Rethinking or Redefining Socialism

Rethinking or Redefining Socialism

I guess this title raises red flags in the minds of most Americans. It is not really my intent here to have any serious analysis of Socialism vs Capitalism in this musing. I watched a movie the other night, I think titled Who Should We Invade Next?—or something like that. The Director Michael Moore, an overweight unkempt sleazy looking sort of character, is quite a ‘unique’ character. He is some sort of a Columbo in the political world, whose mission seems to keep prying into matters that annoy the political right. 

But again, the purpose here is not to focus on Michael Moore but to focus on what several leaders in several other countries had to say about how they handle certain matters in their country. I immediately became suspicious of at least some of it and there has to be more to it than just appears on the surface.

The movie begins with the absurdity (on purpose) that the Chief of Staffs asked Moore to come  advise them on military matters. They pointed out that the U.S. had not outright won a war since World War II. We lost in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq twice, Afghanistan, Somalia, Lebanon, and more recently in Libya, Syria, and Egypt. With, to be charitable, good intentions, we failed to get the wonderful results we expected. This is quite frustrating for Americans. All this military firepower and we can’t win any military interventions. Some say we lost because we didn’t kill enough people. Then again how many people are we suppose to kill before it becomes unethical?  We killed 2 million in Vietnam, millions more in Iraq, etc. Hussein killed like 20,000 Iraqis in 10 years, we killed millions in less years. We certainly won the killing contest in every invasion. We now have become a lot more hesitant to send too many troops anywhere. Some say what is the point? Others say we have an obligation to keep on sending more troops. Let’s leave that debate in limbo.

At any rate, in this scenario, at the beginning of the movie, the Joint Chiefs of Staff ask Moore to invade other countries and bring back good things he finds existing in these countries. Michael Moore dressed as a combat soldier is pure Abbot and Costello, but each visit to a different country raises some interesting things to ponder. 

His first visit was to Italy where he met with middle class workers and several CEOs of major companies. The first two workers were a policeman and a supplier of something or other to companies. By law they have 8 weeks paid vacation. If they get married they get 15 days paid honeymoon days. If they have a baby they get 5 months paid vacation. In December they get double pay for the month. If they don’t use all the vacation one year, it carries over. They get two hours for lunch. He talked to the President of the Larding Company and the CEO of Ducate Motorcycle Company.  

Both of the above said  they didn’t mind that they didn’t make as much profit as they would in America, and stated: “What’s the point of being richer?”  They deal with strong unions, feel it is healthiest if both labor and management  are strong enough to restrain each other from excess. 

Of course all this vacation time seems excessive to Americans, but I would guess they don’t have as much unemployment as we do since more workers would be needed to cover all this vacation time. Still, I would need to get a more in depth explanation. On the other hand it is what it is. 

Moore then went on a high speed train to France to examine school lunches. All schools in France have modern cafeterias where lunch is treated as a class that lasts an hour. No lines, the food is brought to their seat at the table, a 4 course meal with healthy food, plenty of water, and they are taught about healthy eating habits. None of the students at the table ever drink stuff like Coca-Cola. The menus are similar no matter where the school is located. Once a month the School Chef meets with a representative from the Mayor’s office to ensure quality healthy free lunches. The school menus are rather impressive.

Taxes in France are high, as they are in most of advanced modern countries. Those interviewed said they didn’t mind high taxes as long as they get something back. In France they get the basics like we do in America, plus huge money for the arts, high speed rail system, good schools, nursing care, 4 weeks paid vacation, paid maternity leave, paid school lunches, day care, free college, free health care, and so on. In the United States citizens pay themselves for all of the above, but don’t call it taxes, and of course only some have the money to pay for the extras. 

Sex education is taught in schools, but not abstinence as they do not consider abstinence a method of birth control. In Texas, only abstinence is taught in schools and they have the third highest teen pregnancy in the nation. The Governor of Texas responded that in his personal experience abstinence is very effective. 

Moore then invaded Finland since they are ranked number one in Education in the World, to steal their educational system. In the 1960’s Finland and the U. S. were tied considerably back in the pack in educational rank. By the 2000’s Finland was ranked #1 and the U.S. had fallen further back.

Moore met with the Director of Education and this is what he was told:

At least for the younger children there is no homework, at most 10-20 minutes. They go to school 20 hrs/wk. They have one of the shortest school days and shortest school weeks in the world. Most kids can speak multiple languages. There are no multiple choice exams. There are no standardized exams. It is illegal in Finland for any private school to charge tuition and private schools are virtually nonexistent as a consequence. The purpose here is to make sure the rich support high educational standards in all schools since their kids will have to be in one of them. Interesting approach, and all kids benefit.

Most of this perplexes me. My initial take is that our ranking in the world is not impressive because the education for the non affluent in our country is often abysmal. Affluent communities do well in educating their students but the ever growing less affluent population suffers from very poor schools. 

The teachers interviewed almost always indicated they taught in ways to make students happy.And they wanted the younger kids to have plenty of time to play. I need to think about all this more. Maybe by the time I get through reviewing all this in the different countries to which Moore went, I will have more personal thoughts. 

The next stop was Norway, Moore went there to steal their prison system. Moore interviewed the head of prisons in Norway. Prison in Norway is totally based on rehabilitation. In regular prisons the prisoners live in group house units in which only they have the key. They do not wear prison uniforms. For 115 guards there are 4 unarmed guards. Only punishment is to lose their freedom. In America, 80% of prisoners are back in prison after 5 years.  In Norway it is 5%. In the maximum security prison system the prisoners are in cells to which only the prisoner has the key. According to the prisoners themselves, they have no fights, no rapes, each has their own private shower, TV, and most take courses and spend a lot of time in the library.  They have their own recording studio. The guards have no guns. Maximum sentence is 21 years. They avoid revenge since they don’t want to promote hatred in their society. At least so they say.

It was on to Portugal where Moore met with the Head of the Police. In Portugal no one can be arrested for using any kind of drugs. Since the Government has done this, the level of drug usage has gone down, and therefore less people are causing trouble. Health care is free, and anyone can go for help to get rid of drug dependency. In America millions of people go to jail for drug use, especially minorities, and people convicted of drug use can never again vote in 35 states. Of all the people in prisons across the globe 25% of them are in American jails. 

Moore then headed to Germany.  In Germany they have a 36 hr work week but get paid for 40 hours. The factories are painted bright colors with many windows. Hardly anyone has a 2nd or third job, they laughed at such an absurd idea. Moore visited the workers in a pencil factory.  If a worker feels stressed they can go to a spa for a week and the government pays for it. The attitude is that if everyone takes care of their neighbors, life is better for everyone. By law the Supervisory Board for any company must be composed of 50% workers. In the U.S., Corporation Board members are invariably wealthy well known people who are paid huge amounts of money to rubber-stamp management. Moore talked to a CEO who insisted the workers on the Board make good suggestions.  It is against the law for any supervisor to contact a worker who is on vacation. No emails can be sent to workers after work. This seems odd. 

The last place Moore went was Slovenia. There College is free, even for Americans who come over there when they can’t afford college in the U.S.  The American students over there claim high school classes there are more difficult than college classes in the U.S. That could be biased. 100 different courses are taught in English. When the government tried to charge for college the people revolted and college reverted to being free. When tuition goes up in America not much happens.

Moore’s last stop was Tunisia, a Muslim country in Northern Africa. Interestingly the women, with the support of many men, revolted years ago and the voters passed a women’s rights addition to their constitution. After this they forced out a dictator and the conservative Muslims in their Congress voluntarily resigned. Moore interviewed one of those who resigned. His comments were interesting:

He said that power wasn’t everything, that government should stay out of personal lives, that government should be separate from personal lives. So now how women dress, for example, is their decision with no government penalties.  As is abortion. Ok, this summarizes what Moore found out about several aspects of life in these other countries which were much different than in the United States. So what are we to make of all this? How can some of these countries do things so against what we do in America and yet have more success in a particular area?  First of all, Moore just picked out the good things noteworthy in these countries and did not talk about the bad things. We have already made the point that the reason why the U.S. does not do well in certain areas compared to others is that we do very well for some of our citizens and do very poorly with other citizens and these citizens who get the short stick in America pull down the scores of those who do well. 

In the United States we feel it is wrong to provide everyone good health care, and good schools, that communities are responsible for doing this for themselves. In reality that means affluent communities can provide good schools and good health care while poor communities can ill afford quality anything. In these countries the citizens expect the government to protect employees with good salaries, good vacations, good health care, good everything. They would agree with Lincoln who stated that Labor comes before capital. Given what we know about chronic stress and what effects this has on all body systems, something that was laboriously covered in a 6 part musing, there is no surprise here that these countries have taken the science of chronic stress seriously, and their governments have moved to ensure that all children and in fact all citizens are given safe, healthy environments so that chronic stress is minimized for all citizens. They obviously understand drug abuse and the causes of violent behavior better than Americans. These countries believe the precept that violence begets violence and we tend to think violence is the answer to violence.

One of the biggest reasons the U.S. falls behind in these areas is quite simple. We spend 59% of our budget on military defense. None of these countries remotely spend the percentage of tax money on military matters. We have different priorities for our tax monies. 

At some point in America, and time is running out here, the science of chronic stress and it’s impact— especially on children, is going to force changes in our priorities. We cannot continue via poor schools, weak teachers, poor health care, dangerous neighborhoods, treating drug addiction as a crime instead of a medical problem, and treating incarceration as a purely punitive exercise—do all this and expect adult children from these environments to overcome the often permanent effects on the body from chronic stress during their formative years. 

I saw this movie after I had written the 6 part musing on chronic stress and violence. These nations have already moved to make sure all the children have good food, good health care, safe neighborhoods, are free from drug wars, and have the 5 psychological support systems in place so they can limit their physiological responses to any chronic stresses. These support systems remain in place for adults too, so everyone has the maximum opportunity to have a more contented life. 

We can continue to insist that Government is not going to do any of these things, not in a nation of strong, independent, everybody make their own success on their own, and if we continue to leave millions of our young people unprotected from chronic childhood stress and few, if any, of the psychological defense mechanisms are made available to them—and then, on top of all this, make it legal for everyone to arm themselves with weapons of war in public——well, we are already beginning to see, big time, the consequences of such policies. 

For us, our becoming Baghdad west is just beneath a cauldron of tense desperation, and once it explodes, a very complex society such as ours, could collapse virtually overnight. No class, no gender, no race, no culture, no political party, no religious group—no one is going to escape. Of course it will never be the end of the world, it never has been, and of course the evolutionary process will continue—but in evolutionary years not human years, and thus the consequences for individual members of any species may well be universally disastrous . Humans have the intelligence to avoid all this, but seemingly not the willpower or judgement to do so. 

We like to say that in America, you can become anything you want to become—it’s up to the individual. That has some truth, only to the extent you are not raised in the wrong environment, in which chronic stress and all the associated increase in stress hormones which accompany that stress, which imposes permanent alteration in the function of your varied body systems—including growth, immune system health, emotional balance, ability to make sound judgements, memory storage, memory retrieval, learning skills, likelihood of depression, permanent anxiety, diabetes, auto immune disease, some cancers, and the list goes on and on. No responsible government ever does this to whole communities of children, and good government creates an atmosphere where the welfare of all trumps the right of anyone, or any group, to provide only good formative years environment and human rights for themselves.  

Police and Force: New Guidelines In Order

Police and Force: New Guidelines In Order

When I was young, police were feared by most everyone. Well, at least certain ones. If the police said stop you did so because they for sure would shoot you if you ran or drove away. It was well known that after you didn’t run away, how you were treated often depended on what side of town you lived. Back in these long ago times in (the 50’s), many think there was a lot of racial hatred. Even though maybe 20% of those who lived in my town were black, I don’t recall much thought was given to getting along because there was not that much interaction, unless they were teammates on a high school sport team, and then the interaction was minimal. We all just assumed the police would keep blacks in their place. There was little basis for hostile feelings, these kids from the wrong side of town (white or black) would not show up in college placement courses, or compete much in any lucrative job market. It would be rare for a black to be on the police force. There was one young black who lived sort of in my neighborhood and I don’t recall any bad feelings about him, in fact I don’t recall any meaningful conversations with him—he was just there on the school bus. In sandlot sport games I don’t think he was ever invited to participate. It was just tradition, I guess, not to mix people up too much. I reckon blacks had strong feelings back then, and suppose rightly so, but they kept their feelings to themselves for the most part. When they finally started to act up in the 50’s and 60’s most of us not black just sort of shrugged and felt, “if they don’t like it here they can leave”.

Today we even have a black President, so times have really changed in career opportunities for varied groups. Naturally, with these changes, come more racial feelings on both sides now, not just from the black side. For varied reasons, violence is becoming more common place, and the practices of some police officers are now under scrutiny as cell phones generate videos  of police/citizen interactions. Thus, new regulations need be put in place to protect the police, and certain groups of citizens, as well as all citizens.  These are the rules I sense would help the situation. As usual some tweaking may be needed on some of these. 

1. If the police say ‘stop’ and you do, then if they physically treat you badly the officer or officers who behaved badly should be fired and imprisoned for a period of time.

2. If the police say ‘stop’ and a suspect makes a run for it, on foot or in a car, and police have to pursue the suspect to catch him, then the penalty is maximum sentence for the crime committed. If found not guilty then they just pay a substantial fine or even a jail sentence for having run from the police.

3. Since carrying a weapon in public is now legal in many states via brain damaged politicians and their supporters, police are in a bind. The old adage of, if they have a weapon the police can shoot the suspect doesn’t work. A person can’t logically be punished because they are legally carrying a gun. So I guess the new rule would be that a suspect is to immediately put his/her hands up into the air where police can see them until they investigate to see if the suspect is carrying a weapon. If a suspect doesn’t do this, any suspect, for any kind of stop, then the old rule applies, if a gun is spotted then the police can justify fearing for their lives. 

4. Stats need to be kept on police arrests and judicial sentencing. If there is a pattern of being harsher for the same crime in the case of certain groups, then a new chain of command within the police department is in order, and should be ordered by the courts. 

5. All people living in economically stressed communities—urban, suburban, or rural, have higher chronic levels of stress hormones in their blood and are consequently more prone to all kinds of criminal behavior. It is not genetic. Blacks tend to congregate in poorer communities so of course black crime is higher. There are good black citizens and poor black citizens, so police cannot differentiate by just viewing someone. Justice and fairness dictates that profiling must stop. For more serious crimes, when stopping anyone who might be a suspect, everyone a possible suspect has to be stopped. Only when a police supervisor radios to stop all whites, or blacks, or hispanics, or asians, can race be used to stop people.

Resisting police cannot be tolerated, but the punishment should not be meted out physically by police once the person is in custody and disarmed. Most of these brutal beatings, for whatever motivation, take place once the suspect is no longer a physical threat.

All police should be required to be suited with body cams. Once an officer has a decent cam shot or even a license plate number, then a chase of the suspect for minor crimes should not take place. In most cases they can locate the perpetrator within days and the maximum sentence then be automatic. Running from the police should be an automatic crime with stiff penalty.

Officers should always speak in non hostile terms to a suspect, and if the suspect doesn’t speak in non hostile terms to the police, then again, a judge should then make the sentencing more severe, and if the suspect is found not guilty there should be a hefty fine for the language they used toward the police at the time of arrest. 

For acts of terrorism it is a whole another matter. These individuals are almost by definition emotionally unstable or mentally disturbed. It could be genetic, or a long history of chronic elevated stress levels throughout their formative years or even several years of adult chronic stress. Chronic elevated stress hormones create havoc in most our our body systems, but especially in the brain, and more so in the formative years than later on. Eerily, many acts of terrorism are usually planned without any real escape plans. Go for the record, shoot as many as possible, then kill yourself or let the police shoot you. That seems often the plan. The police do a good job tracking down those terrorists who manage to temporarily escape.  

Shaping police departments up to get rid of the small number treating certain groups of people poorly is the easiest challenge. Removing chronic stress from millions of citizens trapped in fast paced hopeless environments is a far more difficult task, and the right corrective measures take more than a decade for good results. Damage done to brains and other organ systems from chronic stress is not always fully correctable. Psychological defenses available to resist elevated stress hormone levels will vary from person to person. We are faced with complicated physiological derangements not just in America, but globally. When so much of human activities become global in nature, control over these activities is lost by individual countries and individual citizens. If all these stresses creating chronic stress in so many lives are not alleviated, than societies, as some already are doing, will continue to implode.  America is not exempt, and implosion in a highly civilized society would proceed rapidly as so many activities within a civilized society are inter-connected. We are now in a very volatile time. 

Unsettling Questions #1

Unsettling Questions #1

If someone gives a weapon of war to someone else knowing that they will use it only to kill others, is this person an accessory to such an act when it happens?  It is not like they are giving or loaning someone an illegal weapon. 

If someone votes for a politician who makes it legal to give or sell someone a weapon of war, knowing that these weapons are only used to kill people, are they an accessory to such an act when it happens?

Would Jesus or any other major prophet support property taxes as the means to finance schools knowing that this will provide good schools to affluent communities and poor schools to poor communities?

If welfare is living off the earnings of others, and we think it best that people earn their own income, why do we allow vast amounts of wealth to be inherited by others? 

If we live on welfare during our formative years and during our retired years, isn’t it best to expect everyone without disabilities to earn their income during their productive years and leave wealth on death to be wealth used to help cover the costs of welfare for citizens during the formative and retired years?

Why would we think any of the advantages or disadvantages we possess at birth, like our genetic traits, our nation of birth, our historical age of birth, our parents, the schools we attend as children, the neighborhood we live in as children, our physical traits, our basic personality, our emotional traits, our learning abilities, etc. are earned gifts from God?  We certainly hadn’t earned anything at the time. 

If only God decides when we die, all these good people who died horrible and painful or long drawn out deaths—God was behind all of this?  Did God really cause a brutal rape which ended in death?  Doesn’t that put God on par with the rapist or at least an accessory to the crime?

If we think God loves all ‘his’ creations via the laws which govern the evolutionary process, or even if we think God handcrafts all his creations, why do we think God is behind modern day ‘family values’, which puts our own children as our only personal responsibility? That must leave God to care for the less fortunate children. God must not be a very good parent then.

Don’t societies work best when everyone looks out for everyone else? Don’t we have collective responsibility to help all those in need in our society? 

Why do we think God depends on our prayers to do something good for ourselves, or any others for whom we might pray?  Suppose every athlete in a contest prays that he/she wins the contest? If God is choosing the winner, why are we wasting our side rooting for anyone or any team?  

Why would God ever use inheritance as the means for distributing his word via inherited scripture?

If God desires to have a personal relationship with us as individuals, why would it ever be so secretive and be a feeling instead of a clear cut conversation?  And why don’t people who are ‘saved’ and communicate with God constantly share with others their conversations with God?  If someone says to us, “Yesterday God told me a better way to study, or to train, or to get the job I wanted, or not to abort a baby etc”, we would most likely think this a delusion, especially if we already believe something different via our own inherited scripture.

If God tells us something specific as to how to behave or solve a problem why won’t God, if we ask, tell our friends the same thing. “Please God, tell my son the girl he is dating is not good for him.”“Thanks, mom, God also told me the same thing last night”. Why are God’s messages always for certain ears only?”  

Most people who get cancer pray hard that God will spare them and they not die from the cancer.  And many of their friends are going to pray for them too. If it is a beloved leader, then the prayers might be in the millions. Where is any statistical evidence that certain religious groups are less likely to die from cancer, or any other kind of tragedies for whom all these prayers are made?  Every New Year the Pope prays for peace. If he is really an emissary from God to us, why would God let the Pope waste his time, year after year praying for peace. Which war ended via prayers from the Pope? Now of course we can pray our team wins and sometimes it does but that hardly proves anything. Every team wins some of the time. 

Why, considering the length of time our universe has existed with varied forms of life at different times, do we make our own minuscule time of life so important—so important that we actually claim God made us in his image, and gave us dominion over all other species and the natural resources, and I guess immune from any consequences of human overpopulation. What is the basis for all these assumptions?  If the earth is round why didn’t God tell us that from the git-go, and why did this have to be scientifically proved, and certainly why would the scientist who established this be thrown out of the church for heresy and remain a heretic for hundreds of years? 

Why would crazy stuff be in scripture like stoning children who misbehave or stoning both the person and animal with whom a person had sex?  Clergy never give sermons on these scriptural passages. Do we really need to proof read and bring scripture up to ethical standards?  Why would God allow his ‘holy word’ to be so sloppy? If God says via His scripture that we should stone children who misbehave, then all of us who want to get to Heaven, better shape up and start collecting stones. There’s a lot of misbehaving kids out there. 

We have international laws which purport to legalize warfare. So why isn’t the nation which kills the most people declared the winner?  We haven’t won a war since World War II and yet in every case where we invade, we kill like ten times as many of them as our own get killed. Do we need to kill everyone to win?

Why do so many insist we continue to send young people to be slaughtered in the kind of wars we can never win, nor the country we invaded win either since they are left with thugs running their country and other countries left with millions of refugees?  

We no longer use a draft to come up with soldiers for invading other countries. So if it is our personal decision not to go to war and shoot people, why are we permitted to own weapons of war when the only people we have access to kill are our own people? Haven’t we killed enough people in other nations, do we need to generate the means to kill hundreds of thousands of our own people? And if guns don’t kill people, why do we send armed soldiers into foreign lands with guns to kill them?  If bad people kill people then why don’t we just send bad people to invade other countries?

I, like many others have a flash temper. I don’t want to have a gun out in public. I can’t be trusted, on the spur of the moment, when some son-of-a-bitch of the moment is right there before me and I have a gun. But now I am told it’s ok to carry and gun and use when I feel real angry, fearful, and the object of all this is right before me. My emotional state will determine whether I can kill someone legally. I can actually stalk someone, and if there is no court order restraining me, then if the person I am stalking turns around and physically attacks me, I can whip out a gun and kill them. People need to learn that when being stalked, just mind your own business and let them stalk you to their hearts content. You may fear for your life, but you can’t attack them or they can legally kill you. 

Well, I can also keep a gun in my house, but a responsible gun owner keeps it locked up so kids and intruders, etc. can’t get access to it. So the moment arrives, I come home and am surprised to find a burglar in my living room looking for goodies. Well, that son-of-a-bitch came to the wrong house. “Hold it buddy!!!! You came to the wrong house.” As I head for my safe and try to remember the combination I make sure this intruder understands the consequences of his situation. He is going to pay for this criminal act. The burglar probably doesn’t think you are opening the safe to give him all your money, so he may run, but then again he might wait until you get the safe open and then kill you in case there is lot’s of money. But that is maybe a bad example. Perhaps someone wants to kill me and I want some protection in my home. He/she could break in and we could have an old fashioned shootout—or they might not be the risky type so they will wait until I walk by a window or walk to the garage or take out the garbage etc. Even if I do all this and have my gun in hand looking every which way as I head to the garage, chances are from behind most any bush he is going to get the first shot. That seems a pretty good advantage. Same when I take walks in the city. I could carry a pistol, but the odds are great it will be some teenage thugs who decide to rob me. The likelihood of them shouting to me a block away of their intentions is slim. The overwhelming odds are that I will find my hands pinned to my side or a gun in my back before I am aware of the situation. If these teenagers don’t have a gun, they do now. Teenagers, their hormones, and their emotional state do not mix well with guns. The hyperactive thugs might just shoot me. Reasonableness doesn’t always prevail in those situations. So how many times is it advantageous for us to really be packing a gun?  The guy in Minnesota was packing a gun legally, I assume to protect himself, but as soon as he told the officer in a faulty tail-light stop that he had a gun on him legally, the officer, now knowing the guy had a gun on him, felt free to shoot the guy point blank as he sat next to his girlfriend in a car. So it gets confusing—if a police officer sees a person during an arrest has a gun he can shoot out of self defense, but since people can get permits to legally carry a gun in public, how does a police officer know what the presence of a gun means?

These days, if we are going into a nightclub, either to enjoy a night out,  or competing for sexual or romantic attention, we want everyone to pack a gun so if some mass murderer with an AK-40 starts shooting, someone will manage to get shot off that will kill him before the number of killings make him a success at this new sport. Or at least I want armed security guards all over the premises. Still, suppose this killer is not a real dimwit—this can happen albeit maybe not that often, and so he simply dresses up like he is one of us, simply puts a bomb under his seat or in the waste basket and leaves. I suppose if the killer is determined to get the thrill out of all his killing and then wait to be killed by the police, then his intention all along is to set the killing record before the police arrive and then die at the hands of the police or he will shoot himself for the climatic ending. This sport does not appeal to me at all. 

So how are we going to win this war on terrorism?  I doubt the eventual answer involves violence as the answer. In all of history violence begets violence.

If we decide to go someplace safe until this sport peters out, where would we go? Immigrants are becoming less and less tolerated most anywhere’. Living well amongst the natives who are dirt poor seems a tad risky. Not speaking the native language seems a tad risky or at least difficult. If we go live in the hills somewhere surrounded, again by a decent percentage of social misfits, sounds a tad risky too. And if there is economic and social implosion in major population centers, where will we find a source of food, gas, electricity, etc?.  We could grow our own food maybe, if we had the seeds etc, but unless no one in the area knows we exist, it seems a tad optimistic that others will not help themselves. A global economy and global communications kind of ensures that when economic and social implosion happens it will hurt everyone everywhere. 

I don’t like these questions, they are too global and too eerily stupefying and terror-some. Everything will be all right, Trump is waiting in the wings. I saw clips of the Donald and his supporters all screaming for action to teach this or that group a lesson or two. We have tried to teach other countries a lesson or two repeatedly the past decades, and have yet to succeed via military means. According to this energetic crowd, we just didn't kill enough of them. It puzzles me, since they want to teach all sorts of groups in this country a lesson they won't forget, like blacks, hispanics, immigrants, people of different religious beliefs, low wage workers, gays, and on and on it goes---well why then are they hell bent on making it legal for all members of these groups to carry weapons of war?  Violence as a means to win modern day conflicts is obsolete. In fact almost all their political ideas are obsolete---like trickle down economics or a law could stop abortions. We would have as much luck banning pills which cause abortions as we did banning marijuana. For all Trump's bluster he probably has never been in a physical fight in his adult life. He is big and wealthy from inheritance and stiffing others legally, but he is soft from his lifestyle, so any lean and mean athletic guy, half his size, would probably take him down before the Donald could figure out how to coordinate his extremities in a physical fight. Feelings, not reasoning, seem behind everything they rage about. 

The Immigration Dilemma

The Immigration Dilemma

Immigration has always been a tricky issue for America. Some natives are always suspect of immigrants and are against it period. The first natives (we seem to have a series of natives)—the American Indians—ended up totally losing any control over the lands in which they lived. There is not one country in either North or South America which is their own country. Clearly immigration can be a bad thing big time for some natives. It always seemed a tad odd to me that strange people arriving in small ships could end up displacing millions of natives in a country.  True, the ships had cannons and the European immigrants had guns. But the new immigrants had to get off the ships with the cannons, and live on land at some point. Look, Americans had all the modern weapons of mass destruction back in Vietnam and we still lost that war. Okay, but then European immigrants knew Indians on sight whereas American soldiers in Vietnam could never be sure who their enemy was since the North Vietnamese looked exactly like the South Vietnamese. We became easy pickings, and even though we killed far more of them than they did us, we were the ones who tired of it. It sounds a bit like our Revolutionary War. The natives, (although we weren’t natives) won in both cases. Justice sometimes does prevail.

It turns out the American Indians had a huge stacked deck against them. It involved guns, extensive wilderness, religion, and greed, all of which put the Indians at a disadvantage. The European invaders could cluster densely via a fort-like community where guns could protect them and then venture out in armed forays to kill any Indians on sight. But even here the Indians, with their overwhelming majority could have won a cat and mouse game EXCEPT—they were not a united civilization but one in which each tribe had enemy relationships with other tribes. Thus, the Europeans could, at will, help one Indian tribe fight another Indian tribe, sort of have others do the killing for them, much like we do today with our no draft mercenary armed forces. The Indian’s main priority was dominating other tribes to protect their turf. On top of this, half to two thirds of the millions of Indians living in the Americas were wiped out by diseases to which they were not immune—genetic genocide. This would swiftly decimate entire tribes. Still, there were plenty enough Indians left to have pushed the European immigrants out of their country EXCEPT many Indians came to fear that the white man’s God was behind their deaths from disease. So they fled to new wildernesses in fear. I mean, what the hell, land back then went forever. If the whites were in one place the Indians would settle elsewhere.  And those who didn’t fear whites wanted the attractive modern things the Europeans could sell them like horses, liquor, clothes, cooking utensils, and so on. If they chased away these European immigrants then these things would no longer be available. By the time the Indians realized they needed a united front to get rid of the immigrants there were way too many immigrants. The window of opportunity for them to chase out European immigrants had closed. The forever wilderness was gone by the late 1800’s, thus sealing the Indian’s fate. They had no place to run or hide.  

Immigration feelings are powerful forces. With the European immigrants now firmly in charge of the country, the next immigration problem rose big time. With a hodge-podge of immigrants now in charge of the country, which group or groups of immigrants would control the country? Well, it wasn’t going to be the blacks, they were slaves for the most part. It wasn’t going to be women since they didn’t have the right to vote. And it wasn’t going to be the poor since those whites who owned land would be firmly in control. Ok, sort of, as long as they were Protestant. We could justify the elimination of the Indians as simply a more civilized population replacing a more primitive civilization. This happens all the time in evolutionary history. But we now know that just how ‘civilized’ any humans are depends a lot on the environment of their formative years. We look back at history and are struck by just how violent ‘civilizations’ were in long ago years. The kind of punishments were grotesque and without mercy—burning witches, death by quartering the strung up live body, hangings—nothing seemed ever cruel enough to satisfy an angry majority. We see some of this recurring today as overpopulation and chronic stress in some communities is breeding a new wave of cruel unimaginable violence, only this time less directed at individual culprits.   

The new immigrants, like the former Indians, were tribe conscious. Through various periods of American History Catholics, Jews, Irish, Italians, Chinese, Quakers, and various minor ‘cults’ had rough times getting the full benefits of citizenship. Up until the 1800’s everybody just came, there were no quotas. The notion that this was the land of the free was disingenuous. The Puritans, for example, wanted freedom alright, but freedom for themselves, not anyone else, and God have mercy if anyone in their community had any different ideas. We had plenty of witch burnings, vigilante mass murders, individual hangings and other forms of vigilante justice. If any particular family found their community hostile to them for whatever reason, they could just pack their things and ‘move west’. The  Wild West was everybody’s safety net. Thomas Jefferson thought there was enough land in our vast ‘manifest destiny’ for everyone to have plenty of room for thousands of years. Instead, by the late 1800’s the frontier ceased to exist, and citizens had to learn to live somehow with each other. All sorts of immigrants were making huge contributions to American society in every aspect of our society. American culture was ‘mutt-like’, a mixture of just about everything. By the 1920’s Americans began to focus on just exactly who any new immigrants should be and there were quotas established. 

At some point in the mid 1900’s, not any clearly defined point, our planet began to feel the pressure of human overpopulation, more so in some countries than in others. The U.S., being a relatively new country, would be one of the last to feel such overpopulation pressures. We were also a prosperous country, for varied reasons, and so those struggling in poorer countries, at least a small percentage of them, risked everything to get into the United States. We kind of didn’t mind very much because illegal immigrants became our new form of slave labor. Americans always like bargains, in just about anything. The cheaper things are, the more we can buy. Most Americans are not concerned about the wages of those who make the bargains they seek. The affluent enjoyed the illegal immigrants because they could afford to hire personal attendants of varied sorts. It was prestigious to have maids, gardeners, chauffeur’s, and so on.

As time passed the quotas were too small for the number of people desperate to find someplace to live where they could find work. Not surprisingly, with modern devices and modes of transportation, it became difficult for any country to stop others from getting in, especially if once in they could work undetected. Americans tended to have competing notions that we didn’t want anyone getting in illegally in theory, but neither did we wish to know exactly who was in our country either, we valued our privacy.  

So now let’s leap-frog to the present. Local community, as a significant social theatre in our lives, has pretty much gone, replaced by the internet community. People rarely communicate that much with others in their neighborhood, and are more likely to communicate constantly with their own internet network, often immediate family members, but it could be with just about anyone, just about anywhere. We are currently a very mobile nation where the average young person is projected to have like 38 different jobs in their lifetime, and for many, this means moving repeatedly. Even for those who manage to stay put for any length of time, the day often brings all of us in contact with a lot of people, albeit few in any kind of meaningful way. It is never, or seldom, a matter of good or bad, God vs the Devil, or right vs wrong——but what works best in a given environment which determines the future. When my generation laments many aspects of today’s generation we fail to realize that our generation created the environment which dictated the new lifestyles of today. We like to think we have control over the future of the evolutionary process, that we are in charge, that all other species and the natural resources are under our dominion. We can change the planetary environment, but what the consequences will be are determined by the laws which govern the evolutionary process. That is the reality. The silliest notion, widespread, is that every generation is very concerned about the future for their grandchildren. This notion is sincere enough, but every generation, for self serving reasons, creates situations in which the future will be a stormy one as varied populations—domestic or foreign—compete for dominance. Self serving greed, often in the name of family values, creates imbalances in all societies which will, by necessity, be addressed down the road, as the injustices heaped on certain segments of society will eventually cause chaos and widespread havoc. Corrections follow, but how long it takes for the corrections to occur varies in evolutionary years, not human years. It all depends on how severe the chaos. The notion that humans are not going to pay a cost for overpopulation compared to other species is absurd. The big difference is that lower level species do not comprehend what is happening to them to the extent we comprehend when the ‘shit hits the fan’. 

Today, as a consequence of human overpopulation, limited natural resources, gross disparities in distribution of wealth, more and more workers being reduced to slave wages, more and more workers losing job benefits, job security, adequate pensions, more and more people are beginning to realize ‘the shit has hit the fan”—but right now everyone is focused on who is to blame for all this coming down the pike. We more and more tend to see minorities in our midst, especially immigrants, as the cause of our own situations. But even more than all this, is the sheer numbers of immigrants.  More and more of these immigrants did not arrive because they chose to leave their native country as in the past. Very few people tend to ever give a high priority to leaving their own country.  Last year 75 million people were displaced from their homes and forced to flee their country for various reasons. No one really wants these people to end up in their own country. This is like the stray dog who decides your home is now his/her home. We feel put upon. On the one hand we realize we should feel sorry for these displaced people or pets, but on the other hand these people are from a different culture, are different races, and often don’t even speak our language. Then we go the full route and point out they might even be terrorists. Of course, just like our own children sometimes end up being terrorists. Nobody suggests—“No more children” some of them will grow up to become terrorists. And then there are those who actually think if immigrants were eliminated, their job situation would be corrected.  Actually, it is the reverse, if we were eliminated then the job situation for the immigrants would be improved. Hopefully, too many of them will not begin to see this. 

It is reasonable to assume, given the violence arising across the globe, that next year more than 75 million people will be displaced from their homes and flee to other countries, one way or another. Of course more and more countries will emphatically state these refugees are not coming to their country and make it illegal to do so——just like governments make it illegal for certain drugs to gain entrance to their country. When the hell has this sort of thing ever actually happened, when illegal immigration ever really worked? And just exactly what is to be done with so many millions in refugee camps eventually becoming part of the dark environment of illegal immigrants some place? Do we let them starve? Do we pay to house, feed, and clothe them in open fields perpetually?  Each year there are 131 million people born somewhere in this world. I suppose, if we kill the 75 million displaced from their homes, this helps reduce human overpopulation, but only by roughly half of the new borns in that year. Then again, 437,000 people are murdered across the globe each year. On top of that, on average, 378,000 people are killed in wars a year. Violence is becoming a major sport both for the participants and the media. Record performances in the ‘killing fields’ are replacing old ones almost every year. 

What is certain is that human overpopulation will be curtailed, one way or another. We could, of course, find a way to enforce responsible reproduction. The chances of this are nil for the immediate future. This means the deaths from people displaced (if we kill all of them), plus deaths from all the wars, and all the murders have to increase substantially. This also means, in addition to deaths from the stated causes, we need to snuff out around 300 million people a year and that would begin to reduce the population enough so that, in the absence of human overpopulation, those left could begin to share existing natural resources in ways which could theoretically allow everyone to live the kind of affluent lives many of us do right now. 

Most immigration, and practically all of illegal immigration happens out of desperation. I suppose, if enough jobs move overseas, that the tide will reverse and some Americans will have to illegally migrate elsewhere to get a job. Right now, so far at least, the main strategy to reduce human overpopulation is violence and this is growing exponentially. The likelihood here is that, at some point, with this exponentially growing explosion of violence, civilized nations will topple into chaos and rapidly become another Baghdad.  Most Americans seem to think we are too far developed as a society for this kind of collapse to occur. But actually, the more complicated a society, the more everything is dependent on everything else, so the more precipitous a decline will be. Many people live in suburbs or rural areas thinking they are safe. Really? Where, for example, will you get your groceries, gas for your car, maintain heat and air-conditioning for your home, and even still have your job?  Well, many more of us have guns now, so we are safe. Of course, we will board ourselves up in our homes and if roaming mobs approach will we shoot them down like flies with our super-duper guns. But I suppose at some point we have to leave the house don’t we? And they too have super duper guns. Uh-oh, ‘Holy Mackerel Andy, we does got a problem here’. 

Immigration is really a problem. Personally I don’t want any more people living in the U. S. than already live here. Period. Everywhere we turn, there are people, people, just everywhere, all kinds of people. There are too many people dying from senseless violence. Senseless? Not according to the laws of evolution. Mother Nature always bats last. If we refuse to practice responsible reproduction across the globe, than death will come via survival of the fittest. On the other hand, in the Orlando massacre, survival had little to do with the ‘fittest’ or ‘smartest’ or ‘the best of us’, but simply to the one who had the rapid firing weapon of war. Okay, the global human herd needs to be culled—substantially—but can’t we just find a better way to cull us?  For my part I prefer limiting the birth rate before someone suggests the obvious, that the elderly are the most logically expendable. I think I will look into a Sherman tank with a turret of AK-40’s or whatever the name for that ‘Zippidy-do-dah-you’re-all-dead’ weapon is called. Nah, that will soon be replaced by drones which we can program to deliver an explosive right up a designated ass. I need to be sure my address book is up to date. The Wild West is gone, replaced by the the Violent Everywhere. 

At any rate this is the wrong time to immigrate anywhere. I tried to move to Canada years back, to Victoria British Columbia. But they were in no mood to have me. Unless I had a particular skill they needed, my attempt would be dead on arrival.  That just makes it worse for those who do get permission to move. It is rough for the working class to struggle and understand the best paying jobs are going to immigrants with the skills needed. We do that kind of stuff in the U. S. too. Instead of paying the tab to build enough medical schools, we let other countries train doctors and then we import them here. We don’t need to have the best education system, be can just import talent from abroad. Like most every major issue facing the planet, immigration is a hopeless quagmire. 

I reckon, those who read this, expected to find out whether America should be taking in our share of these 75 million refugees or even let in any more regular immigrants. The question is moot.  The real question is how is this planet going to solve human overpopulation? I am one of those who is eternally grateful for President Obama keeping the lid on as well as he has, for all those groups  reaching the eruption point. He gave so many hope and he in return gave many rights which they never had before, enabled many areas of the world calm down a bit, stopped runaway economic recession, and was a perfect example of not just thriving on diversity but genuinely appreciating diversity. I suppose it is easier for some kind of genetic ‘mutt’ to fit in everywhere, whereas a pure bred is far more limited in finding their niche.  Many people don’t really like that ‘everyone is my friend’ stuff. But in the end, Obama could not really change much the kind of environments in which so many people are living their formative years with unusually high levels of chronic stress. And of course, all of this originates with human overpopulation. We are now getting on each other’s nerves big time. It’s good theatre but properly filed under the category of Tragedies of Horror. Don’t buy this? Turn on your media gadgets and watch the news.

Even if I was inclined to participate in this new Sport of Senseless Violence, it would be so difficult to find group of hapless people who have not already  been mown down with weapons of war.  I mean, what is left? Theatre people? Been done. College campuses?  Been done.  Airplanes? Been done. Major high rise buildings?  Been done. Kindergarten kids?  Been done. Church members? Been done. Gays in a nightclub?, been done.  Enough, this has now frightened me. I am not moving into any kind of senior citizen complex. I don’t think that has been done yet. Maybe I could not even get into one. Someone would likely scream, don’t let that bastard in here, someone for sure probably wants to silence him and the rest of us will just be bonus points to garner maximum attention.   

“Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall, 

Humpty Dumpty had a great fall; 

All the king's horses and all the king's men 

Couldn't put Humpty together again.”

Police vs Minority Happenings—a non Musing

Police vs Minority Happenings—a non Musing

I am not going to write any musing on the current police vs minority happenings. Right now, feelings—not reason are running rampant. Eventually, in the long run—if not the short run, reason prevails. What are all forms of prejudice, if not an admission that feelings prevail over reason. That’s why falling in love and all personal relationships are so difficult—they are based on feelings more so than reason. There is no reason why we have to like everyone, since understanding human nature dictates that different personalities will not always mix. But that does not mean people, of whom I am not fond, should be denied any kind of fair treatment by law or not have any of the rights and privileges that I have. Diversity is an essential ingredient of the evolutionary process—this process cannot work without diversity. Our personal challenge is always to find ways to let diversity reign in such a way that all ‘God’s children’, if we want to word it that way, have equal justice, equal rights, and level playing fields to the extent we can, collectively, make playing fields more level. Violence always breeds more violence, so using that to solve conflict simply ensures everyone involved loses. 

Anyway, I am not entering into this fray. I think Obama says the right thing. That is his strength—an appreciation of all kinds of races, religions, cultures, economic class, whatever. He pays a political price for this as most of us don’t feel the same way to the same extent, and it becomes an irritant when he seeks to right injustices for those whom we have little compassion. Every time he gives minorities a bit more justice, the same rights others already have, a little compassion, a concerted effort to level the playing field a bit more for them, he loses the support of those who have no use for the group in question.  We haven’t had a President like that since Lincoln. It was the same back then. Some loved Lincoln for his honesty and appreciation for diversity, and others hated him immensely for his sympathy with those less fortunate. There was no good vs evil involved in that many good people hated Lincoln. Accepting diversity as a valuable part of life is just difficult. I solved this with classes I taught by making it clear the first day that I have no prejudices, I HATE EVERYBODY. How’s that for leveling the playing field”

Obama’s take on all this:   

“To admit we've got a serious problem in no way contradicts our respect and appreciation for the vast majority of police officers who put their lives on the line to protect us every single day. It is to say that, as a nation, we can and must do better to institute the best practices that reduce the appearance or reality of racial bias in law enforcement.”

Obama makes it clear that calling attention to police brutality does not mean officers are being disrespected. It reflects a frustration we saw yesterday when New York radio host Peter Rosenberg berated an officer who called into his show to discuss the Alton Sterling incident but couldn't admit that the officers had done wrong.

From Warsaw, Poland, Obama also gave a speech echoing his Facebook post and expressing condolences for the families of Sterling and Castile. "We've seen tragedies like this too many times," he said, adding, "All of us Americans should be troubled by these shootings because these are not isolated incidents." He cited facts that he said reflect the racial disparities that exist within our criminal justice systems: African-American are 30 percent more likely than whites to be pulled over; after they are pulled over, they are three times more likely to be searched.

"When incidents like this occur, there's a big chunk of our fellow citizenry that feels as if, because of the color of their skin, they are not being treated the same. And that hurts. And that should trouble all of us. This is not just a black issue . . . this is an American issue. All fair-minded people should be concerned.

The president also addressed the those who criticize the Black Lives Matter movement, saying, "When people say black lives matter, that doesn't mean blue lives don't matter — it just means all lives matter. But right now the big concern is the fact that data shows black folks are more vulnerable to these kinds of incidents. This isn't a matter of comparing the value of lives; this is recognizing that there is a particular burden that is being placed on a group of our fellow citizens and we should care about that — we can't dismiss it. We can't dismiss it."

Obama ended his speech by asking those who doubt the problem to ask themselves: "What if this happened to someone in your family? How would you feel?"

Peering Over the Horizon: Here Comes the Future

Peering Over the Horizon: Here Comes the Future

My friend Dez sent the following. The author is unknown but the general gist seems relevant enough to me.  I did add two more rather scary possibilities to the list at the end. The rate of technological change is occurring so rapidly now that no one has to be old to be out of date. The days of one thing at a time are past. Plus, the problems bearing down on us are not simple—mostly too complex for the average voter to cast any intelligent vote. This usually means feelings will soar and reason struggle. 

In 1998, Kodak had 170,000 employees and sold 85% of all photo paper worldwide.

Within just a few years, their business model disappeared and they got bankrupt.

What happened to Kodak will happen in a lot of industries in the next 10 year - and most people don't see it coming.

Did you think in 1998 that 3 years later you would never take pictures on paper film again?

Yet digital cameras were invented in 1975. The first ones only had 10,000 pixels, but followed Moore's law.

So as with all exponential technologies, it was a disappointment for a long time, before it became way superior and got mainstream in only a few short years.

It will now happen with Artificial Intelligence, health, autonomous and electric cars, education, 3D printing, agriculture and jobs.

Welcome to the 4th Industrial Revolution.

Welcome to the Exponential Age.

Software will disrupt most traditional industries in the next 5-10 years...

Uber is just a software tool, they don't own any cars, and are now the biggest taxi company in the world.
Airbnb is now the biggest hotel company in the world, although they don't own any properties.

Artificial Intelligence: Computers become exponentially better in understanding the world.

This year, a computer beat the best Go player in the world, 10 years earlier than expected.

In the US, young lawyers already don't get jobs. Because of IBM Watson, you can get legal advice (so far for more or less basic stuff) within seconds, with 90% accuracy compared with 70% accuracy when done by humans.

There will be 90% less lawyers in the future, only specialists will remain.

Watson already helps nurses diagnosing cancer, 4 time more accurate than human nurses.

Facebook now has a pattern recognition software that can recognize faces better than humans.

In 2030, computers will become more intelligent than humans.

Autonomous cars: In 2018 the first self-driving cars will appear for the public.

Around 2020, the complete industry will start to be disrupted.
You don't want to own a car anymore.

You will call a car with your phone, it will show up at your location and drive you to your destination.

You will not need to park it, you only pay for the driven distance and can be productive while driving.

Our kids will never get a driver's licence and will never own a car.
It will change the cities, because we will need 90-95% less cars for that.
We can transform former parking space into parks. 1.2 million people die each year in car accidents worldwide.
We now have one accident every 100,000 km, with autonomous driving that will drop to one accident in 10 million km.
That will save a million lives each year.

Most car companies might become bankrupt.
Traditional car companies try the evolutionary approach and just build a better car, while tech companies (Tesla, Apple, Google) will do the revolutionary approach and build a computer on wheels.
Engineers from Volkswagen and Audi; they are completely terrified of Tesla.

Insurance companies will have massive trouble because without accidents, the insurance will become 100x cheaper.
Their car insurance business model will disappear.

Real estate will change.
Because if you can work while you commute, people will move further away to live in a more beautiful neighborhood.

Electric cars will become mainstream until 2020.
Cities will be less noisy because all cars will run on electric.

Electricity will become incredibly cheap and clean: Solar production has been on an exponential curve for 30 years, but you can only now see the impact.
Last year, more solar energy was installed worldwide than fossil.
The price for solar will drop so much that all coal companies will be out of business by 2025.

With cheap electricity comes cheap and abundant water.
Desalination now only needs 2kWh per cubic meter.
We don't have scarce water in most places, we only have scarce drinking water.
Imagine what will be possible if anyone can have as much clean water as he wants, for nearly no cost.

Health: The Tricorder X price will be announced this year.
There will be companies who will build a medical device (called the "Tricorder" from Star Trek) that works with your phone, which takes your retina scan, you blood sample and you breath into it.
It then analyses 54 biomarkers that will identify nearly any disease.
It will be cheap, so in a few years everyone on this planet will have access to world class medicine, nearly for free.

3D printing: The price of the cheapest 3D printer came down from 18,000$ to 400$ within 10 years.
In the same time, it became 100 times faster.
All major shoe companies started 3D printing shoes.
Spare airplane parts are already 3D printed in remote airports.
The space station now has a printer that eliminates the need for the large amout of spare parts they used to have in the past.
At the end of this year, new smartphones will have 3D scanning possibilities.
You can then 3D scan your feet and print your perfect shoe at home.
In China, they already 3D printed a complete 6-storey office building.
By 2027, 10% of everything that's being produced will be 3D printed.

Business opportunities: If you think of a niche you want to go in, ask yourself: "in the future, do you think we will have that?" and if the answer is yes, how can you make that happen sooner?
If it doesn't work with your phone, forget the idea.
And any idea designed for success in the 20th century is doomed in to failure in the 21st century.

Work: 70-80% of jobs will disappear in the next 20 years.
There will be a lot of new jobs, but it is not clear if there will be enough new jobs in such a small time.

Agriculture: There will be a 100$ agricultural robot in the future.
Farmers in 3rd world countries can then become managers of their field instead of working all days on their fields.
Aeroponics will need much less water.

The first petri dish produced veal is now available and will be cheaper than cow produced veal in 2018.

Right now, 30% of all agricultural surfaces is used for cows.

Imagine if we don't need that space anymore.

There are several startups who will bring insect protein to the market shortly.

It contains more protein than meat.

It will be labeled as "alternative protein source" (because most people still reject the idea of eating insects).

There is an app called "moodies" which can already tell in which mood you are.

Until 2020 there will be apps that can tell by your facial expressions if you are lying.

Imagine a political debate where it's being displayed when they are telling the truth and when not.

Bitcoin will become mainstream this year and might even become the default reserve currency.

Longevity: Right now, the average life span increases by 3 months per year.

Four years ago, the life span used to be 79 years, now it's 80 years.

The increase itself is increasing and by 2036, there will be more than one year increase per year.

So we all might live for a long, long time, probably way more than 100.

Education: The cheapest smartphones are already at 10$ in Africa and Asia.

Until 2020, 70% of all humans will own a smartphone.

That means, everyone has the same access to world class education.

Every child can use Khan academy for everything a child learns at school in First World countries.

Already released software in Indonesia and will release it in Arabic, Suaheli and Chinese this Summer, because of an enormous potential.

English app for free, so that children in Africa can become fluent in English within half a year...

NOTE: My added two:

1. Does anyone really believe the world’s population can double, as it has in my lifetime, without some real negative consequences. Right now people are already fighting over limited natural resources. 

2. We are currently having success with drones which can deliver explosives virtually up some terrorist leader’s ass if we know his/her location. Amazon is experimenting right now with delivering packages via drones right to our doorstep.  If Amazon is developing the capacity to do this right now, doesn’t that seem to make it a reality that in the future terrorist organizations will develop the same capability? Then what? What world leader at most any level will be safe? What religious or racial leader of any group will be safe?  And of course I might need to cease writing musings. I know, there is a bright side to everything. 

Pensive Cogitations at the Start of Life’s Last Laps

Pensive Cogitations at the Start of Life’s Last Laps

Change, Diversity, and Time—these are important factors in the evolutionary process. The environment of our planet changes over time, not human time, but evolutionary Time—which sometimes takes thousands or millions of years. The changes in environment occur for varied reasons (the latest being human activities) but all dictated by the laws which govern the evolutionary process. In my case, whatever force created these laws I call God. Diversity among all planetary life enables life to continue and progress—to adjust to environmental changes and become more advanced in the process. Nothing about this evolutionary process is geared to making any particular member of any species more contented, or more successful. Humans have invented this notion that there is a God who is constantly judging our behavior and will protect and reward us as individuals IF we happened to have inherited the right religion and scripture. Now really, I mean for sure really, if this were true, by now the statistics, which we are good at by now, would show clearly that those who are serious followers of a particular religion, would die less from serious diseases, catch these diseases less often, fare better in the work place with more promotions and increases in salary, fare better on the battlefield, do better in sports, and so on. No such statistics exist. But that hardly stops prayer from being exercised endlessly in an attempt to spur God into helping us personally.  The only stats I know of which hint at providing us personal contentment are those which demonstrate that those who help or serve others (the Golden Rule) end up more contented than those who focus entirely on self serving goals which include only their own family, their own culture, their own religion. their own community, their own race, or their own country. Mario Como said it best “the way to serve yourself is to serve others”. Aristotle, ages before, said it maybe first: “the only way to assure yourself happiness is to learn to give happiness”. And for all of us who thrive on ‘bargains’, no matter how pitiful the wages of those who provide the bargains—Francoise Sagan said it best: “The rich have a passion for bargains as lively as it is pointless.”  Notice here I used the term “us”. 

This need for the Golden Rule to be the basis of our ethics, is perhaps the only ethical principle to be acknowledged globally by everyone, of every religious bent, to be a truly ethical principle. Ethics is an advanced characteristic of the human race, we don’t have to join a particular human devised religion to have this trait. Because it is a human trait, it will vary like every other human trait, from person to person. Just like Terrell Owens had to work harder with more willpower and self focus to become a talented wide receiver, compared to those with more genetic talent in that area——so too do many people have to work harder to live a more ethical life than others. Nor is it a numbers game. Some athletes, with less potential genetic talent than Terrell Owens, who is stat-wise  clumped at the top, may have used more willpower and self focus to have achieved at a lesser level. I taught thousands of students over my lifetime. The percentage of students to whom I was fair and actually helped is what counts. A person who lives in a smaller personal world, and grows his own food to eat and lives simply in a rural shack but is always helpful and kind to the few others with whom he/she comes in contact, can be just as ethical. Probably the percentage of time we are ethical, and the extent to which we are ethical, to everyone in our pathway, is what counts toward making ourselves actually contented with our lives. 

Thus, it is the evolutionary process which determines the future of evolution, not any of us as individuals. All we can do, existing during a minuscule period of evolutionary Time, by chance, is to maximize our potential for contentment. That is all we really have control over, and since we are all different by genetics and our actual environment, there will not be any universally best way to achieve the goal of personal contentment. This means when I introspectively write about my own life, my own priorities, my own strengths and weaknesses, my own uniqueness, my own situations, and so on—anyone one else would have to tweak all of it to their own unique self. After all is said and done, and with me more is often said than done, I can only write about certain aspects of life from my own perspective. After all, you ain’t me, and if you insist on praying, maybe you should thank God for that. Smile. 

When I retired my goal was to entirely revamp my lifestyle, priorities, and goals. The terminational years are not the same as our productive years. Sometimes I hear retired people say they fully intend to stay productive. Maybe it is a semantic issue here. To me productive means you produce something useful for society, you perform some service to society, you earn enough money to support whatever life style you live, you are able to effectively raise and support a family, things like this. That is, after all, exactly what we retire from. 

Of course some people retire later than others for varied reasons. So there is no clear age at which one ends their productive years and begins their terminational years. Also, the terminational phase of life is a time period, it doesn’t mean one has one leg in the grave. I have been retired almost 20 years and am in relatively good health. Sure, the odds of poor health become greater with each passing year. Many asked why I retired when I did. Part of it was self imposed chronic pressures of the job including all the deadlines, the long hours, the endless manipulations to solve particular problems on my desk, the competition with others over volatile issues that needed to be resolved, and the repetitiveness of student problems that I constantly faced. In general, younger teachers are more effective with students because they bring new energy and more patience to listen longer to what students have on their mind. College teaching can be a cake-walk or it can be a pressure cooker. My dubious talents included creating a pressure cooker even if there was none present. If some administrators didn’t always like me it wasn’t for lack of good results in my various endeavors, but the amount of commotion to achieve good results. One Chairperson said often, “With Reid you get results and you get commotion and they are inseparable”  Probably true, and it took it’s toll on me. For those who think “A little of Reid is enough”, imagine what I have to put up with. Young students tend to benefit from commotion, a certain pervasive tension, providing that commotion steers them in the right direction. On a sports team the biggest locker room contributors to success are those who try the hardest, not those who are everybody’s friend. Show me a class or a team where everyone is relaxed and happy and invariably you have a class or team in which performance level suffers. 

The reality is this: The evolutionary process determines the future, not the human species, contrary to any self serving claims made by us. The best we can ever achieve is some contentment in our lives. Clearly our terminational years will be very different from our productive years just as our productive years were very different from our formative years. Poor planning for our productive years often means little of our potential is ever reached in our productive years. When I retired I kind of figured some planning was in order for any enjoyable terminational years. Anyway, so what changes did I make in my life? My main goal for retirement was to generate a situation where each morning I got up and spent the day doing what I wanted to do, not have obligations to do endless things others wanted me to do or be a slave to my owned property. When I was a young teenager and people asked me what I wanted to be when grown, I invariably replied “A hermit”. That goal has always been buried in my psyche all my life. But not a true hermit living in the forest. I love forests—but as a daytime wandering venture followed by a scrumptious meal and a Sleep Number bed. Nothing about me is built like a rugged pioneer. Actually, I like people, all kinds of people, diversity has never been something which irritated me but rather intrigued me. Observing people interests me. My guess is a lot of the rapport I had with students was based on their perception that I really was on their side. It was kind of to me like “Ok, I have an interesting student here, with a unique problem, and what kind of unique solution might work?” 

Once retired and without a title and institution behind me, I was quite crippled in any ability to solve many problems young people or others in general have. Gone were the days when I could pick up a phone and use my title and institution to force a solution. That of course is just fine since it enables me to justify being more of a hermit.  It did seem unethical, once retired, to suddenly ignore the plight of the less fortunate. Thus, I created my FANAFI Fund and helped the less fortunate via this route. Perfect. One huge advantage I have in retirement is that I have no expensive hobbies except good eating and buying a new car every four years—not an expensive car but the most efficient one out there, a Prius. I really like those not really so little cars. My next goal was to live in such a way that I was not bothering others or interfering with others or making anyone’s life more difficult. I don’t think there is anyone who could really say that I have been any kind of impediment to their own lives since retirement. That doesn’t mean everyone likes me or thinks I am their cup of tea. Of course not. That’s fine and to be expected as long as they don’t like me because I am interfering with their own life. It is kind of dumb to feel that everyone has to like us in order for them to be a good person themselves. There are a lot of good people who don’t particularly like me. My obligation is to then give them some space, let them exist their own way. Hermits love that kind of solution. “The best thing you can do for me is to leave me alone” is like the national anthem for hermits.  

Another goal was to limit drastically the amount of time I spend in idle chit chat with people I seldom or will never see again, or with acquaintances I meet in the course of my daily living. After X number of years, inane chit-chat loses any meaningfulness. There are a few people who I do  spend a good amount of time with on the phone.  Plus, I relate to quite a few people via my musings of varied sorts, albeit that is mostly a one way street. But since people request to receive these emails, it is some kind of relationship.  Most people know a hell of lot more about me than I know about them, I reckon in large part because they are ‘force-fed’ info about me. The only defense I can muster here is that they have to sign on for this force-feeding. I am really not interested in selling anyone anything. The only people who really get on my nerves a bit are those who show so little interest in, or tolerance of, or respect for diversity in others. Those with little Golden Rule in their ethical nature are not targets of admiration on my part. Too much family values and not enough effort to help the less fortunate can grate me. Unfortunately, a lot of otherwise good people show little concern for those with heavy burdens. Humans, by nature, tend to be a rather greedy species. Enough for ourselves, is seldom enough. 

Our emotional state in retirement is important. For me gratitude for the many who helped me survive and achieve some modest successes is a big part of my mental sustenance during my terminational years. I know people change over the years, as do I, and so couplings that once fit  like a glove may not fit well at all in the present. No one is to blame. Their importance to me in younger years does not become less appreciated. That would be dumb. Others have an advantage, many people important to me in my younger years do not write endless musings about their thoughts to me, so I don’t have the basis to conclude they have now arrived at idiocy—like they may conclude with me. But that’s ok, in fact poetic justice— I gave them the fodder for their feelings.

Another goal of retirement was to decline to get involved in group decision making. I live in a high rise Condominium these days and my contribution is always this: I will go along with whatever the majority wants, and if I don’t like it here at some point I will move. It is not just the frustration many older people get trying to stay active in group decisions, but it is best and right that younger people make the group decisions. One of the main reasons churches are in the membership dilemma that they are now in is that most church decisions are made by church members in their terminational years. The Catholic Church is probably the worst here with mostly old people in positions of importance. I have genuinely enjoyed not being in charge of hardly anything. I remember my dad, once he retired, he just handed over all the finances and decision making to my mother. That ended any infighting, and my mother, for the rest of her life, made the household decisions but then, having the decision making power, she bent over backwards to please my dad. We like to think power is so important, but during our terminational years only fools keep feeling that way. Power slips away, as well it should. 

The neighborhood gang that I grew up with was unique in that we held annual get-togethers for years after we were full grown adults. While our parents were still alive we all would arrange to visit our parents at the same time and then get together for a dinner out— for me and one of my friends, this would include closing a bar in the wee hours of the morning. I loved those get-to-getters. At some point these get-to-getters got extended, first for three days, then five, and I think now they are up to a week. That’s a long get-together and for me, an expensive one which required air plane fares, rented car, and the expense of whatever we did each day. That’s a good chunk of money that could go into my FANAFI Fund. The problem then arose as to what kind of things we would do each day. There were 5 of us and to no one’s surprise my notion of things to do each day was quite different from the majority. Basically, I am a nature (not mature) person and really don’t want to spend a fortune to do things I can do where I live, like go to a ballgame or the race track etc. The solution was to do things by consensus. Of course consensus meant majority rule every time. I felt we should rotate who decides what we do, where we do it, etc. Given how in tune four of the participants were on most every matter, with me being of a different bent quite often, the get-to-gethers became some sort of historical duty rather than an enjoyable break for me. Not only that, but with an exception or two I had no real involvement with them anymore and so it was mostly remembrances, family activities, home projects, and endless farcical witticisms. My nature is full of nonsense BUT not for extended periods of time. An evening of nonsense is one thing, a week of it is intolerable. I stopped going and it really did wonders for them in that now everyone is on board with their reunion plans and they really find greater enjoyment without me being around tolerating, but not really that much involved. I tried to contribute in some sort of way from a distance with contests for them to engage in, buy a dinner for them, stuff like that, but that doesn’t work—of course it doesn’t, ‘you no like the rules, you no play the game.’  Life is full of these kind of circumstantial changes which creates a whole new ballgame. If we can’t be a positive force in a situation, don’t be a force at all. This is especially true in our terminational years. The past memories mean everything, all this current stuff is simply irrelevant to my current life. There is never anything wrong with live and let live. Thus, I give me a gold star for letting my absence be a positive contribution to once invaluable contributors to my formative years. I could easily have self destructed in my youth without them. 

One drawback with observing more than engaging in group plans is that one starts over reacting to minor stuff. Currently, used to no arguments or conflicts of any sort with anyone, a minor blip in daily life can generate too strong a response. So that I have to constantly work on, this over-reacting to minor matters. This negative aspect of my personality was apparent to students during my productive years. On course evaluations it was often noted that ‘this instructor has a temper which might erupt at any time. He handles major problems with unusual calm, but little ones sometimes enrage him.’ Still, overall they would often say, “I hope he never changes, he really is on our side.”.  I reckon some degree of instability is not always bad. It kept students on their toes and increased their effort not to be the straw that broke the camel’s back. A student might start to irritate me in some way or other over some damn thing during class and other students would start telling that student to ‘“shut up, Dr. James is going to lose his cool and then we are going to have to learn this stuff from the book if he walks on us.”  Sometimes a speck of genius is coupled with emotional or mental instability. 

In my terminational years I find a lot of enjoyment from simple things: Trying to figure Riva the Horse and Sheebiejiebee the cat out, enjoying the quietude of nature, taking a nap if needed, cooking some tasty meal, reading biographies of interesting people, chatting with a security guard for a few minutes, bantering with people in the building on the way in or out, occasional lunches with a wide assortment of ‘characters’, meant in a positive way. Most people really do have a story to tell. But that doesn’t mean they can get too near me, the Howard Hughes of Seven Bridges (the condo I live in).

If we want to do what we want to do most all day in our terminational years, then don’t get ourselves indebted to others so that we owe them tit for tat. Having no immediate family—others, out of kindness, feel obligated to include me in holiday festivities. The truth is, nothing is more insufferable to me than spending a day chatting with other people’s relatives. The guest door no sooner closes behind me than I can’t wait to go home. This is not something one can be gentle about. I tell people “don’t even think of inviting me over, I do not like spending a day chatting with people I am not going to see again and are not part of my life.”  

Meaningless gift giving is another thing I put a stop to years ago. If you are getting gifts from me there is an imposter loose.  Most people I am involved with have no need for a gift. Or someone to buy them a meal. Once we go down that road, it never ends and we spend much of our lives buying gifts no one needs or often even wants, wasting time remembering whose turn it is to buy a meal, and then listen to fussing often about who took advantage of whomever paid for the meal. It’s pure nonsense. I was at a meal once where someone ordered two meals when someone else was paying and took one home. That’s planning ahead. I rarely entertain anymore, no one is moping about it, and when I do the gatherings are small, never more than 5. Entertaining today is more and more something done on the internet.  I always warn people “don’t bring your ass through the door bearing some trinket or bottle of wine or gift of any sort.” Sometimes I don’t even provide food, we just order out from a menu beforehand with each paying for what they order and I go pick up the orders and bring them to my place. Seating and utensils are on the house. Why do I do this? Because then no one owes me a meal, for you can bet your ass that I would  get tacked on to some gathering where I end up chit chatting with people I will never see again. Hermits have to stay on their toes. 

In a general sort of way my priority is to maximize the things I enjoy doing by myself and not seek to make a lot of new friends whose function becomes one of amusing me in some fashion. During the terminational years the number of good friends will get less no matter how hard we try to maintain an active social circle. If we live long enough, most of the people who meant the most to us are dead and can’t attend any funeral. So clergy and others will just make up nice things to say, before gathering to eat and socialize. No harm at all, but not my bag either. Unless I am really close to family members of the deceased I never go to funerals. The few times I went to a funeral of someone close to me, for the reason of being close to their family, I never went near the casket. I just don’t wish to have a mental image of him or her in a casket. I don’t mind memorial services held some time after the death where people who knew the deceased well give testimonials.  That sure beats some clergy person whipping out some memorized verbiage suitable for about anyone. 

 These days I still genuinely like most people, but not in my face. I learned long ago if I want to get numerous invitations to gatherings just never go. The least likely we are to go (at least in my case) the more likely I will be invited. When I don’t show, it was to be expected and no one is put out. If I do go, then they are honored, just for the silly reason that I rarely show. It’s a win-win situation. I once showed up at the wedding of someone’s son even though I had never met the son, just because I felt obligated to make an exception.  Naturally I was the first one to leave after the meal was over and upon arrival to this outdoor wedding in 95 degree temperature in the sun no less, I just picked up my lawn chair and walked over and sat in the only shady spot in the whole place. While others frantically fanned themselves I kind of fell half asleep in relative comfort. Always improvise. So I can make exceptions if I really like the people. It’s a question of kindness vs independence. 

If one wants to get along well with others just learn to love diversity. In practice, that’s the best peace plan and one which Obama has used all his life to generate good will with so many diverse groups across the globe.  Ironically, that hasn’t got him into good stead with those who don’t like particular groups. It always meant a lot to me in my productive years when some student, different from me in some distinct way—for example being black during the tumultuous days of the 60’s—when they would suddenly comment: “I didn’t know I could have the kind of conversations we have with someone who is white”. “Good” I would always reply, “now if you can learn to reach others different from yourself via race, culture, religion, social class, etc. then you will do well in life.” Not to mention how much more contented they will be without so many people of varied sorts to dislike. 

If I was not going to busy myself with others in my retirement years, then what would I do to replace them?  For me, the choice was nature, reading, watching DVD course by outstanding Professors on various topics, cooking, endless wanderings in both nature and city neighborhoods (within limits), and using the stillness of post midnight hours to fully appreciate the long journey I have had through life—using the quietude to remember some of the best interactions I have had with a wide assortment of people. To live this long, still be in decent health, and while mentally on the decline, still functional enough to comprehend the complexities of most things--albeit I have endless trouble remembering names or recalling specific words at times, is a blessing. Rather than stutter or awkwardly pause I have gotten into the habit of routinely greeting people I know with: “How are you my good friend?”. They are a good friend, but the name may escape me for the moment. If they want to be remembered by name I will have to give them a call back later. When people ask my name I often tell them, but offer that I also answer to “Hey you”. That seems to be my nickname, although early on I thought my name was ‘Jesus Christ’ since I would say something or do something and the person would say, “Jesus Christ, what did you just do (or say)?”. Others, to this day, reading something in one of my musings, may still refer to me with that name. Fortunately for me, I guess, is that people are like cats, their curiosity gets the best of them and they suffer once again testing the waters to see what upsetting notions are buried within a harmlessly entitled musing. 

In the end, of course we all die, and I am determined not to act poorly when the time comes. Naturally, I have no idea at what point I will have had enough and want to die. It is a tad silly to fear death. I haven’t been alive through almost all of evolutionary history and I can’t recall this ever being some sort of painful cross to bear. Death is kind of the price we pay for ever being lucky enough to have been born. I know plenty of people willingly suffer through endless operations and even decades of being essentially bedridden but my plans are to ensure that can never happen. Extended torture is not my lifestyle. My memory still cringes about when I was in a hospital room with a pastor who had a severe stroke and was completely paralyzed except for moving his eyes. Members of his congregation would come by and some really said ‘You are going to live longer. God is not through with you yet.” What kind of God are they praying to who would personally have micro control over the situation and sit there like a cat torturing a mouse and reserve for Himself when he was tired of the torture. If God were micro controlling everything there wouldn’t be any tragedies. Other animals don’t fear death because they know little about such a thing. They don’t lie awake nights petrified that some time they will die. Humans understand death and each human should have the right to decide when they have had enough.  I suppose if others, based on their religious beliefs, think their beliefs should control when others die, then we will need to die by our own means when we are ready to die. Let them find someone else to practice their enforced torture on. None of my many pets spent any time at all suffering a drawn out painful/emotionally drawn out dying process. What kind of person would let himself or any pet go through the kind of torture not permitted for prisoners of war, as the means to die. If somebody really wants that, they should be entitled to it, but never force anyone else to choose that route.  As far as I am concerned, the right to control our own dying process is a fundamental right all should have. Period. 

Someone told me a while back that when I am dying I am going to wish I had immediate family or more close friends during the terminational process. If I do quite well enough with contentment when alone at this stage of my life, why would I need a lot of others around during my dying process? Everyone really dies alone, whether they have an audience or not. I had a neighbor once who I was fond of, dying from lung cancer. He spent many months struggling to get enough oxygen and finally ended up in a hospice all doped up so he wouldn’t feel pain or much of anything else either. His family insisted I come by on his final days to visit him—as if visiting a dying, totally out of it person, is visiting. For their sake I did, and had to suffer through such nonsense as “keep talking to him Reid, he can hear you, the sense of hearing is one of the last to go”. What tommyrot. Although nerve impulses from the ear still get to the brain, the parts of the brain which interpret the messages from the ear were totally out of it via drugs. Every time I have to be in a hospital I refuse visitors. I don’t find visitors, when I am not feeling well, soothing, I find it annoying and stressful. Why would I want to entertain at a time when I feel under the weather? I may be weird but not necessarily illogical when it comes to my own peace of mind. Plus there some people who are hardly tolerable when I am in the best of spirits, suppose they show up?  

So here I find myself, at the beginning of the final laps in life, not knowing how long the laps, whether it will have a sudden ending, or whether I will pathetically and hopelessly, in some kind of grotesque and pitiful way, end up spending most of the lap crawling to the finish line. If you cross my path at this crawling point, put a rope around me and find the fastest way to get me to the finish line, or at least stomp me to death as some sort of mercy killing. On this note I will mercifully stop, fire the starting gun myself, then wend my way around in a circles once again for my last laps. 

Say goodbye to Mrs. Calabash, wherever she is, for me.  Younger people will not understand this last reference.