Links and Comments: Star Trek and Humanism; John Cleese

A couple more links noticed in recent days, before I lose or forget them; my daily routine, as we settle and unpack in our new home in Oakland, will be a while getting back to have time for more considered comments.

Slate appeals to Quora to ask, What Is the Philosophical Perspective of Star Trek?. The answer is, Humanism (considering primarily the original series, and how this philosophy changed in the later series).

This is fascinating to me because, while I was obsessive about Star Trek from its original broadcast years (beginning when I was 11), and then especially during syndicated reruns in the early ’70s, I stopped watching the various incarnations of the show once ‘Next Generation’ finished, and haven’t thought about it much in the past couple decades; while my interest in more fundamental philosophical issues, science vs religion and concepts like humanism, has only emerged, or crystallized, in the past decade. So to see these concepts retroactively applied to experiences of my adolescence and young-adulthood is almost revelatory.

Humanism? Well, yes. You didn’t see Trek appealing to religion or gods much, except to debunk them. (I know the Original Series episodes well enough to remember one (“Balance of Terror”) with a couple scenes in a non-denominational chapel, about the closest Trek got to recognizing formal religion; and another (“Who Mourns for Adonais?”) in which the Enterprise encounters a superior alien being whose compatriots had visited Earth centuries before and been taken for the Greek gods… and in this episode, IIRC, Kirk comments that they no longer believe in “gods”; “we find the one quite sufficient”. So while undermining primitive concepts of gods (who were actually alien beings), there were some token nods to conventional monotheistic religious belief.

The Slate essay comments that Gene Roddenberry wanted to envision a future in which humanity had actually improved, in the sense that they had overcome religious superstitions and the cultural conflicts that are typical of most wars and conflicts around the world to this day.

Through Star Trek he wanted to show a future where we had grown up and were reaching our potential. This view provided the optimism and inspiration that cemented the show into the hearts of so many viewers. But it made it a challenging show for the writers and actors. Roddenberry’s view that we would be better people in the time of Star Trek in effect changed human nature and removed many of the natural sources of conflict for the stories the shows told.

Thinking back, I was not explicitly aware of this policy, except to have read some accounts from script-writers (e.g. Harlan Ellison), who resented the policy that prohibited conflicts among crew members (in his original draft of “The City on the Edge of Forever”).

But I suppose, in retrospect, the idealistic nature of Star Trek must have influenced my early thinking, and the undermining (as so much of science fiction has done) of conventional religious belief, the casual assumptions that one’s own culture is the center of all existence.

\\

Via today’s Morning Heresy post, a quote from the autobiography of John Cleese (the Monty Python guy):

Yes, I know it’s easy to make fun of the organised churches, but has it occurred to anyone to wonder why it’s so easy? … All the vital questions have been dumped in favour of half-baked, po-faced rituals which are basically a form of middle-class rain dance.

Posted in Humanism, Personal history, Philosophy, Religion | Comments Off on Links and Comments: Star Trek and Humanism; John Cleese

Links and Comments: Oliver Sacks; A Pious American against Trains; Offending Religion

Another link-dump, for now, i.e. some links and quick comments, without the more considered comments I might do under normal circumstances… after another busy week of moving-in and unpacking.

The great author Oliver Sacks has this moving NYT op-ed about how he deals with the fact that he has terminal cancer, without resort to fantasies of heaven’s eternal reward.

I cannot pretend I am without fear. But my predominant feeling is one of gratitude. I have loved and been loved; I have been given much and I have given something in return; I have read and traveled and thought and written. I have had an intercourse with the world, the special intercourse of writers and readers.

Above all, I have been a sentient being, a thinking animal, on this beautiful planet, and that in itself has been an enormous privilege and adventure.

\\\

In every era there are people who welcome change and advance, and those who resist it (usually on religious grounds). He’s a precious example: In 1830, One Pious American Railed Against Trains and Their Breakneck 20-MPH Speeds

I go for beasts of burthen [sic]: it is more primitive and scriptural, and suits a moral and religious people better.

\\\

A few commentators are willing to call a spade and spade, inlcuding Jeffrey Tayler at The Atlantic and Salon:

We must offend religion more: Islam, Christianity and our tolerance for ancient myths, harmful ideas.

Not in this piece, but somewhere else that I read: the reason you publish cartoons offensive to Muslims is because if you don’t, you are *submitting* to their fundamentalist worldview. Fundamentalist Muslims do not have license to control what everyone else finds humorous or offensive. No one should be forced to submit to anyone else’s worldview. Live your own lives however you want to, but don’t force others to submit to yours.

Posted in Culture, Religion | Comments Off on Links and Comments: Oliver Sacks; A Pious American against Trains; Offending Religion

Boyhood

I need to say something about the film Boyhood, before it does, or more likely does not (given the current prognosticators), win the Oscar for Best Picture on Sunday. I didn’t see it in the theater, but watched the DVD when it came out in January, and have watched it at least three times through, and various pieces more times than that.

It’s a film that has affected me in a way no other film has done, ever, except (in an extremely different sense) 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Because it strikes me at a very particular stage of my life, a stage when one thinks back to consider what might have been, the things that didn’t seem the least plausible, given my circumstances and age, but which recently has seemed possible after all. Though not practical, given that we’ve cashed out various reserves to finance our move to the Bay Area.

So Boyhood is for me a vicarious experience about raising a son, which I wish I could have done. As the years grow old, the regrets grow stronger.

Posted in Children, Films, Personal history | Comments Off on Boyhood

Links and Comments: Quotes; GOP and Evolution; Skeptics; Oklahoma history

During a busy week, this is a quick post to capture various quotes and links I’ve found in the past few days. Resources.

Quote: Charles Bukowski: “The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.”

//

Quote: H.G. Wells: Civilization is in a race between education and catastrophe.

//

Salon: GOP still party of stupid: Scott Walker, Fox News and why 2016 hopefuls must appease wingnut base on evolution

Again, the key word should not be ‘believe’, but ‘accept’. Or ‘understand’. I have another quote about the latter. Quote from this:

After all, it’s not really religion that holds the GOP base together, it’s a sense of victimization. And this thesis weaves a number of important strands into a colorful if ahistorical tapestry.

//

On the definition of ‘skeptic’; there’s a recent pushback among science-folks about the use of this word by those they would describe as science *deniers*. ‘Skeptic’ has a specific meaning, that is very much within the tradition of real science.

Ross Pomeroy at RealClearScience:

A true skeptic never dismisses an idea out of hand. A true skeptic is willing to be wrong, and recognizes an echelon of evidence that will change their mindset. And most importantly, a true skeptic doesn’t only question the beliefs of others, he also questions his own. Because skepticism isn’t just about doubting things you disagree with, it’s about keeping yourself honest, open, thoughtful, and true. 

//

Much in the news in the past couple days is about the Oklahoma legislature voting to ban AP courses in history… because the real history of the US involves so many episodes that question our country’s presumed exceptionalism. Narrative is so much more important than reality! Think Progress.

Posted in Culture, Religion, Science | Comments Off on Links and Comments: Quotes; GOP and Evolution; Skeptics; Oklahoma history

Once Again: Turn Away

Via AZ Lyrics, the last verse [updated per comment below]

Turn, turn away
From the weight of your own words
It’s magic for the devil
And betray the lack of change
Once you have spoken
Turn away

[Update 18feb15: listening to the song again, I think the lyric is “from the weight of your own words”… not “of your own past”, as AZ Lyrics has posted. This actually makes even more sense, and I’ve edited this post accordingly.]

From the weight of your own words: it’s magic, for the devil.

It’s perhaps too easy to interpret pop song lyrics to whatever mindset you currently inhabit — but listening to this song again, and again, I’m thinking of the Brian Williams scandal, and more generally, about how human memory is not reliable, as has been demonstrated in so many ways — how depending on that “weight of your own words” can come back and bite you; “magic for the devil”, so to speak.

Of course, as a blogger with an unknown, likely infinitesimal, readership, I also appreciate the lyrics of the first verse:

Turn, turn away
From the sound of your own voice
Calling no one, just a silence

But I do have a project in mind, following the outline of my provisional conclusions, and once that is done, like anyone writing a book, all you can do once finished is to let it loose, sit back and receive feedback, or not. Turn away.

Posted in MInd, Music, Narrative | Comments Off on Once Again: Turn Away

Links and Comments: Still Climbing

The New Yorker, Adam Gopnik, Obama and the Cruaders. Parsing faith, fanaticsm , liberalism, pluralism.

Bad acts may rise from good causes: faith may never be the enemy; fanaticism is always the enemy. But faith has always been the first seedbed of fanaticism. That’s why, when people commit acts of horrible cruelty for political purposes, we say that they’ve made a “religion” out of their politics, or have succumbed to a mad ideological dogma. Fanaticism is the belief that a single faith or ideology contains all the truth of the world, and that others should at best be tolerated. Liberalism is the belief that toleration is not enough, that an active, affirmative pluralism is essential to social sanity. Pluralism is the essence of liberalism—including the possibility of self-reproach for things that liberalism has done badly. America is not responsible for My Lai only to the degree that America renounces the self-righteous “exceptionalism” that put those murders in motion and then prevented those who caused them from being blamed. Excessive scruples—liberal guilt—are as sure a sign of sanity as excessive sanctimony is a sign of the opposite.

The President’s point turned out to be not just exactly right but profoundly right: no group holds the historical moral high ground, and no one ever will. But this is not because a moral high ground doesn’t exist. It’s because we’re all still climbing.

Posted in Morality, Religion | Comments Off on Links and Comments: Still Climbing

Links and Comments: Robert Wright on Brian Williams; Obama on Christianity; Children of Gay Parents; Republicans and evolution

Robert Wright — author of among other books The Moral Animal (1994), one of the best books I’ve read about how evolutionary psychology affects human culture and relationships — offers his perspective, in New Republic, on how Brian Williams Is Being Punished for Something Every Human Does.

Why would human brains be so fallible? The best guess is that, from the point of view of the brain’s creator, natural selection, unreliable memory is a feature, not a bug. 

The foundational premise of evolutionary psychology is that the human brain was designed, first and foremost, to get our ancestors’ genes into subsequent generations. During our evolutionary past, high social status could help do that. Believably telling stories that connect you to important people or underscore your daring can elevate your social status. And the best way to believably tell those stories is to believe them yourself. So genes for this kind of self-deception could in theory flourish via natural selection.

With more about confirmation bias, the nature of journalism, and what makes a good story.

One thing that runs scary foreigners a close second as an attention getter is a scandal involving someone famous. And if that someone famous is “lying,” that makes for a better story than if he’s just being human. It is, as we say in journalism, a story that’s too good to check.

Alternet: Amanda Marcotte on 5 Right-Wing Freak-Outs Over the President’s Completely Accurate Comments on Christianity.

This echoes my occasional comments that some Christians, supposedly beholden to a commandment about not bearing false witness, are happy to misrepresent facts when it suits their purposes.

The irony is that the conservative reaction to Obama’s speech proves his point, that Christians are capable of “terrible deeds in the name of Christ.” We are seeing this happening before our eyes as one Christian after another commits the terrible deeds of lying and slander, all in supposed defense of their religion. One after another, they openly and aggressively say untrue things and level false accusations, even though their faith supposedly forbids bearing false witness. And they do it, as Obama says wrong-headed people often do, by invoking religion as justification. If they really want to show that Christians are good and honorable people, they should start by choosing to act like it, instead rushing to tell lies to smear a man who was simply telling the truth.

On a similar note, there’s another ‘study’ this week about the children of gay and lesbian parents, sponsored by an anti-gay Catholic (whose bias should therefore discredit it immediately), that purports to show that those children have more ’emotional problems’ than children of straight parents. The problem, as with the widely-discredited Regnerus study, is that the study conflates children of gay parents with children of broken families, i.e. divorces.

Nathaniel Frank at Slate summarizes What We Know—Really—About Lesbian and Gay Parenting in which he compiles results of dozens of such studies at What We Know. 71 studies show no adverse effects on children; 4 do, all with methodological problems, like this latest one and Regnerus.

As our collection makes clear, and as the American Sociological Association concluded in its 2013 brief to the Supreme Court, the consensus of serious scholars on the matter is overwhelming. And the handful of researchers purporting to show harms from gay parenting are not brave Galileo-like outliers speaking truth to groupthink; they are ideological opponents of gay equality who are part of an orchestrated campaign to influence the Supreme Court with scare stories and bogus scholarship.

(Reality check: *why* would children growing up with two men or two women suffer emotionally? Because of rigid male vs female personality types? I don’t think so; the range of male personalities, and the range of female personalities, surely overlaps. If the critics of gay parents took their argument seriously, they would be campaigning just as stridently against *single* parents. Which they are not.)

There have been several stories today about a survey of potential Republican candidates for President and what the think about evolution. Here’s Salon’s summary, which shows that the candidates generally range from “I’m not a scientist” to “Hell no”.

But here’s a nuanced take on what this all means by Jamelle Bouie at Slate: Don’t Ask Scott Walker About Evolution.

Bottom line:

Which is to say that when a politician answers a question about evolution, they aren’t defending or rejecting science as much as they’re sending a message: I am one of you, and this is how you know.

Thus does the need to identify with a social group or tribe trump evidence, logic, and reality. (One of my Provisional Conclusions…)

Posted in Culture, Evolution, Psychology, Religion, The Gays | Comments Off on Links and Comments: Robert Wright on Brian Williams; Obama on Christianity; Children of Gay Parents; Republicans and evolution

Jordan Ellenberg, How Not to Be Wrong, Post 2

Subtitled: The Power of Mathematical Thinking.

Second post (first post here) about this fascinating book, an examination of several basic principles (linearity, inference, expectation, regression, and existence) and how they apply to every-day, real world situations, situations that are often misunderstood by ordinary “common sense”. The author, a one-time child genius, is a professor of mathematics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and has written for Slate, Wired, and other publications, including an occasional column for Slate.

This second of five parts is about Inference. I’ll try to condense my notes more than I did so in my last post.

Examples include Hebrew scholars who examined the Torah for “equidistant letter sequences” to see if the names of classical rabbis, and their birth and death dates, could be found closer to one another than could be expected by chance. They found significant results! (This led to the ’90s bestseller The Bible Code.) Eventually the flaws in their methodology were uncovered: there are many ways to characterize the names of ancient rabbis, and the one they happened to choose just happened to show results. Other ways did not.

And a classic tale about letters from a Boston stockbroker, who week after week sends you predictions that come true. Invest with him? Of course; he must be a genius!. But what you don’t know is that he started with 1024 letters, and only replied each week to those whose predictions to them came true. By the tenth week, he’s left with 10. You never know about his failed predictions.

Improbable things happen a lot — in large enough samples.

Similarly, scientific studies that probe huge data sets often find significant results — because they have so much data to examine. A spoof paper about an MRI of dead fish. “The more chances you give yourself to be surprised, the higher your threshold for surprise had better be.” Relying too much on ‘significance’ can have unintended consequences: example of a warning about a certain contraceptive pill in Britain, that resulted in tens of thousands of women to stop taking it, resulting in more births (and abortions!) the following year, even though the magnitude of the risk would have affected only a single woman, at most.

If you run enough experiments about anything, even e.g. “harupsicy”, making predictions based on sheep entrails, you will find success, based on the statistical threshold of p-value being 1 in 20, some of the time. If you publish only those success stories — without ever validating them through repeated studies — your theory seems validated.

This is a real issue in biomedical research, and the pressure on academics to publish or perish. In the past couple years there have been meta-studies that have revealed that only small portions of such published studies were replicated. Does this call into question the scientific method? No; it means many of those studies saw results that were actually noise in the data. Solutions? Use ‘confidence intervals’; understand that evidence is not about determining ‘truth’, but about making decisions about what to do next, i.e., do further studies.

And another, adopted by one publication in 2013, is to guarantee a certain number of ‘replication reports’ before they are even done, and publish the results either way.

Final chapter in this section: “Are You There, God? It’s Me, Bayesian Inference”.

Big Data can’t solve everything; no matter how much data you compile, there’s a hard limit about predictions in chaotic situations, e.g. weather predictions (two weeks seems to be the limit) and Netflix recommendations.

The author uses the idea of how the FBI might use Facebook posts to identify potential terrorists to introduce Bayesian inference — a way of deciding how much you believe something after you see the evidence, based on how much you believed it to begin with. This is in fact how people tend to think about things, all the time, because we all have notions about what things are true or not without having personally examined the evidence.

And we change our beliefs based on a combination of prior beliefs, and new evidence, leading to posterior beliefs.

The author applies this to the creation of the universe. He charts the likelihood of humanity existing vs the existence of God. The flaw in this take is that it doesn’t take into account other options: maybe there are many gods, or maybe our existence is a simulation inside some ultracomputer that exists within a larger reality. The question is, given those various assumptions, how likely would it then to be for humanity to exist?

The likeliest, in this analysis, is that we are sims. Second, multiple gods. He cheekily advises how to teach creationism in schools, concluding, “There are even some people who believe that one single God created the universe, but that hypothesis should be considered less strongly supported than the alternatives.”

But his real conclusion is that the type of thinking means we’ve reached a limit to quantitative thinking.

This is not quite half-way through the book.

Posted in Book Notes, Culture, Economics, Mathematics, Science, Thinking | Comments Off on Jordan Ellenberg, How Not to Be Wrong, Post 2

Links and Comments: Anti-Vaxxers and Anti-Brakers

First, the serious, a commentary this morning on the local NPR station in the Bay Area, KQED, by Paul Staley: Fear and Vaccines.

First, I like his characterization of the internet; for those who are not scientists,

science can be more like an intellectual ammunition store where we shop for evidence to support things that we are already inclined to believe. And, in the age of the internet, this store is a vast emporium where we find not only the latest findings, but also the discredited and discarded. It is the latest in technology combined with the dinged up inventory of a thrift store.

And he goes on to echo my impression that many of the most extreme conservatives are motivated by fear — fear of government control, fear of outsiders, fear of anyone outside their immediate social group, reflected by my Provisional Conclusion #5. As Staley says:

But more often than not it is fear and not curiosity that directs us down a particular aisle. Fear government and you can select from arguments asserting that climate change is fraudulent and essentially a conspiracy to extend bureaucratic control over our lives. Fear corporate power and you can browse through evidence that vaccines or genetically modified organisms are toxins foisted on us by profit-driven companies.

On this note, second item, the satire: I’m an Anti-Braker. (Via)

Guys, I wanted to let you know about a personal decision I recently made. I don’t really feel like discussing it, but I want to put my position out there. Please be respectful. This is a really long post, but please read the whole thing.

After doing some more digging, I found a nefarious plot – Mechanics: The very people who we trust to work on and care for our cars – get PAID to install and change brakes! You might THINK they care about our safety, or our cars – but they’re just in it for the $49.99 brake pad installations.

Concluding with,

So all I’m saying is, do your research. Don’t just listen to the NTSB and big automotive. I made a personal decision for my family, we just said no to brakes. We’ll be using natural remedies like Gravity, and putting our feet on the ground to stop. After all, if that was good enough for me when I was on my bike as a kid, it’s good enough for my children in my car.

Please keep the comments respectful!

Love that last line.

Posted in Culture, Lunacy, Science | Comments Off on Links and Comments: Anti-Vaxxers and Anti-Brakers

Provisional Conclusions

(Update 9 March 2015: After removing most of the post when I created a separate ‘page’ for this list, I’m restoring the original post here, to capture the original version. The page version will revised ongoingly…)

Inspired by various alternative Ten Commandments (e.g. A Secular Ten Non-Commandments), I sat down in February 2015 to compile a set of — not ‘commandments’, because, who am I, or anyone, to command anyone else to do anything? — but of “provisional conclusions” about life, the universe, and everything, based on my experience in life and reading about science and faith and religion, honestly trying to understand the various viewpoints and their bases for their claims, and what I’ve concluded to be true, as far as I can perceive.

All my posts on this blog, or most of them anyway, fit into this context of these provisional conclusions, on these ten points.

I will be revising this post, of course — as new evidence comes in, as my thinking evolves.

  1. All supernatural phenomena – including gods, ghosts, angels, demons, devils, spirits, souls, ‘miracles’, telepathy, telekinesis, precognition, faeries, elves, and so on, as well as religious concepts such as heaven, hell, prophets, messiahs, chosen people, sin, karma, and reincarnation – are projections of human behavior, motivations, fears, and desires onto an indifferent, inanimate universe. They are not real, except as concepts in the minds of their adherents.

  2. The actual universe is vast in size, age, and scale, in ways barely comprehensible, even intellectually, to human beings. The apparent age of the universe exceeds, by many orders of magnitude, the spans of time that humans comfortably perceive. The apparent size of the universe, likewise. And the scales of reality, from the very small to the very vast, exhibit patterns that are completely unlike the scales of ordinary life that we exist within. Most human beings are both unaware of these vastnesses, and of the minute portion of these vastnesses that human existence spans.
  3. The human species’ understanding of itself and the world has been honed by natural selection to maximize the perpetuation of the species, including the incentive to prioritize one’s own social group over others, in ways that are not necessarily optimized for perceiving and understanding the real world. Thus, many things people believe about themselves, and about the world, have turned out to be false upon rigorous examination. Increasingly, ‘common sense’ turns out to mislead more often than not, in the larger context of the universe that humanity inhabits. Humans are generally unaware of the fallibility of their memories, and of the psychological biases that promote their sense of self-worth.

    At the same time, the ways in which humans have expressed their perception of the world, through art, music, story-telling, architecture, cuisine, and so on, have generated vastly rich cultures, many of them throughout history independent of one another, that have enhanced and continue to enhance human existence, and to fulfill countless lives — even while nevertheless being constrained to the tiny slices of perception that human existence is constrained to.
  4. Traditions, including the religious deference to holy books and the political allegiance to ideological states, provide narratives about the meaning of human life that function to strengthen families and social groups small and large, from tribes to nations, at least to the extent that these narratives do not directly conflict with the real world in a way that impacts human survival. (For example, understanding of evolution or the vastness of the universe doesn’t matter much to everyday life, but disbelief in modern medicine, such as the efficacy of vaccines or of blood transfusions, might well lead to premature death. Communities committed to denying these propositions are at a disadvantage to other groups that accept them, in the long run.) Thus, most people find these narratives far more important than evidence about the real world; and these narratives are so powerful, their adherents *cannot change their minds* about their implications, even in the face of explicit evidence to the contrary.

    These narratives, that emphasize the superiority of one’s social group over all others, are manifest in human psychology, religions, patriotism, and competitions including sports. And they tend to be the most important things in most people’s lives, in ways that cannot be easily dismissed. Even when you suspect that those who adhere to such narratives are smart enough to understand that it’s not about the claim that other narratives are untrue; it’s about the utility of such narratives to unify a social group, a community, that strengthens social bonds and promotes the happiness, and survival, of the group.

    This preference for narrative explains many things, from the interpretation of near-death hallucinations to the shouting down of critics of historical and science fiction movies who point out factual errors: “It’s just a story!” – because story is so much more important than reality.

    And, for that matter, to the interpretation of any single life, which for many people is about having children and raising them to adulthood, after which, all things considered, the end of life is not such a bad thing, considering it has to happen eventually anyway. As long as the story of raising the next generation has been completed, the end is almost fitting.
  5. An arc of human history has been a gradual shift between allegiance to immediate social groups to larger social groups that include more and more people previously demonized as ‘the other’. That is, the recognition of the common humanity of former slaves, of women, of other ‘racial’ and ethnic groups, of sexual minorities, and even of those who adhere to minority narratives.

    This shift has been an historical tension between those who would ‘progress’, expand options and expand the parameters of the social group, and those who resist any change that might disadvantage them and those most like themselves. The former are typically described as ‘liberals’; the latter, as ‘conservatives’. That the trend of human history has nevertheless been progressive, such that conservatives in any era accept propositions that would have been unthinkable a generation or two before, suggests that conservatives do change over time, but only 50 years or so behind the liberals. Thus conservatism is relative.

    And thus, ‘progress’, the expansion of options, and the gradual rejection of practices of ancient human cultures once common but now considered barbaric (slavery, sacrifice of children to appease the gods, etc.) is generally a liberal project, modulated by conservative resistance. The balance of progress vs conservative resistance worked out to minimize the impact on individual lives, but over the past few centuries, the pace of change has been rapid enough that it is apparent even within individual lives (thus the emergence of science fiction), and the change over the past several generations has been astonishing.
  6. Another arc of human history has been toward a greater understanding of the real world, and the subsequent benefits of that understanding through manipulation of that world through science and technology. Thus our species now dominates the planet in a way unprecedented in history.
  7. Resistance to these historic trends is driven by subconscious, evolutionary-grounded desires to maintain social cohesion among one’s group against threats that might undermine the group’s religious or ideological narrative. Such resistance ranges from political isolation (e.g. North Korea) to religious inculcation of children by parents around the world. Daily evidence of such resistance is provided by numerous right-wing, religious fundamentalist pundits.
  8. Thus another trend of human history is the persistence of conflict between different religious and ideological groups, as they inevitably come into contact with one other and their competing narratives, and their need to feel superior, which are quickly seen to be mutually inconsistent. Resistance and tribal loyalty will always endure, but the stakes, over time, will gradually, necessarily, reduce in scope; thus, e.g., political parties in the US do not demonize each other as heathens who deserve death, as tribal groups around the world, over previous millennia, have typically done. While there will always be conflict between the educated and the naive — elites vs common folk — since naive human motivations exhibit base human nature, and lack of education is the basic human condition, unless addressed, the points of political contention in future decades and centuries will become more and more issues of cultural taste.
  9. The benefits of these trends will be the expanding potential for humanity to explore and comprehend the universe in a way that vastly supersedes the priorities of mere human existence. In this (metaphorical!) sense, the sum of human awareness will be a consciousness of the universe that extends beyond the survival protocols of a single species.

    Science fiction, at its best, explores the many ways this might happen; it is a heuristic for understanding why any one person’s experience of the world, or perception of reality, is not necessarily the only possible one, let alone the best.
  10. In the event of any kind of species ‘reset’ – e.g. a worldwide catastrophe that reduces human survivors to the state of primitive humankind of thousands of years ago, or of a small group of humans stranded out of contact with civilization – all progress described in the previous items would vanish, and humankind would be left only with the evolutionary motivations given toward tribalism, the value of narratives over evidence, and the susceptibility toward supernatural perceptions, that preceded them – i.e., baseline human nature.

    Eventually, such a rebooted segment of humanity would create a new culture, would create new religions, new art, new music, new literature — all unlike any specific religions or art or culture that preceded them, but all of them reflecting the motivations of human nature. The science that would eventually emerge would, however, be like ours; it cannot help but be, since it would be a rigorously tested perception of the reality of the universe.

    The plausibility of such catastrophes, especially given the relatively rapid ascent of our species in recent centuries, might well explain the Fermi paradox – why we have detected no similar sentient races on the planets of other suns.

This page is, forever, a draft, to be refined endlessly.

Posted in Personal history, Philosophy | Comments Off on Provisional Conclusions