Interior Dialogue

The November Revolution Thursday, 6 November, 2008

The election of Barack Obama as president of the United States is the most significant geo-political event since the end of the Cold War and the fall of the Berlin wall. And it’s not because of the color of his skin, which, in the long run, will probably turn out to have little more than symbolic significance. Neither is it because of its signaling some deep shift in American society: Obama won the election not because the American people have seen the “error of their ways” of the last 8 years, but because he ran a brilliant campaign, while the republican campaign may be described as a kind of dismal populist traveling circus. Republicans could have easily won against Obama, had they run a decent campaign.

Rather, some of the reasons why Pres. Obama is well placed to exert an influence on American politics, economy and society for decades to come, are similar to why FDR did. FDR’s New Deal was responsible for laying down the basic physical and human infrastructure (via the GI bill among others) which made possible the economic miracle of the after-war years. We are in a similar crisis today, and Obama is a man who is in the right place at the right time.

Today it is a fact which is accepted across the political spectrum, that both the physical and human infrastructure are crumbling. The supply-side (or trickle-down) policies of the last 3 decades do not seem to have reversed that process, but rather to have accelerated it. Supply-side economics is an economic theory which starts from the assumption that the upper class is the engine of an economy. However, history has shown repeatedly, and in many different times and places, that an upper class, while necessary, is not sufficient. It is the middle class that is the real engine of an economy. America has neglected its middle class at its own peril.

A middle class thrives on freedom: freedom from disease, freedom from fear and freedom from ignorance, of which the latter two may be seen as forms of mental disease. These are the fundamental ingredients which help a middle class, and thereby a modern democracy, prosper.

Neo-conservatives, however, have practically made official policy out of actively feeding the middle class with fear (“terrorism”) and ignorance (the entertainment that passes for “news”, failing pre-university education), while allowing chronic diseases (obesity, diabetes, cancer, heart disease) to spiral out of control through excessive stress, poor nutrition, and above all, a deeply dysfunctional health “system”.

What makes Obama’s presidency a landmark is his recognition of the three essential ingredients mentioned above, and his insistence on the idea that government can be a force for good. It may seem paradoxical for a country traditionally suspicious of government, but America owes its prosperous present to inspired actions of its government in the past. The great leaps in innovation and technology, leading to increased prosperity and retreating poverty around the world over the last 4 decades, have been overwhelmingly government funded (whether American or not). The communications (satellites), energy (generation, distribution) and transportation (highways, trains, shipping) infrastructure to which America owes its miraculous growth over the last half century would never have existed without government “intervention”. See for example the visionary Vannevar Bush report of July 1945.

Moreover, Pres. Obama also seems to be acutely aware of the looming climate crisis, and seems uniquely determined to do something about it. The whole planet eagerly waits for him to follow his words with actions. America’s leading position as generator of garbage in all its forms (actual trash, pollutants from agriculture, carbon dioxide, nuclear waste) makes it the keystone of any worldwide effort to dodge the oncoming environmental bullet. Without America, any such effort is doomed to crumble, and, eventually, with it, human civilization as we know it. It is deeply misleading to speak of “Saving the planet”. Any biologist knows that the “planet” will do just fine, and indeed, has weathered worse crises in the past; it’s only us humans that might not make it. We need to find a way to avoid becoming victims of our own success.

This is why, in the long run, President Obama’s skin color, though the most talked about issue at the present time, will turn out to be only a historical curiosity, a footnote. What the chapter titles will be, we will have to wait and see, but I am betting on the environment, and on freedom from disease, fear and ignorance.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License. Alexandru Ioan Căbuz 2008.

Evolution and creationism Friday, 17 October, 2008

The debate is old and tired. Seems unlikely I may contribute anything new to it, but I think a more pragmatic point of view may be useful.

The debate is usually framed in terms of the internal structure, assumptions and claims of the two points of view. But I think that in order to see clearly, or in any case, clearer, one need not delve into that mire. I, for instance think that the most potent (and in the long term the only relevant) argument is the pragmatic one: how useful are the different points of view. Will I have a better life, will myself and my family fare better if I am an evolutionist, or a creationist?

It is interesting that this question does not have as simple an answer as it might seem. At first sight, evolution seems to win hands down. Here’s why this may seem to be the case. Let’s imagine two types of hospitals and pharmacies. The first type contains doctors who believe in evolution, and drugs developed by scientists who believe in evolution, and who think in evolutionary terms. The second type contains doctors who believe in creationism and drugs developed by scientists who believe in creationism, and think in creationist terms. The fact of the matter is that the second type of health care would have very little to offer, if anything.

Consequently, one may argue that life is better as an evolutionist, since without evolutionist care and drugs most of us would live far shorter and more painful lives than we currently do.

But then why is there a persistent creationist minority even in the most highly developed and educated societies? The answer is simple: belief in a Creator brings non-negligible internal reassurance to human psychology. One may use game theory, which is a mathematical theory which does not require or imply evolution or creationism, to show that as long as creationism brings non-negligible psychological benefit to people, then the equilibrium population density of creationists will be non-zero.

None of this means, of course that in the long term one or the other of the two approaches will prevail, even though it seems like in the current context of highly developed industrialized societies evolution theory has the advantage. It is not hard to imagine economic, climatic or military crises which would quite reverse the situation, bringing evolution theory from its dominant place down to a marginal minority, the way it was a century and a half ago.

But for the time being, it seems like the pragmatic, self interested thing to do is to believe in evolution, or at the very least, be willing to trust people who believe in it with one’s life. In any case, most creationists do this every day, and a good thing it is.

A philosophy of science in less than 35 words Sunday, 15 June, 2008

When thought and understanding fail, one resorts to calculation.
When calculation fails, one resorts to computation.
When computation fails, one resorts to experimentation.
When experimentation fails, one resorts to thought and understanding.

Though there are many scientists who act as if science started after the first or even after the second comma.