I'm finding myself having trouble with new years resolutions this year. I've always liked new years, and making resolutions. I love the idea of sweeping away old habits and improving oneself by developing new ones. I love the introspection and self examination making goals for the new year can bring. I love looking forward to to the possibilities and opportunities of a new year. This year, I'm having trouble, though.
One question I'm struggling with is what manner is best for making new years resolutions. I've traditionally followed the pattern of building one resolution in four areas of life: social, physical, spiritual, and intellectual/professional. Reading Baumeister and Tierney's Willpower I began to question this strategy. They suggest that one should limit themselves to only one new years resolution, as having several causes them to distract from one another.
This doesn't seem unreasonable, and as I'm looking at things I want to do this year they all seem to roughly fit under a sort of unifying umbrella. I've been thinking about creating a resolution this year that's more of a mission or values statement and peppering a few specific goals under that. I'm not that interested in having a non-specific focus, though, and prefer to focus on the quantifiable and observable to something I can convince myself is motivating or working without having anything to look at to support or refute those assertions.
I'm also wondering if this is a good year for resolutions at all. Much of this year will be just transitioning through larger changes in life that fit in to broader goals and plans of mine and my family. I'll be starting my new job, finishing my associates degree and certifying as an MLT. All of these plans are probably what I'll really be focusing on, and don't really require any new goals or resolutions for 2016 to progress. So to all of my friends, should I make resolutions this year? If so, how?
Wednesday, December 30, 2015
Saturday, October 24, 2015
Trick or Treating: The Last Bastion of Neighborhood Community?
People don't know their neighbors any more. Our interactions are more and more impersonal, mediated by computers. We have fewer and fewer real communities to engage in. They're being replaced by forums and social networking groups. These things aren't as bad as people often make them out to be, but they do present problems. We're cut off from genuine interaction. It's being replaced with a type of self promotion, making it harder and harder to 'be ourselves' and be accepted for who we are. We're exposed to less diversity because we don't spend time with those whose ideas and opinions differ from us. Churches, neighborhood barbecues, and kids playing in the street used to serve these purposes. Most people don't go to church these days, I can't remember the last time I heard about a neighborhood barbecue, and we setup play dates for the kids nowadays. There's one area that still hearkens back to the days of the local community, though.
Trick or treating is a wonderful Halloween tradition that builds a neighborhood. Once a year parents and kids walk around, say hi to their neighbors, show off costumes, and share sweets. What a classic community building activity that is! Families can talk afterward about how cute the kid down the street looked dressed up like a princess, or which families in town gave out the best candy. Finally, a time when a family can discuss their neighbors and how much they enjoyed spending some time with them!
This is an important lesson for our children, too. 364 days a year we tell our kids about 'stranger danger,' but on Halloween they're finally encouraged to meet new people. They're rewarded with candy, given to them in return for wearing an amusing costume and displaying it for thirty seconds at the neighbor's door. This activity will teach them that they don't have to be suspicious and scared of every person they share the world with. They might even learn that many people are kind human beings.
Even this noble tradition is dying out, though. We're learning how to make imitation trick or treating that, like imitation food, is a pale shadow of the real thing that carries little of the original value. Church groups do 'trunk or treats' to make sure families can collect candy with kids while remaining insulated from their neighbors and any community they don't approve of. Trick or treating routes are less and less up and down the street you live on and instead are becoming visits to homes of family friends. Some people in a sickening twisting of the tradition in pursuit of efficiency and increasing returns worthy of a heartless corporation go up into the wealthy areas of town, spurning their own neighbors, because 'they give better candy.'
Let's not become that people. Let's continue to love our neighbors and even learn to enjoy their company. Let's teach our kids to build a community and meet those they share the world with. Let's go trick or treating around our neighborhood this Halloween.
Let's not become that people. Let's continue to love our neighbors and even learn to enjoy their company. Let's teach our kids to build a community and meet those they share the world with. Let's go trick or treating around our neighborhood this Halloween.
Friday, September 18, 2015
Crying About Mathematics
This is probably a good example of why US culture is so innumerate (the numerical equivalent to illiterate, a term coined by John Allen Paulos) and inept at scientific thought. This is where we get the reflex of credibility toward the phrases "experts say" or "studies show" or the news stories that butcher or manipulate statistics to serve whatever purpose hits the emotional agenda of the story. I'll be the first to admit (and then probably go on a tirade about the problem for however long you listen plus ten minutes) that our mathematics education is just heinous and obsolete to a point that would be absurd if it weren't so damaging and dangerous. With that said the solution is certainly not to perpetuate the idea that these things are hard, stressful, and just generally unpleasant.
I've written here before about the nobility and importance of mathematics, and this one won't be the last time I do, so perhaps I'm just belaboring an idea, but I'm going to list out some of mathematics' virtues anyway.
- Math is Mind Expanding: Mathematics deals with concepts that can go beyond normal human experience. How often do you work with the infinite? Did you know there were several different sizes of infinity, and that some infinities are larger than others? I had a very serious discussion with some family and friends recently about dimensional figures and the nature of God. I wear a metal Möbius band (a strip that has only one side, yes really) on a necklace that was given to me by my wife.
- Math is Humbling: The humanities are important largely because they teach us to think emotionally, form opinions, and understand the human experience. Math, and the sciences (though perhaps to a lesser degree), teach us to think rationally, examine our ideas, and understand the world around us and, yes, the human experience as well. In mathematics one thing must strictly follow from the last and we must learn to abide by the rules of the operations we're performing. We can form and idea or an opinion just as easily as we can in any humanities class, but then we're told to really look at that, to see if it makes sense in context, and it can become starkly clear when it's not. Humanities often remind us that how we perceive and judge the world around us matters. Mathematics, and the sciences, remind us that the laws of systems (like the universe) don't just bend to our will because we think we have a better idea of how things should be.
- Math Teaches Self Awareness: Like my last point, the requirements within mathematics that we "stay within the lines" as we progress form one thought to the next in our process of proving, computing, or deriving new information means we need to learn to watch our thoughts, and see where they fail to stay consistent with our principles. Learning how we think, how one thought in the mind springs from the last and whether that process is working properly or in need of reform is pretty clearly an invaluable skill that will better society if widespread.
Well, there are systematic problems. Like I said we teach math horribly (in the US at least), especially at the elementary level which means that when children are forming their emotional understandings they learn early that math is something hard and to be feared. It doesn't help that so many who shape the culture are also the worst at mathematics and mathematical thinking. Still, none of these jabs at "that painful and useless old field, math" seem to present solutions or even raise awareness about the problems of media misrepresentation or the need for educational STEM reform.
I've been told that it's about thinking differently, that the jokes are just trying to say, "Oh man, my brain sure doesn't work that way," but mathematicians and scientists aren't sharing Facebook memes about how useless writing and art are. The most I've seen are more along the lines of, "Boy it's really frustrating how misrepresented we are and how poorly understood and distorted our work is when presented for public consumption." Also, I don't really buy that our thinking is all that different. When I tutored mathematics the problem really seemed to be more about attitude. People didn't put effort into learning or doing mathematics because they thought it was hard, boring, or just not important to them. With effort they picked up the concepts just fine, but the attitudes that surround math made them reticent in putting forth that effort.
Math students have often been taught in what one teacher of mine referred to as the GMTED or the "Give Me The Equation, D***it!" mindset. Try to discuss the concepts behind the figures, the real meaning of the numbers and symbols and they shut down and demand you give them a simple formula so they can mechanically plug numbers in. Math education is too often a "human programming" job, using drills, memorization, and routines to create humans that will carry out operations to compute a value. This must change, but can't if people believe that actually thinking about math is something they're incapable of because, "their brain just doesn't work that way."
So I beg of you, respect mathematics. Let's leave behind the antiquated views of math as prima facie unappealing as we leave behind the systems that have made thousands fail to understand the beauty and wisdom it contains. Let's elevate our understanding of ourselves by doing meditative mathematics. Let's elevate our understanding of the universe by understanding the language in which God wrote it. Let's create a society that values this great field of human thought and endeavor that's gifted us the computer, engineering, and so much more. Let's create an intellectualism that, to paraphrase the apocryphal inscription above Plato's Academy, lets none but mathematicians enter; not out of elitism or to exclude readers, writers, artists, and other so-called non-math people but in recognition that a complete philosopher will be mathematician in addition to artist, reader, theologian, writer, and more as he or she embraces all the many worthy areas of endeavor in the vast yet limited expanse of human knowledge.
Tuesday, August 4, 2015
Fix it Mommy!
Over this last weekend I had the opportunity to see a number of my cousins, many of which have young children. One moment in particular stuck out for me. One of the mothers asked for some sort of cream or lotion to give her child. The child specifically wanted what I believe was an anti-histamine cream to relieve some itching, but the mother knew that anything with roughly the same physical properties would fill the child's real need; to have their problem attended to and be given a simple solution.
Children are obligated to go to their parents to fix the majority of their problems. In infancy they have only the one signaling mechanism to do this, crying, and deploy it whenever they experience discomfort or want so they can obtain the attention of parents that will then fix the problem. As children get older parents teach them more sophisticated signaling mechanisms (such as 'using their words'), but the drive is the same, get the attention of mom or dad so that they'll put in the effort to fix my problem.
I also witnessed the impotent rage and anguish children experience when this process fails, or even more horribly when mom or dad suddenly turn and become the cause of vexation (like being told to leave the swimming pool). The wise parents I was with simply weathered the tantrums and softly prompted their kids to learn to manage their emotional responses with greater aplomb. The lesson will hopefully be learned by these children, though it will probably take a few more years of experience and cerebral development.
What struck me was the inborn drive represented by this, and the realization of how often this thinking expresses itself throughout society. We are constantly turning to figures of authority and power hoping that with their attention and efforts focused on us our problems will get fixed. We get angry when those we think are supposed to fix our problems do things that stifle our enjoyment and comfort. At another point I also discussed with my father, a professional psychological counselor, how so many want a pill to fix their problems and prefer that solution despite numerous benefits therapy has over drugs.
We can be active and fight to better our lives when possible, and feel the disappointments of unfortunate but unyielding circumstances without letting that sadness or anger hijack our mind. I'm taking a class in pharmacology over the summer and the lesson that comes up over and over is that all drugs have side effects, and therapy is always just a matter of handling one thing with a cost that's deemed acceptable. As Thomas Sowell put it, "All that goes with the territory, that is with a universe we did not make having constraints we cannot escape, and offering only trade offs however much the intelligencia and the politicians proclaim solutions."
The realization that there are no easy solutions for the biggest problems in our lives and that we're doomed to an eternal existence of managing (as opposed to fixing) the obstacles in our personal lives and our community is sobering, indeed. It is also what we must accept if we want to truly gain maturity beyond the child yelling, "Fix it, mommy!"
Children are obligated to go to their parents to fix the majority of their problems. In infancy they have only the one signaling mechanism to do this, crying, and deploy it whenever they experience discomfort or want so they can obtain the attention of parents that will then fix the problem. As children get older parents teach them more sophisticated signaling mechanisms (such as 'using their words'), but the drive is the same, get the attention of mom or dad so that they'll put in the effort to fix my problem.
I also witnessed the impotent rage and anguish children experience when this process fails, or even more horribly when mom or dad suddenly turn and become the cause of vexation (like being told to leave the swimming pool). The wise parents I was with simply weathered the tantrums and softly prompted their kids to learn to manage their emotional responses with greater aplomb. The lesson will hopefully be learned by these children, though it will probably take a few more years of experience and cerebral development.
What struck me was the inborn drive represented by this, and the realization of how often this thinking expresses itself throughout society. We are constantly turning to figures of authority and power hoping that with their attention and efforts focused on us our problems will get fixed. We get angry when those we think are supposed to fix our problems do things that stifle our enjoyment and comfort. At another point I also discussed with my father, a professional psychological counselor, how so many want a pill to fix their problems and prefer that solution despite numerous benefits therapy has over drugs.
We can be active and fight to better our lives when possible, and feel the disappointments of unfortunate but unyielding circumstances without letting that sadness or anger hijack our mind. I'm taking a class in pharmacology over the summer and the lesson that comes up over and over is that all drugs have side effects, and therapy is always just a matter of handling one thing with a cost that's deemed acceptable. As Thomas Sowell put it, "All that goes with the territory, that is with a universe we did not make having constraints we cannot escape, and offering only trade offs however much the intelligencia and the politicians proclaim solutions."
The realization that there are no easy solutions for the biggest problems in our lives and that we're doomed to an eternal existence of managing (as opposed to fixing) the obstacles in our personal lives and our community is sobering, indeed. It is also what we must accept if we want to truly gain maturity beyond the child yelling, "Fix it, mommy!"
Monday, June 8, 2015
Are We Ready for Post Scarcity? Part 3
So technology has brought us a new world. The new technologies developed in the 20th and 21st centuries have created a world with changes as drastic as the invention of agriculture over 10 millenia ago. This new world is awe inspiring in its productive capabilities. Like the soviets upon seeing American grocery stores or backyard pools, those of us from the old worlds look in disbelief on the abundance the highly automated modern world offers. Will that disbelief be an awestruck hopeful wonderment, or a horrified cringing at the dystopian nightmare on display?
What becomes of the human being, the individual in the post-scarcity world? While objectively unanswerable, for now, science fiction and current trends can give us an idea. Star Trek provides the most hopeful vision, a humanity that devotes itself to self improvement and growth, bravely venturing out to explore the universe or just starting a small restaurant to share the joy of old family recipes (like Joseph Sisko from DS9). People engage in their passions and become the greatest captains, scientists, or chefs that they can thanks to the freedom from desire and from the struggle for the basic necessities of life. While this optimism is one of the reasons we love Star Trek it doesn't strike us as realistic.
On the other side of the spectrum we see the 'dystopian,' or broken utopia, genre of fiction. The lack of scarcity in information and communication enabled by the internet has made government surveillance and monitoring so easy that the protections for citizens seem to come only from law these days. And that can easily fail, as the victory of the ACLU against ongoing programs of the NSA showed. The NSA's activities have many shouting that, "1984 was not an instruction manual." A conversation from the video game Deus Ex indicates another interesting, and all to realistic, future:
These uncomfortable futures are just fiction, for now, but sadly they seem to strike us as truer to reality. One of the consequences of post-scarcity living is that power can evaporate. It can also become much more concentrated. Abuses by law enforcement that were once prevented by their sheer infeasibility now need laws in place to protect citizens (the supreme court decision on GPS tracking is a good example of this to add to the NSA's recent abuses of power). However when laws are needed the question inevitably arises of who will write them.
The genius of American government is the idea of the powerful individual, that every citizen has strength enough to make their voice resonate in the halls of power. The idea has caught on so strongly that it's easy to forgot how revolutionary and unthinkable this idea would be only 500 or so years ago when monarchs were the norm, and for basically all of human history before that when the strong took what they wanted without regard for whether or not the man they were taking it from cared to give it up.
The same power of technology that can eliminate scarcity could also conceivably eliminate freedom. Corporate influence over lawmakers could barely be necessary if companies like John Deere, Apple, and Comcast continue along their trajectories. Imagine the power the tractor company would hold if they were able to dictate whether or not their machinery were allowed to be repaired or you would just have to buy a new one to continue sowing grain. Consider the power of a company with similar power over electronics and personal computers. All the innovation and creativity in the world doesn't mean a thing if a company controlling the means of distribution for new products and stories can decide to refuse their service.
How can we dilute these powers, without only strengthening centralized government power, and while still providing opportunity and daily bread for the individual? I don't know. I have some ideas, but truly I can't say what I'd really do if I were ruler of the world, or even just the US. What I can say is that no one else really can either. There's a dearth of ideas and solutions floating around out there because we're not addressing the issue.
The idea of a post-scarcity economy and society is so revolutionary that it doesn't sound real. Talking about robotics and computing replacing human beings as the driving force in the economy sounds like science fiction, despite the fact that we continually experience it as reality. The whole issue is so massive and so out there that it's not addressed seriously in politics, and rarely in thoughtful conversation. If this continues we'll find ourselves in a world clinging to obsolete social mores and struggling to make them fit in the modern world. We can't let that happen, so let's think about getting ready for post-scarcity.
What becomes of the human being, the individual in the post-scarcity world? While objectively unanswerable, for now, science fiction and current trends can give us an idea. Star Trek provides the most hopeful vision, a humanity that devotes itself to self improvement and growth, bravely venturing out to explore the universe or just starting a small restaurant to share the joy of old family recipes (like Joseph Sisko from DS9). People engage in their passions and become the greatest captains, scientists, or chefs that they can thanks to the freedom from desire and from the struggle for the basic necessities of life. While this optimism is one of the reasons we love Star Trek it doesn't strike us as realistic.
On the other side of the spectrum we see the 'dystopian,' or broken utopia, genre of fiction. The lack of scarcity in information and communication enabled by the internet has made government surveillance and monitoring so easy that the protections for citizens seem to come only from law these days. And that can easily fail, as the victory of the ACLU against ongoing programs of the NSA showed. The NSA's activities have many shouting that, "1984 was not an instruction manual." A conversation from the video game Deus Ex indicates another interesting, and all to realistic, future:
JC Denton: Some people just don't understand the dangers of indiscriminate surveillance
Morpheus (an AI system who is 'a prototype for a larger system'): The need to observed and understood was once satisfied by God. Now we can implement the same functionality with data-mining algorithms.
JC Denton: Electronic surveillance hardly inspires reverence. Perhaps fear and obedience, but not reverence.Huxley's Brave New World gives us one vision of a post scarcity world that's also terrifying. People are raised from conception to death to fill a certain role, with much of the population raised to lack mental faculty and drive so that they can be contented with menial jobs. Innovation is suppressed if the rulers decide it doesn't support the economy. The population is essentially drugged into compliance and acceptance of the system that promotes nothing but the status quo ad infinitum. At least everyone has a job, though.
These uncomfortable futures are just fiction, for now, but sadly they seem to strike us as truer to reality. One of the consequences of post-scarcity living is that power can evaporate. It can also become much more concentrated. Abuses by law enforcement that were once prevented by their sheer infeasibility now need laws in place to protect citizens (the supreme court decision on GPS tracking is a good example of this to add to the NSA's recent abuses of power). However when laws are needed the question inevitably arises of who will write them.
The genius of American government is the idea of the powerful individual, that every citizen has strength enough to make their voice resonate in the halls of power. The idea has caught on so strongly that it's easy to forgot how revolutionary and unthinkable this idea would be only 500 or so years ago when monarchs were the norm, and for basically all of human history before that when the strong took what they wanted without regard for whether or not the man they were taking it from cared to give it up.
The same power of technology that can eliminate scarcity could also conceivably eliminate freedom. Corporate influence over lawmakers could barely be necessary if companies like John Deere, Apple, and Comcast continue along their trajectories. Imagine the power the tractor company would hold if they were able to dictate whether or not their machinery were allowed to be repaired or you would just have to buy a new one to continue sowing grain. Consider the power of a company with similar power over electronics and personal computers. All the innovation and creativity in the world doesn't mean a thing if a company controlling the means of distribution for new products and stories can decide to refuse their service.
How can we dilute these powers, without only strengthening centralized government power, and while still providing opportunity and daily bread for the individual? I don't know. I have some ideas, but truly I can't say what I'd really do if I were ruler of the world, or even just the US. What I can say is that no one else really can either. There's a dearth of ideas and solutions floating around out there because we're not addressing the issue.
The idea of a post-scarcity economy and society is so revolutionary that it doesn't sound real. Talking about robotics and computing replacing human beings as the driving force in the economy sounds like science fiction, despite the fact that we continually experience it as reality. The whole issue is so massive and so out there that it's not addressed seriously in politics, and rarely in thoughtful conversation. If this continues we'll find ourselves in a world clinging to obsolete social mores and struggling to make them fit in the modern world. We can't let that happen, so let's think about getting ready for post-scarcity.
Monday, June 1, 2015
Are We Ready for Post Scarcity? Part 2
It's easy to romanticize scarcity when looking to address the problems that arise as it fades from the eyes of humankind. Recent bouts in popular culture of "paleo-nostalgia" show us just how absurd our longing for "the good old days" can get. But the good old days were never as good as we pretend they were. The fifties had Jim Crow laws. Pre-industrial society was awash in the filth of both the horses that pulled carriages and the humans that rode in them. Why I should have to point out the scourges of humanity in medieval, bronze age, or stone age days is beyond me, but I'll mention crusades and inquisitions, the slavery that built the pyramids, and war among rival tribes of cave men just to be safe.
I bring this up because it's important to note that I'm not advocating we avoid creating a post scarcity world. Precisely the opposite, I want to acknowledge that we're in the middle of doing so, and embrace the change. To do that though, we need to be wary and accepting of the consequences. Some of those may be unimaginable and have to be addressed as they come. Others are more predictable, especially when we consider history.
I mentioned the abundance of food in part one. Now consider farming, the production of that food. Farming is remarkably different in the modern world, and it's so efficient that we can produce so much food that our primary concerns don't regard abundance. We take abundance of food for granted, instead seeking better quality and solutions for what to do with the excess. This has come at a price, though.
The great depression featured, "Farming communities and rural areas suffer[ing] as crop prices fell by approximately 60%." (wikipedia, citing three other sources) The abundance and efficiency of farming is so staggering that only through heavy subsidies is agriculture profitable today. These subsidies are so severe that Lawrence Lessig in his book Republic, Lost titles his chapter on government farming subsidies, "Why don't we have free markets?" We recoil at the realization that government is deciding what food gets grown, and yet this might be important and beneficial to society, since we all like to eat. Surely subsidizing agriculture is better than milk being spilled into gutters while thousands only a few hundred miles away starved, a characteristic image of the depression?
Food is one thing, it's physical and tangible. We're all familiar with it and easily understand what it means. Information is quite another, yet it's the next thing whose scarcity is being obliterated. Personal computing and the internet have done a pretty good job already, once again changing the problems from availability to find-ability of information of high enough quality and relevance.
What have humans done with this? We haven't become a society of well read polyglots that understand the conflicts between relativity and quantum mechanics as we might hope. We're very well entertained, though. Entertainment is just a form of information, after all. A textbook has roughly the same form as a storybook. With Netflix, Hulu, & Youtube, for videos alone we can spend our entire day being entertained for probably not quite $100 a month.
This doesn't (necessarily) mean we're stupid or shallow, though. Many of the most popular shows are sharply written character and political dramas like House of Cards, Mad Men, Breaking Bad, and Game of Thrones. The recent revival of Carl Sagan's Cosmos series did well. It could be argued more people are writing than ever before thanks to blogging sites like what you're reading now and maybe even social media.
OK, I'll admit I might not be buying the idea that the lack of scarcity in entertainment is improving us as a people either, but on the other hand I'm not going to dismiss it outright. A stronger example might be video games. The juggernaut game Minecraft is almost exclusively a creative tool rather than a traditional game. Gaming has a strong community of "modding," or learning some basic (or in some cases extremely complex) programming tools used in a game to create a variant of that game. These variants span anything between the original game with a failure message changed from, "You died." to "Thanks, Obama!" to entirely new games built on the same graphics and gameplay engine.
In both food and entertainment we do see demand for quality now that availability is so high. People grow from just being happy to have something to eat to wanting something that is organic, gluten-free, or maybe even something actually important. People start paying attention to what their food is over whether or not it's there. Likewise in entertainment we are demanding quality more and more. We are seeking entertainment that we can, as Kevin Spacey says, "engage with...with a passion and an intimacy that a blockbuster movie could only dream of."
Bertrand Russell writes in his essay In Praise of Idleness about the odd disconnect that exists between our valuation of production and consumption. While we admire productivity we don't highly value consumption. Those who earn money have prestige, but not those eager to spend it. He points out the oddity of this, particularly when we only earn money is by others' spending of it. "We think too much of production, and too little of consumption. One result is that we attach too little importance to enjoyment and simple happiness, and that we do not judge production by the pleasure that it gives to the consumer."
Russell also alludes to the caste and class scaffolds that these attitudes seem to stem from. He even goes so far to argue that the traditional work ethic arose largely as a tool of slave-owners and autocrats to keep their populations content with their tyrannical rule. If this is starting to sound like Marxist thinking to you then you're actually very clever. A serious point of departure I must take to this essay is his praise given to the (only ten years old at the time of writing) Russian revolution and newly formed USSR.
We all know how that experiment turned out, so how can I possibly be suggesting that going at it again is a going to be a good thing? The short answer is that I'm not. I am arguing that an economy with abundance for humanity requiring very little input of labor from humanity is on the horizon, or even just finishing its arrival and is starting to settle in. One of my great concerns is the way this could create a dictatorship masquerading as efforts to provide equally for all men like existed in communist Russia. I'll delve into this a little more in part 3.
I bring this up because it's important to note that I'm not advocating we avoid creating a post scarcity world. Precisely the opposite, I want to acknowledge that we're in the middle of doing so, and embrace the change. To do that though, we need to be wary and accepting of the consequences. Some of those may be unimaginable and have to be addressed as they come. Others are more predictable, especially when we consider history.
I mentioned the abundance of food in part one. Now consider farming, the production of that food. Farming is remarkably different in the modern world, and it's so efficient that we can produce so much food that our primary concerns don't regard abundance. We take abundance of food for granted, instead seeking better quality and solutions for what to do with the excess. This has come at a price, though.
The great depression featured, "Farming communities and rural areas suffer[ing] as crop prices fell by approximately 60%." (wikipedia, citing three other sources) The abundance and efficiency of farming is so staggering that only through heavy subsidies is agriculture profitable today. These subsidies are so severe that Lawrence Lessig in his book Republic, Lost titles his chapter on government farming subsidies, "Why don't we have free markets?" We recoil at the realization that government is deciding what food gets grown, and yet this might be important and beneficial to society, since we all like to eat. Surely subsidizing agriculture is better than milk being spilled into gutters while thousands only a few hundred miles away starved, a characteristic image of the depression?
Food is one thing, it's physical and tangible. We're all familiar with it and easily understand what it means. Information is quite another, yet it's the next thing whose scarcity is being obliterated. Personal computing and the internet have done a pretty good job already, once again changing the problems from availability to find-ability of information of high enough quality and relevance.
What have humans done with this? We haven't become a society of well read polyglots that understand the conflicts between relativity and quantum mechanics as we might hope. We're very well entertained, though. Entertainment is just a form of information, after all. A textbook has roughly the same form as a storybook. With Netflix, Hulu, & Youtube, for videos alone we can spend our entire day being entertained for probably not quite $100 a month.
This doesn't (necessarily) mean we're stupid or shallow, though. Many of the most popular shows are sharply written character and political dramas like House of Cards, Mad Men, Breaking Bad, and Game of Thrones. The recent revival of Carl Sagan's Cosmos series did well. It could be argued more people are writing than ever before thanks to blogging sites like what you're reading now and maybe even social media.
OK, I'll admit I might not be buying the idea that the lack of scarcity in entertainment is improving us as a people either, but on the other hand I'm not going to dismiss it outright. A stronger example might be video games. The juggernaut game Minecraft is almost exclusively a creative tool rather than a traditional game. Gaming has a strong community of "modding," or learning some basic (or in some cases extremely complex) programming tools used in a game to create a variant of that game. These variants span anything between the original game with a failure message changed from, "You died." to "Thanks, Obama!" to entirely new games built on the same graphics and gameplay engine.
In both food and entertainment we do see demand for quality now that availability is so high. People grow from just being happy to have something to eat to wanting something that is organic, gluten-free, or maybe even something actually important. People start paying attention to what their food is over whether or not it's there. Likewise in entertainment we are demanding quality more and more. We are seeking entertainment that we can, as Kevin Spacey says, "engage with...with a passion and an intimacy that a blockbuster movie could only dream of."
Bertrand Russell writes in his essay In Praise of Idleness about the odd disconnect that exists between our valuation of production and consumption. While we admire productivity we don't highly value consumption. Those who earn money have prestige, but not those eager to spend it. He points out the oddity of this, particularly when we only earn money is by others' spending of it. "We think too much of production, and too little of consumption. One result is that we attach too little importance to enjoyment and simple happiness, and that we do not judge production by the pleasure that it gives to the consumer."
Russell also alludes to the caste and class scaffolds that these attitudes seem to stem from. He even goes so far to argue that the traditional work ethic arose largely as a tool of slave-owners and autocrats to keep their populations content with their tyrannical rule. If this is starting to sound like Marxist thinking to you then you're actually very clever. A serious point of departure I must take to this essay is his praise given to the (only ten years old at the time of writing) Russian revolution and newly formed USSR.
We all know how that experiment turned out, so how can I possibly be suggesting that going at it again is a going to be a good thing? The short answer is that I'm not. I am arguing that an economy with abundance for humanity requiring very little input of labor from humanity is on the horizon, or even just finishing its arrival and is starting to settle in. One of my great concerns is the way this could create a dictatorship masquerading as efforts to provide equally for all men like existed in communist Russia. I'll delve into this a little more in part 3.
Wednesday, March 25, 2015
Are We Ready for Post Scarcity? Part 1
The abundance of the modern day is staggering. Food alone is now requiring few man hours and producing vast amounts of product. In about 25 years the personal computer has gone from a relatively cutting edge office device to a ubiquitous handheld one. The amazing advances in technology will only cascade into more, and these will bring amazing blessings, conveniences, and boons to humankind. These are gifts we should be prepared to freely receive, but like a gift of chocolate that will make us sick if eaten to quickly or heavy book that will require much reading and concentration we need to be receive these with caution and adroitness.
Let's go back to food. One of the interesting points of contention between my brothers, me, and our grandmother is our approach and mentalities surrounding food. Our grandma, growing up in a family that suffered through and being born shortly after the great depression, views food as a precious and scarce resource. She often views food in terms of availability, enjoying buffets and inexpensive diners and being anxious over throwing away uneaten scraps or spoiling produce. My brothers, and even my parents, live in the modern age and see food as abundant. We don't like to waste food, but recognize that when the bread gets moldy it should be thrown out because it only costs a dollar or two (ten minutes of work at minimum wage) to get another loaf. We live devoid of the "clean your plate" ethic so common in past generations.
Thank heavens for that too, as obesity and overeating are a greater health risk to us than malnutrition (though I am skeptical of the magnitude of this risk). It's actually odd to think about health risks arising because nourishment is so easy to obtain. Taking anatomy and physiology I've learned hundreds of ways in which a deficiency of calcium, iodine, glucose, iron, or any other number of dietary intakes cause problems. It's bizarre to think of problems coming about simply because we have so much of those things we need and love that we run out places to put it and spend so much time and energy to keeping it all together.
Food is only the beginning of this, though. Technology is more and more in in the reach of anyone who'd like it. Entertainment and education is more available than ever with the internet. And these are just the commodities being made abundant with modern technology. Go even slightly futuristic and we have productive capabilities exploding via robotics, precious metals or gems having their scarcity destroyed by advanced chemical and materials engineering techniques, and even thought or creativity flooding the market in ways never before seen thanks to better distribution systems, or even AI and other futuristic computing creating new art.
The challenges presented by this can be staggering though. The central one is likely motivation. Survival and status have been the principle motivators of a person in the past. That might have meant being the mightiest hunter in the tribe that's always well fed or the most influential business magnate on wall street who always had some opportunity waiting, but the principles been the same. Many of us have said something like, "I really don't want to go to work today but they won't pay me if I don't so I guess I had better," and we've probably even said that with some frequency. If we reach post scarcity we theoretically won't ever need to get paid, so what will keep us getting out of bed in the morning and off the streets? I'll be investigating this and other ideas of a post-scarcity society and economy in part 2.
Let's go back to food. One of the interesting points of contention between my brothers, me, and our grandmother is our approach and mentalities surrounding food. Our grandma, growing up in a family that suffered through and being born shortly after the great depression, views food as a precious and scarce resource. She often views food in terms of availability, enjoying buffets and inexpensive diners and being anxious over throwing away uneaten scraps or spoiling produce. My brothers, and even my parents, live in the modern age and see food as abundant. We don't like to waste food, but recognize that when the bread gets moldy it should be thrown out because it only costs a dollar or two (ten minutes of work at minimum wage) to get another loaf. We live devoid of the "clean your plate" ethic so common in past generations.
Thank heavens for that too, as obesity and overeating are a greater health risk to us than malnutrition (though I am skeptical of the magnitude of this risk). It's actually odd to think about health risks arising because nourishment is so easy to obtain. Taking anatomy and physiology I've learned hundreds of ways in which a deficiency of calcium, iodine, glucose, iron, or any other number of dietary intakes cause problems. It's bizarre to think of problems coming about simply because we have so much of those things we need and love that we run out places to put it and spend so much time and energy to keeping it all together.
Food is only the beginning of this, though. Technology is more and more in in the reach of anyone who'd like it. Entertainment and education is more available than ever with the internet. And these are just the commodities being made abundant with modern technology. Go even slightly futuristic and we have productive capabilities exploding via robotics, precious metals or gems having their scarcity destroyed by advanced chemical and materials engineering techniques, and even thought or creativity flooding the market in ways never before seen thanks to better distribution systems, or even AI and other futuristic computing creating new art.
The challenges presented by this can be staggering though. The central one is likely motivation. Survival and status have been the principle motivators of a person in the past. That might have meant being the mightiest hunter in the tribe that's always well fed or the most influential business magnate on wall street who always had some opportunity waiting, but the principles been the same. Many of us have said something like, "I really don't want to go to work today but they won't pay me if I don't so I guess I had better," and we've probably even said that with some frequency. If we reach post scarcity we theoretically won't ever need to get paid, so what will keep us getting out of bed in the morning and off the streets? I'll be investigating this and other ideas of a post-scarcity society and economy in part 2.
Saturday, February 28, 2015
Technology, cheating, and the Augmented Mind
As a student I've been taking plenty of tests lately. My university has a pretty good testing system and convenient testing centers and I'm a pretty good test taker so none of this really bothers me, but I have found the testing center policies interesting. The fact that I have to remove my hat before going in is one. Recently they've also disallowed the wearing of a wristwatch, almost certainly in response to the new smart-watch technology coming out. While this is the right thing to do, it does indicate a need for much grander changes in both the way we do things as well as our thinking, probably especially in education. Changes we are woefully unprepared for.
Let's consider the testing center again, perhaps as if you were the director of these. We made the change for smart-watches so that they won't be used for cheating. What will we do if Google Glass, or a similar project where data is displayed on a pair of glasses worn by the user, takes off and starts showing up? If that technology becomes integrated into people's prescription lenses? What about if those smart watches become smart tattoos? What about when students start having direct neural interfaces integrating computers into the brain? These problems are coming, and I think we can quickly see there's no easy solution, and maybe no solution at all to make a our current testing systems compatible with the existence of these technologies.
As my neuroscience teacher put it, most testing today is a simple demonstration of declarative memory. This is to say tests usually require a simple recalling of facts, figures, or other basic knowledge. However, the need for this to be done in the human brain is dwindling. Facts can be more easily stored, more quickly recalled, and more reliably maintained in computer systems than in nervous tissue. Why would we keep using cerebral circuits (that weren't really designed to do this in the first place) when we can use electronic ones? The go to example is memorizing phone numbers, something many of us remember doing before technology made it an exercise in pointless exertion of energy.
Lest you think this is the pie in the sky omphaloskepsis of a futurist and science fiction fan, let me relay a story I heard from one parent. He wanted to have his daughter writing letters, and specifically to do so using some specific vocabulary. Shortly after he heard his daughter speaking out loud while alone in her room writing the letter. Listening closer he realized she was using the voice recognition feature of the tablet/smartphone to simply ask for the spelling of the appropriate words. This was much to his disappointment, as he was expecting her to look the words up when writing them and learn the definition along with the spelling. That's how big a change something as simple as voice recognition is making.
A future where traditional testing is pointless seems on the horizon. How education will or even can deal with this is unclear. The problem with leaving our traditional testing is that other methods require more work to evaluate, and usually are less objective which can be a big problem for admissions tests like the MCAT. The only solution I've thought of is an increase in internships and apprentice work, but whether or not this is feasible is unclear. I know the major reason the radiology or medical laboratory programs at my school can't admit more than about 40% of applicant students is because they only have so many slots for clinical rotations available. It could be damaging to the economy to have the influx of cheap or free labor that having five interns or apprentices to every one trained employee might mean. The problem is a big one, and sadly I haven't seen it given all that much attention. Let's hope for and work toward that changing sometime soon.
Let's consider the testing center again, perhaps as if you were the director of these. We made the change for smart-watches so that they won't be used for cheating. What will we do if Google Glass, or a similar project where data is displayed on a pair of glasses worn by the user, takes off and starts showing up? If that technology becomes integrated into people's prescription lenses? What about if those smart watches become smart tattoos? What about when students start having direct neural interfaces integrating computers into the brain? These problems are coming, and I think we can quickly see there's no easy solution, and maybe no solution at all to make a our current testing systems compatible with the existence of these technologies.
As my neuroscience teacher put it, most testing today is a simple demonstration of declarative memory. This is to say tests usually require a simple recalling of facts, figures, or other basic knowledge. However, the need for this to be done in the human brain is dwindling. Facts can be more easily stored, more quickly recalled, and more reliably maintained in computer systems than in nervous tissue. Why would we keep using cerebral circuits (that weren't really designed to do this in the first place) when we can use electronic ones? The go to example is memorizing phone numbers, something many of us remember doing before technology made it an exercise in pointless exertion of energy.
Lest you think this is the pie in the sky omphaloskepsis of a futurist and science fiction fan, let me relay a story I heard from one parent. He wanted to have his daughter writing letters, and specifically to do so using some specific vocabulary. Shortly after he heard his daughter speaking out loud while alone in her room writing the letter. Listening closer he realized she was using the voice recognition feature of the tablet/smartphone to simply ask for the spelling of the appropriate words. This was much to his disappointment, as he was expecting her to look the words up when writing them and learn the definition along with the spelling. That's how big a change something as simple as voice recognition is making.
A future where traditional testing is pointless seems on the horizon. How education will or even can deal with this is unclear. The problem with leaving our traditional testing is that other methods require more work to evaluate, and usually are less objective which can be a big problem for admissions tests like the MCAT. The only solution I've thought of is an increase in internships and apprentice work, but whether or not this is feasible is unclear. I know the major reason the radiology or medical laboratory programs at my school can't admit more than about 40% of applicant students is because they only have so many slots for clinical rotations available. It could be damaging to the economy to have the influx of cheap or free labor that having five interns or apprentices to every one trained employee might mean. The problem is a big one, and sadly I haven't seen it given all that much attention. Let's hope for and work toward that changing sometime soon.
Friday, February 6, 2015
From an Aspiring Medical Professional
I've always been a scientist. Some of my earliest memories are wanting to use beakers, test tubes, & microscopes in school. My mother tells me that one of my favorite toys as a child was an old radio I was allowed to disassemble and rebuild, being fascinated at how the pieces fit together. I've always seen science as exciting and fun. For most of the time that I understood the concept I've seen it as a noble pursuit as well. "The glory of God is intelligence," I was taught, and science is a rigorous pursuit of understanding.
I've learned since then about the very human nature of this endeavor. Learned things like how Newton's preference for a 'corpuscular' or particle theory of light, rather than the wave theory which works better, probably set back the field of optics a century or two, but few wanted to propose ideas that would dare contradict the great and powerful Newton. I've learned this about religion, philosophy, sports, families, and just about everything else humans do as well, though. These days science may have trouble acknowledging its limitations, but it does good and improves the human condition. And yet the ranks of those who share this view are suffering loses.
This seems mostly in the field of medicinal and health sciences. This rarely used to bother me, but it is more and more lately. Maybe it's because I'm getting older and the issues are closer to affecting me and involving choices I'll have to make. Maybe it's just because things that were more fringe in the past are getting talked about more these days. Maybe it's because part of me agrees that this field of science is a lot more blurry than the physics and mathematics I originally studied, but entering into the field I'm seeing the strength of the science. I'd be remiss not to have mentioned these possibilities in a writing about science, rigor, and emotion, but I don't think they're the reason. At least not the primary one.
I am an aspiring medical professional. I'm going into radiography or clinical laboratory science, depending on which program accepts me and a few other factors. I feel like scientific thinkers, which would include many medical professionals and certainly myself, rarely make effective arguments that would entice someone not scientifically inclined to rethink their ideas. This is likely because anecdotes, emotional pleas, and pithy quips will not change the fundamental forces of nature and therefore aren't the first thing reached for in scientists' mental toolboxes. So it feels odd for me to speak about my emotional and personal reactions in the context of understanding biomedical science, but it may be just what some need to hear.
There always seems to be an edge of accusation toward the medical profession by those that eschew its methods. It's difficult for me to say this as I don't believe it's intentional, but it is the truth. The message is that the medical profession, and therefore medical professionals, is a bumbling ignoramus unwilling to understand the simple truths that should be instinctively understood, a shadowy or scaremongering elite seeking only power and control, or an uncaring power more interested in processing patients to collect their checks than healing them. It may be some combination of the three, but these are the primary narratives with their implications laid bare and made plain.
I believe they are all wrong, but moreover I know they are all insulting. I think this might be why I've been more affected by those who leave the ranks of accepted science for other conceptions of fulfilling medicine. The secret message in those actions, words, and thoughts are that I don't care about my patients. I do care about my patients, and I don't even have any yet. I study hard and ensure I understand the concepts of my classes because I worry about making the wrong call and endangering someone's health. I've listened to opposing views, considered the ideas, and always been unconvinced that those methods and practices would best serve the sick or the healthy. I want to get paid for application of the skills I'm acquiring, sure, but I did when I worked other customer service positions as well and was still driven to serve the client. When I see someone taking medical risks I'm annoyed because so often those risks are unnecessary, and I care about them. So, from an aspiring medical professional, please reexamine your ideas if you're forgoing modern medicine. Please give me and my ilk the benefit of the doubt and some level of trust. We're absolutely doing our best to deserve that much.
I've learned since then about the very human nature of this endeavor. Learned things like how Newton's preference for a 'corpuscular' or particle theory of light, rather than the wave theory which works better, probably set back the field of optics a century or two, but few wanted to propose ideas that would dare contradict the great and powerful Newton. I've learned this about religion, philosophy, sports, families, and just about everything else humans do as well, though. These days science may have trouble acknowledging its limitations, but it does good and improves the human condition. And yet the ranks of those who share this view are suffering loses.
This seems mostly in the field of medicinal and health sciences. This rarely used to bother me, but it is more and more lately. Maybe it's because I'm getting older and the issues are closer to affecting me and involving choices I'll have to make. Maybe it's just because things that were more fringe in the past are getting talked about more these days. Maybe it's because part of me agrees that this field of science is a lot more blurry than the physics and mathematics I originally studied, but entering into the field I'm seeing the strength of the science. I'd be remiss not to have mentioned these possibilities in a writing about science, rigor, and emotion, but I don't think they're the reason. At least not the primary one.
I am an aspiring medical professional. I'm going into radiography or clinical laboratory science, depending on which program accepts me and a few other factors. I feel like scientific thinkers, which would include many medical professionals and certainly myself, rarely make effective arguments that would entice someone not scientifically inclined to rethink their ideas. This is likely because anecdotes, emotional pleas, and pithy quips will not change the fundamental forces of nature and therefore aren't the first thing reached for in scientists' mental toolboxes. So it feels odd for me to speak about my emotional and personal reactions in the context of understanding biomedical science, but it may be just what some need to hear.
There always seems to be an edge of accusation toward the medical profession by those that eschew its methods. It's difficult for me to say this as I don't believe it's intentional, but it is the truth. The message is that the medical profession, and therefore medical professionals, is a bumbling ignoramus unwilling to understand the simple truths that should be instinctively understood, a shadowy or scaremongering elite seeking only power and control, or an uncaring power more interested in processing patients to collect their checks than healing them. It may be some combination of the three, but these are the primary narratives with their implications laid bare and made plain.
I believe they are all wrong, but moreover I know they are all insulting. I think this might be why I've been more affected by those who leave the ranks of accepted science for other conceptions of fulfilling medicine. The secret message in those actions, words, and thoughts are that I don't care about my patients. I do care about my patients, and I don't even have any yet. I study hard and ensure I understand the concepts of my classes because I worry about making the wrong call and endangering someone's health. I've listened to opposing views, considered the ideas, and always been unconvinced that those methods and practices would best serve the sick or the healthy. I want to get paid for application of the skills I'm acquiring, sure, but I did when I worked other customer service positions as well and was still driven to serve the client. When I see someone taking medical risks I'm annoyed because so often those risks are unnecessary, and I care about them. So, from an aspiring medical professional, please reexamine your ideas if you're forgoing modern medicine. Please give me and my ilk the benefit of the doubt and some level of trust. We're absolutely doing our best to deserve that much.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)