us depends on what economics says should be. It would be worthwhile then, in parallel to Sheldrake, to identify those precepts of economics that are driving policy and law makers these days. Here is my suggested list ... those things that "economics" asserts to be true:

1. Individuals act solely in their own self-interest.
2. This self-interest is "enlightened".
3. Markets should be free.
4. Deregulation is desirable.
5. Allowing private interests to dominate over government interests leads to more efficiency in the market.
6. Social spending is wasteful.
7. Trade liberalization benefits all.
8. When the owners of capital benefit, everyone benefits.
9. Those who capitalize more, deserve more.
10. Property rights take precedence over all other rights.

If in fact economics (and granted, this is the currently dominant, neoliberal version of the subject that we are considering) is a science, even only a descriptive one, then we should be able to find evidence in our experienced reality that bears out these principles. So the question is: can we? I think even a cursory review of the list reveals they're not even close.

What I've described in those 10 points above is more or less the position that Milton Friedman advances in his seminal text, Capitalism and Freedom, the "Bible" of Neoliberal Economic Theory. This is the text that drives most of what has been happening from the policy side since the early 1970s. There should be a good body of evidence in support of these principles. Is there?

Unfortunately, the answer is a resounding "no". Not a shred.

But wait, you say, where and when has any of this been "tested", in any sense of the word? And to that I can only respond: in too many places and in too many ways, but that's a subject for next time.

References
Friedman, Milton (2002/1962) Capitalism and Freedom, 40th anniversary edition, with the assitance of Rose Friedman, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago & London.

The economics delusion

The unexpected question (and the implied answer) were a bit surprising, I know. Every once in a while, a writer needs to wake up his or her reader. Good morning (or afternoon or evening or whatever, depending on when you are). We need to dig a little deeper.

The English philosopher R.G. Collingwood once defined "science" in a rather simple and straightforward way. He said that science is "a body of systematic or orderly thinking about a determinate subject-matter" (p4). Thinking systematically, in turn, is "answering questions intelligently disposed in order. The answer to any question presupposes whatever the question presupposes. And because all science begins with a question (for a question is logically prior to its own answer) all science begins with a presupposition" (p63).

I like this definition for two reasons. First, it certainly allows us to look at economics as a science (and the definition is equally applicable to the natural sciences as well). Second, it emphasizes (and reinforces) the point I have been making and that Sheldrake presented so forcefully, namely that all sound thinking starts with assumptions (and it would do us well to be aware of what these are).

When seen as systematic thinking, we can see what economics is up to. They should be able to develop theories, even if they can experiment with them, that can be used to explain what's going on around us. Those of us who were forced into economics classes in the course of our schooling and those who take an interest in more than sports have come to know some of the general principles that economics proposes: supply-and-demand (high demand, high prices, for example); too much money in circulation equals inflation; and more, but our experience also shows us that these principles (which economists like to pass off as "laws", which they aren't) don't always work. Anyone who thinks that gasoline prices, for example, are driven by supply-and-demand, is out of touch with reality. I've seen prices vary by as much as 10 euro cents per liter between 9:00 am and 2:00 pm. What we all drive to work but don't have to go home? No, it's the little things that give it away.

It turns out that economics, then, spends most of its time developing (mathematical) models that describe what is going on around us. My question is, just how helpful is that? I'm not convinced they are very helpful at all. All that economic commonsense that most of us were exposed to just doesn't seem to reflect what is really going on. Oh sure, the economists would like us to believe that the world has become so much more complicated that it's hard keeping up with reality. Truth be told, though, their models are just that models. Reality ... well, that's whole other story ... as any of us living there can tell you.

It's here that we see the weakness of Collingwood's definition, that is true, but it's the best one we have right now. There is systematic thinking about a subject matter going on. The problem is, however, that the thinking about the subject matter has little, if anything, to really do with the experience of the subject matter. In other words, it would seem that economics may have simply said adieu to reality. If that's the case, who cares if it is a science or not?

So it is to that, and its consequences, that we will turn to next time.

References
Collingwood, R.G. (1998/1940) An Essay in Metaphysics, Revised edition, with an Introduction and additional material edited by Rex Martin, Clarendon Press, London.

Is economics even a science?

There will be some of you who will be somewhat shocked by today's title. I think it's a legitimate question. When we reflect upon what Sheldrake presented and argued, we recognize that it is focused very much on what we call the "natural (or hard) sciences". The Queen of these is, of course, Physics, but chemistry and biology are well represented at court. Nevertheless, it is worth asking ourselves what constitutes a "science".

First and foremost, we should recall that the word "science" comes from the Latin verb scire which means "to know". Science is, then, at heart, a way of knowing. As such, it is more of a method than object. As most of us were taught in school, this method was considered the only really legitimate pathway to knowledge (and by extension, truth). The scientist came up with an hypothesis, performed experiments to confirm or refute that hypothesis, and based on the data and evidence collected through experimentation, s/he would revise the hypothesis and continue their research. Other scientists were invited to join in and contribute. In this cooperative and disciplined way, our knowledge base grew and progress was achieved. One of the strongest advantages of this approach was that if we knew what causes brought about which effects, we could make reasonable and accurate predictions. If this and this are the case, and that happens, then we would know the outcome.

A first look at economics in this light, however, makes it pale by comparison. Oh sure, you can form an economic hypothesis, but how do you perform an economic experiment without potentially endangering the well-being of a huge number of people? Breaking economic relationships down into manageable pieces in order to perform experiments, however, so changes the nature of those relationships that they no longer are valid for making predictions based on the outcomes. So, economics is certainly not a science in the same sense that physics, biology or chemistry are sciences.

Economics, then, was forced down a very different path. At best, it could attempt to objectively observe economic phenomena and then based on those observations, derive and formulate theories that would explain them. If this and that condition arose in a market, then one could predict what the consequences would be. Unfortunately, economics' hit rate was far lower than that of the natural sciences. It is not just that economic phenomena are perhaps more complex than physical, biological or chemical ones ... and we can well imagine how complex many of these are ... rather, there were too many factors that could affect the outcomes, not the least of which was the highly unpredictable role that people play in these situations. Humans are particularly good at surprising even themselves and doing something totally unexpected. That makes life for the economist particularly difficult.

This doesn't mean that there's nothing to salvage here and that we should just toss economics out the window. Given the role it plays in our lives, there must be a way of dealing with it, and I believe we can find some sound common ground upon which to stand. What this is and what it means for economics in particular, however, we'll look at next time.

More on science's delusion

There are many phenomena in the world, many experiences that we all have had (and will continue to have) that the scientific, materialistic worldview cannot and will not be able to explain. Any probability specialist worth his or her salt will tell you that the Universe isn't old enough in seconds to account for the random combination of anything into anything looking the least bit like life, let alone what we know as human life. The mere fact that the known visible universe only accounts for 4% of the matter and energy that there should be (according to physicists' calculations) leaves the experts stumped. Today's science can't tell you how we can see, how any of our senses really work, how thoughts and memories are generated or stored, or, most importantly, why we're even conscious at all. To some current philosophers of mind, consciousness is simply an illusion: it shouldn't be there, we don't know how it got here, so in essence, we should just ignore it. It doesn't matter because it isn't matter. I don't know about you, but I can't help but feel that the flat earth is not far behind. Two-thousand years of "scientific" and philosophic inquiry and that's all we have. Not an outstanding show.

The problem with basing "science" on these dogmas, as Sheldrake calls them, is that what most of us naively understand science to be isn't really practiced anymore. When I was going to school, we were told that science was a rigorous, structured way of exploring, testing, and validating the world. It conducted experiments, collected data and facts and combined them into theories that could further be tested, validated or falsified. When enough data was collected that no longer fit with the existing explanation, the theory was revised, new hypotheses were formulated and everyone moved forward again. Unfortunately, that is not always the case any longer. Not all questions worth asking are even permitted to be asked. It's sad really, because we are limiting ourselves before we even start. When certain questions are simply out-of-bounds, you have to start asking yourself "why"? At least I know that I do.

The parallels to the Church of the Middle Ages are overwhelming: the sun revolves around the earth/everything consists of matter; the earth is flat/there is no goal or purpose to existence; the cosmos is eternal/mass and energy are conserved. No questions necessary. The answers have been conveniently predetermined. And, the powers that control these answers see to it that even nascent challenges are simply nipped in the bud.

Sheldrake's point is that we must now rise up and resist the dogma. If we want to know what is what, we need to challenge the established orthodoxy. We need to demand that science live up to its true nature, that it, once again, become a way of knowing and understanding the world and everything in it. There can't be unaskable questions. Any question that can be asked deserves an answer ... or at least the reasonable, sensible search for one.

And so, the next time, we'll take a similar look at "the dismal science", economics, to see how it measures up.

Science's delusion

Let's start by taking a look at Sheldrake's case.

It may seem odd casting the august notion of science into the guise of religion, but it appears that this is precisely what has happened. As Sheldrake points out, challenging these articles will ensure that you receive no funding for your research. You will be excluded from conferences, you won't get your papers published, and if you insist on pursuing this heretical path, you will eventually be excluded from the community ... what the Church called Excommunication.

The institution that perpetuates this belief, that is the Keeper of Its Keys, of course, is the modern university. Godwin (1986) has drawn a poignant parallel between the role played by the Church in the Middle Ages and the role played by The Academy today, complete with rites, rituals and regalia that reflect the pomp and power of those deemed worthy to go forth into the world to be "experts"; that is, purveyors of the True Faith.

Some of you will take this for an exaggeration, but try obtaining grants for your research without the right papers and credentials, try gaining acceptability and respectability without the proper sigils and seals. You might have the cure for cancer in your head, but without the proper documents, authorizations and blessings of the Key Keepers, you will remain a non-descript, unknown novice, who will long have been forgotten before you were ever really known. Yes, there are vested interests involved, and they broach no rebellion.

It would be worthwhile, I believe, to at least list these ten Articles, for while I will not have time to deal with them individually in detail, they do establish a reasonable and comprehensible starting point for uncovering their true nature. On pages 7 and 8 of Sheldrake's book, he lists them (and discusses them in detail throughout the rest of the text), and I'll state them only briefly here:

1. Everything is essentially mechanical.
2. All matter is unconscious.
3. The total amount of matter and energy is always the same.
4. The laws of nature are fixed.
5. Nature is purposeless and evolution has no goal or direction.
6. All biological inheritance is material.
7. Minds are inside heads and are nothing but the activities of brains.
8. Memories are stored as material traces in brains and are wiped out at death.
9. Unexplained phenomena such as telepathy are illusory.
10. Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works.

Two things are immediately apparent. First, Sheldrake, being a biologist and chemist by trade, has focused on what we would call the "natural sciences", not necessarily science in general. Second, the philosophy of science that he is challenging is called "materialism". The idea is that everything ... absolutely everything ... can be explained in terms of the laws of physics and chemistry, for the most part. If it isn't anchored in matter, it can be ignored. Genes are responsible for heredity, mutated genes are responsible for differences over generations, everything happens by random chance, and that's it. Unfortunately, that's not it at all.

And that's where we'll pick up next time.

References
Godwin, Joscelyn (1986) "Priests, Professors, & Gurus: When the Academy is a Church the Hermetic Professor becomes a Heretic", Gnosis Magazine, No. 2, Spring/Summer, pp. 35-38.

Sheldrake, Rupert (2012) The Science Delusion: Freeing the Spirit of Enquiry, Hodder & Stoughton Ltd., London.

Seeds of delusion

The observant reader will have noticed that over the last few posts, a certain theme continually recurs, namely that too often we only think we know things when in fact we merely believe that things are a certain way. This error is much more widespread than we generally assume. The reason for it, however, is rather simple and straightforward, and I have been stating it in various ways throughout these posts as well. To put it another way, we fall into the belief trap when we fail to question our own "givens", when we do not question the assumptions we make. Whatever we take for granted, we think is, well, just however it is, that it is clear, obvious, even commonsensical, when, truth be told, it is none of these things.

Let me make myself perfectly clear. All of us assume that certain things are simply a certain way. We don't think about them, we don't question them, we just pick them up and run with them. I am convinced that in our current state of development as human beings, there are some things we just can't know. We can only assume, but the difference between the masses and the thinking individual is that the latter has taken the time, expended the energy and become aware of what it is that s/he is assuming, believing, identifying as their own starting point for their point-of-view. In other words, what is needed more and more is that we make ourselves aware of just where it is we ourselves are coming from. It may not be an easy task, but it is a worthwhile one, to be sure.

On this particular note, I was recently, reading Rupert Sheldrake's insightful critique, The Science Delusion (published in the USA as Setting Science Free). He advances the thesis that the current edifice of "science" is built upon the foundation of ten unchallengeable "dogmas" that establish the framework and the ground rules for what is acceptable and legitimate. Rather than being incontrovertible facts, or truths, these are in fact, assumptions lacking basis in fact. They are, if you will, the "givens" which form the starting point of all inquiry. They must be accepted, they may not be challenged, for doing so relegates the perpetrator to the fringes of the scientific establishment. In a word, they are Modern Science's Ten Articles of Faith. (Sounds famililar, doesn't it?)

Well, what I would like to do over the course of the next few posts is to pick up on Sheldrake's critique but extend it to the so-called science of economics. This particular "science" has taken over center stage in all of our lives. We are now living in a thoroughly economized world. Economics and economic thought permeate every aspect of our existence. The economic argument is the killer argument, regardless of the topic, and the currently accepted school of thought, neoliberalism, has, like science itself in more general terms, turned itself into something of a religion. There are certain doctrines that they hold to be true and inviolable, even if, at bottom, they are mere assumptions masquerading as fact. They are not only beliefs, they are unconscious beliefs. My goal will be to explore the parallels and perhaps seek some possible solutions for the future.

We'll get down to business, so to speak, next time.

Reference
Sheldrake, Rupert (2012) The Science Delusion: Freeing the Spirit of Enquiry, Hodder & Stoughton Ltd., London.

Bubble, bubble, toil and trouble

That line from Shakespeare (Macbeth) popped into my head today. I was coming home from the grocery store, I had already been to the barber, the baker, and dry cleaner. Just all part of an everyday grind, nothing special, but it was a lot of interaction with a good number of my fellow citizens, and I'm sure you can imagine that the "toil and trouble" part was more than apparent. Truth be told, I was thinking about this blog and it was that which brought be to the bubble and, ultimately, Macbeth. I've always liked that line. I always thought the witches in that play were smarter and more insightful than most of the other characters. At least they gave some thought to what was coming down the road.

The idea of using an advanced medium to enhance one's capabilities has been around for some time. Yes, managing fire to heat a vessel of fluid to achieve some kind of end took on a different form during the Industrial Revolution, but using technology for communication purposes has a rather long history as well. For the witches it was a cauldron. For us, it's the Internet.

Macbeth was about the deeds willing to be done on the way to kingly power. We democratized ourselves in the meantime (or at least we like to tell ourselves we have), and it was the Internet -- for those of your old enough to remember -- that was going to shift the balance of power from top to bottom. The Internet leveled hierarchies. We were all in it together, and no one single entity or person was in charge. True equality had been achieved. At least that was the theory.

My first excursion into this realm was in the late 80s, early 90s. You had to type in commands on a black screen to do anything: get your modem going, login to a provider, move to other computers to get files, or negotiate your way to the myriad forums on what was then called Usenet. It was a dark, anonymous realm, but the interactions were serious, sometimes intense, often fun. Not responding to what someone else said was considered unacceptable. If you had nothing to contribute, you were told so. Communication was most often short, direct, to-the-point. Of course, being humans, netizens of the day many discussions degenerated into flame wars (hostile, insulting, often profanity-laced interactions), which were certainly not for the faint of heart. But often ended in some reference to Nazis or Hitler, oddly enough (see Godwin's Law).

No, these were not the "good old days", they were just the "old days". What was different from today, however, is two-fold: it was interactive and heterogenous. By interactive, I mean simply that statements were taken seriously, challenged and responded to. There was give-and-take, back-and-forth. By heterogenous, I mean that the participants were from diverse cultures and backgrounds, with varying interests and intellectual capabilities. As everything transpired via text (no picture, no visuals at all), there were also oddities like full sentences, questions, and not a few well-turned phrases.

This all changed in the mid-90s though with the coming of the Web. The visualizations and the ability to put everything into bright, blinking, colors did its part to kill discussion, but with the rise of so-called social networks and specialized communities, it is too easy these days to simply find one's own kind and retreat. Both the intellectual interaction and the heterogeneity have been eliminated. We can find, or create, our own little bubbles in which to exist and which will not be disturbed by the big, bad world "out there". And it is those bubbles that are at the root of too many toils and trouble.

Flawed in our thinking?

You may be getting the impression that I'm suggesting we humans are basically flawed in our thinking. This is not the case at all. I have little to present against how we think, but I'm fairly certain that we are not as aware of our own (and others') thinking as we should be. A little awareness can go a long way.

And that, I believe, is our most fundamental, general problem: we're simply unaware of too much, above all who we ourselves are, what we believe and, most importantly, why we believe whatever that is. There are a lot of things that seem like a good idea at the time. How many of us have awakened one morning full of regret for doing "what seemed like a good idea at the time"? How many of us have looked back at our past and realized when it was that we took that less than optimal turn in life and realize that, well, "it seemed like a good idea at the time"? One of our advantages (evolutionary and otherwise) as human beings is that we can imagine. We can play out different scenarioes in our heads, we can envision consequences of actions and decisions. We can also reflect on our own wishes and desires, and we can learn about others' as well and reflect on how they work with, or against, our own. But, we don't do that very often. Instead, we tend to be impulsive, reactive, knee-jerking actors in a drama whose plot is completely unknown to us. Too often our decisions are being made in our spinal columns, not in our brains.

This is unfortunate, not only for the actor but also for whomever else is affected by those actions. Part of this comes from the fact that we are constantly bombarded with the means and motivation to seek instant gratification. We think we've got to have this or that now, when in fact, not only don't we need it now, we probably don't need it at all. Too often we believe that things ... possessions ... are what we need (or at least want), but shortly thereafter the thrill of the purchase is gone, it all becomes mundane again, and we're no better off than we were before. I believe a primary reason for this, for the perpetual dissatisfaction that so many of us endure, is simply because we're not so much flawed in our thinking, but rather that we simply don't think enough.

Thinking is not just about solving problems, it is also about reflection, as I have said, but it is also, I believe most importantly, about awareness ... of the world around us, ourselves, and, particularly, our own thinking. We need to stop and think about why we think the things we do. We need to explore our thoughts to their roots to see what they are based upon. We need to be honest with ourselves and identify our own prejudices (and, yes, we all have lots more of them than we might like to admit). We also need to ask ourselves why others do think like we do. It's not just because they're not as smart as we are. Maybe, just maybe, we're not as smart as we think we are.

All of this gets complicated, though, when we find ways to isolate us from those who perhaps think differently than we do. There is a great danger these days of isolating oneself to such a degree that the otherness of others can simply be eliminated. When that happens, though, we opt out of thinking altogether and we descend to the realm of pure belief. Oh, there is nothing wrong with belief per se, but pure belief is unaware belief. And being unaware is as good as being unconscious.

Humility ... what a concept

You shouldn't get the idea that I'm picking on my fellow humans. I'm not. I'm merely pointing out that I'm of the opinion that we think we're better than we are. Maybe a bit of humility would serve us well.

It's OK not to know things. None of us can know everything. Some people are good at history, others at math, others in biology, science or physics, others know a lot about how we think the mind works, but nobody knows everything. That's OK. Since we can communicate as easily as we can, we can always get insights, knowledge, and information from others, be it personally or in written or recorded form. Things are always better with a little help from our friends.

The difficulties start appearing immediately, however. How do we know if what we're being told is correct? Most often we don't, because, well, we're not experts in that field, that's why we turned to someone who knows more about than we do. To accept what we given, we have to trust the source. That's a rather large problem these days, isn't it? Trust, that is. Who can and do we trust? And why?

The closer we are to the source, the easier it is. We can see how they act, how they treat us and others, what they do in their spare time, how others see them. The farther away they are -- physically, socially, psychologically, etc. -- the greater the challenge. In these cases we have to resort to other means: reputation, personal history, evaluations by others, on the external side; and coherency and consistency of argumentation and presentation, supporting data and evidence, and the like on the internal side. It's pretty obvious that most of us aren't very well prepared for the latter, at any rate. Those items belong to the realm of critical thinking, which we all like to claim we do, but hardly ever do in reality. In fact -- and I find this especially mind-boggling -- it is actively discouraged in school these days, and some states, like Texas, have active movements to have it officially eliminated from the school curriculum. How sad is that? But how did we get to such a place?

It's pretty simple, really: like I've mentioned before -- just last time, in fact -- what we accept as true and right and proper and correct depends more than anything else on what we believe to be true and right and proper and correct. We all go into the evaluation from a biased position. Some folks are aware of this and try to adjust for it; others have no idea that they do it, so they tend to come across rather arrogant, know-it-all, or dogmatic. If you ask me, any of these last three characteristics is a dead give-away. People who really know stuff tend to be just slightlyl humble about their knowledge. They try, in any number of ways, to take the edge off their own authority. A lot of things we think we know a lot about turn out to be quite incorrect a bit farther down the road. The entire course of human history and knowledge is littered with wrecked and abandoned things-we-knew-for-sure. In my mind, the mark of a truly intelligent person lies not in how right s/he thinks s/he is, but rather is how open they are for the possibility that they might be wrong and willing they are to adapt what they think to accommodate the new data and information.

The observant reader will recognize that there is more involved here than initially met the eye. We're not talking only about knowledge, but apparently belief and attitudes need to and do play a role in what is said, and in what we are willing to accept. It's worth stopping to think about.

If nobody can save us, we might as well get real

If it's up to us, we might as well recognize that reality. That's what "getting real" really means. We're not going to do that, however. We're going to retreat into the safety of our delusions and bemoan that fact that nobody is doing anything to help, that it's someone else's responsibility not ours, that we've been left all alone.

Please forgive me if I don't get all choked up about this. I didn't make the rules, but I have always found it amazing that so many people are willing to say one thing and act differently. There is long-standing tradition in humanity to blame those below you (real or imagined), for it relieves you of having to admit you yourself are the problem. You're the problem. I'm the problem. We're the problem.

Why? Because we only believe what we want to believe. Truth doesn't mean a whole lot to us. Facts don't carry much weight. What is reasonable and makes sense is too easily discarded and replaced by visions of how we would like things to be. We like to think of ourselves as members of an educated, objective, advanced, serious society and culture. We are not. We're every bit as timid, fearful and superstitious as our forebears who we'd rather ignore and forget. After all, we're not like them at all. But we are.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not talking of things political or economic or anything like that. I'm talking about our most fundamental attitude towards life in general and our own lives in particular. I'm talking about basics ... the very fundamentals that allow things to be a particular way. This isn't a new theme, as many of you know. I've talked about it more times than I care to remember (or reference).

We're a strange species. Just because we have the gift of language, we tend to think if we can put a name on something, we understand it. Obviously this breaks down every time we go to the doctor's and s/he tells us what we have in terms that we can only hope s/he understands: Yes, you have a cardiovascular thrombotic resistance to nonvegetative triesters of glycerol enhanced by hyperutilization of hydrolyzable ionic compounds. Gee, why didn't I think of that? Giving something a name doesn't do any more for us than give us a way to refer to something. We most likely don't understand it, but we're pretty sure it's a "something". Isn't that comforting? Not really.

We like to think that we're sophisticated, advanced, developed, intelligent and stable. We're not. Swap out nuclear devices for fireballs launched by catapults and the only real difference is the number of other human beings that can be killed in one shot. The underlying principle is the same. It's only a difference of magnitude. What applies to war applies to every other aspect of life. Watch a film about the bushmen of the Kalahari foraging for food, then stop by your local mega-supermarket between 2:00 and 4:00 am. There's really not a whole lot of difference, and since we're moderns, we simply don't have to walk as far.

Nah, I doubt we'll be getting real anytime soon. We're far too enamored with deceiving ourselves, of thinking we know things when we don't and thereby perhaps missing the real point of it all.

Maybe not nuts, but not completely sane either

You don't have to be a cogent observer to notice that most folks like to hear what suits them and tend to reject things that don't agree with their own prejudices. We tend to hang around with people we agree with more than those we tend to fight or argue with all the time. I think we all know that in the long run this doesn't do a lot for us. Sooner or later, we start missing important facts and information, and the quality of the decisions we make starts deteriorating.

This was reinforced in particular by an article I read on what our brain does wrong (allegedly). We tend to emphasize the negative, see meaning in things where there may not be a lot, we overlook the obvious, we place too much value on what we think others think and our attention is easily captured and distracted. Most of these, according to the author, were valuable traits when we were young as a species wandering aimlessly across the savannah, but now that we live in a highly techonologized complex environment, all these once helpful features of our minds are now just a burden. In other words, we have evolved to be the way we are, but we evolved wrong.

I don't know about you, but this conclusion struck me as absurd. It fit right in with the problem I described last time: we believe in something but act differently, we are unreasonable and inconsistent in our behavior. Yes, we -- our brains -- are susceptible to error ... but here is the crux: there's not a thing we can do about it; it's simply how we evolved. I'm sure the article's author had a more positive intent, but anyone really paying attention quickly sees what a two-edged sword this conclusion is. On the one hand, if we can't help it, we're not responsible; we're off the hook. On the other hand, it casts a healthy shadow of doubt upon the accomplishments, the wisdom of our science.

Now, I don't believe the science is completely wrong. This whole idea about suitable genes surviving does have a certain attractiveness about it, but it ignores the fact that whatever gene we're talking about is part of a pool of genes that all humans have. In other words, it ignores the role of others in evolution and even Darwin was convinced at the end that cooperation was a stronger evolutionary force than competition. Unfortunately, the article's author wasn't capable of making these finer distinctions. Where the author really got off track, though, was in the implicit assumption that these behaviors (listed above) are hardwired into our brains; there's nothing we can do about them. This is simply untrue. What all of those features have in common, if you stop to take a closer look, is lack of awareness. We are not consciously present enough in our own lives. We are on autopilot too often. It's time to get back in the game (of life).

Being on autopilot explains a lot about why we are the way we are and how we got into the particular predicament we humans are in. Our preferred way is, of course, the path of least resistance. We simply can't afford that any longer. Whether we like it or not, it's time to wake up and get with it.

Are we nuts?

Yes, negotiating the highs and lows of observing my fellow human beings is not without its risks. Sooner or later, though, all of us observers ask ourselves the very same question: "Are we nuts?" Really, at some point we all start asking ourselves if we humans are mentally unbalanced, or worse.

Think about it:

• we don't listen to reason
• we ignore facts we don't like
• ideology substitutes for thought more often than not
• we question as good as nothing
• we act against our own best interests, and
• when we react, it is usually violently

Those aren't the signs of a happy, healthy individual. It's even worse when birds of a feather start flocking together. It too often ends up looking like a murder of crows, not a gaggle of geese.

To top it all off, as a species it is starting to become clear that we're suicidal as well. You don't think so? What do you call what we are doing to the environment. Denying global warming doesn't make it go away. Merely saying the oceans are really big does reduce the rate of acidification. Declaring bankruptcy doesn't make the water in West Virginia safe. On a global scale, Bill McKibben's 2012 Rolling Stone article, "Global Warming's Terrifying New Math", explains the three numbers spelling our doom in a way that any reasonable layperson could understand: We can't afford a 2^o C increase in the Earth's temperature (as was agreed to in Copenhagen in 2009), but we're already way ahead of schedule (the temperature has gone up 0.8^o C since then); it is clear that the atmosphere can take - best-case scenario - only 565 gigatons more of CO₂ by 2050 to stay under the two-degree mark, but we're already three-quarters of the way there already. The Fossil-Fuel Masters of Disaster, though, have 2,795 gigatons of CO₂ identified in current reserves, and they're doing all they can to find even more. We may not be able to handle a fifth of that, but they're looking for more. C'mon folks, their profits are our deaths. It is really that simple.

America, of course, was long the world's top polluter, but since they've outsourced most of their manufacturing to China, the Chinese have taken over the bad-boy role. Unfortunately, it doesn't matter who is the worst in the end, what does matter is what, if anything, any of us plan to do about it. The result of my observations is we're not going to do a damn thing. We're deluded enough to think this is all someone else's problem. To make matters worse, Congress, for example, has single-digit approval ratings, but 75% of the bozos there are going to get re-elected next time around. So much for democracy, eh? (And, by the way, if you think it is substantially different elsewhere, you're mistaken. It's not.)

No, I don't think it's all that unjustified to wonder about humanity's sanity. I just wish I knew how to make sense to crazy people.

Just spinning my wheels

Did you ever have that feeling that you're just not getting anywhere? Like you're stuck in the mud and your wheels are just going round and round, spraying muck, blowing smoke ... but you're not budging an inch? I do, from time to time, and this happens to be just one of them.

A friend of mine got on my case last week about being so negative ... why couldn't I find something positive to contribute? Another was on about me not being specific enough, not providing solutions (as if just anyone can simply identify issues). One of my kids wanted to know why I wasn't more involved. Someone else noted that I was being more quiet than usual. And I suppose they're all right. At least in their own ways.

The fact of the matter is it is difficult being an observer of human nature. Yes, I spend an inordinate amount of time (probably while most of you are sleeping) thinking about what makes humans tick and why. This is always a balancing act on the razor's edge between general and specific. Though too many people don't know it, we humans are all pretty much alike: we share a lot in common, not the least of which is our most fundamental attitudes toward our lives: we'd like them to be as hassle-free as possible but know full well, things will not go smoothly. OK, I don't personally know anyone literally struggling to survive, but I would imagine that that last statement of mine still sums up pretty well what they want. To them, perhaps, it is a dream; to us, however, it is a wish.

The greatest challenge to observers like me, though, is trying to figure out why we insist (at least it appears to me as a type of insistence) on doing things that are in our own worst interests. For those of us in the industrialized, developed West, we know our oil is running out, so we demand even more; we know that fossil fuels are shortening the life span of the planet, and we demand to use more; we know that big money is robbing us of our and our children's future, and we demand they be given even freer reign; we know our governments are abusing and restricting our long-fought-for rights, and we demand that they speed up the process; we know that our corporate overlords are repressing us and squeezing us dry, and we encourage them every chance we get.

I'll be the first to admit it: I just don't get it. There's no escape for any of us, regardless of which catastrophe is coming our way, be it the environmental one, the financial one or the political one. And they're all heading our way.

When I talk of these things to individuals, I get a lot of agreement and lots of good suggestions about what might be done. Yet, when I look out into the world, at our communities, regions, nations or trading blocks, there's not a hint of any of that to be seen. I keep hoping I'm missing something, but I have a nagging suspicion that I'm not, really.

Yep, just spinning my wheels ...

Helpless or hapless?

Lately I've been wondering a lot about whether there really is any hope for the human race. Yes, I know: it sounds simply awful. How can I be so negative? It's easy actually. How can the rest of you be so positive?

To me, some things are just obvious: global warming, peak resources, wealth inequality and unbridled greed, personal agendas and interests, broken systems, too much suspicion, hate and fear, just to name a few of the most obvious. Of course, if we can't, or won't, recognize nor acknowledge them, we can't do anything about them. What is also obvious to me is the fact that we can't go on like this, at least not all that much longer. We're pushing the envelope, but it's not the innovation one, it's the one labeled destruction.

Most of us are, well ... the Germans have a nice word for it ... überfordert. The verb fordern has the basic meaning of "to make demands of", hence too much is being asked of us; we are overtaxed, overburdened, overstrained, and overextended, all at the same time. We have trouble keeping up, not just with the Joneses, but generally. Getting through the day relatively unscathed is considered a masterful accomplishment for most of us. I'm sure most of you would like to think that there's a whole bunch of stuff "out there" that is causing this, but truth be told, the problem is simply "in here" with ourselves. We've got to get ourselves sorted first.

But what does that mean? Am I saying that we all need therapy or something? Well, I'm sure there are some who do, but for the most part, we need to take a moment and think seriously about what it is we truly believe. I know, that sounds rather abstract, and a lot of you are wondering what the hell I'm talking about. To most of you, it's clear what you think and believe, what opinions you hold, which political directions you favor ... at least you think you do, but I'd be willing to bet that you don't.

Oh, I don't doubt that quite a few of you know what you think, but I'd be even more willing to bet that you really don't know why. I say that because my experience has shown that most people don't even think it's necessary to ask the question. Granted, there is no requirement to ask why; no one can force us to either, but if we don't, we run the risk of watching everything around us simply get worse. And things are getting worse, whether you want to acknowledge it or not.

When we know (or feel assured as to) why we believe what we believe, we are more grounded, centered, and confident. We can act with more authenticity in the world. Things may be tough, but we know why. There may be challenges, but we have an orientation from which to confront them. Things may appear hopeless, but the chance still remains that we can do something about them.

When we don't know and when we don't even ask why, we reduce ourselves to mere pawns in the larger game. Our opinions will change in simple reactions to external stimuli. We give up our innate human abilities to at least influence our own lives. That, to me, is a good working definition of "hapless".

The root of reality

When all is said and done, the world as we see it is nothing more than the world as we see it. Yes, it really is that simple, but in saying that, I have to acknowledge, that it really is rather complex. Not complicated, mind you, rather complex.

We only have our senses. We only have our own experiences to fall back on. But all of that, whether we like it or not, is individual, not necessarily valid for every other human being on the planet. What this tells me is that we should tread slowly. There's no use in proclaiming we've found the secret of life when in the end we have only found the secret of our own lives.

We share a lot with others, no doubt about it. And for this simple reason, it does us well to share with others whenever we can. Personally, I think it is even better when we can share more with others who are more different from ourselves than we can imagine. I have to admit that my current job, though not always the most exciting or demanding job I've ever had, offers me these particular kinds of opportunities to a degree I never thought imaginable.

Not only was I born into one culture, I have had the wonderful opportunity to be exposed to more: to have lived in a "home culture" other than my own (PA vs CA), to now live in a second version of a foreign culture (HE vs BW), but to spend most of my working time dealing with individuals with similar interests and concerns from very different cultures as well (AT, BE, CN, CZ, FR, ES, FI, FR, GR, HU, IT, JP, LI, LU, NL, PT, PL, SL, TR, UK, just to name the most frequently occurring). And, I can assure you all, my life has become all the richer for this reason. What I have learned is that there are so many different, but meaningful, ways of slicing up reality that it is hard to say ... no, it is impossible to say ... which one is "right" (or good, or proper, or most sensible). All of the people from all of these different cultures have all had something to share with me, be it emotionally or intellectually, and from each I have learned a little bit about who they are and what they think and how they see the world, but even more about myself. Each and every one of them has provided me with an additional "standard of comparison" for what I believe, think, and am.

All of this interaction has gone beyond the mere obvious, the superficial, the everyday. We have laughed and cried together, we've shared meals and experiences and sometimes tribulations together. Each time I was guest anywhere, my host has done what was humanly possible to allow me to experience the world as they experience the world. And, each and every time, my life has become richer because of it.

What fascinates and amazes me about all this is that not a single one of them has ever, ever asked for anything in return. The notion of self-interest, oddly enough, has never played a role in any of these experiences. Yes, I know, there are those who would like to reduce all of this to their simply wanting me to see their own culture more favorably. The problem is that to see them that way is to demean their sharing with me. I firmly believe that they all have done this for the very simply reason that they would like for me to at least once experience what reality means to them. I, for the other, am more than grateful for the opportunity.

Yes, I have tried to thank each and every one of them each time for what they have given me, but for the most part, they think it is self-evident that one would share. This is, when you really get down to it, a very basic, fundamental, human way of being. Sharing, it would seem, is much more basic, much more fundamental than any economic "system" could ever be. I don't know about you, but this give me plenty to think about. There are infinite ways to slice reality, but at root, there may not be such big differences after all.