As a cynical optimist, I question my own sanity

For the most part, people believe what they want to believe and for the even larger part, most people are impervious to facts. Oh, part of the problem comes from the rampant relativism that's taken over modern mentation (and notice, I dared not call it "thinking"), but part of it -- I'm afraid a large part of it -- is out of downright ignorance.

Let's face it, experts gave people who know stuff a bad name. There are people who simply know things, some even in more than one field. We have a long history of being moved -- socially, economically, politically, etc. -- by so-called polymaths (that is, people who are highly competent in more than one field). You know, people like Michaelangelo, Da Vinci, Newton, Leipniz, Jefferson, Franklin, Hume ... individuals who were not only good at STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) subjects, but also in the languages and the arts. Newton, for example, wrote over 1,000,000 words on the subject of physics and natural sciences, as well as over 1,000,000 Biblical exegesis (interpretation of Biblical texts, most often in their original language; Newton's focus was what we call the Old Testament, available mostly in Hebrew), as well as over 1,000,000 words on alchemy in his search for the Philosopher's Stone. Of course, he also died "mad as a hatter" from inhaling all that mercury, but his legacy is brilliant regardless of how he ended up vacating his on-earth slot. Just where are all our polymaths today? Not in the spotlight, that's for sure, because somewhere along the line we decided that only experts have anything worthwhile to say and in the meantime we have found out that experts are paid by interests to say what the interests want them to say. So much for the freedom of inquiry and knowledge.

No, this whole I've-got-an-expert vs you've-got-an-expert thing has ruined it for those of us who don't have the time, energy and inclination to know everything about everything in the world. It is becoming harder and harder to find those individuals who really do know what they are talking about, and when you do find them, chances are that monied interests are either trying to buy them out, drown them out or shut them up. "Cui bono? Cui bono?" my friend Julius used to tell me. If he were still alive, he'd still be telling me.

The result of this is, of course, that everyone, including Joe Shit, the ragman, thinks they know something and have something to say. It's not bad enough that they have nothing to say. No, they insist on their right to say it, and that you should have to listen to it, even though it's nonsense. And there are some areas of life where everyone's an expert, even though they have no clue as to what's going on. You think I'm exaggerating? Think about it: everybody went to school, so everyone's an expert on education. Everyone speaks their mother tongue, so everyone's an expert on language. Everyone has a job and hs bills to pay, so everyone's an economics expert. Those who served in the military (for whatever reason) are military strategy experts; those who helped their friends move are logistics experts; and we all have to pay taxes is a tax expert. Don't believe me? Bring up any of these subjects at your next happy hour and you'll end up with more indigestion that the hors d'oevres allow.

Now, if this were all playing out down here in Littleguy's Land, I don't suppose it would be much of a problem, but if you take a step back and look at what is happening above our own petty oxygen level, you'll quickly realize that our fates are in the hands of not-so-stable individuals. They, however, are playing out their own roles as if they were at happy hour with us: taking their own level of not-knowing and misinformation to levels we can't begin to imagine.

They actually hire people with credentials to do their dirty work for them. Well, OK, industry usually -- and generously -- picks up the tab, but they've got all the expertise they need to make it appear as if they are doing what needs to be done. That's why the earth's environment is getting worse, new climate agreements are regularly necessary, and all us tree-huggers are simply annoyances. That's why the rich are getting richer even faster than the poor are getting poorer, but there's always justification for a bit more exploitation and humiliation nevertheless. That's why the petty national interests of my country trump the petty national interests of yours, especially since I have bigger bombs and more bullets and am more than ready to use them. That's why we're the smartest, slickest, best-looking, most fabulous, kick-ass, cool people who have ever existed and we can't solve the simplest of our problems. And that's why the most psychopathic, sociopathic, self-absorbed, narrow-minded, ruthless, unempathetic people we can possibly imagine are the candidates for our highest political offices (and I'm not just picking on the USA here ... this applies elsewhere as well, though your mileage may vary).

The result, of course, is what I like to call rule by opinion. We're supposed to accept the fact that one opinion is as good as any other -- which is not the case -- but the higher in the political pecking order a given opinion is expressed, the more valid it is. That's how the world is functioning at the moment. The scary part is that people who, by any real standards in any arena other than politics, would be considered mentally unstable, if not downright sick, are permitted to do their thing at the expense of the rest of us. But what's even worse, most of us little folk cheer them on. Just where is all that progress that my history teachers loved to tell me about?

How can it be that a trade agreement is being pushed as "beneficial for us all" that is so secret that no one is even allowed to talk about it once they find out what's in it (TTIP)? How can it be that a two-bit regional wannabe leader is a threat to the security of the entire world (Putin)? How can it be that the mightiest military on the face of the earth can't win a war? How can it be that candidates for public office can express views in public (and find support!) that one should be ashamed to say in private (Trump in the USA, AfD/Pegida in Germany)? How can it be that even after we finally realized that spanking does nothing to make a child behave better that we still think in international politics that might makes right and that we can sanction (merely political spanking) whomever doesn't dance to our tune? How can it be that even though 1,000,000 years of human evolution have shown that cooperation trumps competition in the struggle for survival we still think that every individual's fate is in his or her own hands? That, my dear, readers is simply insane.

But, it's this insanity that we're all confronted with every day. We're confronted with -- if we don't have our noses rubbed in it -- every day with absolute insanity: the politician who rabidly opposes transgenders supports a child molester; the Noble-peace-prize-winner is proud of his reputation as drone-executioner; one of the greatest abusers of human rights is made chair of the commission on human rights; the most overtly devoted religionist is the perpetrator of the greatest violence against others; the list goes on and on. And what bothers me most is that most of us just accept it. "Well, that's just the way it is." "What the hell are you gonna do?" "What's a little person like me supposed to do about all of that?" Oh, I can understand how you can feel that way. I can understand as well that it's in a lot of people's interests that you feel that way, too. If my own study of human history and development has taught me anything it is that there are always a few who try real hard, and very often succeed, in making most of the people feel like they've nothing to say at all.

That's why my optimism is waning. It's too easy to get most people to shuffle and jive, to sing and dance, to do what has to be done to let those interests in power have their way. None of us are allowed to think any more, to develop our own opinions on issue or propose real solutions. That's all taken care of by "their" experts. Too few of us are willing to think on our own and talk to others about what we're thinking. Too few of us are willing to recognize that together were strong and divided we're nothing. Too few of us are willing to inform ourselves, to discuss with others of differing views, and engage in a real debate about things that actually matter. And the longer this goes on the greater the chances that the untenable situation in which we find ourselves will simply have to give, but when it does, it will be more like and explosion than a mere crack.

When things go south, folks, -- and it won't take a lot: another financial crisis, a failed industry in a major economy, a lost harvest across the third world, overzealous military intervention that goes nuclear -- a lot of people are going to get hurt and a lot of those who get hurt are going to be people we know. The planet has become way too small for any of us to really escape. The more you ignore, the more you put it off, the more you bide your time, the greater the chance that someone you know and love is going to get hurt badly when things simply break down. We're already living on the edge of insanity and most people I can see are feeding it. My cynicism tells me that the feeders are going to win, which means the rest of us lose. My optimism tells me we can still turn things around, but it ain't going to be easy.

Science and religion share more than you think

Recently, I've been reading a fascinating little book, namely Bernardo Kastrup's Brief Peeks Beyond: Critical Essays on Metaphysics, Neuroscience, Free Will, Skepticism, and Culture (iff Books, 2015). I know, some of you have already jumped ships and the rest are looking for any remaining lifeboats, but it's not what you think. Yes, the Enlightenment proclivity for book titles as long as the texts seems to be returning, but Kastrup's "essays" are reworked blogs and interviews for the most part, and are written in an engaging and easy-to-read way; that is, for the rest of us, not the professional philosopher or neuroscientist. Anyone with a little openness and willingness would find them both understandable and thought-provoking.

While reading, one of the essays on the theory of evolution and what Neo-Darwinists have unfortunately done with it, I was struck by an idea. Part of the striking goes back to a post I made not long ago on how so many classic authors are seriously, if not maliciously, misquoted, as the victim this time is not Adam Smith but Charles Darwin. Now there's a really nice guy that got a bum deal.

To almost everyone, Mr. Darwin is known for his evolutionary principle of the "survival of the fittest". As you might have guessed, though, Charles never said, nor wrote that. Truth be told, he adamantly opposed the notion which was actually put forth and promoted by Herbert Spencer, not unsurprisingly an economist (because we saw in that other post what happens apparently when economists read, or something like that). Of course, these days, economists are quick to quote this non-Darwinian "truth". No, Darwin himself promoted the idea of "cooperation" as the most favorable factor in evolutionary survival and benefit. He spent years hoping to find a genetic link to it, of course, without success.

This blarney about the fittest (meaning in most instances the so-called strongest) surviving is a one of those ideas that appear intuitively obvious and brilliant, until you think about them. The strongest is the one that has to constantly prove his strength, so he's the one that fights the most and has, as a matter of simple consequence, the greatest chance of gettting killed. While all the tough guys were out and about getting their genes eliminated from the gene pool, the more reflective (and I'll readily admit, cowardly), but certainly more cooperative types were adapting our plans to get through this life and our genes into succeeding generations. And what the overwhelming evidence that we have for the notion of evolution is that we cooperative types were simply more successful, as is the case in every other species on earth.

Put another way, those who are willing to share -- quite simply, adjust their behavior positively toward others -- be it food, shelter, knowledge, comfort, and love, live longer in this life and through the lives of their offspring.

Similarly, Stan Tenen at the Meru Foundation has pointed out that not only is the so-called Golden Rule the most widely spread principle common to all the world's religions, he reminds us that the science writer Michael Shermer has argued that the Golden Rule "does not rest on any underlying religious belief, but rather is simply the most logical and reasonable way for a human to behave". That is, doing to others as you'd like them to do unto you is, well, the essence of sharing, isn't it?

Those who think the world is too huge and complex for us to understand are simply avoiding the obvious. In the end, at bottom, life is really rather simple. For as complex as evolution may seem to be, it works best for those who share. For as much as we like to insist on how different the different religions are, they share the most fundamental tenent in common. And for those who think that science and religion are incompatible, well, apparently you never really stopped to look at or think about either.

Quite often, life is only as tough as we make it.

No, not yet ... please

For all of you who haven't quite caught on yet: no, today is not the First Day of Christmas. For that, you have to wait another 12 days. You're going to have to be patient. If you're wondering what I'm talking about, go here and find out. If you're disappointed, well, sorry, somebody had to tell you sometime.

What's often fascinated me the most about this joyous season of the year is that there are many, many businesses that generate 75% or more of their revenues during these few weeks. What do they do the rest of the year? If they're in retail, do they just wait around for customers who never come, paying rent on space they're not really using, paying employees who aren't really doing anything? I'd be the last person to fire the people. I think these companies should continue to pay the employees, close down the store, and re-open when it's worth it. And are there still factories cranking out stuff year round even though they're only going to unload it at the very end of the year? How inefficient is that? What kind of bonuses do those CEOs get?

Are you starting to get the hint that maybe -- just maybe -- some of the stuff we do -- and place so much value on -- are simply, well, nonsensical?

We're strange creatures, we human beings. Recently, I (re-)read a quote from Charles Darwin: "It is not the strongest or most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change." Personally, I think he's right on this one. And then I see us buzzing around in our pre-Christmas frenzy, doing the same things as the year before, causing the same problems as the year before, buying the same junk as the year before, giving it to the same people as the year before, or, if I'm a business, finally greeting those same customers as the year before, or receiving the same orders as the year before, and counting my money as the year before, and I start wondering what it means if Chuck was right. If he is, we're doomed.

OK, I'll admit it: I think we're doomed anyway, and it's not Christmas all by itself that is going to be our undoing. No, it's deeper than that. Christmas is just one of the many examples of how human beings do the same thing over and over again but expect different results. That, according to Einstein -- no intellectual slacker -- is the definition of insanity.

As far as I'm concerned, Christmas is as good a reason as any to be jolly. Fa-la-la-la-la-la-la, but watching the scene play out, I have to admit that I do wonder a bit about our sanity. There's a big difference between feeling merry and simply being out there where the busses don't run.

Time to talk

Violence is a sign of total frustration. When someone is backed into a corner and escape seems impossible, a common response is simply violence.

It is particularly sad, however, when it is the government – be it municipal, state, or federal – which feels compelled to act this way, for they are, at least in theory, servants of the public. I know it doesn't seem like it. Politics and governance have appeared to take on a lives of their own, or at least they appear to be living in their own little world. That's another sign of being overwhelmed by reality: retreating into one's own world.

For a good number of people, this is the time to find the guilty and ensure they are punished, but that's a really bad idea. Not only is there no one single entity, institution, group or person who can be blamed. We're all to blame. As George Carlin once quipped, "You're here, you're guilty, end of story." Well, almost. This is not the time to fix the blame, it's time to start fixing the problem.

Why? Because we're so good at it? Hardly. Because we know what needs to be done? Not in the least? Because we have a good chance of coming to a consensus on the way forward? Absolutely not. No, we have to start working on the fix simply because we have no choice. We've ranted and raved, thrown things, broken lots of stuff, almost burned the place to the ground, but, as expected, none of that has helped. No, now we have to take a deep breath, get calm, look each other in the eye, and do what we've practically forgotten how to do: we've got to start talking with one another.

You'll notice I said "with" ... not "to" or "at", not "out", "down" or "up". No, with. We've got to re-learn the lost arts of listening, reflecting, considering, questioning, and discussing. None of these need to be done with complete objective coolness. Passion is allowed, but not obsession. Assertiveness is allowed, but not abuse. Vigor is allowed, but not violence. But we have to start talking again.

Discussion is not a financial or economic method, so the moment we exchanged our society for a mere economy, we took away from ourselves perhaps our most powerful human problem-solving tool. We exchanged cleverness for clubs, reason for rubber bullets, and common sense for sonic cannons.

A recent article in New Scientist [online] by David Sloan Wilson, entitled "Selfless evolution: An idea rejected" shows how even Darwin acknowledged the necessity for a group selection function in evolution, that the Spencerian notion of "the survival of the fittest" has only short-term, but never long-term benefits. And the recent financial crisis has shown -- once again -- what happens when you think short-term for too long a time. Cooperation, not competition, is the strategic approach, and societies are (or at least should be) based on cooperation. So, it's time to put the economy in its place, take back our society and start talking again. My grandkids will thank you all for it, believe me.

The myth of the individual

Human beings are odd creatures. We have the longest post-natal dependency of any primate, maybe of any mammal. After all, we are carried internally by our mothers for nine months; it's nine more months till we can even walk (if we're doing well), and if things are going according to plan, we can eat most of what the adults are eating, if it is prepared properly. Some of us never learn to obtain and make food for ourselves (fast food doesn't count ... it may not even be "food"). We can't construct our own dwellings ... well, we really have to ask ourselves what we are capable of doing on our own at all.

On the other hand, we were given supposedly large brains. That is, we ended up with brains that are allegedly capable of more intellectual processing power than any of our mammalian relatives, that provide us with some sort of evolutionary advantage, that make us just "smarter". Anyone who stops to look out into the world quickly realizes that this must be a generalized statement, for there are just too many individual instances in which this apparently does not apply. Nevertheless, some maintain that we compensate for physical and hence environmental disadvantages by compensating with intelligence.

Let's assume, just for the sake of argument, that this is the case. What does it mean in the grand scheme of things? Why is it that we human beings have been able to subjugate nature, as we have (whether the way in which we have done it was good or not is a different issue altogether), and rise to the top of the "food chain" when we are really so apparently unsuited for life in the natural world?

If we stop and reflect for a moment instead of just repeating the platitudes we're so often fed, it slowly becomes apparent that humans have been evolutionarily so successful because they don't have to rely on themselves in any way. Let's go back. We aren't mobile on our own for nine months, we can still easily get lost in strange surroundings at nine years. We can't do anything really and don't know anything till we are taught -- by others, either in the family, community, or, in the West, in school. We can't fend for ourselves, we don't grow our own food, we can't build our own dwellings, we don't make our own clothes. We just buy it, if possible, whenever we need it.

We can do this, of course, because we, as a species, are smart enough to utilize the division of labor relatively effectively and because we have the ability to cooperate with others. There is a growing body of evidence (see David Sloan Wilson, My New Scientist [online], Magazine Issue 2824, August 3, 2011) that group selection, for example, predominates over individual selection in evolution. In other words, the very idea that cooperation is in all probability a more powerful evolutionary factor than competition should give us pause to think about the role we ascribe to the individual in our modern society.

Modern western society, in particular industrialized society, places an inordinate amount of emphasis on the individual. Capitalism itself is the new religion of the individual. It is the CEO who makes or breaks the company, hence the need to reward him or her appropriately. It is the individual investor who makes or breaks his own success. It is the quarterback (alone) who leads the team to victory; it is the coach (alone) who causes the team to fail. It is the individual gold medalist who receives more praise at the championships than the relay team. It is the individual who makes or breaks himself in the competition of life. I grew up having this pounded into my own head, from John Wayne to Ronald Reagan, but it never quite made sense to me.

No, the idea of the lone individual meeting and overcoming the odds is as illusory as the ancient myths in which gods on Olympus (or wherever) intervened in the affairs of humans. The individual is just him or herself. No more, no less. This individual is worth respect and admiration as long as whatever s/he does benefits the group that allows that person to stand forth and shine, but no more. The individual who aggrandizes him or herself at the expense of others, though, deserves simply to be ostracized. If you really believe you can do it all on your own, then go out on your own and show us you can do it. If we want to stop a good portion of the insanity that we seem to be overwhelmed with these days, then maybe we only need to put things back into their proper perspective: WE is and always will be more important than ME.