Many Minds

We egocentric humans have been reluctant to grant that any other creatures have minds like ours. Although that may be partly true—the human mind is the most complex one on Earth—ongoing research is demonstrating that most animals indeed have quite sophisticated minds. In fact, until the last several decades, many people did not believe that animals had a mind at all; but were more like automatons who also had no feelings. We can thank Rene Descartes for this idea, who, in the 17^th century, viewed animals as more like unconscious, stimulus-response machines.

Fortunately,  more and more of the solid barriers we once thought God had erected between us and other creatures are collapsing. For example, many recent clever experiments have demonstrated that animals make and use tools, recognize themselves in mirrors, have a sense of self, use symbolic communication, solve complex problems, and display other complex, cognitive abilities. Charles Darwin was way out in front of the effort to see similarities, when he wrote, “There is no fundamental difference between man and the higher mammals in their mental faculties.”

Despite these similarities in cognitive abilities, there is one barrier that we may never surmount: knowing what it's like to be another creature. Although our minds may work in roughly similar ways, the sensory inputs to minds are often very different. A dog's sense of smell is far greater than mine, so how its brain interprets its world will be heavily swayed by aromas that I am ignorant of. Our worlds will feel different. An eagle's eyes are for more acute than mine, so its visual world will be quite different from mine. Yet neither a dog nor an eagle can count to 10 or build a smart phone, so we likely will never be able to bridge the gap between us, to know what it's like to be the other. We are shut out from each others' imaginations and perceptions.

Current experiments in the field of ethology (animal behavior) are demonstrating that many animals respond to their environment in similar ways that we do. It's only reasonable to assume that they have comparable intentions and feelings. We can see that they also must represent their world internally, but because our senses are so different, we cannot know how it feels to them. Other research has shown that even plants possess sentience of some sort; even they have some kind of mind.

These findings will likely be very relevant, if we some day discover extraterrestrial life. If we can't imagine what it's like to be a bird or a bat on Earth, how will we fare when we meet aliens whose sensory inputs may be exotically different? Like Descartes once thought about dogs and cats, we may not even recognize that alien life possesses a mind, when in fact their minds may make ours appear quite primitive—like an amoeba.

Life's Launch

I have been taking an online course on the subject of the origin of life on Earth. This is a field of study that seems to be getting tantalizingly close to an answer. The field got a major boost back in the 1950s when two researchers conducted an experiment that showed when a mixture of certain gases (thought at the time to be similar to Earth's early atmosphere) were heated with water and a spark passed through the vapors, complex organic molecules were formed. It seems as if the pre-life chemicals have a predilection to combine into complicated configurations—all on their own, in the form of many different complex amino acids.

But the process of these complex molecules then taking the next steps into something animate, is another huge leap. Lots of research is going on and it is tantalizingly close to an answer, but the difficulties of the process are immense.

We do know that life arose very early in Earth's history. Our planet was formed some 4.5 billion years ago, and life appeared quite shortly thereafter—under conditions that most types of life today would be unable to tolerate. Life is tough, though. Given half a chance, it will thrive, and it did. Then it took a very long time (some 3.5 billion years) for life to grow past single-cell creatures. Only about 500 million years ago did multicellular animals appear on the scene, during what is termed the Cambrian Explosion.

What struggles did life encounter in its early days to stay alive? Current research suggests that life may have originated in various clement locations on our planet. I use the word “clement” in a relative sense here... all conditions on Earth were very harsh in those days. 

Life may in fact have gotten started more than once and then earlier forms died out, before sustaining itself; in a sort of stuttering manner. It's also possible that different forms of life came into existence and that the kind of life we know today may have driven other forms extinct.

Then again, life may not have originated on Earth. Meteorites continue to fall on our planet from space, which contain complex organic molecules. Maybe life got seeded here from elsewhere in the solar system or the cosmos. The environment on Mars some 3-4 billion years ago was warm and wet. Maybe life arose there and traveled on a rocky space ship to Earth. We have fund several meteorites on the Antarctic snow that we know did come from Mars (due to their unique Martian composition), and some of their interiors appear to have had primitive life forms embedded in them.

As I wrote above, the more scientists learn about the origin of life, the more complex that beginning seems to have been. It may not be long before we've deciphered the story, however.

Republican Rout In 2022?

In a previous post I addressed societal illnesses in the US that promote out-of-control gun violence. There are numerous other problems we have, such as voting restrictions, control of government by moneyed interests, economic inequality, racism, extreme right-wing violent actions, poor public education, etc. Neither party—Democrats nor Republicans—has done much to deal with these problems, but it's safe to say that the Republican Party deserves far more blame for the sad state of affairs in this country.

Republicans have fought gun control, promoted fossil fuel damage to our environment, opened the door to our government being controlled by the rich, cut taxes that have thrust many people into poverty and decimated our infrastructure, interfered with the ability of our schools to adequately educate our children, gerrymandered and distorted state elections—so that many minority citizens struggle to be able to vote, created a hostile atmosphere in government, unethically skewed the US Supreme Court so that six of nine justices possess extreme views that are out of touch with the desires of citizens, and much more.

It remains a mystery to me why Republicans have been successful at degrading American democracy as much as they have. On most of the issues listed above, they are very much out of touch with the desires and needs of most of the country's citizens. They force agendas that the majority of Americans do not support. It is a measure of how US democracy has been damaged. By definition, a democracy is a system of government that provides for the needs and welfare of its citizens through their participation. If the government ignores or overrides the needs of the people, it's not a democracy.

Evidence suggests that the Republican Party seriously began its assault on the American government after Ronald Reagan was elected president in 1980. His predecessor Jimmy Carter spoke to citizens in 1979—declaring that the country faced many critical problems. It was dubbed his “malaise speech,” in which he stated that in the future the country faced deeper and more damaging problems than those being struggled with at the time; such as long lines as gas stations, energy shortages, or rampant inflation. He described a “fundamental threat to American democracy,” that was surfacing as a crisis of confidence in the “growing doubt about the meaning of our own lives and in the loss of a unity of purpose for our nation.” We had become a people that valued “owning things and consuming things.” He said that the federal government had become “isolated from the mainstream of our nation's life.” He stated that we must first “face the truth, and then we can change our course.” He went on to request that Americans must relinquish their current wasteful habits and conserve energy by cutting back on car trips, obeying a reduced speed limit, and setting their thermostats lower.

A little over a year later Carter lost his reelection to Ronald Reagan, who campaigned on the slogan “It's morning in America.” Reagan painted a very different picture from Carter—in which he claimed that Americans were embarking on a rosy future and there was no need to trim our appetites at all. It was a comforting message. People preferred Reagan’s slogan to Carter's admonition to face the truth, which was perceived a “fundamental threat to American democracy.” And over the 40 years since we have continued our reckless way, as the Republican Party has continued to push an agenda that denies climate crisis and has brought our democracy to a weakened state.

The party has gone so far that it ignores the will of the majority of citizens. We are in enough of a mess that Republican candidates for political office in November should be routed, but many prognosticators predict that the Republicans will take control of both the Senate and the House of Representatives. It is amazing how one party has derailed democracy and sold lies to Americans. If they are not routed in November, our future will look more like a strong-arm dictatorship than a democracy.

Elysian Eden

There are many stories of how ancient people once lived an idyllic existence in some sylvan setting, where life was peaceful, plentiful, and pleasant. Ahh... there's nothing like nostalgia for the good old days! The Judeo-Christian myth along this line is about our once residing in the pleasures of the Garden of Eden, before we were evicted by the almighty landlord. 

I have written before that there may well have been a historical setting for this garden of plenty: the Fertile Crescent of the Middle East. Once upon a time—several thousand year ago—the area was green and fecund and provided the people with plentiful sustenance, but the garden became over-farmed, the soil became barren and the area was transformed into a desert. We weren't expelled from the garden—we trashed it and then moved on.

There are somewhat similar Elysian stories about what happens after we die—that the glories of heaven await the faithful, who will bask forever in its splendor. It would be sort of like going back to the Garden of Eden in spirit—after having endured this vexatious mortal existence.

The dualistic perspective of the Abrahamic peoples posits an exact opposite of heaven as a place of eternal residence: hell. You've got only two conflicting and exclusive permanent destines: paradise or perdition.

What I find interesting is that human descriptions of hell are far more detailed than heaven. Every religion seems to possess a meticulous account of hell—a dismal, tortuous place where torment is everlasting. For example, Dante's The Divine Comedy is an epic 13^th century poem describing an anguishing journey through the underworld. In contrast, heaven has only superficially been sketched by humans... streets of gold, the faithful reposing on clouds, or enjoying divine music, etc.

Why do humans put so much more attention to hell than heaven? I think it's possible that the story tellers (usually priests) wanted to frighten people into being good. Humans are very prone to wandering off the path of goodness and into the ditches of depravity. Most priests have found that, rather than paint heavenly scenes, the stronger prod is to scare the hell out of them.

If you think for a bit about heaven, however, doesn't it sound quite boring? If I were to laze around forever on cushy clouds, listen perpetually to any kind of music, or smile until my face cracked, I'd soon go berserk. What's more, it's the vicissitudes of life that really make it interesting. When things get too effortless, we become flabby and feeble. I would not want to go to the mythical heaven. Let me face affliction here and now, and be able to grow from it.

At the end of the day I don't fret over going to hell or look forward to heaven. I don't believe they really exist as our stories describe. It's our choice to live in heaven or hell (or a mixture), right here in this precious life. I think it makes more sense to put my attention to the here and now.

Phlox

 Wild phlox blooms. Click to enlarge.

Too Many Murders—Part 2

What is going on here? Why can't we Americans take any definitive action to curb the bloodshed? I believe it's definitely not an issue that can be dealt with by gun control laws. As soon as the topic of gun laws comes up, the opposing, polarized sides face off, entrench, and any chance of collaborating to stop the slaughter is stymied. Americans are unwilling to face the truth that our gun violence has roots so deep that passing a few restrictive laws will have little effect. Those who favor guns will simply chip away at the edges of the laws, in order to enfeeble them. That is what has happened in the abortion issue.

America's gun problem that leads to these mass murders can be viewed primarily as a failure of our society. It's not a single bad apple shooting people up or a mentally ill kid that leads to these deaths—it is literally a mentally-ill society that promotes the slaughter. We may ask how did that kid reach that state of mind, or why his parents seemed to be ignorant of his plans, or why was the school not made into an impenetrable fortress? These are shallow questions that miss the deeper truths: our conflictual society created that kid; it created ineffectual parents; it created a gun culture that is out of control. 

Until we face the truth that our society is fundamentally unhealthy, no amount of tweaking laws that nibble at the edge of symptoms will solve anything. We are not yet ready to admit the depth and breadth of our sickness—let alone conceive of the fundamental societal transformation that is required to make significant change.

A healthy society can make several basic changes to discourage this and other kinds of violence. By this I mean to imply that our societal violence is far wider than people killing each other with guns; it also encompasses racist violence, economic violence in the form of gross inequality, poor education, voting suppression, etc. In contrast, a healthy society possesses (1) a functional democracy, (2) a citizenry nurtured to be robust in mind and body, (3) free and effective education, (4) safety and security, and (5) equality, and other nurturing processes. The US falls far short in all of these areas.

I am not able to offer a simple, expeditious solution to our gun fetish—or these other problems of our society. The problem is complex and deep—the solutions are thus comprehensive and profound. Legislation cannot do it, as long as we are so divided and lack an effective democracy. We need to admit our problems and seek fundamental changes that will begin to offer some of the features of a healthy society listed above. Like an alcoholic who is in denial, however, we are not yet ready to change.

Too Many Murders—Part 1

I ordinarily avoid posting about current events or breaking news in society—preferring to stick to the natural world and to philosophical topics. There already is far too much dispute over society's problems, as people scream at each other over the yawning gap that separates them. Social media add their angry insults to the mix, while mainstream media offer their well-worn and cliched comments. Yet nothing changes.

I shy away from addressing current events—especially when they are tragic—because our first response to them is often knee-jerk and superficial in nature. It's easy to respond with an overly-emotional thought that one later regrets having had. In this posting and the next, however, I will express some thoughts about two recent examples of ongoing crises in US culture—thoughts that I have been pondering for a long time. The fact that these calamities are repetitive phenomena that have been recurring for decades sets them aside from current events or late-breaking news. They are concerns that many of us Americans have agonized over for several years—wondering if our country may finally have had enough travesty and will ultimately rise up to do something about it. The first crisis I will address here is gun violence. The following post will look at the harm that the Republican Party has inflicted on the country, for some four decades now.

Gun violence: let me first try to put this crisis into context, to understand it as a deep, chronic problem in the US. Viewed from the perspective of every other relatively stable society on Earth, the frequency of deaths by guns in America is astonishingly high, as is the number of guns in circulation. The recent elementary school massacre in Texas is the latest painful reminder of the legacy of American gun culture. 

It is worth noting, however, that the vast majority of gun deaths in the US are not due to someone entering a school with an assault rifle and committing mass murder, but are due to single killings and suicides with pistols. Nevertheless, every time a massacre occurs, it is usually perpetrated against harmless people and catches the attention of the whole nation and creates grief and anger among most people. The slaughters seems to be endless.

The outpouring of sorrow after a massacre is typically immediately followed by outrage that yet another mass murder of innocents has occurred, along with demands that something be done about it. New gun laws are called for, but the powerful coalitions that created the culture of guns quickly stifle any efforts to confront gun violence, as the nation settles back into other distractions—until the next massacre.

Some people push for stricter gun laws, while the opposite view promotes increased gun ownership in order to combat the shootings. Some point to the widespread gun culture and lack of controls, while others blame a massacre on a lone individual, an isolated bad apple, and even call for more guns to stop the killings. Some push for restrictive laws, while others block any such action. Decade after decade goes by, while the gun lobby prevents any meaningful legislation, and the mass killings (as well as individual deaths) continue, and even escalate.

Next time, part 2

Philosophy/Science Contrasts

I've written several blogs on the contrasts between science and philosophy. Having been educated in science and having pursued a career in it, I find it to be more understandable than philosophy. My logical scientific mind has often struggled to comprehend the imprecise nature of philosophical reasoning and debate.

Long after retirement, I have drifted away from science's demands for exactness and increasingly into philosophy's realm of fuzziness. I have come to appreciate philosophy and its search for knowledge. I have come to understand that science and philosophy really have very similar goals—as seen by their similar etymological roots. The word science stems from the Latin word scientia, which means “to know.” The word philosophy stems from the Greek word philosophia, which means “love of wisdom.” So they both are about knowledge, learning, logic, understanding, and truth.

I believe that there are, however, several distinct differences between science and philosophy—differences that sometimes can be very significant, especially in the manner in which adherents of each discipline pursue knowledge; in fact, differences that even can create antagonisms between them. A few of these disparities have spoken to me in recent years, as I've come to be more comfortable with the philosophical approach to gaining insight and wisdom. Here are five differences—not a complete list by any means, but the salient ones that I've encountered.

First, while science is precise, philosophy tends to be indistinct and often inexact. While science is quantitative, philosophy is qualitative. Scientists want repeatability and they use procedures that many others can follow, importantly to obtain the same results. A scientific theory does not become widely accepted until many different scientists follow comparable paths and come to the same conclusions. Philosophers, however, often take very different paths, come to different conclusions, and vehemently disagree with each other. They love to engage in seemingly endless disputes.

Second, science deals with “what is,” while philosophy often considers “what ought to be.” Morality often is a central part of philosophy, while science is amoral—though not at all immoral. Science studies Nature, which just is. So being right or wrong in a moral sense is irrelevant.

Third, science is structured such that, step by step, researchers relentlessly close in on a definitive answer. It often is a cooperative effort, as scientific teams work in concert to merge to a solution. Although philosophers also seek solutions, they often work individually and think in very different ways from each other, so they will sometimes come to a conclusion that is viewed as essentially false by fellow philosophers. Hence, the source of endless debates.

Fourth, while science addresses the whole cosmos—thus we have countless scientific disciplines—philosophy is focused on the human mind. To science the human mind is but the tiniest sliver of its domain. This is a primary reason why philosophy tends to be so subjective: it's the human mind studying the human mind. It's bound to be a bit parochial, opinionated, and even prejudiced.

Fifth, while science relentlessly progresses over time—gradually seeking answers and building its knowledge base—philosophy seems to be wrestling with the same questions today that it faced two to three millennia ago. Has philosophy not progressed as much? Do the questions posed by philosophers have no definitive answers? Are the questions so complex and vague that conclusive answers may never come? Are philosophers asking unanswerable questions?

There's a little truth in all these questions, but I suspect there's another possibility why philosophers continue to ponder many of the same questions, century after century. I think that a major factor of philosophy's apparent sluggishness is due to that unique quality it has: its attention to morality. Philosophers—like prophets—often offer messages to the masses that the people do not want to hear. Uncomfortable truths—like scientists’ global-warming message—can be clearly laid out, but people (especially political leaders) often refuse to listen. Thus, while humanity could progress and change for the better, the cost is often regarded as too high to pay. We'd rather bask in our existing laziness, than put hard work into positive and necessary change. 

A philosopher once said that philosophy is “the right way to think about things.” In that statement right there we can see a big contrast between science and philosophy: science doesn't give a hoot if our thinking is the right way or not—its truths are independent of the human mind's rightness of thinking.

Deer Directions

     Nearly four decades ago we migrated from a city life, to take up an existence in a rural setting. We acquired a parcel of land that was forested and cut a few trees, in order to make a clearing, where we built a home and planted various kinds of vegetation—a vegetable garden, some fruit trees, shrubs, and flowers.

    Most of these tasty and attractive plants were not indigenous to our new rural environs. In contrast, nature offers little in the way of edible food for humans, or showy blossoms. In our naïveté we chose plantings that we had liked in the city, without realizing that we'd be offering critters in the woods various new and delightful repasts. Numerous insects, rodents, and mammals were happy to see us move in and plant so many goodies for them. They had been subsisting on Nature's bland diet and were delighted to sample and savor our delectables.

What ensued was a few decades of either learning how to fend off the interlopers or realizing that several choices we had made were simply not going to survive their onslaughts. One crucial sanctuary we insisted on, however, was the vegetable garden. Its produce was critical to our way of life, so we built a sturdy, high fence around the vegetable garden, to ward off the larger critters (deer, foxes, opossums, rabbits) and learned how to allow some insects to partake of a modest portion of the veggies, but drew the line on the amount that they took. Since we chose not to use insecticides, this meant we had to find ways to discourage them by using companion plantings and frequent rotation of garden plants. My wife became adept at figuring out when a pest was just beginning its assault, and then hand picking and squishing the early invaders. Like the early bird, she nabbed the worms before they multiplied.

Plants outside the protection of  the garden fence were quite another issue. We could not fence the whole area, so we battled the invaders by attempting to select flowers, shrubs, and trees that we thought did not appeal to their appetite. By far the greatest problem invader has been deer. Once they discover your tasty plants, you have acquired them as permanent raiders. You may put out alarms or spray your plants with deer repellent, but these tenacious, hoofed plant grazers will sooner or later foil all your defenses and dine on your delectables. They drive our choices. 

I recently paused to gaze around our clearing—which is fabulously beautiful in the spring—and it occurred to me that most all of the plants I gazed upon have been selected over the years to be unappealing to deer tastes. They are not the choices of flowers, shrubs, and trees I began with—those are all gone. No, the choices of plants in today’s clearing have been literally directed by the deer. In fact, they seem to have been more in charge of landscaping selections than I. They've patiently guided me.

Contemplating Critters

     I recently took an online course in animal behavior from a Dutch university. As part of the lessons, we were asked to develop our observing skills by spending at least 10 minutes watching an animal. We were encouraged to take notes and to be as detailed as possible. I pondered how I might take on this assignment, given that many of my local animals would be very unlikely to stay in one spot for that long. I also felt that if I got too close to a critter, my presence would alter its behavior, and thus my observations may not be representative of it or its species.

        I love to watch birds at the feeder—which gets lots of avian traffic, but rather than stick around, each bird flits in, grabs a seed, and flies off. There's no chance of watching it for more than a few seconds. I could possibly watch a specific bird over several minutes, as it repeatedly returns to the feeder, but I can't tell one individual bird from another, so I might be seeing several different individuals.

So that brings up a question: If I were able to watch one critter for 10 minutes and wrote down my observations, how indicative of the species' behavior would that individual be? Maybe instead I could learn something about bird behavior by watching many different species of birds come to the feeder. That's one of my favorite activities anyway.  So maybe I could learn as much about animal behavior by contemplating groups of them, rather than just one.

Well, I've done this for several years now and have noted the varying behaviors of a number of different species. For instance, chickadees and titmice fly in, grab a seed, and fly to a perch, where they lodge the seed between their feet, and then bang away, breaking through the shell for the meat inside. A dove will sit at the feeder, downing one whole seed after another. A finch will pick up a seed and crack it with its powerful bill, and pick out the meat with its deft tongue. A Carolina wren will squat in the middle of the feeder, fastidiously poke at one seed or another, tossing away all but the fattest ones.

These observations have shown me over years how one species of bird behavior at the feeder differs from another species. But even within one species I see differences. For example, that goldfinch there was behaving much more aggressively than the others. That cardinal seems uncertain and slower than the others. That chickadee was far more meek than the others. That titmouse just challenged and chased off a wren, when most of the other titmice wouldn't have dared.

So what do I think about these individual differences I see? Which behaviors are species-specific and which are just the peculiar behavior of that individual bird? Like most of my observations of nature, I soon see a far more complex picture than at first. I guess I've no alternative but to put in a few more years of observation time.

Dreading Death

        Humans have been fascinated with and fearful of death for most of our existence. We are likely the only creature to be aware of the fact that the day will come when each of us dies, and so our inquiring mind ponders that fact and creates beliefs and stories of what might follow death. We are caught up in the effort to stay alive (as all animals are) and have a natural instinct to ward off our death. Throughout history people have dreamed of immortality as a way of cheating death. Our dread of dying has compelled humans to conjure up various stories of the afterlife. We don't want to believe that our existence simply ends, so we fashion beliefs of the hereafter.

        Eastern cultures have often dealt with the problem by conceiving of reincarnation, by which our soul inhabits a new body after death; thus, we do not face absolute termination. Western cultures, in contrast, have leaned towards some kind of afterlife, where our soul resides everlastingly. These different beliefs are often tied closely with religious teachings, in which some form of deity is in charge of our destiny.

The ancient Greeks were convinced that their lives—and deaths—were controlled by a pantheon of gods, who were very interested in humans. The gods played a major role in the fortunes and misfortunes of the Greeks—either favoring an individual or group, or choosing to harass them. Much of their lives were consumed by fretting over being punished by a god or rejoicing when being rewarded. Since the gods were capricious, it kept the Greeks off balance—never quite sure whether they'd be curse or blessed. The gods were also competitive with and jealous of each other, so you had to be careful not to piss off one god, as you curried favor with another.

This fear of the gods led the ancient Greeks to view the afterlife as a grim place—a place where one may be condemned to spend eternity in torment and suffering. There was a way to eventually inhabit a heaven-like existence, but most souls never got there, as the underworld gods seemed bent on abusing them. Thus, the lives of the Greeks were tainted by their dread of death.

One school of Greek philosophy, headed by Epicurus, took a very different stance on death. Epicurus maintained that it was foolish to experience so much anxiety and mental pain that arise from the fear of death and of the gods. He asserted that the gods were really not interested in the petty details of humans’ lives. He was, in fact, skeptical about even the existence of the gods. Regardless of whether the gods were real or not, he counseled that our life is largely under the control of each of us, and not the fickle whims of the immortals.

Thus, Epicurus maintained, if the gods do not interfere in our lives, they also would play no role in any kind of afterlife. Again, they have their own interests. Again, regardless of whether they exist or not, our life is our own responsibility... ours to make the most of, or waste. In other words, don’t blame your misfortunes on the gods. You are in control.

Furthermore, the fear of death robs us of the chance to make the most of our lives. The fear (or adulation) of the gods keeps us from fully maturing and taking charge of our lives. We are not puppets, but agents of our own destiny.

Epicurus did not come down firmly on the side of saying either the gods exist or do not, so he was not a card-carrying atheist. Rather, he said that it really didn't matter. If one lived a moral and frugal life, it would be one full of meaning and fulfillment. He also was ambivalent about the afterlife; again saying it doesn't really matter, since if you live the moral life, what happens after death—if anything—will be fine.

I find it fascinating that the human fear of death has led us to formulate stories about the afterlife—but these stories are overwhelmingly about hell, rather than heaven. The ancient Greeks constructed elaborate tales of what condemnation of the soul was like, after death. Dante's The Divine Comedy is a lengthy description of the soul's journey through hell. Why do we not have as thorough a description of what heaven is like? Is it because we are obsessed with death and dread finding our soul being subjected to everlasting torment? Fear seems to guide our lives far more than hopefulness.

Socratic Midwifery

 One of the ancient Greek philosophers that I have learned a lot from is Socrates. I know that my leanings toward him are due to some extent to the fact that I identify with his lifestyle: living simply and listening, rather than lecturing. He was very critical of the Sophists, who he regarded as pompous orators, because they used rhetorical methods to persuade their listeners to their way of thinking. Socrates was adamant that he was not wise and was not interested in impressing anyone with his erudition. Instead, his skill was to question his interlocutors—using Socratic dialog—to draw from them their innate insights. He helped them to realize truths that they then owned, rather than force upon them his knowledge.

In a dialog with a young man named Theaetetus, Socrates one day explained why he used this form of dialog. Theaetetus was complaining about how difficult it was to learn this way. It made his head hurt. Socrates replied that this was an appropriate sensation, because his student was feeling the pangs of labor, as something within his head was trying to be born.

He told his student that he is like a midwife. His dialog may indeed be driving his interlocutors to their wits' end, because he is helping them birth understanding. While midwives attend to the bodies of their patients, he is attending to their souls. Just as the most accomplished midwives were once mothers themselves, because their own experiences of giving birth helped them to empathize with a mother in labor, Socrates, as an old man, had the experience to understand the struggles of his students.

He explained that his goal was to assure them that what comes from the minds of the youths he dialogs with is true and not false notions. In fact, Socrates claimed that the gods compelled him to birth ideas, rather than teach. No, he did not deem himself wise—just one who births wisdom from others. Thus, the gods allowed his students to astound themselves, through Socrates' birthing dialogs; they did not learn from Socrates, but from themselves.

So the Socratic midwifery process is intended to be painful—just as childbirth comes with pain. He might well have been the first teacher to tell his students, “No pain, no gain.” (I doubt that rhymes as well in ancient Greek.)

Clearwing moth on rhododendron blossom

 Click to enlarge

Judging Generosity

Generosity is a quality that most everyone would agree is a noble practice, but agreement quickly gets derailed when we discuss things like (1) What motivates one to be generous? (2) Of the various ways that one could be benevolent in a specific situation, which demonstrates the real spirit of generosity? (3) Should there be a cost to generosity; should it require some kind of self-sacrifice? (4) What is an appropriate aftermath of giving—for both the giver and the receiver? (5) Can we measure generosity? (6) Is it innate or learned?

I recently took an online course on generosity from the University of Pennsylvania, wherein these and many more questions were raised and examined by professors who have taught the subject for many years. I will attempt to offer a few of their insights on the topic.

First, let's consider the definition of generosity, so we can begin looking at the issue from the same perspective. My dictionary defines it as “the act of giving more of something such as money or time than is strictly necessary or expected.” Some definitions go on to insist that the receiver of the generous act must actually benefit from it. I believe this last point is a crucial addition, because it requires that the giver put some effort into ensuring that their act is really needed and will improve the lot of the receiver—not just make them feel self-righteous. 

We often respond to a solicitation for a donation from organizations that seek funds in ways that are often adept at pulling on our heart strings; making it easy to give, without much of any assurance that our donations will actually provide what is needed. For example, jillions of tee shirts are often donated to groups in Africa, when people there have other crucial needs and already have too many tee shirts.

So, what constitutes a generous act? The above dictionary definition suggests generosity as the giving of time or money. However, are there not other forms of generosity? Can giving one's attention be an act of generosity? Can a simple smile be an example of generosity?

Another important factor is one's intention or motivation, when acting generously. Why does one's motivation matter? If your sincere intention was to do good, does it matter if its impact fell short of helping the receiver? And to whom does it matter... the giver or the receiver? When we give, how much of our motivation is due to our wanting to feel better about ourself? We often get a “warm glow” from being generous. How important is that to us? Does the size of my gift (whether measured in money or time) matter, or is the spirit of giving (or the sacrifice to me) the key? The Bible reports that Jesus valued a penny's donation from a poor widow far more than large donations from rich people.

And then there's the manner in which one gives. Do I expect or want something in return... if even only some form of appreciation or a thank you? Do I want others to know that I am giving? Do I wish my name to be listed as a donor someplace, or to get a free tote bag for my donation? Do I expect or want a tax incentive for my donations? Do I require an appeal to prompt me to donate, or am I self-motivated to do so? Should I try to control the use of my gift—such as give food to a homeless person, rather than money?

One of the interesting findings of the researchers who presented this course was that religious people give significantly more time and money than nonreligious people. Moreover, religious people who also regularly attend services are the most generous. It was suggested that there are several reasons why this is so: (1) generosity is a core tenet of all religions, (2) one is often encouraged by religious leaders to give, (3) one's religious peers also encourage, as well as model generosity, and (4) the belief that what we have in this world is given to us by God and is not ours, so be generous with it.

The last point above can be expanded upon, as the thought that, if we are among the more fortunate people, don’t we have a duty to use our skills and advantages to help others less fortunate? The point is that we don't really own our talents and strengths; they are not entirely of our making—they are a gift to us. Instead, we are shepherding them, and we are obliged to pass the gift on.

I find it interesting that a significant factor in religious people's generosity is the frequent reminders they get from their peers and leaders. I wonder if this is why I get so many repeated pleas in the mail for donations—indicating that those organizations know that if they are persistent in their requests (or offer a cute tote bag or tax deduction), they are more likely to get a response? To what degree do we need the push, or can we be self-motivated? Again, is generosity innate or learned?

Probing Polarization

Polarization is quite possibly the greatest problem facing American society today—as well as many other countries in the world. For various reasons, polarization has grown worse in recent years, to the point that it has extinguished most of what little common ground society once had. We have retreated into our isolated silos and enclaves, as we have come to view those in other silos as enemies, and refuse to listen to them or grant any validity to their beliefs. We engage in cultural wars that aim to utterly defeat the other—giving no quarter. Society seems to have descended into a zero-sum game, wherein one side triumphs while the other is thoroughly vanquished.

Years ago I was involved in conducting various types of nonviolence trainings. The core of the concept—when two parties find themselves locked in conflict—was to seek some common ground, come together on that ground, and then gradually build a cooperative framework to move forward together, for the common good. Those trainings were predicated on the willingness of conflicting parties to engage with each other, in order to work on a community problem that both agreed needed to be resolved—as well as to collaborate in a search for that common ground.

The extreme kind of polarization that permeates society today, however, prevents either side from even considering coming together—except to confront each other. They either do this while screaming at each other over social media, or while being filmed by media, as individuals get in each others' face, engaging in a shouting match. Psychological research has shown that, under these circumstances, each party simply hardens their perspective, with the tragic result that the gap is widened. The parties walk away from these clashes with even more deeply entrenched beliefs, and any possible common ground increasingly vanishes. The level of distrust of and alienation of the other side simply heightens.

Polarization was once confined mostly to the political arena. It has spread, however, and is spilling over into a number of other areas, such as personal relationships, medical advice, hiring decisions, vaccines, etc. As an example of the deleterious impact of polarization on society, progress is hindered on such critical problems as climate change, inequality, and immigration. The two warring sides cannot even agree on what the problem is, let alone find common ground to deal with it.

So, is there any hope for achieving progress on dealing with these issues? Psychological research also shows that there indeed may be a way: polarization can be decreased through what is termed  “mechanistic reasoning.” Very often people conveniently latch onto a viewpoint either because it's simplistic or because they wish to feel a part of a group that holds that viewpoint. We can be lazy... rather than logically arriving at our own thought-out perspective, we grab an easy explanation of something or adopt the perspective put forth by a group ensconced in a specific silo. We cannot really understand the issue this way, but we become convinced that we're right, because the group fervently believes so. When challenged, our certainty just hardens.

That certainty hides the fact that, because our grasp on the issue is shallow, we often don't really understand how it works. Furthermore, false confidence allows us to ignore alternative perspectives or ideas. For example, we may readily attribute the lack of governmental effectiveness in dealing with immigration to one simple factor or another. Those on each side of the issue will seize upon a shallow explanation that fits their preconceived perspective. They then engage in vehement battles based upon those simplistic explanations. Neither side fully understands the complexity of the problem.

Research shows that false confidence can be decreased through a remarkably simple process: ask the person to explain the details of how it works—not their reasons for their belief, but how it works. Ask them to explain how they arrived at their belief by detailing and explaining the issue. What often happens is when they try, they come to understand that they understand less than they thought. And when they can't explain how it works, their certainty decreases and they become less extreme in their view.

A simple example of this idea—from a mechanistic perspective—is that most people think they understand how a bicycle or a refrigerator works. Ask someone to explain the mechanics of a bike or fridge, however, and they often quickly see that they really cannot offer a mechanistic description. Their mind may then become open to learn more about the subject and to change their attitude. When we come to accept the fact that we can't know it all, we can admit to a little humility and begin to listen to others. We may even discover we do have some common ground.

Surveillance from Space?—Part 2

I often think how much more technologically advanced in space humanity could be, had we not invested so much time and energy on warfare. The US space program, for example, consumes a tiny fraction of the money that the military receives. I find it frustrating that Americans often criticize the space budget as being exorbitant, while quietly accepting the enormous amount of money expended on weapons and the military. 

NASA has achieved many impressive feats in space. Some of them have attracted lots of public attention, such as planting human footprints on the Moon, but the more meaningful (and less popular) accomplishments have been in the space science realm—the tremendous telescopes (like Hubble and now the James Webb scope), the geological surveys of Mars, and the lengthy missions to Jupiter and Saturn and their moons. These NASA programs have given us invaluable information about our solar system and outer space—that will inform and allow future space flight and the ongoing understanding of our cosmos.

But these peace-time space science missions of humans are far less interesting and sexy for citizens. How many movies can you remember about the boring aspects of space science? How many news articles have you read about peace-making activities? In contrast, have there not been a plethora of violent movies on space? Think Star Wars or Independence Day. Do the media not feature many articles about human activities on the International Space Station, while they ignore the complex—if not mundane—scientific experiments done there?

When we read about UFOs or advanced outer-space civilizations, it is easy to become fearful that we may be threatened by these advanced societies. Maybe this is an inappropriate response. If we could manage to eliminate our aggression towards each other, maybe we could be allowed to join the Intergalactic Union. Maybe they are waiting to see if we awaken to the truth and discard our war-like behavior.

Surveillance From Space?—Part 1

In two recent blogs I very briefly summarized the history of UFOs—noting that, after all the decades of investigations by the US government, most (about 95%) sightings can be explained by natural phenomena or human aerial activities. There is, however, a small proportion (about 5%) of sightings that cannot be explained, so have a credible possibility of having at least an unknown or even an extraterrestrial or outer-space origin. 

I choose the term “extraterrestrial,” here, in order to indicate that, in the government’s opinion, these sightings do not seem to point to any technology likely to have yet been developed on Earth. That finding could possibly point toward outer-space visitors. Moreover, that possibility is also what readily occurs to us humans—given our long history of speculating that life may have originated elsewhere. Many books and stories have been spawned by this notion.

So in this posting I will consider some of the features that might be associated with visitors from space—without necessarily attributing the currently unexplained UFO sightings to alien visitors. My intent is to step back, suppose that life did arise elsewhere, that that life did achieve a technological proficiency allowing space travel, and has decided to visit Earth. 

One conundrum that I described in my previous posting on UFOs is that, thus far, there is no irrefutable evidence of other-worldly visitors in the way of either a clean photograph, a chunk from an alien space ship, or a piece of their trash. That lack of solid verification causes many skeptics to doubt we have been visited. A similar conundrum exists in the field of the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI): despite decades of searching space for the potential existence of aliens, no signals have yet been detected. It raises the question: If they're out there (or have come here), why have we not yet irrefutably detected them? These are vexing questions.

So, let's suppose that we might have been, or soon will be visited by alien space visitors. What might we assume about them, or what questions might come to mind about them?

1. Their technology has to be much more advanced than ours, just to have been able to traverse the vast distances.
2. Why have they not made contact? Why are they seemingly hiding from us?
3. Do they have some sort of Prime Directive—as posited on Star Trek—whereby they have a strict prohibition on interfering with the evolution of inferior or developing species? The Star Trek version is intended to avoid disturbance of an alien species' natural development.
4. Could it be that what we are detecting is not craft with outer-space beings aboard, but are robotic missions, or even some sort of holographic projection? Unless advanced civilizations have found a way to exceed the speed of light (extremely unlikely, if the cosmos behaves as we think it does), space travel between star systems would require hundreds of thousands of years, so sending live beings aboard a spacecraft would require an enormous amount of food and other life support systems to haul along.
5. Might the visitors simply wish to observe us and to avoid contact? This possibility differs from the Prime Directive proposal (#3), in that technologically-advanced species have likely long ago solved the issue of aggression and war, in order to survive—if they ever had it. They may be shocked at how the human species mistreats itself and its environment and have decided to keep their distance, until we either do ourselves in or grow up and figure out how to get along and behave.

I'd like to think that this last point is what may be the most likely option. If those UFOs do happen to be from outer space and their technology is so superior, we would be no match for them, if they decided to attack. But might that possibility be just a projection of our violent tendencies onto them? Why should they be like us? Maybe they are peaceful  beings and are just waiting to see how we develop. After all, if they’ve invested all that time for space travel, they could afford to wait.

Wild and Wooly Weeds

Prior to about 12,000 years ago we humans had lived lives of hunter-gatherers for some 200,000 years. We roamed the land, selecting what food and shelter Nature offered. We gathered and hunted the provisions we needed. Like most animals, we lived light on the land. Our numbers were few and we moved to new territories, when natural resources became scarce. Mother Nature was in the driver's seat—not us.

The accepted story of human development is that we transitioned very gradually from hunter-gatherers, by first playing a minor role as horticulturists, in the sense of coming to realize that we could encourage plants that we found useful to us, and discourage problematic plants (weeds). The major transition in our culture, however, occurred when we shifted from horticulturalists to farming, about 12,000 years ago—establishing full-fledged agriculture. There is a fine line between cultivation and agriculture... both involve planning, planting, tending, and harvesting. I think an important distinction between them is that cultivation entails working with and encouraging crops, while agriculture is more about controlling Nature.

Thus, authority and power were the role increasingly taken on by humans. That story is being challenged by recent research, which pushes our transition to agriculture at least another ten thousand years or so earlier. One of the most recent findings suggesting that we took up agriculture much earlier comes from archaeological research in Israel, which dates farming to about 23,000 years ago in the Levant. Dating techniques get ever more accurate and increasingly sophisticated analytical techniques are also yielding fascinating results. For example microanalysis of teeth plaque of skeletons reveals their eating habits; chemical analysis of fossilized poop adds to the picture; and soil analysis further broadens our understanding.

What I found captivating about this 23,000-year-old Israeli site analysis is that the researchers found that the same weeds species which plagued farmers back then are still flourishing today in gardens and fields in Israel. Many of the vegetables grown back then are no longer around—having been replaced by newer breeds—but the ancient weeds persist. (In a similar manner, Nature's insects that we consider to be pests persist.) Despite our dislike, Nature assigns a crucial task to weeds: to quickly establish themselves in disturbed soils, so as to curtail erosion. Thus we are being rather self-centered when we condemn weeds as being worthless.

It’s very interesting that Israel's farmers are today fighting battles against the same weeds their deep ancestors did. I can relate to that. Nearly four decades ago we took up residence in a very rural, wooded area in Virginia. We cleared some trees to build a house and plant a garden. Immediately thereafter, new kinds of weeds (that don't grow in the forest) found a haven in our garden. New kinds of insects (that don't grow in the forest) found our luscious vegetables. We have been fending off these weeds and bugs ever since.

I am sure that thousands of years after I’m gone, many of these same weeds and insects will continue to thrive, despite what farmers do to try to control them. They will persist, as long as future farmers continue to offer them good pickings. 

AI Oinks

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is being employed in increasingly widening applications these days—often when an enormous amount of data needs to be sifted and analyzed. AI uses machine learning algorithms to program computers, which then teach themselves how to make sense of all the reams of information.

Now comes yet another (barnyard) use of AI, from researchers at the University of  Copenhagen, in Denmark, who have been studying how to decipher the various sounds emitted by pigs. The researchers do this in order to understand the animals’ feelings and emotions. 

We humans take pride in knowing that our language is more complex than any other creature, yet we do not have the last word in communications. Other critters may not possess the ability to emit the intricate sounds we do, but they do very well in communicating, as they often supplement sounds with visual clues, smells, and even taste. For example, trees possess a multi-faceted and sophisticated means of transferring information to each other through chemicals emitted and received through leaves and roots.

Our porcine friends also use various senses other than hearing (such as sight and smell) for sending their messages, but the Danish study focused just on their sounds—oinks, sniffles, grunts, and squeals. Pigs' behaviors were observed, as sound recordings were made. The goal was to relate their emotions to their grunts. The pigs were observed both on the farm and in the laboratory. They were placed in positive circumstances to promote positive emotions—such as suckling mom, playing with their mates, being reunited with family, etc. Negative situations to induce negative emotions included fights, castration, and waiting in the abattoir. (That last one sure is negative!)

From thousands of recordings and observations of hundreds of pigs in various circumstances, the AI analysis went to work, to discern what consistent vocal messages they were relaying. In general, when pigs are in positive situations, they emit short grunts, with very little difference in amplitude. When they are stressed, they tend to call out with high-pitched squeals. (Did it take all the computing power of AI to learn that?)

The hope of the Danish researchers is to help people who work with pigs to better understand their complex oinks and grunts, both to monitor their well being and to encourage better treatment on farms. A healthier pig is a happier pig... and tastes better. When these AI studies eventually get expanded to other domestic animals, it could lead to their improved psychological well being, as well. If farmers learn to treat their animals better, maybe fewer of them would be killed for food. Wouldn't it be hard to slaughter a happy pig who was joyously oinking about the barnyard?

Extraterrestrial Expertise

Regular readers of this blog know by now that I am fascinated by the possibility of life existing on other worlds. The more science learns about the broad spectrum of life here on Earth and some of its extremes, and the more exoplanets we discover, the more likely it seems that we may not be alone in the universe; that Earth is not the sole island of life, because life is so variable and planets are so abundant. This possibility of life elsewhere has captivated humans for millennia. While it remains conjecture, astronomers have embarked upon studies in recent decades that are revealing some fascinating aspects on the issue. 

We are currently engaged in various searches of the heavens, looking for a revelatory piece of evidence that we are not alone. These studies have continually evolved, as our technology has evolved. Most of these efforts have been driven by the technology that we possessed at the time we began them. What I have found fascinating, for example, is that our SETI (search for extraterrestrial intelligence) attempts have always been based upon what we could imagine alien technology might be like at the time these projects were initiated. They later became a bit outdated, as our technology advanced; so the SETI tools were accordingly updated. 

For example, many decades ago we looked into space for telltale flashes of light. Then we imagined that alien species might be sending out electromagnetic signals—radio waves. Recently, as more and more planets have been found (we have now discovered about 5000 exoplanets), some scientists maintain that we should be looking instead for how alien civilizations have altered the atmosphere of their home planets. They may have created biosignatures of gases as we have, such as oxygen and methane. 

Thus much of our search has been based on our guesses of the nature of alien technology that we had at the time. Given that our own technology has rapidly evolved and that extraterrestrial civilizations may be unimaginably advanced—how do we know that our current search methods are even sensible?

A recent question raised by some SETI researchers suggests a different approach. Rather than look for some sort of overt communication signal, might we instead seek what are called “technosignatures?” As life on Earth has evolved, our planet's atmosphere has changed (such as the increase of oxygen and methane mentioned above). Many millions of years ago carbon dioxide was the Earth’s dominant atmospheric gas, which later gave way to oxygen, with increasing touches of methane. As global warming is currently growing, however, carbon dioxide is once again increasing. We may soon be forced to choose to engage in planetary engineering, to control climate heating, since we lack the resolve to cut back on our consumption. Might we possibly be able to observe similar kinds of changes in the atmosphere of exoplanets?

As the field of SETI advances, we will likely continue to update our searches—based upon improved estimates of the possibilities and nature of advanced alien technology. Can we imagine the paths that other civilizations may have followed? If not, we may be looking down the wrong alley and missing the truth of alien technology. It's quite possible, for example, that they long ago decided to change direction, as they realized that their technology was leading them down a destructive blind alley; as we seem to be doing. Maybe they survived by moving other options higher up on their priority list—such as placing harmony and peace above technological advances.

The Bubble Nebula

This is a NASA photo taken by the Hubble Telescope.

UFO Unknowns—Part 2

In the late 20^th century a number of credible sightings by civilian and military pilots—especially American—occurred. These were not amateurs on the ground who might be prone to lively imaginations; they were trained pilots whose onboard sensors (such as radar) indicated something more than just a blinking light in the sky. Many of these pilots were leery of reporting their experiences, because of a concern that they might be considered unreliable or even to be unstable.

Then UFO sightings again increased in the early 21^st century, for reasons unknown. The incidents by reliable pilots also increased. Pressure on the US government intensified as a number of established institutions began to demand a report. This resulted in the government releasing a report in 2021—summarizing and revealing what had been found. The report, however, was incomplete, cryptic, unscientific, confusing, and very unsatisfying. In over 70 years of investigation, the authorities had little to offer in the way of explanations.

So yet another phase of government study has recently been launched. This time qualified scientists are involved, with the intent of conducting a more sound, rigorous study. The more credible military pilot encounters will be given particularly careful attention. The UFO (or now officially named UAP, unidentified aerial phenomena) community once again stands by waiting—but this time a more open and scientific process is expected.

One consistent point has repeatedly been made throughout the modern UFO era, however: despite thousands of interesting sightings and endless speculation, there has not once been any material object found or unequivocal photo been taken. Just one piece of spacecraft or even space trash from aliens would cast a completely different  light on the subject. It would lend a credibility far beyond anything we have now.

UFO Unknowns—Part 1

The mystery of UFOs (unidentified flying objects) has been with us for millennia—ever since humans looked up in the night sky and saw strange lights. Long before we were able to fly, these sightings probably seemed more like apparitions—ghostlike or godlike in origin. It wasn't until we developed flying craft that we began to interpret these phenomena as flying objects. In fact, they did not acquire the designation UFO until well into the 20^th century.

The modern era of UFOs began in1947, when someone spotted an object in New Mexico that was described as something like a saucer skipping across the sky—giving birth to the alternative designation “flying saucer.” The late 1940s was the beginning of the Cold War between the USSR and the USA, which included a race to arm each side with nuclear weapons. Americans were fearful, if not paranoid, of the Soviets, and so were often inclined to shudder at the possibility of the enemy having developed a secret flying weapon that threatened our existence.

UFO sightings proliferated in the USA in the mid 20^th century's Cold War atmosphere. As evidence that most of these events may be traced to American fears, analysts have pointed out that the number of North American sightings dropped off dramatically, north and south of the US border. Neither Mexicans nor Canadians reported anywhere near the incidents recorded in America.

I think this factor of public perception is crucial in framing the UFO phenomenon in the US, as well as the rest of the world. A persistent question throughout these sightings is, What are they? Russian craft? Public hallucinations? Extraterrestrial visitors? Weather balloons? Natural aerial events? Airplanes? Planets? (Venus has caused many reports.)

In fact, some 95% of incidents have been shown to be explained, not by human or alien craft, but due to some of the other causes listed above. There is no reason, for example, why UFOs should cluster around the USA—regardless of their origin. Fears and insecurities can play a major role in people’s reactions and imaginations.

Due to the concerns that these reports might possibly be caused by Soviet technological advances, the response of the US government in the early UFO days was assigned to the military. The investigations were held behind secretive doors, which fed public rumor that the truth was being suppressed. Conspiracies bloomed: a UFO had crashed in the American desert and the incident was being covered up by the military. The controversy simmered along, for the remainder of the 20^th century.

Many analyses were conducted, and the vast majority (that 95%) were shown to be explained by natural events and human craft. But the unresolved 5% continued to cause legitimate concern. Because the study of UFOs was being conducted by the US military, rather than a systematic scientific investigation, little progress was made. The US military established several programs in the last half of the 20^th century—each one with a different perspective. Each one was headed by a military officer who had his own biased slant on the issue. One program after another concluded its study with a different opinion, and none of them shed any light on the issue—let alone informed the public of its findings. The public was free to speculate about the truth of UFOs, in the absence of government candor on the issue.

Culture's Characteristics

In today's globe-trotting world we have become increasingly aware of the planet’s wide variety of cultures. Anthropologists have made the study of different cultures their purview, as they have traveled the world, seeking the customs and habits of various peoples—in order to understand the range of human civilizations.

I am currently taking an online course from St. Petersburg University in Russia, with the intent of developing a better understanding of Russian culture. The course begins with a succinct and useful definition of culture—consisting of a group's common and dominant (1) values, (2) beliefs, (3) attitudes, and (4) behaviors. Using that definition, several aspects of a people's culture that can be delineated are (1) collective—it is generally common across the populace, (2) situational—culture depends on several particular circumstances of the group, (3) learned—we are born culture-free and gradually assimilate our group's customs, (4) complex—there is considerable variation within any one group, and (5) dynamic—culture evolves.

When we examine the behaviors of a group of people, we can immediately note several obvious and visible aspects of its culture, such as (1) dress and fashions, (2) gestures, (3) speech and language, (4) dance, music, and other arts, (5) manners, etc. But there are also several subtle and hidden aspects that take time to understand, such as (1) how time is experienced, (2) their concept of authority, (3) how they solve problems, (4) what is considered beautiful or ugly, (5) how truth is perceived, (6) the difference between good and evil, etc.

So, back to the definition of culture: the first factor on the list above is the values held by a people. Research has shown that, while values differ between populaces, there is still a strong similarity in the values held across different populations. In order of priority, the commonalities of all cultures are (1) family life, (2) honesty, (3) health, (4) self-esteem, (5) self-reliance, (6) freedom and justice, (7) friendship, and (8) knowledge and learning. Thus it seems, that despite cultural differences, there is quite a bit of similarity across diverse populations.

There is a new cultural phenomenon emerging in the last couple of decades—something that can be described as global culture. Fostered by the internet, this world-wide culture spans political borders. Its values are being commonly held by an increasing number of people, who have taken on and share global concerns, such as ecological sustainability and concern for the welfare of the planet. Despite our many differences, our fear and suspicion of the other, and our propensity to turn to violence, I wonder if this global culture could possibly pull people together to take action on the climate crisis. Wouldn't that be nice?