Again, Living in History

This isn’t about Trump or MAGA per se. I suspect most people don’t realize how we’re all witnessing historic shifts in American and world politics in the past few years. What many of us are not noticing will be written up in future history books.

NY Times, opinion by Carlos Lozada, today: America Has Become a Dangerous Nation [gift link]

We had a good run — some eight decades or so — but it is clear by now that the United States has ceased to be the leader of the free world. A successor for that post has not been named, and it appears unlikely that the European Union, or NATO, or whatever constitutes “the West” these days will promote from within. The job might even be eliminated, one more reduction in force courtesy of President Trump.

Rather than leading the free world, the United States is striding across the globe seemingly free of restraint, forethought or strategy, exerting its power because it can. In a matter of months, the Trump administration has captured Venezuela’s president and tossed him into jail in Brooklyn and has pummeled Iran’s theocratic leadership in a war that is ricocheting across the Middle East and upending the global economy; now the president says he will have “the honor of taking Cuba” next. Trump in his second term is like Michael Corleone in “The Godfather,” settling all the family business.

Very long piece; gift link provided. A couple more samples.

The United States wants the benefits of hegemony, but without accepting the responsibilities — ensuring collective security, promoting economic openness, nurturing vital alliances — that come with it. Trump doesn’t care to be a superpower; he just likes to wield superpowers. He wants to operate in the world constrained only by “my own morality” and “my own mind,” as he told The Times recently.

Lozada recalls a similar transition: “when we were shifting from a Cold War stalemate to a period of unrivaled U.S. primacy”.

In this light, Trump’s fixation on how America is getting “ripped off” by the rest of the world — whether through trade deficits, the loss of manufacturing plants, or insufficient military spending by NATO members — is not just the mantra of a real-estate guy obsessed with negotiating a better deal. It is also the resentment that dominant powers always have toward weaker ones, as Robert Gilpin, an international relations theorist, explained in “War and Change in World Politics,” his classic 1981 study of what makes hegemons come and go.

… For Trump, the problem with leading the free world is that the free world gets a free ride.

Skipping a lot. The essay concludes:

We are not entering a post-American world, one in which the United States recedes from the stage or stops wielding its military might. Far from it. But we may be entering a post-America world, one in which the meaning of America, the principles and values the country has long stood for — sometimes in reality, sometimes in aspiration — are fading. And the loss of that America may prove just as damaging, and far more lasting, than any harm Donald Trump’s excursions can inflict.

And this last thought certainly echoes my repeated comments that modern conservatives, especially MAGA, are less and less interested in the principles upon which the US was founded, than they are in protecting themselves and oppressing others.

\\\

For example. They really do want to destroy non-Christians. None of this Constitutional nonsense for them.

Right Wing Watch, Kyle Mantyla, 23 Mar 2026: By Any Means Necessary: Christian Nationalists Call For The Destruction Of Their Political Enemies

Last week, Christian nationalists Joshua Haymes and Brooks Potteiger urged their fellow right-wing Christians to pray “imprecatory psalms” against James Talarico, the Democratic nominee for the U.S. Senate from Texas.

Talarico is a Presbyterian seminarian who has openly cited his Christian faith in support of his progressive political positions, much to the outrage right-wing Christian nationalists.

Potteiger, who was the pastor at the church attended by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth in Nashville, Tennessee, and will soon take over the Washington, DC church founded by Christian nationalist Doug Wilson, warned that Talarico is “a wolf” who is working to “distort what Christianity is in order to lead people away from Christ, toward the teaching of demons.”

As such, Potteiger and Haymes encouraged the use of “imprecatory psalms” against Talarico, which are prayers asking God to pour out his destruction upon one’s enemies.

“I pray that God kills him,” Haymes declared. “Ultimately, that means killing his heart and raising him up to new life in Christ … If it would not be within God’s will to do so, stop him by any means necessary.”

And that’s just the first example. Anything not part of their fundamentalist religious ideology is “evil” and must be destroyed. (And other religions, like Islam, think other things are evil and must be destroyed. This is why religion is dangerous.)

\\\

Asking the question yet again.

Washington Post, opinion by Jim Geraghty, today: There’s a reason for MAGA’s 100% support of Trump, subtitled “MAGA is standing by Trump and his war, with help from a polling fault.”

Conservative journalist Christopher Caldwell, hitherto a strong supporter of Donald Trump, is so deeply disappointed with the president’s decision to launch a war against the Iranian regime that he concluded in the Spectator: “The attack on Iran is so wildly inconsistent with the wishes of his own base, so diametrically opposed to their reading of the national interest, that it is likely to mark the end of Trumpism as a project.”

And so on. Let’s jump down and see the writer identifies a reason for that poll (even if that result wasn’t really 100%).

Well, here’s what he finds. Basically: those who disapproved of Trump way back when stopped calling themselves MAGA, or even Republican, and so aren’t being counted in polls like this.

If you’re a Trump supporter who is upset or wary about the Iran war or the resulting impact on gas prices … maybe you’re not as inclined to identify as MAGA to a pollster lately.

That’s why we shouldn’t expect to find many MAGA supporters expressing their opposition to Trump’s decisions on Iran or much else. When people in this demographic disagree strongly enough, eventually they just stop calling themselves MAGA.

There is no “Trumpism” without Trump, and thus it is difficult to buy into Caldwell’s argument that the president is betraying some clear preexisting set of values. To the extent “Trumpism” as a philosophy exists, a core tenet appears to be: “Always trust the guy in charge, because he knows what he is doing and is playing seven-level chess.”

\\\

Briefly noted.

Posted in Conservative Resistance, History, Human Nature, Politics, Religion | Leave a comment

Morality Wars

Widely reported today.

Mediaite, 22 Mar 2026: Trump Declares ‘The Death of Iran’ — Then Brands Democratic Party America’s ‘Greatest Enemy’ in Stunning Post

“Now with the death of Iran, the greatest enemy America has is the Radical Left, Highly Incompetent, Democrat Party!” Trump wrote.

So he’s declaring half the country to be the enemy of “America” — which he implicitly defines as MAGA and his supporters. Doesn’t he realize that, at least nominally, he’s supposed to be the president of the entire United States? Apparently not. Or is he declaring a civil war?

\\\

Here is Trump pandering to his people.

Mirror, Mikey Smith in Washington DC, today: Donald Trump demands election rigging plan be approved ‘for Jesus’ in deranged rant.

Subtitle: Giving a speech in Memphis, Tennessee, Trump said he was going to order Republicans to withhold funding from the Department of Homeland Security until the Senate passes his bill to pass the so-called “SAVE America Act”

The reason Democrats don’t support the SAVE act, aside from the difficulties it imposes on people the Republicans would rather not vote, is that Republicans refuse to include provisions requiring ICE agents to follow the Constitution. Maybe the Democrats should ask why can’t they follow the Constitution for Jesus?

\\\

How can MAGA claim to be Christian while supporting Trump? A long answer.

HuffPost, Caroline Bologna, 21 Mar 2026: ‘Vertical Morality’ Might Describe Why MAGA Christians Seem So Unchristian, subtitled “This framework reveals why some MAGA-aligned Christians act in ways that contradict Jesus’ teachings.”

For many Americans, the gap between Christian teachings and MAGA politics is baffling. How can people profess faith in Jesus ― who preached love, mercy and care for the oppressed ― while supporting policies that punish immigrants, demonize LGBTQ people and glorify cruelty?

The key to understanding this apparent contradiction might lie in something called “vertical morality.”

This ethical framework measures righteousness not by goodness to others, but by something more simplistic.

Defining things, quoting activist Rachel Klinger Cain.

“Vertical morality is just how I describe what’s called ‘divine command theory’ in metaethics,” she said. “I’m a teacher, so I’m always looking for ways to make complicated concepts a little more simple. It’s basically the idea that morality comes from authority above, which is what I was taught when I was raised within conservative Christianity.”

Vertical morality stands in contrast to the concept of horizontal morality, another term Klinger Cain has broken down in her videos.

“Horizontal morality prioritizes the well-being of our neighbors, communities and personal relationships,” Ajoy explained. “We act in ways that cause the least amount of harm to those around us, regardless of beliefs. Someone with vertical morality may help someone in need because they believe that’s what God wants them to do, versus someone with horizontal morality may help that same person for the benefit of the person that needs help.”

Other key bits:

“Evangelicals are taught that all morality comes from God and therefore true goodness can only be spread by obeying God, even if it harms people around us,” Ajoy said. “This isn’t necessarily a bad thing if pleasing God manifests by following the teachings of Jesus ― loving our neighbors, loving our enemies, promoting peace and taking care of the poor, the widow, the immigrant and standing up for the marginalized. It becomes dangerous when Christians weaponize this vertical morality for power, which is exactly what we’re seeing with the Christian nationalism in the Trump administration.”

In the current era, conservative Christian nationalists see anyone on their political team as good and on God’s side, while those who oppose them as evil and satanic.

“What’s interesting is that Jesus taught a compassionate, flexible, grace-filled view of what it means to live a life loving God,” Levings noted. “But today’s conservative Christianity is less influenced by Jesus and more by the Old Testament and Paul.”

Exactly the point I’ve made over and over. And, this attitude:

“It predates Jesus, and it’s disinterested in evidence, science, progress, research, experience or the inclusion of other worldviews,” Levings said. “Theonomy is part of the Reformed theology that’s been growing in the evangelical movement for the past 30 years.”

And from author April Ajoy:

“The problem with MAGA Christians is that they promote policies that often go against the teachings of Jesus,” Ajoy said. “They justify it by promoting a view of God that is vengeful. They demonize all immigrants as criminals, all queer people as predators, all leftists as violent and all Democrats as satanic ― with no evidence to back these claims. And because they believe in a literal hell and a God-ordained calling to make the nation Christian, they justify cruelty in the name of ‘tough love.’”

Quite a long article, hitting familiar themes, from immigrants to the Ku Klux Klan. It’s about hierarchy. Morals come from God. Believers next. And unbelievers on some lower plane. Simplistic, tribal.

Of course, morality does not come from God; it evolved over hundreds of thousands of years because it enabled those to accomplish more, to cooperate, to develop larger towns and civilizations, greater trade networks and contacts with the outer world, than the xenophobic, superstitious tribalists who never did. The deeper explanation, which the article does not recognize, is that the motives of these vertical moralists reflect base human nature, while the horizontal moralists reflect a mature human nature, analogous to the many ways this span has been described. Deep in their guts, conservatives are more comfortable with the OT than with whatever Jesus said, which some now dismiss as being too “woke.”

\\\

And again.

The Atlantic, Peter Wehner, 23 Mar 2026: How Trump Killed Conservatism, subtitled “The president has cultivated and encouraged the ugliest passions within the GOP, dousing the embers of hate with kerosene.”

The “Make America Great Again” movement is the beating heart of the GOP, the dominant political party in America—which makes MAGA the most important political movement in the world. And that is why some recent developments within the MAGA movement are so disquieting.

Going on with examples from today’s young Republicans.

\\\

Robert Reich predicts.

Robert Reich, today: Why He’ll Surrender Soon, subtitled “But he’ll call it a great victory”

No one knows what Trump is going to do from minute to minute, least of all Trump. But it’s looking ever more likely he’ll be exiting Iran within days, declaring his “excursion” into it (as he’s termed his war) a major victory — and then changing the subject.

Because he’s done this kind of thing before. And his supporters will believe that he actually accomplished something, because he told them so.

Posted in Conservative Resistance, conservatives, Human Nature, Politics | Leave a comment

Skiffy Flix: It Came from Outer Space

Returning to our ongoing series.

It Came from Outer Space is a 1953 film directed by Jack Arnold (who did some similar movies in the same era) and based on a story treatment by Ray Bradbury (not a published short story). Despite the poster above, the DVD I watched was in black and white, and there was no 3-D effect (I wonder how they did a 3-D effect in black and white).

This film has similarities with others skiffy films of its era, yet it has certain charms, and it ends much more positively that most of those others.

Here’s the Wikipedia entry for this film.

Summary of plot:

  • John Putnam, an amateur astronomer and magazine article writer living in a small house in Sand Rock AZ, is looking at the stars with his girlfriend/fiancee Ellen Fields when they see a huge meteorite streak past overhead.
  • Putnam finds the landing site — a huge crater. He climbs down and sees some kind of ship, perhaps, half-buried, with a hatch that opens, exposing a creature with a single eye. The hatch closes, and something triggers a landslide into the crater. Putnam escapes, but the ship is buried.
  • Meanwhile we see POV shots from one of the aliens — a fish-eye lens view of the desert surroundings — and the glitter it leaves as a trail. Later, as Putnam and girlfriend drive back home, the monster appears in the road a blocks their car. Putnam has a gun, and the car as a spotlight by the review mirror, but they see nothing.
  • Putnam insists he saw something, perhaps even life, but no one believes him, not the reporters who show up the next day, not even his astronomer friend Dr. Snell.
  • Driving down the highway, they meet two linemen, asking if they’ve seen or heard anything. No, but yes: Putnam climbs their ladder to hear some weird hum.
  • The two linemen, George and Frank, encounter the monster as it blocks the highway and then attacks them. On a hunch, Putnam drives back to find their truck abandoned. George is missing then appears, zombielike; later the same happens to Frank.
  • Putnam drives to town and appeals the sheriff. They drive out the to the site where the trucks was, and find nothing [[ a standard sf/f ploy of someone seeing something fantastic and then having all evidence disappear ]].
  • Putnam encounters the linemen back in town, but they act like zombies, asking him to leave them alone, keep away, give us time, your friends (the real Frank and George) are alive.
  • And so on. Putnam pleads with the sheriff; two women claim their husbands have disappeared; electrical equipment is being stolen; Dr. Snell goes missing.
  • Putnam gathers that the aliens crashed on Earth accidentally and just want time to repair their ship. They’re doing so by impersonating the humans they encounter so they can go into town to get supplies. They just need time. Putnam manages to hold off the posse who would attack the ship in the crater.
  • A connection to the crater is found in a nearby mine; Ellen goes into it, determined to try to help, and is caught herself. As is Putnam, who sees a zombie version of himself. Insisting he see the alien, he sees a huge blob-like creature with a single eye. They’ve conquered space, it claims, in 1000 years, and can’t let their work fall into the wrong hands. Putnam makes a deal to stop the posse if the real people are set free.
  • Putnam sets dynamite in the mind to block that entrance. It goes off, and soon thereafter the ship rises up out of the crater and streaks away into the sky.
  • Reflecting, Putnam tells his girlfriend that this wasn’t the right time, but– they’ll be back.

Comments and quibbles

  • The plot here is fairly schematic, with a difference at the end. Hero sees aliens; evidence isn’t to be found; no one believes him. Until strange things start to happen. In this case, hero contacts aliens and understands their purpose, which is relatively noble and nonthreatening, and holds off the posse of townspeople ready to kill them. There’s no bringing in the military in their tanks, as in other skiffy flix of this era. This optimistic ending is due to Ray Bradbury, who wrote an elaborate treatment for the film and insisted on this ending.
  • There are some standard sf cliches: the theremin music, the alien as a hideous blob.
  • A couple distinctive effects are the POV shots of the alien through a fish-eye lens. And, the glitter left behind its path.
  • This is one of a group of 1950s science fiction movies I think of as “Desert Skiffy Flix,” Hollywood pictures that were filmed out in the Mojave Desert, which is only an hour two north of Hollywood. The proximate location might also explain the prevalence of Western movies and TV shows in the ’40s and into the ’60s. And of course numerous TV shows make the trek to film episodes in the desert: Trek, Twilight Zone, Mission: Impossible.
  • There are a lot of Joshua Trees in the areas where this was filmed. I grew up in the high desert town of Apple Valley, which is why these movies (and TV shows filmed out in the desert) resonate with me. (I’ll compile them sometime.) I had thought such trees were confined to parts of the Mojave Desert, though the movie claims to be set in Arizona. But Wikipedia indicates that their range does extend into Arizona. (An academic point.)
  • This was the era when professional astronomers, even linemen, wore loose, baggy suits.
  • It’s curious that since girlfriend Ellen Fields isn’t married to him yet, she’s still there at his house at midnight in the first scene when they go out to look at the stars — and see the meteor.
  • It’s also curious in that first scene that Ellen chats about whether their astrology signs are compatible. This is nonsense to an astronomer. Was this an error in the script? Or did the producers think no one in the audience would know or care? Or did the producers not know or care? Bradbury should have.
  • Many of the scenes are filmed day-for-night, i.e. filmed during the daytime and then manipulated in the studio to look darker. But it’s not always obvious, so the chronology of events is sometimes confusing.
  • It’s notable that this astronomer carries a pistol around with him.
  • I was about to note that, unusually for this era, no one smoked, until about half way through the sheriff lights up.
  • The theme of aliens replacing ordinary people with duplicates was not uncommon in this communist scare era, and appeared both in Invaders from Mars (up next) and the more famous Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

 

Posted in Skiffy Flix | Comments Off on Skiffy Flix: It Came from Outer Space

What It Means to Think That God Is On Your Side

  • Concerning Hegseth, Trump, and Rubio;
  • Also, how do religious sects decide when to reinterpret their scripture?
  • Items about 100% approval, teleportation, church/state separation, and uncounted COVID deaths;
  • FBers compare reactions to Charlie Kirk’s death to Trump’s reaction to Robert Mueller’s death;
  • And David Brin notes a similar comparison between Cesar Chavez and the people the right defends.
– – –

Everyone thinks God is on their side. Don’t they realize this?

NY Times, 20 Mar 2026: Hegseth Invokes Divine Purpose to Justify Military Might, subtitled “Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has imbued U.S. military actions with a Christian moral underpinning that suggests they are divinely sanctioned.”

He spoke of “overwhelming force” and the U.S. military’s unmatched ability to rain “death and destruction from above” on its “apocalyptic” Iranian foes.

Then, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, standing in the Pentagon, issued a call to the American people for a specific kind of wartime prayer. He asked them to pray for victory in battle and the safety of their troops.

“Every day, on bended knee, with your family, in your schools, in your churches,” he said, “in the name of Jesus Christ.”

At a time when the U.S. and Israeli militaries are dropping thousands of bombs on a majority-Shiite Muslim nation, the explicitly Christian nature of Mr. Hegseth’s call stood out.

And so on. Later:

“I was saved by God to make America great again,” Mr. Trump said at his 2025 inauguration, referencing a sense of divine mission after surviving an assassination attempt. And last month in Munich, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said America and Europe were bonded together as civilizations by “Christian faith.”

I’m not sure which is worse: that Hegseth and Rubio and Trump really believe these things, or that they just say so to appeal to their base. It simply can’t true that God is on everyone’s side. To think so is to fail reality-literacy 101. And to think that God is on your side, and the other side is evil, is simple arrogance…. Not just personal arrogance, now that I think about it. There’s a civilizational arrogance too, and racism, reflecting the notion that America thinks its culture is superior to all others, that those brown-skinned people in the Middle East or Asia or Africa can’t be quite as smart as MAGA whites and so their beliefs aren’t quite as legitimate, and so can be discounted. We’ve heard Rubio lately about the superiority of “Western Culture,” ignoring the aspects of that culture that overcame religion (the Enlightenment, the scientific revolution) and built our modern technological society. Despite religion.

\\\

Similarly, how does this work exactly? It’s not about evidence. (Science is about evidence, which is why its conclusions do change from time to time.) The Catholic Church has famously done this many times. And the Mormons…

Friendly Atheist, Hemant Mehta, today: Jehovah’s Witnesses issue “clarification” on blood transfusion ban after decades of suffering, subtitled “A long-standing life-or-death doctrine has been softened… without apology or accountability”

Of course their first mistake was in picking and choosing which passages of the Bible to apply to the modern world, and how. Mehta quotes Associated Press:

Jehovah’s Witnesses’ historic teachings on blood transfusions stem from biblical passages requiring believers to “abstain … from blood,” which they interpret as applying not just to food but to transfusions. While they teach that many detailed dietary laws in the Old Testament portion of the Bible no longer apply, they say this prohibition on partaking of blood is upheld as a universal principle for believers in other Bible passages.

While other religions interpret differently, of course. If only there were a way to draw conclusions about the world from the objective evidence of that world!

\\\

Briefly, from JMG.

\\

And an example of what everyone is saying today, from FB:

There wasn’t a single Democratic elected official who celebrated Charlie Kirk’s death. Not one. Donald Trump is openly celebrating Robert Mueller’s death and no Republicans are condemning him. Both sides are not the same.

Similarly, this comment from David Brin today on FB.

The differences are as stark as they were at Gettysburg, between flawed-good and absolute evil. Dig it: when Americans* learn that one of their icons or leaders had been a criminal pervert, we purge or disown him, as now with Chavez. When confederate/Kremlinist/Foxites learn about perv leaders they double down! They protect the rat. The many, innumerable rats, going back from Epstein’s pal all the way to Dennis Hastert …

This may be a valid distinction, but I think it’s easy to overreact in the case of someone like Chavez. This is how people accuse liberals of ‘cancelling’ people who come into sudden disfavor. Weren’t their accomplishments just as substantial? How far do you go? It’s easy to find famous people in history who, it turns out, weren’t very nice in one way or another, but does that mean their work is discredited? The actual distinction is that conservatives double-down, defending their leaders and denying that the sins matter, while liberals dismiss the person from public recognition and all too often dismiss their accomplishments too. (See, recently in the SF world, Neil Gaiman, whose TV series and book deals were cancelled after he was accused of sexual impropriety.)

Brin’s asterisk:

*And yes, by now it’s clear. Blue = American and red/gray = Confederate. What? Can I prove that? While that’s not explicitly wager-able, one word makes it clear. Look a MAGA in the eye and say “Appomattox is coming.” He will flinch and flush, knowing exactly what you mean.

Posted in Lunacy, Politics, Psychology, Religion | Comments Off on What It Means to Think That God Is On Your Side

Ziya Tong; THE REALITY BUBBLE

Subtitled: Blind Spots, Hidden Truths, and the Dangerous Illusions that Shape Our World
(Penguin Canada: Allen Lane, 2019, 366pp, including 15pp of acknowledgements and index.)

This is a pleasant enough book by a Canadian journalist. Her broad point is that there are many things about the world that most of us are unaware of, living as we do in a “reality bubble.” One way this is true is that many things are the way they are by convention, not because we live by some unalterable rules. Example: time zones. (This aligns with a key theme of science fiction: things might well be different in ways that wouldn’t occur to most people.) Another way this is true is that some things that we’re unaware of are just about the complexity of life. No one can, or necessarily needs to, understand all the details of where our food comes from. And a third way is more fundamental, that reality really does constrain what we perceive and what we don’t. Example of the electromagnetic spectrum and how humans perceive only a small fraction of it. There are lots of examples along all three of these themes… But they strike me as separate themes, analogous only in the broadest sense. So this is sort of a three-books-in-one. This is understandable, perhaps, in that the author is a journalist, for TV and radio, and presumably has been open to topics of all sorts that would be suitable science-oriented programming. (Also, very broadly, it aligns with similar works by Gladwell, Freakonomics, etc etc. But not in a hard science way.)

Key Points

  • Common sense is blinding us from scientific truth. [[ Well yes, this is key: it’s not so much scientific truth, as anything outside …
  • The book is divided into three biological blind spots, three societal blind spots, and five civilizational blind spots, 10 in all
  • Intro: Common sense is blinding us from scientific truth. [[ Well yes, this is key: it’s not so much scientific truth, as anything outside … The book is divided into three biological blind spots, three societal blind spots, and five civilizational blind spots (and a conclusion):
  1. Reality is not human-sized [[ This goes to the problem of scale, and how human ‘common sense’ utterly fails outside very limited ranges. ]] She calls this ‘scale blindness‘, a good term
  2. We can’t see how connected we are to the universe around us. There’s no place where our body ends and the world begins. Our senses are limited, e.g. how we now understand solid objects are mostly porous.
  3. We believe we’re superior to all other creatures, unaware of how differently they perceive the world and how limited our own perceptions are.
  4. We’re unaware of the dirty truths of our food production system, from the gruesome way chickens are processed, to the impact on other species of our harvesting methods. We combine a certain reverence for nature (what Wilson called biophilia) with cognitive dissonance to avoid the unpleasant facts…
  5. We’re unaware of where our energy comes from, and the vulnerabilities of our infrastructure. We don’t realize how much energy we use, or the effects of the carbon dioxide we pump into the air.
  6. We’re unaware where all our trash goes, what happens to it. Biological waste, food waste, e-waste, plastic…
  7. Our time zones are conventions, but we have a natural sense of time, which we confuse with our measurement of time, which began with industrialization. Before that time didn’t need to be measured. Now we are obsessed it, and it drives our markets and daily life.
  8. We’ve created basic units of measure based on practical and subjective human experience. Many were standardized, but only the metric system, set up by the French, appeals to something objective, i.e. the size of the earth. Similar ideas of carving up space, defining nations. There were no passports until 1914, no nation-states before the 18th century. Now there are elaborate rules about property rights.
  9. Now robots take the roles of humans, all around us, from CCTV cameras in Britain to facial recognition devices everywhere, especially in China. Our social media and searches are tracked. Everyone is assumed guilty and just hasn’t been caught yet (turning culture paranoid and conservative). Some nations have social credit scores. We don’t notice that we’re surrounded by eyes.
  10. Our economy is largely electronic but we cling to the ownership of things. We’re hung up on animistic ideas that things have souls. We’re stuck on a hedonic treadmill. Perhaps ownership is a trait that’s become maladaptive.
  11. Author foresees an ‘apocalypse,’ an uncovering of knowledge, by escaping our reality bubble and recognizing our blind spots. We believe in a world that is largely imaginary, and may be disappearing. We need shifts of perception, like the overview effect experienced by astronauts. The old mythos of Joseph Campbell needs replacing. Because we’re on the eve of a planetary apocalypse.

Detailed notes

Note Buckminster Fuller quote before the table of contents.

Intro, p1

About Ann Hodges, in 1954, who was hit by a meteorite in her home. She became a sensation. Her cosmic perspective was changed. The heavens are hell. It doesn’t feel that way, because we live in a bubble, of the atmosphere that blocks many dangers. We also live in a psychological one, our ‘reality bubble.’ It shields unwelcome facts and unfamiliar ideas. Which means we’ve got a warped perception of reality. And all bubbles eventually burst.

Each of us has two blinds spots, in our eyes. Sample diagram, 3b. We can be blind to the obvious. Kids don’t know where food comes from. Or adults, what oil is. Or where our waste goes. Humans are smart. But life is disappearing; the sixth extinction. And yet we’re obsessed with zombies. We conform. Is there another way? Perhaps if we could perceive the real world…

Recalling 1988 movie They Live. Glasses that reveal things as they actually are. We can do the same with scientific lenses. Author has spent a decade interviewing scientists and thinkers. Humanity is on a collision course, because our ‘common sense’ is blinding us from scientific truth. This book will examine ten big blind spots. Individual, collective, and intergenerational. As Sagan said, we need to understand how the world works.

Part One: Biological Blind Spots: What Surrounds Us

1, The Open Jar, p13

About the disappearance of a flea, in 1913. In a flea circus. How to train a flea? Keep it in a glass jar all the time. The story of how they were trained wasn’t true. They were manipulated. It was torture. People treat fleas as tiny, insignificant. Robert Hooke discovered many things, but is best known for his illustration of a flea. His 1665 book Micrographia. Then van Leeuwenhoek used even more powerful microscopes. What he saw he called animalcules. Microorganisms were unknown before the 1600s. He looked at his own blood. And sperm. Plaque. Bacteria. Hooke replicated them.

Humans are relatively massive as living things go. Are fleas unworthy of being alive? Or other such pests? Thus we have chemicals to kill them. Which could lead to bad consequences. The food chain depends on insects. Most of those fleas are extinct. But other tiny mites live on our faces. Our bodies are covered in microbes. In our air. Most are harmless. Some are good, like probiotics. They help us digest. They produce oxygen. In the soil. Most of them are still unknown. Others are high in the atmosphere. So: our first blind spot is that reality is not human-sized. Examples of the range of sizes of other life. Large sizes are constrained by mass. Dinosaurs had air pockets in their bones. Whales live in water. Ancient animals were bigger when there was more oxygen in the air. Then birds arose to take out the large insects. Recently animals are getting smaller. Domestic species are getting larger. Example of chickens, p34. And so we eat more, and are getting fatter. And taller.

Galileo was the first to glimpse the colossal scale of reality. Glassmakers of the time made spectacles, and revealed the macro and micro worlds with microscopes and telescopes. Galileo improved their designs. Our own eyes are incredibly sensitive. Example of Mizar and Alcor. Galileo looked at the moon and saw ridges and craters. And Venus, orbiting the sun. The Church objected. Modern telescopes detect fields of stars in every apparently empty patch of sky.

Humans are bad at scale. We suffer scale blindness. (! maybe this is the term I was looking for.) We’re numb to big numbers. Examples. Sagan quote, 43m. Galileo realized that what humans perceive is just a slice of reality. It bothered him that others refused to open their eyes. …Galileo’s fingers were stolen, and one eventually recovered.

2, Mind Bomb.

Quote by Zamyatin.

Story about two women found dead in Vienna in 1992. Then recall Samuel Johnson and James Boswell arguing about George Berkeley’s notion that we only know the world through our sensory perceptions, not as it really is. [[ Just as in Hoffman bk just read ]] Boswell kicked a rock to refute the idea. Yet he was wrong, as now scientists are concluding. We now understand that there is no place where our body ends and the world begins.

Example of lab in Japan with a camera capturing neutrinos. Matter is not solid in the way we think. Neutrinos are so small that don’t have positions per se. Then, a mummy unwrapped in London. In 1895 X-rays were discovered. Then mummies could be examined non-invasively. X-rays became both useful and popular. And yet they had side effects. They caused damage. Not all radiation is the same. We ‘see’ some things with radiation, and remain blind to other things.

A 1957 paper by Hoyle et al established that matter is derived from elements created by the stars. Successive explosions. Hydrogen becomes helium until it runs out; helium fuses to become carbon, etc. until iron. Then it explodes as a supernova. Quotes Caleb Scharf ZOOMABLE. Most of the atoms in our bodies are as old as the Big Bang itself. Water is older than the sun. p59. Similar carbon. The body constantly renews itself. Scientists study this constant resurrection. Examples. Today, we have the power to create new elements. Fuse atoms, and to split them. Nuclear bombs.

Back to the two mummified sisters. They needed to know which sister died first. Carbon 14 spiked during nuclear bomb testing. Some cells turn over very quickly; skin, every two to three weeks. … then found that one sister had died nearly a year before the other.

Infants understand solid objects, even though we know solids are most porous. Eastern religions; everything is connected. Flowers and clouds. We live in networks. … So, our second blind spot is that we cannot see how connected we are the universe around us.

Ch3, I to Eye, p69

A primatologist in a Tanzanian national park to watch a sunset… joined by two chimpanzees. Unsurprising, or anthropomorphism? How we view other species. We don’t know; their experience is completely unknown to us. One Italian city passed a law about goldfish. Some fish can recognize human faces. Pigeons too. Who can find their way home. Consider how other species experience the world. [[ which is what Yong’s 2022 book is all about ]]

We perceive only a tiny fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum. Everything else is invisible – to us. But not to some other animals. Examples. Eagles. Fields of vision. Dung beetles map the sky, by the moon. Or the milky way. Dragonflies have the best eyesight. They can see more colors. And slow-motion. Like a colorblind person putting on EnChroma glasses to see color for the first time. And tetrachromacy in some people. Another condition, aphakia, sees ultraviolet. Monet; WWII agents. Oil spills. Other animals ‘see’ sound. Bats, whales. Dolphins and biosonar. Clicks and echoes. Animals use sight to learn from their parents. Bees and soccer. A chimp with eidetic photographic memory. Other examples. The gorilla Koko and sign language. Careful standards. Horses and blankets. A bonobo in Iowa.

Can humans understand animals’ languages? Con Slobodchikoff and prairie dogs. Different barks for different sizes, colors…

Ideas about animal awareness were once considered quackery. Frans de Waal sees such ideas in evolutionary terms. Thomas Nagel and the bat. Our minds are alien to other forms of life. but we can understand that they do feel and think. A 2012 declaration… p95. So we’ve revealed three big blind spots. We believe we’re at the center of the universe, separate from the world around us, and superior to all other creatures. But via science these assumptions can be overturned, 95b. But we do not see how our species survives…

Part Two: Societal Blind Spots: What Sustains Us

Ch4, Recipe for Disaster, p99

About the autopsy of a chicken nugget. As a way to study obesity. There wasn’t much chicken in the nugget. Frankenmeat. Since the 1970s. Zombie meat. ‘Fresh’ is relative. Preservation methods. Synthetic colors of salmon. Of egg yolks. Back to the 1950s. antibiotics. Cleaning with chlorine. Our eyes deceive us about what we eat.

The five-second rule is not valid. We’d rather not know the dirty truth about our food system. Revelations go back to Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle. Disgust is universal. But much that is disgusting is hidden. The garbage fed animals that we eat. We have a reverence for nature that Wilson called biophilia. We sense an affinity with animals. But employ cognitive dissonance to avoid unpleasant facts.

Consider the food chain. It all comes from dirt. You can test soil by burying underwear for a couple months. We are degrading our soil. Most of our food is made up of twelve plant species and five animal species. That makes our crops vulnerable, as in the Irish potato famine. Bananas. Biodiversity also suffers from the plants we grow for our own food. Feed for animals used for meat. Those animals don’t have natural sex. Artificial insemination. Various methods. Bull sperm is very valuable. Details… big industry. And about pigs. And piglets. Both human and livestock populations are increasing… p118.

So where does the water in our bodies come from? Clouds. Aquifers. Snow and ice melt from glaciers. These are disappearing too. …  And fish are endangered, not by water, but by us. Planes are used to spot schools of fish. Populations plummet. Some fish are farmed. Trash fish are harvested for fishmeal. In the 1960s machines were built to strip meat from chicken carcasses. This produces a gruesome blind spot. How chickens are processed. Other animals are similarly processed in factories. Back to Chicago. Even vegetarians consume products made from meat by-products. Gelatin, made from skin and bones etc, becomes a binding agent and photographic film. Such rendering is the “invisible industry.” And more products: 128b. And pet food. and some producers use meat from euthanized shelter animals. Barbaric methods remain in the animal industry to this day. Future generations may regard us a hypocrites.

[[ Ok but this strikes me as a completely different topic that the earlier chapters… life is complex and no one can be aware of every detail.  ]]

Ch5, Black Gold, p131

How breaks in TV broadcasts create sudden spikes in demand. Case of the Great British Bake Off, and pandas. The spike didn’t happen. Different kinds of power come from different sources. We don’t notice it, until it’s gone. Fukushima, 2011. Ordinary threats to power include squirrels and trees. The grid is growing older. And today we have new sources of energy, such as wind and solar, and even cheese.

A byproduct of Beaufort cheese in Savoie is used to generate power for 1500 people. 137. Electricity is made by turning turbines. Electrons actually move slowly. The power moves, just like sound moves, not air molecules. Ref Adam Frank, 139.4. Battery storage for electricity goes back to Volta. How batteries work. Lithium.

Einstein and the photoelectric effect. Solar power. Wind. Neither is consistent. Iceland, geothermal. Waterfalls. Niagara, and Tesla’s AC power. Dams. Fish cannons. Nuclear power. Problems: meltdowns. Fukushima. Fortunately such problems are rare. Gasoline and its byproducts. Barrels of oil. The military uses the most. Why is there so much oil in the middle east? Look to prehistory. Oil is dead stuff, much from an extinction event. Coal from ancient forests, mostly before dinosaurs lived.

Humans have artificial superpowers. We can do everything that Superman did. But the sources of our power is another blind spot. We don’t realize how much we use. We’re pumping carbon dioxide into the air. That’s invisible to us too.

Ch6, Trash & Treasure, p162

There’s lots of trash on the moon from the six moon landings. And other missions. Eventually the trash will break down. And there’s space junk orbiting the earth. Other spacecraft are dumped into the sea, especially one particular spot in the Pacific. Humans throw away a lot of trash. A lot more right here on earth. A lot of which comes from manufacturing. And we create biological waste. People used to throw it into the streets. And pigs ran wild in the streets. Paris too. The Chinese shipped it to farms. How much one person produces. Good and bad. But guano was even better. Island near Peru. Lots of nitrogen. Discovered in 1804. Eventually it ran out. Nitrates from deserts last for a while. Chemists came to the rescue. The Haber-Bosch process. Nitrogen mined from the air. It required a huge machine. Now factories all over the world. It enabled the growth in world population…  Half of the nitrogen in your DNA comes from such a factory.

Food waste also grows. More than e-waste. Extending to other kinds of waste, like chemical fertilizers. Washed into the ocean by rain. Algae blooms. Dead zones. An escalating cycle. The HB process itself uses 2% of the world’s energy, and thus contributes to air pollution. In 2014 China launched a mission to change the color of the sky, at least for two weeks, to “APEC blue.” They just stopped polluting for two weeks. AQI (air quality index) is a familiar term. 300 is bad. Beijing got up to 905 once. The rich have air domes. Similarly in India, Saudi Arabia, Iran. Lung cancer. Millions of tons of various pollutants, 181b. Hundreds of new cities in China. Manufacturing. Especially visible as plastic waste. Plastic didn’t exist a century ago. Bakelite. Later many others. We throw most of it away. By the 1950s people threw more stuff away than kept antiques. Single-use plastics. Planned obsolescence and trends. Why isn’t plastic biodegradable? It’s chemically inert. Plastic is in all sorts of animals. … the US sends its trash back to China. Examples. Causes birth defects. Until 2018.

We use garbage as fuel for buses and garbage trucks. Sweden. Sewage can be mined for trace minerals. Even gold. Urine is sterile and could be used as fertilizer. Quote by Whitehead 192.3: “civilization advances by extending the number of important operations which we can perform without thinking about them.” [[ Yes isn’t this exactly the point?? Calling these ‘blind spots’ seems to miss this point – we should want everything to be ‘automated’ as much as possible; the problem isn’t that we’re unaware of them, it’s that we’re unaware of the negative consequences. ]]

Part Three: Civilizational Blind Spots: What Controls Us

Ch7, Time Lords, p197

How a plane left New Zealand on Jan 1 and landed in Hawaii on Dec 31. Some countries along the IDL change which side they want to be on. The prime meridian runs through Greenwich, for reasons. Longitude; Dava Sobel. They needed accurate clocks. Done by one John Harrison. Allowing Britain to conquer the world. How some plants have predictable daily cycles. Birdsongs. Incense. Some other animals. Honeybees. Worms. Do humans have a natural circadian rhythm? Example of a man kept in a cave for six months. He almost lost his mind; he experienced fewer days than he actually lived. Some cultures mark very long periods of time. Sundials, water clocks. Hourglasses. Watches set their own time, thus “o’ clock.” Without clocks, time is flexible, as on islands. Some people opposed setting local time to a standardized time. Now we have a blind spot: we confuse our measurement of time with time itself.

The Japanese have a term for “overwork death.” Also applies to hospital interns. A Roman playwright wrote about it. Hunter-gatherers worked very little. Industrialization was brought about by the measurement of work. Overtime. Punctuality. The idea of ‘wasting’ time. In 1875 America had 75 different local times, most centered on high noon. The railways led the synchronization of time. Signals sent from an observatory. Factory clocks. Time control. Punch clocks. Alarm clocks. Salaries based on time. Garments took hundreds of hours to make in the Middle Ages. Management systems. How long tasks took. Rules in Chinese Apple factories. Denial of bathroom breaks. Time is especially valuable in financial markets, where machine transactions take split seconds. Public figures never seem to have enough time. Before Einstein scientists thought time was absolute. Einstein showed otherwise. GPS relies on it. What is time, according to physicists? Imaginary time. Hawking. Brian Greene. The rat race. Retirement ages seem to get farther out. Leisure costs money. Chores have become hobbies. We have to keep up with fashion. All that manufacturing can change the climate. A hot NYC day in February. Changes in weather patterns. Plants and animals. Flowers and bees. Ecosystems out of whack. And one more clock: the Doomsday Clock.

Ch8, Space Invaders, p233

About England’s “right to roam” law. And Scottish “bothies” 235t. Humans have a sense of territory, space bubbles from intimate space to personal space to social space to public space. Other animals too. The Finns measure how far a reindeer can travels before it needs to pee.

Consider how we came to create our basic units of measure. We chop things into manageable pieces, human-sized. The cubit was from the elbow to the outstretched hand. Similar in various cultures. Of course all people are not the same. Measures were eventually standardized. 1196; Magna Carta in 1215. But some monarchs changed them. Eventually the French set up the metric system. Based on the planet, not human bodies. They began by measuring the earth. The meter was 1/10,000 the distance from pole to equator. 1799. Still, its definition depended on a physical object. Now we define the meter by wavelengths of a particular color of light. Or light in a vacuum. We come to impose our measurements upon the actual world.

Synthetic training environments, STEs. Bruce Sterling anticipated them in 1993. They can extend to the entire planet. Explorers have always come with mapmakers. Now there rules for continental economic zones, and continental shelves. Disputes between claims; Canada and Russia.

About the Apollo 11 astronauts. They had to return through customs. Passports. Only since 1914. The infrastructure wasn’t there before that. There were no nation-states before the 18th century. The border between Belgium and the Netherlands is a hodgepodge. Details. Consider how Africa was carved up. Examples. There are 6500 languages spoken on Earth, and 195 countries. … when humans could no longer expand outwards, the expanded upwards—thus hierarchies. Vs the nomads. Conflicts between farmers and nomads. Recall the Thirty Years’ War, Treaty of Westphalia 1648, the idea of sovereignty. Property rights. Different divisions of ‘space’ have various rights associated with them. Including above and below your property. Air rights for airmail services. Air force and chickens. Now drones. Rules keep shifting. Satellites. (“lose its grip” 258.0 – no; also ‘crashing to earth’ in footnote. Both of these misunderstandings of physics.) Star names.

Bit of property in NYC. The idea of ‘real estate’ is a modern one. Commons, privatization, etc. Wool. Clearances. Urbanization. Eminent domain. Now we have zombie flats and ghost mansions. Mostly unoccupied, owned by foreigners. The super-rich. In many cities. Especially China. While poor people live in tiny quarters.

Ch9, Human Robots, p267

Note Mencken quote. About tracking cyclists on long rides. In 2017, one such cyclist was hit by a car and killed. GPS. The signals are very faint. Now accurate to within a couple meters. There are ‘graveyard’ orbits for dead satellites. Spy satellites can resolve 25 cm. how the economy depends on thousands of satellites.

CCTV cameras in Britain. Keeping people in line. Also many in China. AI and facial recognition. Everyone tracked in one Chinese city. Indoors too, black domes. Public buses record conversations. Workplaces. All of this erodes trust. Vehicle data—assuming everyone is guilty and just hasn’t been caught yet. 278b. Brain surveillance in China. UK tapping into home webcams.

The eyes in our heads…  Social media. Monitored by law enforcement. False positives. Example of Joe Lipari. Our searches, our likes, etc. Digital footprints. Megabytes every day for every person. Data is more valuable than oil. Personal data markets. Real-time bidding for ad space. Details. Swaying elections. Tracking children.

The eyes on our bodies. How police wanted to use a dead body to unlock a phone. Every security method can be hacked. Biometrics. But why is this all happening? Perhaps it began with sorting concentration camp prisoners into groups, but IBM and the Nazis. Even that was hacked. Which saved a lot of Jews in France. Data is the base of surveillance. Borders and magical thinking; Harari.

[[ Thought: that technology is increasing the ability of suspicious people to monitor everyone else is turning the entire climate conservative and paranoid. It used to be you tended to trust people because you had no other choice… but most of the time it worked out. ]]

The eyes with their own mind. How a Mr. Ao was spotting in the crowd at a concert in China. Where they have social credit scores. Pluses and minuses. Classes of citizens. Blacklists. Traditionally it was about public image, saving face. Now, computers never forget. You don’t necessarily have to do anything, just be in the wrong category. Schools. Babies.

Is it a crime to see? So we are surrounded by eyes. We don’t notice; that’s the blind spot. There are cameras everywhere except for those three big blind spots: where food comes from, where energy comes from, where our wastes go. Example tracking vegans, as threats to the meat industry. Pipeline protests. Chemical spills. Etc. Yet there’s no evil mastermind behind all this. We do it to ourselves to keep everyone in line. Despite that this system, left unchecked, could destroy most of life on earth.

Ch10, The Empire Wears No Clothes, p303

About a 2016 bank robbery that was invisible. Money moves electronically. Bangladesh. The culprit has never been ID’d, but may be North Korean. Why is there such disparity between right and poor countries? Goes back to colonialism. How money is abstract. Tax havens. Corporations avoid paying taxes. Bank fees. Punishments for being poor. Money grows on computers. Through debt. Money is a promise.

Example of an oak tree in Athens, GA. That owns itself. Trees communicate, connect. The idea has extended to the Amazon basin. A river in New Zealand. Of course big business fights back. But a corporation is as much a fiction as they claimed a watershed was. Yet legally corporations are persons. But not chimps, or dairy cows. But if we grant rights to some, where would it end? It would contradict the idea of ‘owning’ something. Story about a woman who accidentally bought a Renoir masterpiece. A judge ruled for the museum that claimed it. William James formed the idea of our attachments to things. Marketers know this. The instant endowment effect. Other animals behave similarly. But only humans are bogged down by our ‘stuff’. Perhaps a key to the power of our species. Every culture understands ownership. Toddlers understand. Studies of how they think. Circumstances matter. Examples. Land rights. Does ‘improving’ it matter? John Locke. And other ideas.

In Japan a funeral ceremony for Sony robot dogs. Aibos. All things have souls; animism. Shinto. The idea extends to the west too, how certain objects are endowed with special qualities. At the same time we throw lots of stuff away. The stuff we keep we have sentimental attachments too. Hoarders. Columbus was surprised that the natives didn’t think of possessions at all. But capitalism depends on excess goods. And to consume. Wal-Mart sale in Porter Ranch. Now frenzied sales are online. Having things makes us happy. The hedonic treadmill. Having things *doesn’t* make us happy. Perhaps ownership is one of those traits that’s become maladaptive.

Further: even if we believe we own the world, that doesn’t mean it’s ours.

Note definition of civilization, 332.8: “the shared effort to mitigate the danger of evolved responses.” [[ Another spin on the idea of primitive vs evolved human nature, and the unreliability of native ‘common sense.’ ]]

Ch11, Revolution, p333

Author traveled to the Lamu Archipelago in 2014 to begin research for this book. A primitive culture. Baobab trees. How could anyone own one? Back in Toronto there was a ‘housing bubble.’ She reflected on what home-ownership means. Or ownership of anything.

Recalling a Solomon Asch experience, p336. Conformity altered the perception. [[ How religion works! ]] What was remarkable that some people refused to conform, some 25%. [[ Well this is a key point about both politics and religion ]] But standing up for beliefs has a cognitive cost.

Apocalypse actually means an uncovering of knowledge, a revelation. The dawning of clarity. Escaping the reality bubble. We must recognize our blind spots. Reality is socially constructed; a product of our minds. We conform to a reality that isn’t there. Harari on imagined realities like gods, nations, and corporations. We’ve come to believe we own the world; thus much other life is disappearing. Climate change. Wm Gibson 341.4 on how no one writes about the 22nd century.

What does it means to ‘fight the system’? The system if our life support system. The goal of the system isn’t so much survival, as ownership. Yet this system exists in our blind spots. And so we are destroying it. Yet, cf PKD, our problems won’t go away just if we stop believing in them. Pirsig: patterns of behavior repeat themselves. How to escape? Science can shatter old worldviews. [[ Let’s claim this for sf too ]] Example 343. Contrary to common sense. Science proves our physical perceptions are wrong. Recall Kuhn. Thus his idea of paradigm shifts. The world changes. examples. Yet there is a huge gap between what science sees and what lay people understand. Big ideas take time to spread.

About the shifts in perspective of those who’ve gone beyond low-earth orbit. The overview effect. [[ Can we name a sfnal analogy? Conceptual breakthrough? ]] People on the ISS witness 16 sunrises and sunsets a day. Yet not every astronaut experiences it.

Recalling Joseph Campbell. The big movies, the Greek myths. Hero’s journey. Discovering a new perspective and bringing it home. It’s time for us to change. Hawking: how our existence is unlikely. (Anthropic principle) Chances of any one of us being born. Details. Basically zero. Yet here we are, on the bring of a planetary apocalypse…

 

Posted in Book Notes, Human Progress, reality | Comments Off on Ziya Tong; THE REALITY BUBBLE

Misconceptions about Science and Predictions

  • How Jeffrey Epstein, obsessed with eugenics, was wrong;
  • How Paul Ehrlich was not a villain, even though his predictions failed;
  • John Pavlovitz wonders why anyone still supports Trump; I have another idea;
  • Tom Nichols on no Plan B; the disappearing Charlie Kirk banner;
  • Rufus Wainwright’s “Go Or Go Ahead”.
– – –

Evolution is the scientific topic about which even people who don’t reject it utterly still have more misconceptions about than any other branch of science. (Going back to Lamarckism, or the inheritance of acquired characteristics, that people like Lysenko and Stalin so much wanted to be true it became Soviet doctrine for decades.) I think it must reflect the teleological mode of most human thinking.

Slate, Susanne Paola Antonetta, 19 Mar 2026: Jeffrey Epstein, Eugenics Supremacist, subtitled “The files reveal his obsession with genetics. But genes don’t work the way he thought.”

Epstein, culpable for so much, was also a believer in eugenics, the manipulation of reproduction and of genes to create “better” humans. His focus on genes, as reflected in his correspondence, is remarkable. The files show that Epstein constantly asks if various random traits might be genetic, spends thousands on high-end DNA sequencing for himself, and has his assistants hand out 23andMe test kits the way most people hand out business cards.

Though, like many things Epstein, the man’s genetic interests were twisted, often revolting, and shockingly uninformed. He felt about genes the way grade-school kids might feel about Santa—genes are wondrous things, capable of delivering just about anything petitioners may desire. Epstein, in his musings in the files, credits genes with controlling things that range from the rear ends of people of Irish descent to honor killings, financial skill, and, weirdly, “Asian family structure.”

(Those links in the last sentence are to the Epstein Files themselves.)

Later in piece the writer explains how Epstein was wrong.

But genes don’t behave as Epstein imagined they do, like codes punched into a computer—they’re neither blueprints nor instructions, though pop culture often presents them that way. The ease with which genes pass on mechanical, protein-coded traits like eye color has misled even scientists into thinking that they pass on other traits straightforwardly as well. But qualities like family structure, math skills, and trivia come far more from life and environment than from protein structures (which are very good at giving you brown eyes). Genes can be expressed or activated, or not—more often they’re not; they mutate and can alter their own function and be altered by environmental forces. Few have any fixed function. As Philip Ball, who wrote How Life Works, puts it, looking to genes to explain who you are is like staring at the dictionary hoping to understand literature. And imagining you can simply add genes to people and create a specific type of person is like shaking up a box of all the letters used in Hamlet and expecting to create another play just as good. For that matter, Shakespeare had three brothers, who shared much of his DNA. One worked in haberdashery, one acted, and one’s path was uncertain—but none wrote.

(Because, I would add, our genes were not *designed.* They’re the result of millions, even billions of years of kludges. Whichever sequences of things worked out, even if entirely by accident, survived, no matter how clumsy they would have seen to any kind of ‘designer.’)

The writer concludes,

It’s not possible to tie even math skills firmly to genes, much less anyone’s family structure. Epstein fell into a historical trap, one in which “making things better for humanity” quickly slides into “better for me.” And terrible for those around you.

It’s a trap baited ultimately with contempt for other humans. I hope the Epstein case draws attention to this dark genetic path. We have seen what’s down that path, and the new genetic supremacists don’t promise any better.

\\\

I will mention, but not delve deeply into, the recent death of Paul Ehrlich, who became infamous, even notorious for his 1968 book THE POPULATION BOMB and his  predictions of mass starvation due to overpopulation.

The Atlantic, Jacob Anbinder, 19 Mar 2026: What Paul Ehrlich’s Fear of Scarcity Did to American Politics, subtitled “Ehrlich’s lurid predictions of imminent planetary doom captivated the public, but they did not come true.”

When the Stanford biologist and science writer Paul Ehrlich died last week at 93, the obituaries that followed were a fascinating exercise in editorial balance. As usual, most hesitated to speak too critically of the recently deceased. But they needed to point out why Ehrlich was famous in the first place: the many bold claims in The Population Bomb, his 1968 best-selling book about the impending crisis of overpopulation. Ehrlich’s lurid predictions of imminent planetary doom captivated the public, but they did not come true. Today the world’s population is leveling off. If anything, Americans might be having too few kids rather than too many. Yet even though overpopulation is an issue as dated as Dacron pants or disco, Ehrlich helped give an imprimatur of scholarly authority to a new kind of politics—a politics of scarcity—that has proved enduring in American life.

In The Population Bomb and subsequent writings, Ehrlich popularized a fundamental concept of environmental science: Natural systems have natural limits that could reveal themselves in catastrophic ways as their “carrying capacities” are approached. Crucially, Ehrlich also believed that the United States and the planet itself were in grave danger of reaching those limits soon if steps were not taken to curb population growth.

My take: Ehrlich was wrong in the same way that Malthus was wrong: both failed to anticipate advances in technology (i.e. food production) and social forces which stemmed the expansion of the population — social forces also driven by science and technology, namely the improvements in health that led to families having fewer children.

What Ehrlich should be credited for, still, is bringing these topics to public attention. A large part of modern environmental consciousness was inspired by him, perhaps, and its relevance is not going away any time soon.

\

Jerry Coyne, 18 Mar 2026: Wednesday: Hili dialogue (scroll down)

He quotes NYT and LAT, and has just this comment:

Ehrlich was a good scientist (he studied butterflies) who became The Chicken Little of Biology, and perhaps in love with his fame. His predictions of overpopulations and famine were not met, but perhaps for reasons he couldn’t predict.

The LAT piece is by the notorious conservative Jonah Goldberg. It can also be said that the reason Ehrlich was always controversial, and why conservatives like Goldberg now take glee in claiming he was wrong about everything, is that his warnings implicated big business and its obsession with making money over every other concern. An obsession, and a denial of existential risks, which continues to this day.

\\\

Another cri de coeur …

John Pavlovitz, today: MAGAs Are Destroying America For Spite

How can anyone still support him?

Tens of millions of us still find ourselves asking this question, watching a staggering number of Americans somehow remain unflinching in their devotion to this President. Despite high crimes, sexual assaults, cognitive decline, reckless wars, and an authoritarian agenda, they remain seemingly giddy over his existence.

But Trump’s supporters aren’t necessarily pleased with the actual policies, tactics, or methods, but with the results: pissing off the people they don’t like.

Really? Some of them, I’m sure.

That is all that matters to them.
It’s the reason they vote the way they do.
It’s the reason their support is steadfast through pedophilia accusations and acts of treason and human rights disasters and wanton ignorance.
It’s the reason they remain emotionally infatuated with him despite his breaking every campaign promise.

Trump supporters have always seen his ascendancy as a big “F— You” to his predecessor, to the identity politics that they feel has targeted them, and to an ever-diversifying nation that they see as a threat. More than affordable healthcare, unpolluted food, and economic opportunity, they want someone to stick it to the world on their behalf, and in their rage-addled state, they somehow believe he does that.

It’s a nationwide mental health crisis that seems both beyond repair and belief.

This is part of it, but I think there’s more, and I admit I’m basing my suspicion somewhat on the videos Facebook shows me of interviews with people in MAGA hats screaming about how crazy the Democrats are. Many of the MAGA folk believe that, based on the same selective and biased reporting that drives the news, even the relatively responsible news. This is another factor in how so many people think the world is worse now than it ever was. They think Democrats are obsessed with transgenders and trans athletes — even though in the whole nation there are only something like 10 such athletes. Republicans are obsessed with voter fraud, even though in the whole nation there have been only 70 or 80 instances of improper voting out of 10s and 10s of millions of votes cast. And the earlier classic examples: they’re terrified that Democrats are going to “take away their guns” even though that’s never been proposed (only restrictions on future sales of assault rifles). They’re worried about socialism and communism, even though none of them seem to have any idea of what those terms mean. And so on.

\\\

Briefly noted.

The Atlantic, Tom Nichols: Trump Had No Plan B for Iran, subtitled “And it shows.”

So it goes. It’s not getting any better.

\

Boing Boing, Jason Weisberger, 19 Mar 2026: Dept. of Education quietly yanks Charlie Kirk banner after people notice it exists

Unanswered question: what was it doing there in the first place?

For a brief and disgusting moment, the U.S. Department of Education decided that noted bigot, misogynist, and poor debater Charlie Kirk belonged on a banner alongside Martin Luther King Jr. and Booker T. Washington as part of a 250th anniversary display celebrating “heroes in American education.”

Then, just as quietly, the banner disappeared.

\\\

Working my way through my CD collection, I’ve come to the great Rufus Wainwright, and this song. From his album WANT ONE, here in a live version.

 

Posted in Evolution, Lunacy, Music, Politics, Science | Comments Off on Misconceptions about Science and Predictions

Donald Hoffman: THE CASE AGAINST REALITY

Subtitle: Why evolution hid the truth from our eyes
(Norton, 2019, 250pp, plus color plates, including 45pp acknowledgements, notes, and index.)

This is the first of three books I read in January, all with ostensibly similar themes, but actually quite different from one another in their perspectives and ultimate intents.

This one, for example, isn’t about evolution per se, as the subtitle suggests; it’s about how humans don’t perceive “true” reality, but only perceive reality in the sense of what is necessary for humans to survive and reproduce. OK, fine. I’ve made the same general point before. But he goes farther: he suggests that when we’re not looking at the moon, for example, the moon doesn’t exist. This goes back to certain philosophers, and sounds fatuous, and can only be true in the sense that humanity’s *conception* of what the moon is – filtered through our senses and our priorities for survival – ceases to exist when we’re not looking at it. It can’t mean that the physical object, the moon, that triggered our perceptions in the first place, ceases to exist. Yet he doesn’t want to spell this out; he leaves us with the impression that the actual moon ceases to exist when we’re not looking at it. Which I think is fatuous, and solipsistic.

Now the notion that we only perceive what’s necessary for survival is an old one. Humans are sensitive to potential dangers, and to potential friends and family, and so we are always perceiving things in the worst or best possible way. The rustle in the grass might be a snake; the shape of a cloud or a piece of bark might be a face. But Hoffman is going beyond that, into rather useless pedantry, it seems to me.

It reminds me of the reductionist trap of writers like Alex Rosenberg, who suggested that thoughts cannot actually be about anything, since thoughts consist only of activity between neurons. Just as, I suggested in my review of his book, words of the Bible can’t actually mean anything because they consist only of different arrangements of 26 letters.

Whereas other writers, like Pinker and Carroll, understand that reality exists on levels, or in phases, that can best be understood with language appropriate to each. The basic example being the sequence from physics to chemistry, biology, psychology, history. Chemistry has its own principles that needn’t be reduced to physics, and so on. You don’t understand history through the movements of elementary particles. That doesn’t mean that understanding history makes the elementary particles disappear.

Key Points

  • Hoffman insists that the idea our senses tell us the truth, in order to enhance survival, is wrong. We don’t perceive objective reality.
  • His metaphor is that what we perceive are like icons on a computer desktop; we don’t see the details of how the computer actually works.
  • He focuses on what he calls FBT, Fitness-Beats-Truth, theories.
  • Examples include how what we call ‘colors’ are just different wavelengths of light; how certain illusions (like the Necker cube) imply different understandings (so if we close our eyes, which version of the Necker cube is still there?); common misperceptions have been that the Earth is flat and at the center of the universe.
  • Example of how signs of ‘beauty’ are actually indicators of fitness, for purposes of reproduction.
  • He acknowledges examples of how truth and fitness are different things. Evolution works via algorithms; true perception can be counter-productive.
  • Evolutionary strategies vary depending on the proportion of predator and prey using such strategies.
  • He calls the idea of icons on the computer desktop the interface theory of perception, ITP. The icon hides all the tiresome details that we don’t need in order to make survival decisions. What ‘disappears’ when we cease looking is the icon.
  • He extends these ideas to physics, recalling quantum theory. Reality is local. And so on, predicting that the concept of “spacetime” must go before a TOE (theory of everything) is achieved.
  • Physics must be about something more fundamental than spacetime. Our three-dimensional world is a result of data compression, thus redundancy. Some visual illusions illustrate the principle.
  • And how these ideas extend to colors, and ‘chromatures’, and how some people are synesthetes, another example of how our perceptions are not ‘true’.
  • And so cause and effect are fiction, as are neurons, as our time and space. What to do? Author settles on the idea that consciousness is fundamental. Not panpsychism, but conscious agents that perform perceive/decide/act loops. And how this relates to entropy. And how this conscious realism can bring science and spirituality together. An infinite conscious agent sounds like God, even if it’s not omniscient. But don’t forget the message of the Copernican universe: it’s not about us.

Comments

I found the book generally unsatisfying, a mix of obvious points about how human perceptions can’t be completely ‘real’ (because of our limited senses, mostly), with pedantic points about how reality ceases to exist when not observed. Familiar examples of visual illusions are thrown in. He insists until the end that objects are destroyed when you look away. Perhaps I should have been forewarned by the blurbers on the back cover, none of whom I’ve heard of, except for… Deepak Chopra.

Detailed Notes

Preface, p xi

  • Our senses help keep us alive, but is it because they tell us the truth? Why would our senses tell us the truth? Because of evolution. Those with more accurate senses survived, and so on.
  • But these hunches are wrong. Our perceptions do not reveal objective reality. The idea that they mislead us about reality has been around for centuries: Democritus, Plato. What we perceive are instead metaphors, or icons, of reality, like a desktop icon hiding the details of how a computer works. Evolution has in effect given us simple icons that enable us to survive long enough to raise offspring. Perceiving raw truth would drive the species extinct. We still need to take those icons, our perceptions, seriously [because they work at the level of survival]. Seriously—but not literally. That’s what this book is about. This idea dovetails with discoveries in physics that are equally counterintuitive.
  • The preface then summarizes each of the following chapters.
  • Ch1: the great unsolved mystery of how brain activity generates conscious experience;
  • Ch2: beauty and attraction through the lens of evolution;
  • Ch3: some experts claim our senses do report some truths about reality, at least those that we need to raise kids; (Crick, Marr, Trivers)
  • Ch4: other experts favor the Fitness-Beats-Truth (FBT) theories, that natural selection drives true perceptions to extinction, with confirmations from computer simulations;
  • Ch5: then why are our senses useful if they don’t report truth? Because what we experience is a kind of virtual world;
  • Ch6: similarly physicists admit that space, time, and objects are not fundamental either; that space-time is a kind of hologram. Something else is more fundamental;
  • Ch7: spacetime is just a data format that serves to keep us alive, and our senses use ‘error-correcting codes’ to detect and correct data errors. Some visual illusions will demonstrate this.
  • Ch8: colors are codes that compress data similar to how photos are compressed digitally. And “chromatures”, textured colors, trigger specific emotions and associations. About synesthetes who perceive the world differently from the norm.
  • Ch9: perceptions take calories, so our senses cut corners, e.g. our vision is sharp only in a narrow central area.
  • Ch10: So what is reality? We don’t know. But perhaps conscious experiences are fundamental, and perhaps consciousness does not arise from matter, as much as spacetime arises from consciousness—as a perceptual interface. [[ ok I can buy that, but interface to what? ]]
  • So the purpose of this book is take off the VR headset—the red pill—and then to take off the next headset, the one we haven’t known that we’re wearing.

Ch1, Mystery: the scalpel that split consciousness

Beginning in 1962, Joseph Bogen and Philip Vogel sliced people’s brains in half, to cure epilepsy. Corpus callosotomy. Generally successful. It also changed consciousness. How the Helmholtz club met at UC Irvine beginning 1995. About consciousness. People have properties that rocks don’t. but the connection between these properties and activities in the brain is not clear. Leibniz in 1714. Thomas Huxley in 1869. William James in 1890. And others. The current question is, what is the biological basis of consciousness? Which presumes there is one. Already, the notion of an ‘elan vital’ had been discredited. Crick wrote his book but had no answer to the fundamental question. Experiments with split-brain patients; they recognize some things with their eyes, other things with their hands. Roger Sperry explained this; it’s about communication between the two hemispheres of the brain. Crick explained this as split consciousness. The two hemispheres have separate consciousness. One side can believe in God, the other not.

We know that specific activities in the brain correlate with specific mental states. Color. A certain type of stroke leaves one color-blind only in one hemisphere. Activity in a certain region of the brain corresponds with touch. Etc. Such regions are called NCCs. Necker cube. Phobias can be removed by manipulating how the NCCs are triggered. But we have no idea how any kind of physical activity gives rise to conscious experience. This is the “hard problem” of consciousness. 14b. We can say what a theory should contain, but no ideas have been proposed. [[ Actually *lots* of ideas have been proposed. ]]  We want laws and principles that apply across species. Hand waving won’t do. Perhaps someday the double helix of neuroscience will be discovered. Or perhaps we simply won’t be able to understand it. Chomsky suggested there might be limits to human understanding. Author suspects he’s right, 16m. Or perhaps we’re hindered by a false belief. And perhaps the false belief is: we see reality as it is.

Of course we already realize we don’t see all of reality, e.g. wavelengths of light. Example of a tomato a meter away. When we close our eyes, the tomato is still there, right? But when we test this against ideas from various fields, and discover this belief is false, 17b. [[ ç ]] Consider that Necker cube. Which cube is still there, A or B? Depends on the observer, perhaps. The cube is a construction of your system of creating a reality… There have been other misperceptions: that the earth is flat, that it stands unmoving at the center of the universe. We believe what things “look as if.” We will see that our perceptions were shaped by natural selection of hide reality and report fitness. Galileo and the church. We must understand the evolution of perception in order to solve the problem of consciousness.

Ch2, Beauty: sirens of the gene.

Hume said it was in the eye of the beholder. Darwin explained that beauty was a judgment of fitness for reproduction. Evolutionary psychology makes new predictions. Begin by considering the perception of beauty in the animal kingdom. Jewel beetles. Beauty involves an unconscious computation. We make such judgments in a fraction of a second: a feeling that varies from hot to not. And if they’re wrong, those genes go extinct. It’s all about fitness. The genes are invisible; we judge the phenotypes. And often trifles. E.g. the limbal ring in the eye. They signal fitness and youth. Makeup. Some species mimic others. Examples. Women and iris sizes. Fertility implies that men should find women most beautiful at age twenty. But teen males prefer *older* women. Anime has depicted female characters with large irises for years. All of this is about parental investment. The greater one’s investment, the fussier your choice of mate. Examples. … there’s a tradeoff between testosterone and commitment. Experiments. The whites of the eyes, unique in humans, reveals the direction of a gaze. Twinkles in eyes. Examples. Kin selection. Inclusive fitness. Altruistic behaviors. … With this background we can move on the bigger question: do we perceive reality as it is?

Ch3, Reality: capers of the unseen sun, p40

Quote by Stephen Palmer about the accuracy of sight.

Author recalls challenging Crick’s ideas in his book. Do we construct our vision of the world, or perceive what’s really there all the time? Do we also construct the neurons? Crick summons Kant. We can’t know the thing in itself, but it’s still there. Things exist even when we’re not looking at them. The tomato again. Our minds are nothing but a pack of neurons. Qualia and conscious experiences. Discussion of David Marr. Who said vision generally matches reality due to evolutionary pressure. Author went to MIT to study with him. Marr died young, at 35. … author went to Irvine. Author recalls standard argument about the usefulness of accurate perceptions. Still, author doubts that our perceptions perceive objective reality. Our lexicon is powerless to describe reality. Example of what a fly perceives. It doesn’t matter as long as it successfully mates. Pinker explained why natural selection may not favor veridical perceptions. How the Mind Works. Quote 50.8. [[ the basic claim I’ve made too ]] Hawking and Mlodinow in The Grand Design. But what is true about a table may not be true about a neuron.

Ch4, Sensory: fitness beats truth, p53

Quotes by Dennett and Dawkins

Does natural selection favor true perceptions? We suppose a peach still exists when we don’t look at it, but we can’t test the idea either way. But we can test similar things, like the spin of an electron. But does evolution favor true perceptions? But fitness depends on the organism, the competition, etc. Payoffs can vary widely. Truth and fitness are different things. But evolution assumes that physical objects exist… But evolution works via algorithms. Evolution applies to languages, and scientific theories. And memes. Maybe even universes, via black holes. These ideas are ‘universal Darwinism.’ We can answer the key questions abstractly with this. Dennett’s universal acid. So in fact, natural selection drives true perception to extinction. We use the abstract algorithm via evolutionary game theory; Example of a particular scorpion. Some animals kill their rivals. There are two strategies: hawk, and dove. Summarized in a matrix, p59. The strategy favored by natural selection depends on the proportion of hawks and doves.

There are other strategies: domination, bistability, neutrality. There can be cycles, like rock/paper/scissors. Triggered by tiny changes; the butterfly effect. The FBT, fitness beats truth, theorem says that fitness drives truth to extinction, 61m. It’s been confirmed in many simulations. Consider how the amount of stuff can be too small or too large for fitness. It’s not true that humans’ larger brains perceive more truth. Actually brain sizes are shrinking, from 1500 cc to 1350 cc over 20,000y. As social complexity has increased. There is an objective reality, but we don’t perceive it correctly, e.g. in our terms of DNA, chromosomes, and so on. We model evolutionary games on graphs. Author’s student did a study that demonstrated some of all this. Is there a mistaken assumption somewhere? … example of state lottery. We don’t need all the details to predict how many people will win, just general principles. It’s not that our senses lie; they guide useful actions. The senses adapt to new contexts. Logic and communications theory deals with sets and messages without caring what their contents are. Trivers and Pinker sum up these conclusions. P74.

Ch5, Illusory: the bluff of a desktop, p75

Quote from The Matrix about the pills.

Suppose perceptual systems are user interfaces, like the desktop of a laptop. Call this the interface theory of perception, ITP. Recall the letter icon. The icon hides all the tiresome details. It lets us get complicated things done easily. So evolution shapes our senses to be user interfaces. We take our senses seriously, but not literally. Consider biohazard signs. Author objects to an objection by Michael Shermer. Author explains. Thus an object ceases to exist when we don’t look, because the object is only an icon. Recall the Necker cube; which cube remains when you don’t look? Answer: no cube. Is this preposterous? Surely a spoon is still there on the table. But different people see different spoons. Same for all objects, even spacetime itself. Something may be there all along, but not a spoon. This may align with Kant; things exist only in our perceptions. We understand this via evolution. Different species might well construct different interfaces, or umwelts. ITP doesn’t deny an objective reality, only that our perceptions describe that reality. Some things exist, others exist even when unperceived. Our problem is that we reify our perceptions. Consider a molecule of vanillin, and its taste. Recall Plato’s allegory of the cave. It doesn’t go far enough. Author counters objections. What are illusions? Perceptions that fail to guide adaptive behavior. E.g, a beetle that woos a bottle.

Consider how the tastes of different animals vary. Coprophages. So how is perception veridical? [[ it seems to me he’s creating a problem that doesn’t exist; things depend on context; our senses are limited, etc. that doesn’t mean real things don’t actually exist. ]] Other examples. What about our perceptions of math and logic? Are there selection pressures for them? Author disagrees with statement by Shermer. Scientific theories are only about interfaces. But can we refute ITP with physics?

Ch6, Gravity: spacetime is doomed, p94

So spacetime is the desktop of our interface and physical objects are its icons. A spoon ceases to exist when we look away. [[ he can’t literally mean this. He means that our conception of a spoon no long exists when we’re not looking at whatever it is we perceive as a spoon. ]] Our icons are similar, but not necessarily always the same.  [[ all of this reminds me of the argument in that book by Alex Rosenberg. ]] Can we test these predictions? Einstein believed that objects still exist… local realism. But experiments in quantum theory are incompatible with local realism; Bell in 1964. Spins of electrons. Entanglement. Various theorems. … Carlo Rovelli has tried to explain this. Others argue on different grounds. Reality differs from one agent to another. Just as fitness values may vary for different people. Thus quantum theory and evobio are consistent, and analogous. 100b. Wheeler and Popper in 1987. The double-slit experiment, with a delayed-choice variation. And gravitational lenses. Wheeler thus undercut Einstein. Or that information, not matter, is fundamental. Our intuitions are wrong. Example of storing computer memory in spheres. Information corresponds to the area of surface of a sphere, not the volume. And spacetime has pixels, of Planck length. This is the holographic principle. The 3d world is a hologram coded on a 2d surface. Quantum theory assumes that information is never eradicated. But general relativity says information that crosses the event horizon of a black hole is erased. This is a paradox. Leonard Susskind resolved with complementarity. Then there’s a firewall paradox. And other ideas to avoid it. … Quantum states are beliefs of observers. So… physics does not proscribe ITP. But spacetime must go before a TOE is achieved. So, what is the bedrock of reality?

[[ This all goes to the idea that humans don’t perceive reality as it is… but not due to evolution, exactly. Mostly due to limited sensory organs ]]

Ch7, Virtuality: inflating a holoworld, p115

So, then, what is physics about? Something more fundamental than spacetime. No one knows what. But it’s an exciting idea, for physicists. Consider ideas of perception. Consider data compression. It’s the way we compress data that gives us a three dimensional world. Consider error correction. Which relies on redundancy. And so spacetime is redundant. Our third dimension is redundancy of the 2 d’s that contain all the information needed. While vision scientists assume vision is veridical. Yet our perception of symmetry does not require symmetry in objective reality. Symmetry is a kind of data compression and error correction. … others disagree. Casual interactions are fiction, 123m. then is consciousness also a fiction? See the PDA loop, p125, for how the fitness-payoff function works. Examples. Hose and snake. Visual illusions. Disks with a missing line, 128. Similar erasure errors p129, and a square. P130 with a cube. We perceive ‘entanglements’ and even glows in the connecting lines, and holographic inflation a third dimension. Similarly, shading of disks gives the illusion of a third dimension. Or curved lines in a circle. According to ITP, these are all codings for messages about fitness.  Similarly photos of a person in jeans… So: spacetime and the objects in them are pre-existing; they are data structures of our own making to track fitness payoffs.

Ch8, Polychromy: mutations of an interface, p136

About color. We see only a narrow band; we delete data. Some of what we don’t see can kill us… but usually after we’ve raised children. We have three kinds of cones, plus rods; each is sensitive to different wavelengths, p137. Much data compression. The brain fixes errors, as in the Olympic rings illusion. Example figures. Other illusions. How we fill in colors we perceive are missing. Some colors align with specific emotions, p143. There are of course many different shades. Plants have photo receptors too. Some plants have more photoreceptors than we do. Of course we associate colors with familiar objects. We most often see colors not as flat areas, but areas of ‘chromatures.’ And some people are synesthetes, who associate colors with words or sounds or many other things. Music. Smells. Letters. Examples of individual artists. The effects are associated with particular genes. It can help with memory. In one way or another, it may help fitness behaviors. And yet another example of how our perceptions are not ‘true.’

Ch9, Scrutiny: you get what you need, in both life and business, p155

We’re alert for fitness, not truth. Yet we’re barraged by information, billions of bit each second. Compressed down. Change blindness. We have a visual spam-filter that ruthless deletes. Our visual focus is quite small. But our eyes keep moving. Saccades. This is applied to visual advertising. Some things ‘pop out.’ Photographers learn to avoid them, or edit them out. We group items together. 162-5. Grouping is a form of data compression. By shape, by color. Our focus can be derailed by movement, e.g. Again, advertisers use these principles. We tend to focus on eyes. Advertising icons can mimic them. And supernormal stimuli can divert us from fitness behaviors. … we remember locations where we found food, especially high calorie food. Recap 173.5. Another technique is scripted attention. As in ads, to focus on the product. We follow the gaze of other people. …He repeats his main thesis, e.g., he doesn’t believe the sun existed before there were creatures to perceive it. Yet for various reasons we do sometimes need to understand the objective reality behind what we perceive…

Ch10, Community: the network of conscious agents, p178

We still can’t fathom the mystery of how our minds understand experience. We’ve been duped into thinking that the brain understands things. We understand cause and effect in many situations, but it’s a fiction. Like playing a video game. Spacetime and its objects are doomed. Neurons are a fiction, etc. we can’t transcend the interface. So what do we do? Start with that PDA loop: perceive, decide, act. But suppose we are conscious agents. What is the objective world? Perhaps we’re simulations in some virtual world. But there’s no actual evidence that this is so. Does our knowing stop at some point? Recall Occam’s Razor. We should rely on a physical basis for consciousness. Or, conscious agents that are not objects in spacetime. Figure p184. Conscious realism. Consciousness is fundamental. But this is not panpsychism. … menu options. Measurable space. Author suggests that every aspect of consciousness can be modeled by conscious agents, 190.2. Kahneman. The simplest agent is ‘one-bit,’ with two experiences and two actions. …  how this relates to entropy. And roots of these ideas in famous philosophers. About science as a method of inquiry. Two realms of human experience; Dawkins disagreed. Science is not an ontology. Author sees how conscious realism can bring science and spirituality together. The idea of an infinite conscious agent sounds like God. Even if not omniscient, etc etc. But all this misses the message of the Copernican universe: it’s not about us. Yet, there are countless conscious agents that may not be human. …

Appendix: Precisely: the right to be wrong.

Mathematical details about conscious agents.

 

Posted in Book Notes, Evolution, reality | Comments Off on Donald Hoffman: THE CASE AGAINST REALITY

Latter Day Skiffy Flix: STTNG: Encounter at Farpoint

A couple evenings ago I rewatched the pilot episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, called “Encounter at Farpoint,” for the first time since I watched it as the series premiere back in 1987.

Some background and context. I was 11 years old when the original Star Trek series, later dubbed TOS (the original series), debuted in 1966, and I was a fan of the show and then increasingly obsessed with the show when, after it was cancelled by NBC after three years, it went into syndication. Meaning that reruns of the original episodes were shown, often five times a week on weeknights at 5pm or 6pm, on local channels (different in every city) and not the networks. The early 1970s were long before the internet, and only a couple books had been published about the show, including THE MAKING OF STAR TREK by Stephen Whitfield, in 1968, which covered only the first two seasons, and two books by David Gerrold, including THE WORLD OF STAR TREK, in 1973 or so. In the meantime an obsessive fan of the show like me would take notes and compile lists of the episodes and their writers and guest stars and the names of the planets in each episode and each episode’s stardate. (How frustrating that a few episodes had no stardate!) Others had similar ideas and published “concordances” for the show, first in the fan press and later from professional publishers.

Years and years passed; by 1987, when TNG premiered, four of the Trek movies had been release, using the cast of the original series.

By that time the powers that be at Paramount decided the time was ripe for another TV series, and so many of the original producers and writers, like Gene Roddenberry, David Gerrold, and D.C. Fontana, were brought in to create the concept for a new show. It had a completely different cast, and a completely new Enterprise, being set some 95 years after the original show. The pilot, this episode, was approved, and the show went into production, then shown in syndication — that is, not on one of the networks, CBS or NBC or ABC, but on local channels, in most of the nation. (I don’t remember what local channel in LA I saw it on.)

By 1987 I had a VCR and, if I recall correctly, taped all the TNG episodes so I could rewatch them at my leisure. (Again: this was ages before streaming.) (By that time Paramount was releasing VCR episodes of TOS, generally two episodes per tape, and I bought a few, but nothing like a complete set.) TNG was on for seven years, and as I recall I saw every episode except for one. For some reason, I missed one, one I can’t even identify now.

But by 1994 or so when the show ended, I had moved on to so many other things that I never did watch all those videotapes I made of the TNG episodes. And eventually they got thrown away, as all my videotapes did. (By the ’90s everyone watched DVDs, not videotapes, and a few favorite movies I’d had on videotape I bought again on DVD. I still have lots of DVDs.) In all the years since 1994 the only time I’ve rewatched any of the TNG episodes was, oddly, when I was in the hospital about five years ago, and one of the channels on its internal TV system was showing TNG reruns. I watched five or six. After 25 years, mostly unfamiliar.

And oh by the way — I have sampled but have never followed any of the other Trek series. Not Deep Space 9, not Voyager, not Discovery, not Picard, not Lower Decks. OK, I did watch the Animated Series way back in 1973 or so, and in fact I bought the DVD set of that, but have still not rewatched it. Perhaps I will. I did watch a few episodes of the latest show, Star Trek: Strange New Worlds, until it started getting silly. And I watched two or three episodes of Star Fleet Academy. Too many better things to watch.

(I’m not sure what to think of the obsessive fans who have watched all the shows. Some 960 episodes altogether, according to Google. I’ve been obsessed in my own way, about various things over periods of time, so I’m not going to judge. There are only so many things anyone can do.)

Still, with my partner away on a trip beginning last weekend, something prompted my curiosity and I decided to find out if TNG was available for streaming anywhere.

Yes, on Amazon Prime. So I watched that premiere episode. It was initially broadcast as two parts, but is an hour and half as a single episode.

There is so much documentation online about this episode, and all the others that followed, that I don’t feel compelled to write a detailed plot summary, as I have for the early ’40s and ’50s and ’60s movies that I’ve called Skiffy Flix on this site. Links about this episode are shown below. I’ll just record some of my reactions to watching it.

  • First, the new Enterprise. The movies had already upgraded the original Enterprise, generally in ways that made it look swoopier, more aerodynamic. Which is pointless of course, in space. The original Enterprise had a geometric symmetry (which I discussed here) that, to me, suggested some higher-dimensional alignment, perhaps in they way in went into warp drive — but this is idle speculation. That movie and TV designers kept making the Enterprise more aerodynamic, and then imagined other starships as merely being pieces of the Enterprise reassembled in different configurations (just one warp nacelle instead of two, for example), indicated to me a lack of imagination, and the fallacy of projecting local circumstances to situations they do not belong. This new Enterprise was apparently much much larger (though it’s hard to tell given that the relative proportions of this to the original were roughly the same) but with an attenuated rear end. The purpose of the curvy sections holding up the nacelles? Mindless aesthetics, as far as I can tell. (And of course there’s no “holding up,” since…)
  • This episode made a big point about the ability of the saucer section of the Enterprise to separate from the lower section, a point which had been established in the original show, but IIRC, never used until one of the movies. (Don’t remember which one.) Not sure I ever understood the point. It’s not as if either section could descend into the atmosphere of a planet. Only the lower section had warp drive. The saucer had impulse drive, which limited it to sub-light velocities. Again IIRC.
  • About this episode: I had forgotten that this was when the character Q was first introduced. In fact my vague recollection of this episode was that it involved an Enterprise visit to some sophisticated starbase, or something. That must have been a different episode.
  • The episode is in part the origin story of all the characters, showing or recalling how they first meet or met, in a way TOS never depicted. Data even has to explain himself as an android (to an elderly McCoy, in a cameo appearance by DeForrest Kelley).
  • It’s significant that there’s a conversation between Riker and Picard about the advisability of the latter beaming down the planet. This was a major complaint by David Gerrold in his book THE WORLD OF STAR TREK, that it’s implausible for the captain of the ship to beam down every week into potentially dangerous circumstances. Of course the rationale for that was, especially in the ’60 with limited budgets and casts, producers would use their lead actors in every possible scene. In this way TNG advanced the concept over TOS.
  • The most striking element is the conceit that, as Picard keeps explaining to Q, humanity has evolved over the past 400 years, has ‘grown’, and is no longer the quarrelsome, violent species that once existed. It’s striking because, as has become apparent in recent decades, it’s so naive. There’s no evolution of human nature possible in 400 years, and if anything we see progressive movements undermined by conservative ones over and over, in a kind of inevitable cycle (that personally I’m not sure humanity will ever escape). Still, this was a premise that series creator Gene Roddenberry kept insisting on, to the point that he drove writers away with the stricture that there could be no true conflict between characters. Where is the drama then? How do you write stories in which people are not in conflict with each other? (Well, perhaps stories that are only about alien puzzles to solve. But those aren’t dramatic.)
  • The bottom line about this episode is that it’s about yet another test of humanity. I say yet another because it was an old idea in science fiction. Aliens demand that humanity explain itself, or demonstrate its fitness, in order to join the galactic community, or even to survive. (The most famous earlier example I can think of is Robert A. Heinlein’s HAVE SPACESUIT — WILL TRAVEL, in which the protagonist is confronted by a galactic council demanding the same defense of humanity. Oh, and the 1950s film The Day the Earth Stood Still.) But then Trek was seldom notable for original ideas. Roddenberry and his writers drew on a history of written science fiction going back to the 1930s that entailed galactic empires, other planets with strange species, hostile aliens, friendly aliens.
  • The best thing Star Trek did was to introduce these ideas to a mass audience. They’ve become part of popular culture.

Links, the last two with detailed plot summaries:

Wikipedia: Star Trek: The Next Generation
Wikipedia: List of Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes
Wikipedia: Encounter at Farpoint
Memory Alpha: Encounter at Farpoint (episode) with a very detailed plot summary

Posted in Personal history, science fiction, Skiffy Flix, Star Trek | Comments Off on Latter Day Skiffy Flix: STTNG: Encounter at Farpoint

Increasing Willful Ignorance and Intolerance

  • How energy independence, which even Fox News once thought could avoid the quandary we now face in the Strait or Hormuz, is now regarded as a scam by the likes of JD Vance;
  • How Trump and MAGA are all for religious freedom… for Christians, but definitely not for Muslims;
  • While MAGA Christians want to repeal the 19th amendment and be much more intolerant toward ‘Satanic’ nonbelievers;
  • The White House Cage Match, and a Newsmax Host’s eagerness to punch people: are conservatives prone to settling disputes with violence? (Also yesterday’s item about guns);
  • The kids are all right, say new studies, better than previous generations, and the various psychological reasons many people believe otherwise.
– – –

We have only conservatives to blame.

Media Matters, Allison Fisher, 18 Mar 2026: Fox personalities used to claim that energy independence would shield the US from potential retaliatory action by Iran — such as closing the Strait of Hormuz, subtitled “As gas prices rise, the network has scarcely invoked the concept of ‘energy independence,’ mentioning it a fraction as often as it did during the start of the Russia-Ukraine war”

Hmm, why would that be? Perhaps because the current administration thinks energy independence is a scam.

JMG, via Poke and New Republic: Vance: Take Comfort That Gas Prices Are Worse For US Allies Because “They Focused On Green Energy Scams”

They’re not scams; they’re what are necessary to avoid all the ill effects of continuing to use fossil fuels. He’s a dolt, pandering to conservative resistance to anything new and strange.

\\\

More on Christian intolerance, out loud. NYT summarizes recent examples.

NY Times, Editorial Board: Trump’s Hypocrisy on Religious Freedom

Religious freedom for Trump and American conservatives is only about Christians.

The Trump administration holds itself up as a defender of religious freedom. It has created a Religious Liberty Commission, increased funding for faith-based schools and changed vaccine policies to allow more religious exemptions. It ordered a Christmas Day missile attack in Nigeria on what President Trump described as a terrorist group that was killing Christians. The administration has punished universities in the name of preventing antisemitism. “I’ve done more for religion than any other president,” Mr. Trump claimed at the National Prayer Breakfast this year.

Yet there is an exception to this effort. Mr. Trump and his Republican Party appear uninterested in protecting the religious rights of Muslims. Instead, they are often hostile to Islam.

Recalling the Muslim ban. Tommy Tuberville, Brandon Gill, Randy Fine, Andy Ogles. Once again, the first lesson of comparative religion for American conservatives: all religions except your own are crazy and dangerous. (And the others likely think the same about yours.)

To me, they’re all equally crazy and dangerous. Examples.

Right Wing Watch, Kyle Mantyla, 18 Mar 2026: ‘Good Christian Sexism’: Dale Partridge Seeks To Repeal The 19th Amendment In The Next Decade

He has a book coming up, called “19 Reasons to Repeal the 19th Amendment,” which is what gave women the right to vote in 1920.

Mantyla concludes noting this:

In addition to some “good Christian sexism,” Partridge’s comments reveal some fundamental misunderstanding about how our government works. The 19th Amendment is part of the Constitution and therefore could not be repealed or ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court—it would take the kind of state-by-state fight that led to the amendment’s ratification. Good luck with that.

\

Again I’ll note my position about this: MAGA Christians do not actually believe in the American Constitution and its Amendments, nor Democracy, and they don’t entirely believe in their Bible either, since they are very selective in what they quote. They’re actually just primitive tribalists who would impose their blinkered values about the world on everyone else, since they think maybe they can. I’m sure other pious groups around the world wish they could do the same, in the name of *their* religion.

\

One more.

JMG, quoting a speech given to “loud applause from a large audience”: MAGA Christian Nationalist: Tolerance Of Nonbelievers Is From Satan, “We Need To Be A Lot More Intolerant”

Look how he spins it:

“We are way too tolerant as a people and a nation. There’s biblical precedent for that. They didn’t tolerate this kind of behavior in ancient Israel. They didn’t tolerate it in Jesus’s time. Jesus was very direct about this kind of stuff.

“We teach this incredibly nice, sanitized version, I would say an effeminized version, of Jesus. This is a man who made a cat o’ ‘nine tails and went in to kick the tables over and screamed at people and called them vipers for sinning, for doing terrible things against the law of God.”

You know what? I *don’t care* whatever biblical precedents there might be for whatever he believes, and nor do most Americans. We live by the Constitution, not by the Bible or any other ancient religious text. They never seem to understand this.

\

Two more.

JMG, from Axios: Trump: WH Cage Match Is “Hottest Ticket I’ve Seen”

and

JMG: Newsmax Host: Punching People Makes Things Better

See the connection? How do we not see these people as brute savages, whose only recourse to settling disputes is violence?

\\\

Ending on an upbeat note, another example of how the world is actually a better place than many people, especially conservatives, think.

Scientific American, Melinda Wenner Moyer, 17 Mar 2026: The kids are all right, subtitled “Surprising studies show young people are doing better than previous generations in many ways”

Long piece with both anecdotes and studies. (I’ll note it’s a truism that “kids these days” never meet the standards of their forebears; this has always been true; it’s another example of the “good ol’ days” fallacy.)

If you were to ask most people how kids are doing these days, you’d probably get an earful of complaints and concerns. Compared with children from past generations, kids today are often portrayed as being less mentally healthy, less resilient and less empathetic. “America’s Children Are Unwell,” read a New York Times headline last November; online magazine Parents recently ran “How to Know if Your Kid Is a Narcissist—and What to Do about It.” In a 2025 Common Sense Media survey of 1,300 nationally representative parents, 61 percent said they believe kids today lag behind past generations in their morals and values, and more than half said youth today are less resilient and independent.

Although quality data are sparse, the research that does exist suggests a different narrative—one in which kids are faring better in many ways than those of previous generations. Studies suggest youths are more empathetic and less narcissistic than in the past, as well as more open-minded and inclusive. Drug use is down, youth violence has dropped and teen pregnancies have declined. IQs have gone up, and kids exhibit more self-restraint and patience than they did 50 years ago.

With detailed consideration of various reasons why. No simple answer. Cognitive biases, social media, exposure to the world, the way we focus on the negative…

This new, more positive discovery didn’t get nearly as much media coverage as the one published in 2011, which Konrath found frustrating. “I have to say that I’ve noticed good news is not as popular as bad news,” she says. Recent science supports her assertion: a 2025 study found that negative and alarming articles about children are more likely to go viral than nuanced and balanced stories.

This is what media literacy — and real world literacy — is about, and it’s an individual project. An individual responsibility.

Posted in Conservative Resistance, conservatives, Psychology | Comments Off on Increasing Willful Ignorance and Intolerance

The War, the Economy, and Religion

  • Yet more commentators on the stupidity of this war with Iran, from Adam Lee, Suzanne Maloney, and Susan B. Glasser;
  • How the economies under Biden and Trump aren’t that much different;
  • Brief items about why conservatives need guns, Christian Nationalists who admit they mean to impose their morality on everyone, how the transgender plague is driven by demons, hurricanes, tricks, and Christian theology;
  • And two examples of the first lesson of comparative religion, for conservatives.
– – –

Adam Lee on the war.

OnlySky, Adam Lee, 18 Mar 2026: The colossal stupidity of war with Iran, subtitled “An unwinnable war without a goal and with consequences for the world.”

If anyone still doubted that Donald Trump will be remembered as the worst president of all time, he’s doing his best to eliminate that doubt.

Last month, America and Israel launched a surprise attack on Iran, assassinating Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and senior Iranian military officials. (We also accidentally bombed a school, killing over a hundred children.)

This is all the more hypocritical because isolationism used to be one of Trump’s defining policy stances. As a candidate, he railed against politicians whom he said would get us bogged down in wars:

Followed by quotes of X/Twitter posts from 2012 and 2013 in which Trump predicted that Obama would start a war since his “poll numbers are in a tailspin” (which probably wasn’t true).

Now he’s tossed that promise aside, just like he’s discarded every other principle he ever paid lip service to. He’s committed all the evils he promised, plus all the evils he denounced.

The sheer stupidity, incuriosity, and smugly self-satisfied ignorance of this administration defies belief. Even Trump doesn’t know why we’re at war. He and his henchmen have offered a fog bank of shifting justifications about why he did this—to bring about regime change? to end Iran’s nuclear program? to heed Israel’s wishes? or something else entirely?

Lee goes on to point out how nations less reliant on fossil fuels will be less impacted by this war. (But then it’s been obvious for decades that the world needs to transition away from fossil fuels, for many reasons; Trump simply denies all those reasons, because he wants to recreate the world he grew up in, as conservatives are wont to do.) Lee doesn’t at all approve of the Iranian government, “a cabal of fanatical, violently repressive theocrats” who deserve to be replaced. But you can’t do it by bombing the country, as past interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown. But some people do not learn from the past.

\\

And by the way, the US had a treaty with Iran, under Obama. Trump tore it up because, well, Obama.

NY Times, guest essay by Suzanne Maloney, 18 Mar 2026: The Alternative to Obama’s Nuclear Deal Was War. Why Did Trump Tear It Up?

In 2015, President Barack Obama and the leaders of Britain, China, France, Germany, Iran, Russia and the European Union reached an agreement formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action that imposed restrictions across the spectrum of Iran’s nuclear activities.

The product of years of diplomacy, the plan elevated a technically complex national security challenge into a fierce political debate split largely along partisan lines. A few months before the deal was signed, Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, addressed a joint session of Congress — at Republicans’ invitation — to campaign against it.

Critics said it wasn’t harsh enough. It wasn’t perfect. (Is anything?) The alternative was war. Well, here we are: Trump tore it up, and started a war!

\\

Another take. We’ve seen this comparison before.

The New Yorker, Susan B. Glasser, 12 Mar 2026: The War Trump Doesn’t Want to Talk About

Subtitle: “We won,” the President who’s treating the conflict with Iran like a video game says, but “we’re not finished yet.”

\\\

On another topic.

NY Times, guest essay by Jason Furman (chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers from 2013 to 2017), 18 Mar 2026: If You Hate Trump’s Economy, I Have News for You [gift link]

As a candidate, Donald Trump called the economy under President Joe Biden a “nightmare.” As president, he says the United States is “bigger, better, richer and stronger than ever before.” Democratic rhetoric has shifted just as sharply, from Vice President Kamala Harris touting the U.S. economy as “the strongest in the world” during the 2024 campaign to Democrats today decrying an “affordability crisis.” And that was before gas prices jumped more than $0.50 a gallon in the wake of the Iran strikes.

While the narrative on both sides has done a 180-degree turn, the economy itself has not. It didn’t change after tariffs were rolled out. It didn’t change after A.I. became more widely adopted. The economy over the last year has looked a lot as it did in 2024. I don’t expect it to change because of the latest disappointing numbers on jobs, fluctuations in the gross domestic product or the start of the Iran war, either.

While the narrative on both sides has done a 180-degree turn, the economy itself has not. It didn’t change after tariffs were rolled out. It didn’t change after A.I. became more widely adopted. The economy over the last year has looked a lot as it did in 2024. I don’t expect it to change because of the latest disappointing numbers on jobs, fluctuations in the gross domestic product or the start of the Iran war, either.

Why? Part of this is partisan motivated thinking: whatever the other side did, or is doing, must be bad. More fundamentally, the economy is enormously complex and not easily swayed by this or that change in strategy or policy. Nor do presidents have the micromanagement powers many voters think they do.

That the 2025 numbers looked much like the 2024 numbers should not be that surprising. The American economy, like an ocean liner, is extremely hard to turn. The best guess of what will happen next year is that the economy will continue doing what it did last year.

Perhaps the most common mistake is to overrate the importance of the president. Sometimes presidents can make a big difference, but usually the aggregate economic effects of their policies are smaller — for good or ill — than their supporters or detractors would have you believe.

Concluding:

This does not mean presidents don’t matter for the economy. I believe the economy would be even better today were it not for Mr. Trump’s reckless tariffs and his Middle East adventures. It means, however, that we should probably be more honest about judging the economy and more explicitly admitting that our opinion is based on much more than interest rates or inflation or even our own economic circumstances.

My take on the Trump economy is that I haven’t felt any personal pain at all, but then I’m stable, not trying to buy a house or a car, and not struggling to make ends meet the way many young families might be. My take is just that Trump promised many things — cut prices in half! yadda yadda — that of course have never happened. (Because he has no direct control over them, but his MAGA fans don’t understand that.)

\\\

Briefly noted.

  • They’re quite upfront about it.
  • Right Wing Watch, Kyle Mantyla, 17 Mar 2026: William Wolfe Admits Christian Nationalists ‘Are Going To Impose [Our Morality] Upon You’
  • The other problem is that he’s so certain what God’s morality is. “If you don’t like it, I’m sorry, but this is good and right and just if it lines up with God’s standards and I am going to enforce my morality on you inasmuch as our morality is God’s morality.”
  • Is all of Leviticus God’s morality? If not, how does he decide which parts are, and which aren’t?

\

The first lesson of comparative religion, for conservatives, with two examples.

Jerry Coyne, Why Evolution is True: Jesus ‘n’ Mo ‘n’ Scientology

He discusses the latest cartoon from the long-running Jesus and Mo strip, shown above.

And:

NY Times, Robert Draper, 16 Mar 2026 (on today’s front page): ‘It Doesn’t Need to Be Here’: The Right Vilifies a Muslim School in Alabama, subtitled “A local campaign against the small school reflects growing Islamophobia in conservative enclaves in America and among G.O.P. officials.”

Do I need to spell this out? All religions seem crazy, even dangerous, to people who follow other religions. The lack of self-awareness about such prejudices continues to astound me, especially in this age of global information. But it’s true of most people, the most conservatives ones anyway, on Earth.

Posted in conservatives, Politics, Religion | Comments Off on The War, the Economy, and Religion