The True Purpose of Philosophy

    Given the current state of things, I was impelled to expand on the topic. I was brought up with a fairly common attitude (I judge) about Philosophy, what it is, what it does, and what it is for. Essentially, the belief is that Philosophy is for stuffy old men who have no real-world skills and it exists within a closed system—a bit like a snake eating its own tail—passing itself as science. This leads to a number of outcomes: it discourages any respect or appreciation for Philosophy, disconnects it from "the real world", discounts anything associated with it, makes the pursuit of, or ever interest in, Philosophy "silly", and undermines the contributions it has made to society and the world. I had minimal exposure, as I think is common, in my education and it mainly left me with the impression that it was something that happened 'long ago and far away'. Words like "ancient" and "lofty" would come to mind if I had been asked to describe Philosophy. Now, this may seem backwards or absurd to those who had any kind of broad education (as I expect most often happens outside the U.S.). I understand if that is the case, but want to be clear that even if this is not universal within my country of residence, it is common enough. In part, I make the point for outsiders looking at the U.S., potentially wondering why so many clearly incorrect beliefs and so much false information continues to make the rounds. In part, at least, I can attribute it to a lack of critical thinking skills because of the above attitudes about Philosophy.

    We come now to the reason and title of this post. If Philosophy is not just an erudite, ego-stroking, idealistic pursuit of useless nonsense, what is it? In actuality, it is a means to determine truth despite being flawed humans. This is my own simplistic way of explaining, of course, but I came to understand the value of Philosophy once I began to study Psychology and Neurobiology. We learn that human brains are not actually "thinking machines", but are error-riddled assumption devices. There are numerous popular books nowadays which explain that our perceptions are filtered through expectations, our brains manipulate sensory information to make "sense" of reality, and we can be completely convinced within our own thinking of something that is patently false. In fact, all these things happen within every individual everywhere all the time every day. We are not "observing" reality, we are actually "interpreting" the world around us. Once we understand this, it behooves us to find ways to correct for these automatic, internal processes and potentially construct ways to counteract the errors they create. This is, in effect, the basis of Philosophy: to check the things we think in order to error-correct the innate ways our brains process information.

    Let us take a couple practical examples, because there are certainly more esoteric areas. On first exposure to Logic, it can look like a collection of silly "if, then" statements. However, it is a part of Philosophy dealing with how to establish if something holds true and if the steps in arriving at a conclusion actually make sense. Recognizing this, it begins to have more utility to everyone. Next, Epistemology is a big, unwieldy word that seems to bear no resemblance to any other (again, a simplistic excuse to dismiss it). In actuality, it deals with establishing how we know what we know. Quite fundamental, and useful, one might begin to think. Instead of assuming the factual nature of whatever pops into our consciousness, we can interrogate this idea and establish if it does agree with reality. The way that philosophers approach and use this system is part of what makes it rigorous, along with actually making it the basis for much science—in addition to a science unto itself.

Hopefully, this is helpful in some way, and possibly can demonstrate to others who still hold the attitude I did previously how important and practical Philosophy can be. Instead of relegating it to history or uselessness, as it seems happens with most of the education around this topic in the U.S., we might better integrate this into our curriculum. In many ways, it is an oddity that this has not happened already. I do not need to attribute this to any sort of nefarious conspiracy, but it does seem to aid in making fools and dupes out of the citizenry.

A Nation of Placebo Addicts

Essentially, it strikes me as dis-empowering and potentially opening people up to exploitation that we do not address the role of placebos. Many, if not most are aware of their existence, but the ramifications seem to make no difference in how we approach healthcare, as well as other areas.

The power of the placebo effect is essentially to "trick" a person into feeling better. That is, by applying a neutral intervention (therapy, pill, or other treatment), the person is able to heal or to speed recovery. This improvement is often attributed to the "natural power of the body to heal itself", but there seem to be a couple components that make it more than just wishful thinking. First, of course, the 'patient' believes that the intervention will work. This is crucial, and the part that leads to mis-attribution to super-natural causes. The second is the setting and/or provider, which lends credence to the intervention. Think about the difference between getting a prescription from a respectable, older-looking person wearing a white lab coat in a clean and modern clinic versus being tossed a bottle by a ratty, greasy guy in torn jeans outside the local mini-mart. Similarly, the difference between listening to your favorite music on a quality sound system at home versus sitting quietly in the audience of demure sophisticates at an intimate performance versus being in a raucous crowd of drugged-up hippies at a standing-room-only event. The setting influences your experience, for better or worse. These two factors, personal expectations of and the setting around an intervention, lead to how successful a placebo is. Being explicit, or telling a patient, about a placebo can actually have little impact on the outcome.

How much better would it be to use this power intentionally? Properly asserting that the power lies with me, rather than outside myself, we could build a more whole society of confident people. Of course, it would be vital to acknowledge the limitations of placebos, and continue to rely on appropriate treatment for medical conditions. However, adding in that it is important how we perceive our own treatment—the positive or negative attitude we hold—could improve our odds of success. At the very least, it highlights how treatment is a joint effort between provider and patient, rather than a supplicant begging for healing from a god-like Doctor, as it has historically been portrayed. This is where the dis-empowerment comes in.

Additionally, there is potential in utilizing this tendency in order to dismiss quackery and scams. By assuming that a positive belief will tend to improve chances of success, we can analyze failure more critically. Recognizing the tendency to 'fall for' something we want to work, but that does not perform, could be important. When something succeeds, we may be more likely to examine whether it was due to sheer placebo effect. From media to "alternative medicine", knowing that we are improving conditions for ourselves just through our approach. Because we believe in the TV personality (the 'setting' of the 'treatment'), we could question whether it was the placebo effect all along. Rather than relying on "experts" we could get better at spotting quacks and fraudsters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo

https://www.health.harvard.edu/mental-health/the-power-of-the-placebo-effect

This One Simple Trick....

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.

The above quote comes from John Muir, an important figure from the 19th century.

Life is never one thing at a time, but that is how we tend to convey or discuss things. The singular focus of an essay, the headline that conveys one idea, the single-solution presentation, or the click-bait advertisement are at once attention-grabbing and succinct enough to "drive engagement". One major contributor to this is the endless demand of time from so many competing areas. With limited time for comprehension, the tendency is to be pulled to shorter and shorter answer-focused outlets. So much of what we read, watch, and listen to is designed to be consumed quickly—and often to provide the answers without the understanding an audience deserves. Worse still is the exploitation of this time crunch by those who wish to sway opinion, and provide not just quick, but emotionally manipulative material. This allows them to dictate what is important and what should be done about it to a credulous, if weary, audience.

The concern here is treating others as means to one's own ends, which is what describing and treating people as "consumers" or "customers" does. Working our own ends upon others as though their value is only what they can provide us is simply in-humane. Once more, however, this is an expedient solution to the quandary of how to deal with others, and not just in a business context. Essentially, we have here the "How to Win Friends and Influence People" approach, which shows how to use tricks to get others to submit. It is a perspective that has inveigled its way into popular consciousness through much of the self-help industry. This approach is not actually about helping oneself to be a better human, improve connection, or understand others, rather how to achieve goals despite the needs, beliefs, and actions of others. The scam-or-be-scammed view on life reduces us to mere exploitation machines, each desperate not to be duped. It also makes the world a worse place to live in. Thinking of others as obstacles to be overcome, rather than fully human beings with goals and inherent dignity of their own is—and here I will be blatantly prescriptive—wrong. It creates a world where people tend to experience insult and disregard, which entices them to do the same. This attitude then spreads, influencing more people, and continues the chain of desperate individuals attempting to dupe others before they get duped. By pointing this out, I actually do hope to influence you, but in the other direction.

The inherent difficulty of writing [because I write, but this also applies to visual or audio works] is how it does not—and cannot—convey reality. Both intentionally and unintentionally, writers use what's pertinent, important, attractive, or persuasive. This immediately narrows what can be included, and reduces the full context to something more easily digestible. At best, it is a distillation of the nebulous and illumination of the dimly understood. Too often, it is bullying or prescriptive and lacks respect for the reader. I can only hope that my own efforts are about starting or expanding conversations by sharing from an unusual perspective. As we come to it now, at the end of an essay it is common to make the "call to arms" or present an "actionable item" which will solve the elucidated problem. Simply, we need to get better at nuance. This, however, necessitates a number of other steps, such as: comfort with uncertainty, expecting disagreement, accepting differences, willingness to change (opinions and more), and devoting time to topics. These are all just thoughts, however, until some of you readers decide to act on them; in essence, this does not matter until you make it.

At least, I hope, the wending path of this blog post suffices to demonstrate the continued truth of the included quote. It may be that is the message, that when we begin to consider others, we find it leads back to ourselves.

The Future is Waiting, Part Three: Fulfills its Promise

     We have arrived at the real issue at hand: what makes systems non-democratic is not the monarch, nor slavery, nor a state religion, nor even disenfranchisement. Those are merely outgrowths of the underlying cause. Rather, the reason they are non-democratic is commoners being kept artificially disempowered by a ‘ruling class’ in order to perpetuate the hierarchical structure that benefits the few at the expense of the many. This can take many forms, and gets re-invented with every iteration of government and economic system. When we citizens are barely involved and have our concerns disregarded until we have ‘enough’ polling numbers or news coverage, that is non-democratic. When only elite individuals and corporations have the ears of legislators, judges, and the executive, that is non-democratic. When income and earning decides the value of a person (especially to the extent that they will be seen as ‘worth saving’ or mourning), that is non-democratic. We are left with the disappointing conclusion that what exists in the U.S. is not—and never has been—a democracy, which can be described as a system designed to be run by its citizenry. We are simply living in a system which disguises the continued oligarchy (or plutocracy) that actually guides the government and therefore the nation. This is far from a democracy; it may be an outgrowth of capitalism, but has naught to do with bettering everyone in the nation by banding together as a society. Democracy is the rule of all for the benefit of all; in the U.S., a “…government of the people, by the people, and for the people….” Again, it doesn’t matter whether the system is called capitalist, socialist, democratic, communist, or otherwise, what matters are the underlying assumptions and principles of the society betrayed by the laws and practices of that society. In the ongoing structure of the U.S., we can see how the foundational beliefs of expansion, conquest, and supremacy have continued in the unwillingness to discuss racism and treaties signed with native peoples, the ongoing resistance to action and legislation on equality (let alone equity), the lack of accountability of elected officials to citizens, and the continued extraction of resources from land and people by business to the detriment of society. We do not have a mindset of democracy-in-action; there is not a basis of mutual respect and willingness to work together which is required of citizens who wish to conduct the administration of their community.
     In order for any change to happen, it must first seem possible. So many people seem to believe that history is over, and that things are set. Similarly, some believe that there is an inexorable march towards “progress” and advancements cannot be lost. Neither is true. This is because we have not “arrived” at some “pinnacle of civilization”, nor are we “done” changing. This is a problem with thinking of society and history as an “evolution” and erroneously thinking of evolution as some “ascension” to an end goal. It is further ridiculous to enshrine the “founding fathers” as some apex of learning and thinking. They were men of their time, and wholly human; flawed and pursuing their interests while blind to the needs of many others. This does not make them bad for their efforts, simply not of a time when they could conceive of actual equality for all citizens. It is absurd, therefore, to dismiss all we have learned since the founding of the country which indicate improvements to be made. In democracy, the government is meant to be the structure which enacts the decisions of the populace to support the continued advancement of the nation as a whole. Sometimes that can mean a radical departure from the original course. Recognize that, if we had held to those original agreements, a significant majority of current citizens of this country would not be considered as such, rather they would be seen as property. We are better than that, both in morality and in knowledge. In truth, the purpose in building something is often in order to bring the next possibility into existence. For example, wooden frames are constructed in order to provide support for the concrete poured into the form. Once the concrete sets, it creates the foundation for the house which is the end goal of all the effort. Those wooden forms are as essential to the process as the finished product, as the foundation could not exist but for those forms. Similarly, one would not consider a plan or blueprint as frivolous. Without a blueprint, we cannot know how to build the structure we seek to inhabit. Just because the plan is not the structure does not mean it is unnecessary. The current iteration of democracy is simply meant to be the form which holds the space for what will be built on top, the next step in our construction project. This essay is an invitation to discuss what we want this next structure to look like. It requires input from everyone to come up with the plan to build a structure such as a democratic government. I submit that the real democratic revolution is about to begin and that the past 250 years have been but the preamble. This revolution of thinking is not just to do away with the few ‘elites’ owning and ruling, since that is not the real issue. It is to establish that each and every commoner is just as valuable a human being as any ruler. Really, that there is nothing special or unique about an emperor, president, judge, or CEO that most others could not fill the same function—given similar opportunities and education.
     Currently, rather than every citizen having an equal voice, people are silenced, marginalized, or preoccupied so they cannot fully participate in decision-making. A participating citizen requires time and education to understand and debate the matters which require governance; without those foundations, a citizen is unprepared and disadvantaged. This is because along with the rights of citizens, there are also responsibilities which accompany democracy, such as acting in good faith and being informed. This is the unfulfilled promise of compulsory education: to provide the skills and knowledge which enable citizens to participate fully. No person (even a legislator whose job is literally to evaluate, negotiate, and enact laws) can possibly do so; without these basics, there is no “informed citizenry”. Even if it were true that some people lacked the skill, knowledge, capacity, etc. currently, it would still be the duty of every person “in power” to help create a system that worked for and included a pathway for such folks to achieve capacity. Living in a society pre-supposes a willingness to be among people who are different than myself (since we are, all of us, unique), as much as recognize what we share in common. Further, in a democracy, it is necessary to accept differences and to work with others to make the community a healthy place for all. This is where mutual respect, compromise, and good faith negotiation are important. This is a suitable introduction of another tenet of democracy, whereby citizens are obligated to participate in the system of governance—not just be subjects. This is as much right as it is responsibility, as much burden as privilege. It is presumed to be the role of citizens, acting in accord, creating consensus, and using their collective agreements to make the laws and enact the will of those same citizens. These cannot be taken lightly, nor from a position of supplication or ignorance. A citizen who does not know how to debate, reconcile, compromise, accept new information, and respect another’s opinion and experience is not in a good position. Finally, we must allow for the sheer time that it requires to participate and debate the issues of our communities. Being forced to work just to earn enough to survive is an absurdity in the modern world. To do so without any guarantee of survival when unable to work is madness. It is this repugnant treadmill which traps people in poverty and despair, eliminating even their children’s chance at improvement. This modern slavery is even experienced by citizens who consider themselves to be “doing ok”—only because this means they can remain in place with less effort than some. It does not mean they have time to spend with family, or improve themselves, and certainly not taking time to participate in community affairs. These issues, along with other obstacles to participation, need to be addressed in order to secure our democracy and create a more powerful citizenry.
     With that in mind, I wish to recognize a few impediments, and acknowledge some facts about power and oppression. It often happens that whenever an oppressed people rise to power, there is a tendency toward retribution. Even without eliminating former oppressors, the ascending group will tend to re-institute a system of oppression, just with the “sides” swapped. Abuse of power does not require villainy, or even ill intent; it can come from a belief that there are persons or groups who are incapable of change or meaningful contribution. However, when people become convinced of such differences, and especially the in-humanity of another group, serious evil can be incited. It can be as simple as “I’m just looking out for me and mine”; this basis of selfishness directs systems towards an imbalanced outcome. It is about controlling the uncontrollable; the notion that the only way I can create safety for myself and my family is by outlawing or owning all potential threats. This inevitably impacts those outside the deciding group, since those peoples’ concerns are not heard or accounted for in the decisions. In order to prevent yet another iteration of oligarchy and oppression, we must act with conscious intent and radical acceptance. The democracy created must have a different basis in order to accomplish this shift away from historical oppressions. A true democracy most likely will need to be imposed upon those currently holding power, as those in control are often loathe to relinquish it—but this must also be done with central beliefs in the worth of each individual and the benefits of including all. Otherwise, there can be no democracy with equality and power for all citizens. We need to be able to make things happen, and can only do that if we are able to talk with each other. It is, after all, the object of community to have conversations and find answers together.
     In saying all the previous, I am pointing out one simple fact: we have tried every iteration of hierarchical structure possible. Every attempt throughout history has a vulnerability to those seeking power in order to consolidate and structure things such that they remain in power. This can be seen in monarchies, monopolies, and disenfranchisement; each concentrates power, and—once concentrated—that power is doled out as pleases those who demanded no one else have it. The issue is less the tendency to organize into hierarchy, but rather the idea that some persons are more suited to rule (or be ruled). This is the fundamental notion which gives rise to many problems we face. Even before the modern concept of “races” of humans existed, there were those considered above and others below. Likewise, in systems of trade before money, there were people considered of a ‘higher class’ than others. These hierarchical notions do not rely on capitalist oppression or racist doctrines to exist, they simply fit in more easily within these constructs. Obviously, a monarch is seen as “better than” commoners; we discussed how this was the argument made for why they were meant for rule. That is the self-evident example which, by abolishing “titles of nobility” we fooled ourselves into thinking we had solved this underlying problem. However, the insidious notion that some are better than others has persisted and continues to disrupt our societies and retard progress. It is time to try out something which is actually different, because no hierarchy has ever brought “liberty and justice for all”. This idea that a ruler had something special and uniquely different about them infects most thinking about ‘rule’ and government. It is this infection that a real democracy would address. In order to achieve actual independence, a lasting justice, and a true democracy, it requires a fundamental shift in thinking about power and each other. It is first by acknowledging this infection as the driving force behind many of our problems that we can discuss ways to correct it. We must stop the cycling of shame, whereby some must be ‘other’ and ‘lesser’ so that others can claim or believe themselves “better-than”. It is imperative that we accept that we are all fundamentally similar with exactly the same worth in our common society. We must also accept the responsibility of our power, individually and collectively; this means to claim our status as valued and respected members of society, as well as demanding that we have the capacity (i.e. time and money) to participate in our government. Once we establish the expectation that each person has a valid perspective and none of us will be sacrificed for the rest will we be able to act in ways different than our history. Only when all citizens truly are equal will we have succeeded in finally overcoming this fundamental obstacle. It is only by distributing power, as in a true democracy, that power cannot become a weapon used by some against the rest.

 

Edit October 2022: for a more scholarly look at this topic see Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress—and a Plan to Stop It by Lawrence Lessig.

The Future is Waiting, Part Two: the Mythology of Democracy in America

     Once more—for clarity and to ensure we are working from compatible understandings of current systems—let us quickly outline contemporary “democracy”. This will allow us to contrast our circumstances with those historical examples of non-democracy we established above. I will assert that, as with individuals, it is much easier for societies and nations to point to the shortcomings or wrongdoings of others than to admit their own faults. The U.S. often looks out at the rest of the world and says “there is despotism, there is repression, and there is where inequality resides”—even when such abuses at home are evident. I hope that the desire to accurately understand things will overcome this tendency. Also, although I will be using examples from the U.S., I invite you to think of your own which mirror the points outlined here. We previously discussed how non-democratic systems were variations of ‘rule from above with impunity’. The fundamental aspects of democracy are that every person matters equally and the power of governance is shared; that all citizens are able to be heard and participate in the decisions of the community. In this context, “community” means neighborhood, town, county, state, and nation; all public (meaning “not privately held”) areas are subject to the rule of that community. The trouble is that for any discussion to be productive, there need to be parties willing to hear others and accept their own power and responsibility in the issue under debate. What is currently typical is people screaming about their own pain or fear. That is one of the difficulties we face, which stems from the very state of being human, that we must work to communicate and to listen to understand others. It takes time to hear from someone else, and it takes effort on the listener’s part to understand what is said, along with the speaker’s need to know they have been heard. All this work is supposed to be part of the democratic system: to hear the concerns of citizens, to study issues brought to the attention of elected government representatives, and debate the best course of action in order to address said concerns. These truths are expressed in sentiments such as: the government is “subject to the will of the people”, “one person, one vote”, and “liberty and justice for all”. Most modern “democracies” have done away with rulers by dividing the powers of government between different assemblies and persons. In the U.S., there are 3 major sections (often called “branches”) of government: the legislative makes laws, the judicial interprets laws, and the executive enforces laws. It is also common to have a “representative democracy”; this means that rather than directly participating in the particulars of government, citizens elect representatives to deal on their behalf. This allows citizens to go about their personal interests, rather than be consumed by governmental administration: committees, appointing positions, writing bills, oversight, diplomacy, and debating issues. This basic outline leads to a few questions which can demonstrate the current state of “democracy”. These are: why do representatives make particular decisions, how are laws applied, and in what ways are citizens involved?
     It is important to recognize that anytime one person represents another, or a group, that representative has a tremendous responsibility and obligation. This is the reason attorneys require contracts with clients, as well as why there are such serious consequences for malpractice. While it has never been the case that government simply enacts citizens’ wishes (the “will of the people”), we can assume it is partly due to the difficultly of knowing what that really is. Representatives have typically relied upon citizen engagement; this means people caring enough about something to voice their opinions on the topic. In modern terms, it is more of an “opt-in” system than “opt-out”, meaning that as long as there is little objection from citizens, everything is presumed to be acceptable. If it were the opposite, representatives would need to account for each constituent and build consensus which included all. Given the sheer number of both issues and citizens in modern times, we can see that it is quicker and simpler to rely on public outcry. However, it is non-democratic to bring up an issue to representatives and walk away; to hand over to an official the entire process, whereby they will “take care of it” for citizens. This is both because it removes citizen input from the solution, as well as their oversight. Also, while a larger group has more influence and obviously represents a greater number of citizens, it does not mean that minority opinions are invalidated, which highlights the notion of each citizen counting equally. Yet this is the way it is treated currently, whereby the simple majority of folks agreeing to something is taken to mean it will work for everyone. This is patently absurd, as evidenced by disenfranchisement, slavery, and criminalizing gender/sexuality. These all had supposed “majority support”, yet remain morally abhorrent and civilly untenable—aside from being obvious tactics to subjugate groups and prevent equality. Returning to the question of representatives’ decision-making, the complexity of modern systems compel representatives to rely upon subject-matter experts in issues of governance (i.e. taxes, electrical grids, or mining). When there are an equal number of opponents and supporters, it can come down to which group has experts on their side. This can easily lead to business interests steering the debate, and thus policy, related to areas they work in; especially when all the experts on the subject work for a private company. Let us take a step back from this in order to address how representatives get elected in the first place. Those who run for office must be financed in some way, as it takes money to campaign in an election. Once again, this process relies upon interested parties; at least in this case, every citizen is interested. It should be then, according to our understanding of democracy, that every citizen’s opinion and vote will count equally in an election. However, while a citizen is typically only going to vote for and contribute to one candidate for any position, a company is not so limited. While times have changed, and Tammany Hall is no longer ascendant, the manipulation of public sentiment has not been done away with. While most are familiar with a “smear campaign”, whereby a candidate is painted as undesirable or unfit for office, the growth of social media provides a new canvas. The erosion of healthy media and competent journalists and growth of “alternative media” has lead to regular citizens preferring to trust information from their “friends”. This has fed into the tendency to rely on social media platforms—despite the growing recognition of fake accounts and bot farms which propagate false and/or misleading information. Much of what has been learned about psychology is used against citizens, such as disinformation, game theory, investment thinking, and in-group/out-group biases. Rather than buying votes, non-person entities can simply spend money to drive fear campaigns which swing voters. It is not even that people have to switch sides and vote for what that entity wants, it can simply be dissuading voters from participating, creating uncertainty where there was clarity, or clouding the results after voting concludes. It cannot be the case where each vote is counted equally, when influence, advertisements, propaganda, disinformation, and search/suggestion algorithms are all exerting undue influence on the minds of citizens. Let us complete our brief overview of the election process. The simplest way for a candidate to run for an office is to join a political party, as those have the expertise in fund-raising and advertising for campaigns. In recent years the process of elections are treated less as a way of representing communities and their interests than they are seen as a contest between parties. This leads to careful grooming of candidates in order to present their “most likely to succeed”. These will typically be a person from an accepted/majority group, and therefore not connected to those already under-represented. Representatives need never serve in public office again, as donors can certainly profit from a single-term investment—as that official will have a bright future in the private sector upon leaving office. This is a common enough occurrence that people will refer to the “revolving door of public service”: the process of persons achieving public offices and utilizing that station to make decisions favorable to private businesses, then returning to their service in those businesses after leaving office. Another component is that of lobbyists (sometimes those same ‘revolving door’ individuals) whose political experience and familiarity with law-makers allow them greater access to steer representatives towards stances favorable to business. These ideas do not come from the communities they impact, from the citizens who live there, or those elected representatives; they certainly do not reflect a benefit to those communities—despite businesses’ constant claims that they will. Look to the ongoing water crisis in Michigan (and increasingly elsewhere) or mining industry disasters (Exxon Valdez, Rio Tinto, fracking, or Deepwater Horizon) in order to understand how government lobbyists lead to worse conditions for communities. Additionally, this illustrates the ability for the process to silence or marginalize citizens’ voices. It is remarkably difficult to meet and talk with representatives, and more difficult still to appeal to that official in a manner equal to that of a lobbyist. The goal of politics in a democracy is to resolve complex, difficult issues in order to serve society and citizens. There is precious little of this in the past few decades, with politicians preferring to make grand-standing declarations from absolutist positions before walking away from debate and resolution.
    Next, let us address the question of how law is applied by the judicial section of government. Whereas in non-democratic systems there was one rule for the commoners and a different set for the aristocracy, democracy is supposed to apply the same laws in the same ways to all. The judiciary is meant to be “objective” in making decisions about what the laws mean in specific instances.The clearest demonstration of judicial partiality comes from implicit bias tests, although citizens can see the real-world results of different judicial outcomes based upon skin color just by the percentage of incarcerated people of color. Even if the “impartial” ideal were met, it is a system with its own language, paperwork nearly inaccessible and incomprehensible to laypersons, rife with counter-intuitive traps, and subject to obscure previous rulings. The adversarial legal system may allow for spirited debate, but it becomes simply another game of “winner-take-all” based upon who can afford the better attorney. Given the disproportionate distribution of money in the country, it seems self-evident that there can be no “blind justice”. Even given attorneys of equal talent, a public defender (guaranteed by a relatively recent ruling on the 6th Amendment) is overworked, underpaid, and understaffed, as well as facing the difficult task of convincing a biased judge who wants to keep their position in the next election and therefore cannot appear “weak on crime”. The number of forced plea deals and persons wrongly convicted further demonstrates the lack of equality and justice in our legal system; it hints at the central issue with this section of government: that the application of law is about something other than legal protection of citizens. The “corporate citizen” argument is a common one throughout modern history—even outside the legal system. This notion is often invoked when companies argue for concessions from local governments; it is claimed that as an “upstanding, caring, and neighborly corporate citizen”, the company will obviously do all it can to benefit the community once it establishes an office, plant, or hub there. Again, look to the examples in the previous section, or Nike, De Beers, Apple, and countless other companies which utilize slave labor under euphemisms like “sweatshops”. The logical end to the legal fiction of “corporate citizen” is that their “right of free speech and expression should not be infringed upon”; this leads to companies “expressing” politically via money. One recent example of how the judiciary impacts citizens’ voices and ability to participate is the Supreme Court of the U.S. ruling in Citizens United v FEC. This was decided in such a way that allows for unlimited political contributions by corporations, obviously placing the general populace at a significant disadvantage.
    Finally, let us sum up the answers to the question of how citizens are involved in this government “of, by, and for the people”. Representatives are elected, by a plurality vote, to work towards the interests of their constituents. If elections are the major time each citizen ‘counts’, then it is indeed vital. I will submit that it is incorrect to relegate citizens’ roles in government to simply that of “voter”. Returning to the matter of elections, the choice of candidates is pre-selected via a “party” process. This demands wide recognition and broad acceptance, leading to the possibility to get enough votes to succeed. Citizens’ opinions are shaped by what they learn from trusted sources, which become heavily influenced by business interests during an election (and, increasingly, outside those brief periods). Once in office, representatives are meant to listen to citizens’ needs and act on them. However, there is no mechanism to compile all citizens’ voices, or for representatives to demonstrate they align with constituents. The decision can come down to who seems to make the most impact on that representative (which can simply mean money) or upon the media (meaning their chance for re-election or removal). This leads to the judicial branch, whereby citizens petition to sanction a representative, remedy some error on the part of the legislature, or make a change that could not be passed into law. Think of the numerous court cases brought to challenge Jim Crow laws and then to force Civil Rights legislation into reality. These judicial actions were always costly and never guaranteed to bring the results that citizens wanted—or even what the laws required. These battles can be with non-person entities afforded the same protections as citizens, without the same limitations and with immensely greater resources. Often, these cases would rely upon media attention to raise citizen awareness of a great injustice. While media is (mostly) outside the government, and so outside the scope of this essay, it certainly demonstrates the need for the public to be accurately informed about issues, especially ones they have no direct experience with. This summary obviously does not include the final component to government, which is the executive. This is because there is little for citizens to do about this single individual besides removal from office. The executive is essentially a “manager” in charge of the administration of laws and government; do not mistake me as calling it trivial, just that there is little influence citizens have in this area except through their representatives or judiciary.
    We can conclude that answer to the above questions about the function of government officials is to maintain power; whether a representative seeks re-election or a private business position, or a judge affirms a decision to maintain “separate but equal” facilities, these functionaries are protecting power. That this is true in particular cases or in general is immaterial, because it is a conclusion we can make based upon the facts of the situation. If it were impossible to make this connection, we could be assured that the government was operating under the will of the people and democratically. I contend that these simple examples demonstrate how democracy is lacking from government and how much is still under the control of a small group of individuals. This leads into the final section of this essay, and the conclusions which we can draw from the information we have outlined.

 

Edit October 2022: for greater examination of historical information, see Why the West Rules—For Now: The Patterns of History, and What They Reveal About the Future, by Ian Morris.

The Future is Waiting, Part One: in the Throes of History

     With all the ‘debate’ (read: protests, vitriol, insurrection, conspiracy theories, disinformation, etc.) recently concerning equality, equity, representation, power, and democracy, I feel compelled to offer an alternative view that I hope is constructive. In writing this, my hope is to encourage a more productive discussion about the systems we live in. As a person who dislikes to argue trivialities, as someone who cares more for what or how something is than what it is called, I look to understand the fundamental aspects of humanity. The current issue we face, as a people and as a world, is the need for a fundamental shift away from a mode of thinking which is ancient—possibly prehistoric—in origin. While we absolutely enjoy a standard of living far in excess of anything possible before, with medicine, sanitation, literacy, and survival all measurably improved, I submit that life is fundamentally unchanged from those ancient times. In order to demonstrate my thesis I will require your forbearance, as I must start with a broad overview of history. These are all drawn from general knowledge available to most contemporary citizens, and designed to give us a common understanding from which to arrive at the conclusions of this essay. At this time I wish to acknowledge a couple truths, in the spirit of empowerment and consensus. I recognize that I am not the only, first, or even best person to write this; it is simply that I have my own way of understanding and expressing these ideas. Also, that my ability to speak to these matters is made possible by, as well as greatly enhanced by, numerous oppressed groups and individuals who have gone before me. Similarly, that I enjoy privilege accorded me that is not given to others, based on the very systems on which I offer criticism. Herewith, we enter the body of the text.
     For much of prehistory—that is the period before we have written records and rely upon speculation based on surviving artifacts—we suppose humans lived as tribal beings. These would be small bands, either nomadic or settled, with little need for governance; generally, we imagine tribal councils or a ‘chief’. Additionally, people often suppose a spiritual leader as a connection to the supernatural. In these tribes, social pressures would protect individuals within the group from each other within the established order. However, in the main, people assume that these tribes were hierarchical in that they had leaders. Once people began to band together, congregate, or converge into groups greater than 150, there became a need for more structured organization. Rather than risk living among strangers who might be killers and marauders, people would likely establish and accept laws—and then bureaucracy—in order to maintain their safety and stability. Sometime around 5000 years ago, Egypt began counting dynasties; we also have written laws from Mesopotamia dating around 4000 years ago. What we know of earliest recorded history is that there were already systems in place that ordered—and, likely, stratified—society. Some of the earliest pieces of writing we have discovered are tabulations of stock, indicating a mercantile system. From that period, we begin to see the characteristic and familiar structures of “civilized” societies. In every human civilization, there were the mass of people (those common to see, or “commoners”) going about their lives. Once agriculture became widespread, specialization followed; this meant people focused on particular trades: farmers, builders, millers, smiths, tanners, and on and on. All these commoners (be they Roman, Aztec, Persian, Celtic, Mongol, etc.) desired security and liberty. The ability to farm, build, mill, and trade without interference from bandits or bureaucrats; to be with family and continue the traditions of their ancestors. These common folk of societies, who were not thinking about conquering or ruling, concerned themselves with how to care for family and enjoy the time they had. Typically, commoners would be subject to a ruler. You will likely recognize the titles pharaoh, caliph, emperor, emir, shah, khan, shogun, or king; when we think of history, these have often been the focus—these individuals who “shaped the world”. We recognize these are non-democratic types of government; the notion that one individual would have total control over an entire nation may even seem “barbaric” to those in a modern, “democratic” nation. However, this system of monarchy was accepted (indeed, expected as the norm) in a wide number of cultures around the world throughout history. Not to exclude those still in existence, of course, however they be organized or labeled. It was oft-purported that these rulers had actually been ‘touched by god’ somehow, and were exceptional. This might nowadays be labeled a theocracy, where the ruler is supposed to be connected to their deity. The laws and structure of such a society would be based on the religion of that god, and thus automatic justification for any action of the government. This demonstrates most clearly how rulers were seen to be—in a fundamental way—different and separate from ‘regular people’. In other cases, the person in charge was ruler because they had the largest army or in some way established rule through military might. This may have been an ancient Roman general or Mongol leader, an African lord or Medieval duke. While it scarcely needs saying, I would be remiss in not including the colonizing forces of European countries here as well. For example, the United States started out as a colony of Britain, justified by both ‘divine right’ and military superiority over the native peoples.
     What, then, was life like that makes these civilizations non-democratic? First, rules came from the top, as mentioned above; also, that rulers were not beholden to the citizenry. Once the monarch made the decisions, those policies were sent out to regional and then local officers. In medieval Europe, the monarch could have barons, dukes, lords, and princes on down to locals such as burghers or sheriffs, these would be the “nobility” or “aristocracy”. The enforcement of royal edicts depended on each local magistrate (and the enforcers they would retain). Wealth and property would be concentrated in and collected by nobles, often with the understanding that ultimately it was owned by “the monarchy”. Conversely, all local decisions were backed up by the threat of force from higher-ranking nobles. If a mayor abused their position there was little recourse available to the citizenry. Officials would likely only be removed if they displeased their superiors, i.e. by embezzling monies those superior nobles wanted for themselves. Information and education were similarly restricted to the wealthy; at times, the only literate persons were those educated and beholden to the established religious order. Mistrust of outsiders or differences was common; therefore, most folks would have stuck to what and who they knew. This relates to the ability and desire to relocate, as most people would remain near their birthplace generation upon generation. For information on the larger world, locals would need to depend on news (or gossip) from travelers or merchants who visited other places. Often, there would also be rigid enforcement of roles; if not de jure caste, then title or trade were handed down from parent to child—similarly keeping people trapped at particular levels of society. Additionally, commoners would be subject to conscription into militia or other forced labor. This could be as punishment for infractions or due to the local magistrate’s desire for greater holdings (property). Fealty (a legal obligation to a lord) or loyalty to town, country, church, or cause could be invoked to bestir commoners to the rulers’ ends. Truly despotic rule meant citizens could not criticize publicly or privately, as doing so would result in fatal, and often public, retaliation. Likewise, meetings would be prohibited or subject to approval and restriction, so as to curtail expression of dissent or discontent in the more oppressive regimes. Finally, slavery has existed since time immemorial. Certainly never as organized and institutionalized as the Atlantic slave trade of the mid- to late-1000s. However, the forced use of another’s work for one’s own benefit has been used to the ends of those in power throughout history. Since we have established the limitations of the citizenry, what did freedom (the lives of the aristocracy) look like? In contrast to the harsh lives of commoners, the “nobles” were able to travel, learn, own, choose, participate in government, were treated with respect or deference, and lived in abundance; food, shelter, clothing, social acceptance and standing, self-improvement, and ability to care for others. If we use a psychological hierarchy of needs, it was only the “upper class” who had access to all the components. This illustrates quite clearly the difference and divide between the “have’s” and “have-not’s”, which is not only obviously non-democratic, but also unjust and immoral to modern sensibilities. These are the conditions which lead to the ‘revolutions’ of the 18th century, and our modern ideas about democracy. In a sense, it was a change purported to allow more of humanity to experience what previously had been reserved to the ‘nobility’.
     During the 1700’s (in a period now called the “[Age of] Enlightenment”) a number of political philosophers were writing and talking about government and what legitimacy it had, based on “natural laws” and a presumed “state of nature”. These discourses were, in turn, based on much earlier theories from more ancient civilizations’ philosophers. Written works like Leviathan, Common Sense, and The Social Contract are the results of these Enlightenment thinkers. In the Declaration of Independence, the justification for cutting ties with the British monarchy is almost wholly based on the king’s breaking of this “social contract” between ruler and ruled. It is important, therefore, to familiarize ourselves with these reasonings in order to understand how we have reached the state of today’s societies and governance thereof, which is presumed to be democratic. The essential part is that notion of “contract between ruler and ruled”: that there exists an implicit and/or explicit agreement that the ruler will protect the ruled and, in return, the ruled provide support and obedience to rule. This is considered necessary because the supposed alternative is an “anarchic state” where “each one is against every other” (this is the “state of nature” previously mentioned). The reasoning essentially becomes, “rule by a government is evil, but necessary when weighed against the alternative of bloody, murderous barbarism”. This disingenuous and self-serving argument rings hollow given adequate perspective and understanding of context. However, it is not important in this section to explore criticism of the construct, as we only need understand that this “social contract” has been used as the “justification” for government over the past 250 years. Contained in the theory is a kernel of new thinking: that rulers owe something to the ruled. Still not democracy (since they were not proposing citizens’ involvement in governance), just the notion that the monarch was not all-powerful and inerrant. This thinking then lead to the democratic revolutions in the Americas and Europe, as countries began overthrowing the established monarchies. These changes supposedly resulted in democracy. As if doing away with a figurehead was sufficient to eliminate non-democratic systems and thinking. Given that hundreds of years and numerous laws were required to bring persons of color and women into this “democratic system”, we can begin to see the shift was neither automatic nor immediate. This betrays the underlying truth to the history we’ve been exploring, and we will return to that topic in our last section. At this juncture, I also wish to clarify a fundamental aspect of all this discussion of democracy, which is the relationship between our subject and capitalism (said relationship deserving a separate discussion). While there is much linking of democracy and capitalism, it is a spurious and dangerous equivalence. Democracy is a system of governing a body of participants whereas capitalism is a set of economic precepts by which people conduct trade. In a democratic government the goal is the betterment of life for all citizens rather than just a few, and this is accomplished through a willingness of those same citizens to agree on laws and be governed by them. The economic model of capitalism, in contrast, is predicated upon competition between private holdings with the goal of extracting capital from customers in order to expand those holdings. Because of this fundamental difference, they are analogous to the water and electrical systems in your home: they are both important, but serve distinctly and incompatibly different purposes. Additionally, they cannot be linked and continue to function as intended. After all, you would not plug a cord into the toilet or run a water pipe into the junction box. At best, things just do not work; at worst, you burn down the house. In saying this, I wish to allow us to continue this essay without being further distracted by the conflation of democracy with capitalism.
     To complete this first section, I wish for readers to recognize that we are reviewing most societies over the course of thousands of years; it is, admittedly, difficult to picture much beyond the past hundred years. Additionally, the numbers of persons involved stagger the imagination. For context, the estimated total number of humans who have ever lived is 108 billion. With a current population estimate of 7.5 billion, that leaves over 100,000,000,000 persons having lived through the millennia under the historical conditions that we are considering. While the names and outward particulars may have differed, we are viewing these systems in order to understand their underpinnings—the structure that supports the structure we see. If there are any, the few exceptions serve to prove non-democracy as the general rule. Finally, it is not my conjecture that this is the natural or only form that societies can take.

 

Edit October 2022: for excellent examination of historical information, see The Origins of Political Order: From Prehuman times to the French Revolution, by Francis Fukuyama

Money Talks

I appreciate the increasing debate about Universal Basic Income or a suitable minimum wage, and hope to contribute on what makes an economy ethical. I find that examining the foundations of systems to be most impactful and revealing, although I recognize I have only a rudimentary understanding of this topic. It seems most public and "expert" discussion about the hyper-capitalist economy in the U.S. assumes that it has nothing to do with "right and wrong". Money and economics are said to have nothing to do with ethics, because money is neither good nor evil, it is just a neutral tool. I will say this is nonsense, and not solely because it is heartless and demeans peoples' intelligence. As with most tools, it is use which determines right or wrong. Consequently, if I fail to use a tool to do good, then I am choosing to allow bad to occur. It is past time to own up to this, because it determines life-or-death outcomes for citizens.

First, a few basics. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is the common gauge of "economic health" and is often measured in spending (as a way to calculate the amount of actual "product"). Most estimates place consumer spending in excess of two-thirds of GDP. That is, all the everyday citizens who spend their money on food, cell phones, clothes, and housing. This indicates how much an economy relies upon citizens having money to spend on goods and services. Money is collected by businesses-they do not "make" money in the sense of producing it for others to use. Nor do businesses make money useful by circulating it about the economy in quantities which rival that of regular citizens. Indeed, the money businesses collect tend to be given mostly to other businesses; businesses do not give their money back to citizens in a simple and direct cycle between the two. Further, businesses are not the cause of an economy, but the result; the desire and ability for citizens to spend their money on products would exist whether any particular business or industry was available or not. Finally, any business is owned by people, who are beneficiaries of the business's success-and also responsible for the business's impacts. This is all to point out that people remain more important than businesses, and that businesses are beholden to people in numerous ways.

This last should be self-evident; it really ought not require explanation that humans are of more value than a constructed legal fiction designed to allow commerce. However, in the time of Citizens United, economic downturns, and global pandemic, it seems things have been turned around. The rationale given is that businesses get the largest portion of relief because they are what cause citizens to be able to live and will draw us into a recovery. This would be absurd, and a repeat failure of the 2008-9 TARP plan wherein businesses were given the most money. This is, again, a problem with not acknowledging that money is used for good or bad. When the government gave its limited relief monies to businesses, it was choosing to allow humans to die. Citizens' money was given to businesses rather than used to directly pay for those same citizens' needs by giving them back their money to spend as necessary. This was especially true of citizens who ended up losing their homes, unable to pay back the banks which wanted that money to pay for the banks' own bad decisions. This lead to not just a loss of property or credit scores, but of peoples' lives as the reality of homelessness took its toll. While not bailing out businesses may have meant that some of them did not survive, more actual humans would have. A business can be replaced or rebuilt, but not so a human life. In truth, some businesses should fail; something we will come back to momentarily.

Currently, we are in the midst of a physical health crisis as the global pandemic progresses. Again, and even more directly this time, if citizens do not receive adequate support from the government, people will die. Rather than focusing on businesses this time, we should focus on human lives and preventing unnecessary suffering by providing government relief directly to citizens. This may be a good time to point out an additional fact of economics and further difference between business and person. Most large businesses hoard money, as do the wealthy who benefit from those businesses; they actually diminish the economy when they secret their wealth 'off-shore', as it becomes inaccessible to the economy it came from. In contrast, regular citizens will save a small portion of their income (if possible) and spend the majority of it. This is a two-fold point as it reinforces the importance of consumers to the economy, but also highlights the necessity of adequate regulation and taxation of wealthy individuals and businesses. When lamenting the lack of funds available to provide relief to citizens, and forcing people to work in harrowing, life-threatening circumstances, it is helpful to look at how much would be available if this simple step were taken. Again, businesses do not "earn" or "make" money. The money businesses collect from citizens owes as much back to the economy as those businesses get from it; the cycling of the economy demands that no individual or group stop the circulation of money. This goes back to the GDP and how vital spending is to the health of an economic system. Much as with a real person's budget, once a portion is set aside as savings, the rest can be disposed of. This is where a healthy tax system can benefit an economy, by making those excess monies available again.

Meanwhile, because an economy is comprised of humans and devised to serve human needs, it follows that the system must address such issues. That is, since life is unpredictable, the crucial function of an economy is allowing citizens to reliably obtain what they need to live. Ideally, it would also serve to improve their status, which is what proponents of capitalism have claimed it does. However, when government under-regulates vital industries and fails to prepare for inevitable disasters (especially when doing so due to the influence of private interests) then the economy nearly collapses and magnifies the impact of otherwise manageable events. This is what turns an urgent need for action into an emergent crisis which could cripple the nation. So far this century, the U.S. has seen two major economic "downturns" in which spending was significantly diminished. In each, those most impacted were the most economically vulnerable, which is to say poor. That disproportionate impact has been death, which is just an acceleration of the typical trend of the economy. Even in "good times", those without adequate income are not always able to manage and survive. These are clear signs that the economy is not healthy and our current approach does not work on the practical level, let alone the ethical.

Let us return, finally, to the idea of businesses not having a "right to life". Looking at the history of various industries, it is evident that long-term success or reliability has not been a goal. Beaver trapping, whale hunting, timber logging, commercial fishing, coal mining, and on along the list continues with examples of failure to account for anything beyond today. What does it benefit a nation if they have no future built upon their current practices? Each practice and industry ought to be building towards a better future, or else it is contributing to stagnation and failure. In economic terms, the practices which lead to each of the above-named industries being so lucrative were the same which lead to their collapse: exploitation. It's possible that analysis of these industries could have slowed the commercial pillage of resources and contemporary mitigation practices could have been implemented earlier. Possibly that collapse and the resulting unemployment of large numbers of loggers, fishers, and miners would have been avoided. The current practices around energy production have echoes of these past failures, as we are encountering the consequences of diminishing supply along with environmental damage. These are not businesses which need to continue, nor do citizens need to take on further burdens to sustain their out-sized profitability. Again, the purpose of an economy is to meet needs, and the basis of capitalism is supposed to be that as "markets" [potential customers] become available, then businesses will develop to meet the new needs. This necessitates the end of old or unfit businesses, as economic factors change.

Here is where the disparate strands of this post converge: the responsibility of economics. One way of explaining ethics is through who is responsible for what and to whom that responsibility is owed. General conversation about economies and economics takes the stance that there is no responsibility involved. I think we have established that is nonsense, and that any economy has impacts on the general populace. Anything that has an effect on a person has a responsibility to account for, and an economy is not exempt from that accountability. An economy does good and bad, and by choosing not to take this into account or denying those impacts we hamper our ability to make improvements.

Money for Nothing

The notion of "in-game currency" is fairly commonplace these days. The psychological tendency to lose track of the value of this currency in relation to "real money" is also known. It turns out to be much more work to translate or convert the value of "gold coins" or "gems" in a game into U.S. Dollars, so we mostly skip that work. This allows game companies to collect more real-world money from players who purchase in-game money with little thought to budgeting. In fact, many contemporary games which advertise themselves as "free-to-play" are relying on this fact. The tendency of a small number of players spending enough money inside the game to make it profitable is hard to imagine to those of us who have so little, but there it is.

Most see nothing odd about using currency now, excepting those who want to "bring back the gold standard". It is an interesting point that real "currency" is a fabrication not based on any real item. It does not represent an ox, a unit of work, or even a gumball. It is a translation or conversion of time spent working into a portable exchange token that can be redeemed for items that are of actual use. I propose that money is actually analogous to "in-game currency" because it cannot be used outside the system that spawned it. Of course, that system is nearly all-encompassing, and local currencies can be exchanged for travel outside the area. However, one cannot eat money nor use it to fuel a machine, and if one is lost in a wilderness, it serves no purpose until returning to the "game zone". I am not saying there is anything "wrong" with money, only that it is helpful to recognize what money actually is and what it does-both intentionally and unintentionally. One of those effects is that folks do not immediately think of money as a unit of life. If I thought of money as representing the finite resource of my own life, I would approach it quite differently. It is easier to spend $40 than to ask if it is worth 2+ hours of my life in order to obtain a shirt. Yet it is the same thing-it takes at least that long to get the money to buy the item. This reframing of money is not original, as it can be found from a number of financial advisors. Linking this disconnection of how people spend their lives to the new method of paying for entertainment is the focus of this post.

This is because I think what this demonstrates, in turn, is the tremendously unsettling idea that we don't need to know how something works in order to use it-and have it used against us. That the psychological mechanisms of gambling are only loosely understood, yet they are expertly used by casinos to gather tremendous profits from customers. In this case, we didn't need a model of "video game currency" to understand how divorcing currency from it's origin could make people less cognizant of its value, and spend more freely. As soon as we established that we exchange time working for coins and bills, we became more willing to buy frivolous items because we didn't spend the time making them-we just shelled out some tokens to buy someone else's work. We may discover even greater abuses of psychological tendencies which had been exploited by canny individuals or businesses precisely because the phenomenon was not understood. In the end, Barnum may have known "there's a sucker born every minute," but did he ever state (or understand) the companion: "everybody thinks they are not the sucker, which makes them easier to manipulate"?

Rethinking Leads to Improvement

Previously, I have posted on the nature of science as well as taking actions in the face of opposition. Given recent events, and my continual learning and growth, I feel it important to revisit these topics and provide greater context.

The first is from early 2012, and can be found here. In it, I encourage people to "act as if". The reason for revisiting this is the recent insurrection at the nation's capitol in the District of Columbia. I thought that a reader might conclude I would agree with a "direct action" such as storming the legislature. This nonsensical idea would be ludicrous even in more sane times, as it is far from the intention or spirit of my post. I have previously expressed my support of peaceful protest/action (ahimsa), whereas the violent mob of 6 January were seeking to impose upon rather than convince others. In 2012, I was considering how much better things could have been if the majority of sympathetic citizens had "revolted" against the idiotic notions and laws about "race" segregation in 1950's and 1960's U.S. If only regular folks had not been cowed or silenced by the authority of Jim Crow laws and uppity segregationists. However, this admonition (I only recently recognized) could be taken to support the very group I wished to oppose. After all, it was very often the racist and political actors who were "acting as if"; they played out the fantasy of "racial superiority" as if it had legitimacy. I recognized that I can be somewhat overly optimistic when it comes to humans. I tend to think that most people have a deep sense of what is right, which they struggle to quiet in those times they do things that I consider wrong-even though there is no evidence that we share these values. It is a simple (or simple-minded) error and projection. However, what I wish to focus on is that statement about subverting backwards norms and prejudice. I still think it is valid to buck convention, and wish more people had the courage to take actions to help one another despite the "rules against that sort of thing". To bake that cake for the same-sex couple and tell off the boss. To let a person without a residence sit inside without buying anything. To not guard discarded food at a grocery store when people come to reclaim some of that "harvest". Essentially, to take the decent, humane action in a situation despite "company policy". The difficulty arises when I have to acknowledge that others think "decency" is something that excuses hateful and dehumanizing actions against groups who look or act differently than themselves. I forget that some people are so narrow-minded that they actually do believe somehow they have a handle on "Truth" and everyone else has it wrong. To those individuals, I still advise you to "act as if"-although in your case, it is to act as if you were a kind and rational human on the same level as everyone else-as if we had equality, equity, and justice. While I recognize that I also operate from opinion and there are other interpretations, mine are based on assumptions of inherent human worth. There are numerous possible actions based on these ideas, none of which lead to condemning another or taking from others because they are "less worthy" than I am. It is one of the worst parts of us that allows suffering because of "rules".

The second post I wish to update is from later in 2012, and can be found here. This is because I had a realization about the nature of human knowledge and thinking, specifically relating to the last line in the post. To begin, I must say that the intensity of denial, refutation, and outright hostility which has accompanied the global pandemic over the past year leaves me aghast. The basic knowledge of the germ theory of disease that escapes people is outrageous; it is almost as if they still believe spirits, demons, or miasma are the causes of disease. However, I want to keep on track in regards to this post, so let us return to the attack on science in general. In the original post, I again projected a few attributes, including the capacity for self-awareness and self-examination. The long history of humans falling for ludicrous notions and snake oil is extensive, but dependent upon ignorance. It is typical of humans to have cognitive biases, logical errors, and non-critical thinking; it takes training and effort to learn to think logically and clearly (not to claim I am successful in same). Fundamental Attribution Error, Confirmation Bias, and Availability Heuristic are only three common problems with thinking, and we are all subject to many more. It is how brains work, and simply part of being human; there is no shame or uniqueness in having them creep into our thinking. However, it means that we need a way to counteract this natural process, in order to better understand our world. This is the genius of the scientific method, and what I failed to previously acknowledge. Whereas we typically want to find things which confirm what we suspect (and be satisfied once we do so), this scientific approach requires that we come at it from the opposite direction. Using science, we seek to prove that what we believe is wrong, and that it can be explained in some other way! If that fails, we may attack it from another angle, seeking again to disprove our thinking. All this work deserves celebration, since each explanation that is disproved will mark real progress towards a more comprehensive understanding. Once we have eliminated enough possibilities, we see more clearly what and how we previously misunderstood the subject. Science is a process which expands our thinking and allows us to witness the beauty of what actually is. There is nothing I could say which will match anything Carl Sagan has already stated, so I will point you to his works rather than subject you to more of my own sub-par offerings. I simply wish to convey that anyone can utilize this scientific approach in order to increase their knowledge, and everyone who is willing to spend more time being wrong is on the right path.

A Word on Shame and Language

I have been grateful for the work of Dr. Brené Brown and personal experiences with emotional intelligence skills for my understanding of shame. I heard something on the topic recently that just did not sit right with me, and I could not find the words in the moment to express why. After reflecting on it, I felt it important enough to publish my thoughts here. First, the statement centers around the idea of "healthy shame"; I heard this explained in the context of society v. individual. Supposedly, the idea seems to be that shame is healthy when it is used to keep people from doing harmful things in public or social settings. We will come back to why I had an immediate sense of how wrong this is, but first I need to explain a few basics so the conclusion is clear.

My understanding is that the central difference between shame and guilt is the locus of responsibility or fault. This is often expressed as "Guilt is 'I did something wrong', and shame is 'I am something wrong'". Either I am separate from my choices or I am my choices; it is external or internal. This is an important distinction because actions can be changed more easily than selves. When I believe that I made an error in judgement and have learned that lesson, I want to change my behaviour to have better outcomes in future. My healthy self-image is not tied up with my choices, and I have a number of comparable paths to choose from. However, when I believe I made that choice because of who or how I am, it has a couple impacts. One is that the feeling of shame is reinforced, making it apparent that 'I always screw things up'. The other is that because it is who I am, I would have to be willing to change myself fundamentally to stop these mistakes in future. Furthermore, there is the learned helplessness of individuals with shame; nothing they have ever done was good enough, and no matter how hard they tried they could never change it-they likely will have given up hope that change is possible. To a person who is shame-filled, there are 'right' and 'wrong' choices, and every choice carries the weight of being the wrong one. This indicates that shame is intimately related to thinking in absolutes-often referred to as "black-or-white" and "either-or" thinking. Shame can come from a child hearing things like "you're such a screw up [no one else would do that]" instead of "oh, we all make mistakes-you'll do better next time." The former is being uniquely separate from 'normal people' and inherently a "screw up". The latter is being the same as everyone else and able to change. Incidentally, this is a good argument for using "people-centered" language, for example: "a person who has X" rather than "an X person". Now that these things are more clear, we can return to the original issue.

If shame is about the "who" someone is that they cannot change and locks them into "being" their choices, then how could that ever be "healthy"? Especially when the idea seems to be that this would change problematic social behaviours. I will suggest that the idea is more closely related to other 'feelings' that Dr. Brown has talked about: embarrassment and humiliation. These, again, can be divided into "internal/external" and  "healthy/unhealthy", but also don't quite explain what is really expressed by the notion. For that, we would look to social constructs: pressure, norms, and mores (the last is said "more-AYs"). These are essentially the social controls which keep people "in line" and from acting outrageously in public. When people talk about "pro-social" and "anti-social" behaviours, they are based off the aforementioned social constructs. They are what we learn without being told and what we fear to breach lest we are ostracized. Finally, this is where we encounter what "healthy [social] shame" actually is: the threat or action of casting out a member perceived as non-conforming. I think this exposes the intolerance and impracticality of the idea, which I hope leads us to healthier methods of encouraging pro-social attitudes and actions.

Humans First!

I have been hearing an expression which reveals a sentiment I take exception to. I also recognize that I am behind the times on this, as a little research turns up equivalent terms from 2014. What I refer to is the new sense and way of speaking of pets as a 'parent-child' relationship. Expressions such as "dog [mom/dad]", "pet parent", and "fur baby" indicate the level of care such individuals evidently feel for their pets. Some even lavish attention and expense on their pets that seem like Christmas came early. As a parent, the idea that a person chooses to devote their attention to another species is not entirely my issue. I think having compassion, and even agape love, for animals of all species is noble. I care about the extinction of animal species and the mistreatment of domesticated animals. I believe it is a privilege to own an animal, and that includes the responsibility to care for that animal. I have owned a variety of pets in my life, and would enjoy the opportunity to again.

The reason I find this important enough to talk about is that it betrays a variety of problematic attitudes. Initially, I resented the implication that my status as parent was not as valuable or respectable because it was on par with owning a creature. I do realize that no one was making that explicit statement, and one engages in equivocation to draw the parallel. Still, the wording is a choice and it is one that expresses an equivalence where there is none. At best, it is great marketing disguised as a positive change for the animals. However, I find that it covers at least a couple truths. First, we steal baby animals from their actual parents for our own purposes, after breeding the animals for profit. Second, all these animals are the products of human manipulation; they are genetically modified organisms. We literally created everything about these pets: appearance, demeanor, and purpose. There is at least one breed of dog that cannot reproduce without humans. Finally, there are the startling number of animals who are killed each year as surplus.

These facts betray the weight of responsibility we have to these creatures, and how different having a pet is from children. As much as we owe pets for their companionship and service, our first duty is to ourselves. This is the only thing that makes the current treatment of animals minimally acceptable. Ultimately, no matter how loving one is towards a pet, a human life always takes precedence. If a human baby and a pet are both in peril, the human life must be saved. This is not an opinion. If we reach a point where we no longer consider every human life as eminently valuable, our species begins to lose our chance to survive. Consider that we evolved and continue to exist on this planet because of the fundamental rule that we continue to want to live. No matter what the cosmos throws at us as a species, we persist. I begin to think this attitude reveals a flaw in some folks that do not believe we deserve to continue as a species. At any rate, I think this simple exploration demonstrates how nonsensical the trend is. So everyone can stop using those terms now.

Confirmation and bias

It seems there is a portion of the population which struggles with accepting the world the way it is. People who hear what they want to hear, and anything contradicting their worldview is automatically wrong. However, whatever they hear – no matter how outlandish – as long as it fits with their established perspective, is given credence.

One might think I'm discussing religion zealots, however this applies to larger proportions than those who identify with a religion. It is a human tendency, whereby our lazy brains want to use as little energy as possible in order to solve any problem. It allows us to short-cut the process of information evaluation, and especially now that information is so readily available, this is appealing. Finding definitive answers that stand up to rigorous scrutiny actually seems more difficult, now that there are so many sources and varied interpretations to evaluate. It can be understandable to avoid all that work, and focus on more important matters. This may all indicate an underlying discomfort with uncertainty, whereby an answer must explain everything under all circumstances to be valid and any explanation that only deals with parts of a question must be entirely worthless.

 

However, a larger problem is that it can lead to dismissing others' opinions and insurmountable disagreement. If I have to hold on to my opinion no matter what evidence arises to contradict it, then I cannot hear what someone else has to say on the subject. This results in unwillingness to have simple conversation, and avoiding entire topics which can be vital to resolve. I am not advocating an entirely relative perspective, where we cannot know anything for certain and therefore must listen to any new opinion with equal credence. I simply point out the difficulty presented by the current system which lacks the ability to resolve anything, regardless of controversy or validity.

How Rocky Ruins Expectations

Initially, I was planning on demonstrating my thesis by using the film as an example of absurd wish-fulfillment that feeds viewers lies about achievement and twists expectations about success. However, I went back and re-watched the film; my narrative did not entirely fit the actual film. With that in mind, I am re-working this post, and therefore it may seem mildly disjointed. I think this may fit with the topic, although I appreciate your patience and understanding.

Rocky is the quintessential "American" story. It is about one man who overcomes all obstacles and wins a championship despite having many disadvantages. It is, in fact, the persistent drumbeat that anyone in the U.S. is familiar with whether they acknowledge it or not. I will add that it is an emotional and dramatic movie, and does display some of the struggles regular folks face. This is the reason I cannot use it as my example, although it still bears examination and demonstrates part of the message I seek to convey. In fact, the best examples of this issue are social media and video-sharing sites. The latter made it so any person with an account could upload videos of anything they like which visitors to the site could view, instead of needing expensive recording and broadcast equipment. Both are platforms which were initially purported to allow everyday individuals to easily distribute their messages to other users/individuals. They have not necessarily lived up to that early promise.

How does this show or even relate to expectations and their ruin? Both types of platform contain only the best, polished, edited version of what users want others to see. What I mean is that you won't find people's failures or mistakes on display, unless it's for ridicule. With the introduction of "likes", videos that do not fit this mold are voted out of mainstream. Typically, anything short of perfection is edited out, leading to much worse than simple jump-cuts. Only our best successes are allowed to be broadcast, the exotic vacation or fabulous event that gets posted. My criticism is not that people's triumphs or pride should not be seen. My point here is not about gloating or hubris. It is more about the underlying messages to both creators and viewers. There are three fundamental errors or injuries that arise from this system.

The first is found in the axiom "life is not a straight line". It is an immutable fact of being human that we do not learn as much about something by getting it right the first time. An exemplar of this is children. While adults know how to do things the child needs to learn, no adult can learn the experience or skill for the child; no matter how caring the adult may be, they cannot short-cut the child's process to learn for themselves. In fact, proficient individuals can learn from watching inexperienced persons build proficiency-it is helpful and desirable to explore ways to fail at a thing because that builds expertise. Failing to recognize or demonstrate this leads to individuals who think anything less than success is unacceptable or wrong.

This leads into the second error, that if one only sees success then failure seems aberrant. The problem is that there is harm done by ignoring the fact that everyone messes up and fails at times. If the expectation established by these platforms is flawless performance and immaculate appearance, how can I keep up in everyday life? It leads to thinking that if everyone else is doing this thing, then by not doing (or even being able to do) it I am wrong. The most proficient athlete, scientist, or chef will make a mess and have to clean it up. There is value in acknowledging this, even to witnessing or hearing the story of this mistake. It normalizes the fact of human fallibility, and allows individuals to have compassion for themselves and others. This creates greater opportunity for connection and forgiveness.

Finally, the third error around expectations. The entire exercise is inauthentic, meaning that I do not show who I actually, truly am. If the goal is to be able to share my life with social media, how do you get to know me when I only show the "good" side? This is more of the same as in everyday life where we want to be seen as admirable and capable. Any failures or limitations count heavily against us, and we work hard to deny or prevent them. It is not authentic to hide our shortcomings because we all have them and they are as much a part of our selves as the parts we want others to see. I will suggest that living a lie is barely living, and the constant fear of being "found out" leads to real, negative effects.

This is why it is a cultural and not a personal failing-that we are encouraged, if not required, to show no weakness or flaws. This does not lend itself to resilience or grit because it is an impossible standard to meet. This pattern of success-centric content creates unrealistic expectations whereby I think I should just be able to do something with minimal effort or "if I'm not good at it right away, I'll never succeed." This thinking does not recognize or include the tremendous amount of work that goes in to every piece of media, even a photo. Anyone who has sat for professional pictures received a glimpse of this.

Why There Is No "Right to Privacy"

A right to privacy is explicitly stated under Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honor and reputation.” The Israeli Supreme Court Privacy Protection Act of 1981, Section 2 uses words like "harass" and "embarrass". These subjective terms illustrate the transient and variable nature of the discussion and concept of "privacy", as explicated in the following point:

"Another characteristic of the right to privacy which contributes to the difficulty in defining it is the fact the right to privacy is subjective in nature, culturally dependant, and is derived from the expectations of the society in a certain period of time. Therefore, privacy has been given different meanings over the years, being influenced by political, social and economic changes and by technological developments."[sic]. Yael Onn et.al., Privacy in the Digital Environment (Haifa Center of Law & Technology, Niva Elkin-Koren, Michael Birnhack, eds., 2005).

In the United States, there exists an explicit right to security in person and possessions, as laid out in the 4th Amendment to the Constitution of this nation. It allows for legal search and seizure, meaning the outlined right is limited and readily circumvented through legal channels. This is why police are required to obtain a warrant to search a person or place: it supersedes the U.S. Constitutional right in cases where a judge finds the need. Thereby citizens only have as much security as allowed by laws that are interpreted by judges.

However, I am not an attorney and this not legal advice; I am merely outlining a few points briefly.


I propose that what is actually being discussed, at least in public discourse, is not privacy. Leaving that aside for the moment, it seems there are a number of different terms or ideas brought up in this discussion: privacy, secrecy, and security. Each of these may sound very similar, or even synonymous. If they all mean about the same thing, then what is the difference and why is there such argument over this topic? To reach those answers, we'll take a look at each concept shortly.

First, the much-lauded 'privacy'. When your someone read your diary, you probably screamed something about "invasion of privacy". This example indicates that there are certain parts of my life that are public, and others are not. Aside from being the opposite of private, what is public? It means "open to all" or "accessible to any individual." Public spaces are open and available to anyone who wants to be there. This is different from 'private property', where one needs to obtain permission to enter. This is analogous to 'public and private lives or information', where only certain parts are open to anyone. Essentially, we can define privacy as "the ability to choose what becomes known to whom".

Next, the idea of secrecy. This is information kept from the knowledge of others, or of certain people. This is getting a bit deeper, as secret has a connotation of confiding and/or trust. This seems a more personal choice, as many things are public by default or by law. A secret is something private that even those closest to me may not know; in a way, another layer of privacy.

Then, we come to security. This holds the other terms, in a sense. To be secure is to be safe; in this case, safe from the possibility of having privacy or secrecy taken away. This can be thought of as freedom from worry or threat of a breach in privacy. In this, we have the heart of the public discussion: individuals are worried (their security is threatened) that information about them that they considered confidential (private) is being given to others they did not agree to (sharing what was supposed to be secret).

In no way are these venues (social media, for example) clearly and solely defined as public or private. One may utilize "privacy settings" to declare one's preferences, but that only applies to the information one deliberately supplies, such as pictures and words. Behind the scenes, these platforms are collecting information on users that is not widely acknowledged: searches, purchases, connections to other users, demographics, etc. This is all used to 'target ads', meaning if I bought baby stuff recently that I may see more of those types of items; this is why Amazon.com seems so convenient, because it will suggest things that go with what I've already purchased and - even more broadly - what other people with similar 'profiles' have bought. None of this is entirely new, as TV (and before that, radio) was seen as a means for companies to advertise/sell their products to audiences. Certainly, television is a medium for ads and sellers pay money for advertising time during TV programs; many websites contain ads in a similar fashion, and both use those "ad revenues" to pay for keeping the TV station or website going. What is new is the ability to target ads even more specifically, based on the information collected by these websites. In addition, one has no control over how all that information gets collected, used, or distributed.

What this indicates to me is that the present-day talk about "privacy" is really a confrontation about ownership. If companies can collect information about me and then sell that data, it is just about who has a right to ownership and ability to sell information about 'me'.  Are those interests, preferences, and purchase histories my property (as they are inherently a part of me), or do they belong to the owners of websites I use to engage my interests? What we need is not necessarily a "right to privacy" as much as definition of personal information ownership. Once that is established, since ownership of personal property (even intellectual property) is clearly and legally laid out, we can settle the debate over "privacy" in this instance.

The Factory Model of Humans

There seems to be a notion – bolstered by the ubiquitous "self-help industry" – that our beliefs are our only limits. As if there is a standard, set point, or style that every person can attain or adopt. The thinking seems to be that success is within everyone's reach, if only they follow the "[insert number here] simple steps to success". Meaning that by emulating them, we can become (or achieve the results of) the person we envy or admire. I do not mean to discuss here the issues of lack or perceived deficit individuals judge in themselves, that is for another time. The focus of this post is on the means to improve, not the drive to do so.

The above thinking approaches people with the attitude that we can "cut and paste" talents and abilities. That if we adopt the tendencies of others, then we can be like them and experience the same success, lifestyle, or even livelihood. It is both the 'quick-fix' and the 'outside agency' parts of this attitude that are troublesome here. Let me address each separately.

First, the short-cutting of experience. It is an understandable desire, to cut out hours of practice or exploration in order to reach the conclusion. The idea to eliminate the unnecessary middle ground of practice and failure; to jump directly to the "right solution". However, it is misguided - as there is no such thing. I suspect that the results may only be successful because of the experience and intuition developed by the explorer. It is especially difficult for people to explicate their internal processes, as demonstrated by the need for study of elite athletes to understand what makes them effective. At any rate, the answer to this problem does not solve all those to come; it is necessary to be prepared to tackle them as well, and that requires a great deal of experience.

Second, that the solution comes from someone else, rather than from within. This is a true problem, as it redirects the power from 'me' to 'the other'. Instead of building confidence in myself and my ability to find answers, it builds reliance on another. The next time I come up against adversity, have I built up resilience and capacity to overcome, or do I need to return to the fountain of wisdom that I used last time? The answer is evident when the gurus only answer one question in a book and require a subscription to tackle more.

Ultimately, this model doesn't fit with human nature, which is fractious and diverse. Yes, I (and you) can learn, change, and grow; that does not mean we will (or can) do so in the same ways. In fact, it may be important that we do not. Leaving that aside, can we or should we get the same results the same way? Is it beneficial to have a success "formula"? I take the large proportion of divorces as evidence of needing to find one's own way. There is certainly no shortage of people who offer advice to married couples, and yet the divorce rate has remained static for decades. Instead, there are likely only a few "universal" constants, while the rest are open to interpretation and personalization.