Immaterial Mortality

 In 1905 Albert Einstein published his groundbreaking Special Theory of Relativity. I've written before about how revolutionary his ideas were. They solved a conundrum that had been bedeviling physicists for several years, regarding the properties of light. Whereas scientists had been considering time to be constant for all observers (regardless of their location or motion), the speed of light was seen as variable, being dependent on an observer's behavior. Einstein proved it to be the opposite. He began with the assumption that the velocity of light would be seen as identical for everyone—regardless of how fast they moved or where they were. The consequence of this premise is that the passage of time is a variable; the march of time depends on your speed... that is, while time is not a constant, the speed of light is.

One commonly-expressed result of his relativity theory is the so-called “Twin Paradox.” Calculations (later proved by measurements) showed that, if one twin takes off on a rocket ship and returns some time later, the traveling twin will be a tad younger than the twin who stayed home. This is very counterintuitive. Time for the traveling twin actually passes more slowly.

These relativistic effects are not usually seen until an object travels at a significant fraction of the speed of light, but it does show up for something that many people use every day: their smart phones, for locating themselves on the planet's surface. The GPS system must use relativistic calculations; otherwise your position would be tens of yards (or meters) in error. Your smart phone directions would have you driving into brick walls or into a lake. Well, sometimes that does happen, but the error can be mostly attributed to human inattentiveness.  

I have made some relativistic example calculations to illustrate the lapsed time for space ships of various speeds to travel to our nearest galaxy (Andromeda) and back.  Andromeda is about 2.5 million light years away. In other words, light would require 5 million years to travel to Andromeda and return... at least that's the elapsed time we observers back on Earth would measure. If time is relativistic, however, what would be the elapsed time for our space traveler at these different speeds? It would be less, according to Einstein; how much less would be a function of how fast the ship traveled. To illustrate this, I have shown the elapsed time in the table below for a spaceship at five different speeds.

Spaceship speed	50,000 miles per hour	0.5c	0.9c	0.999c	C
Round trip time	35 billion years	4400 years	1260 years	120 years	Zero time

The first entry in the table is for a hypothetical spaceship whose speed is roughly comparable to today's spacecraft: it does the trip at 50,000 miles per hour (83,000 km per hour). To illustrate how slow this is, the trip would require some 35 billion years! Clearly, we must go faster.

For the second entry in the table, I assume a spaceship that can travel at half the speed of light (0.5C, where “c” is the scientific symbol used for light speed, which is 186,000 miles per second, or 300,000 km per second.) It will be a long time—if ever—before we'd reach that kind of speed. Nonetheless, for illustration purposes, the round trip to Andromeda would require 4,400 years for those aboard that ship, if they traveled at half the speed of light. That’s still a very long trip.

Let's say our imaginary ship could travel at 90% the speed of light (0.9c). Now the trip for those on board would be down to 1,260 years. Let's go even faster: to 99.9% the speed of light (0.999C). Then the trip could be finished in a mere 120 years.

For reasons I won't go into here, no real spacecraft could ever reach these speeds, despite the accomplishments of the starship USS Enterprise on “Star Trek,” which can reach warp speed eight—some eight times the speed of light! That's a fun way to fly around space, but is entirely fictional. Unfortunately, those interstellar distances will remain way beyond us mortals.

I've included one more interesting calculation in the table: the lapsed time to and from Andromeda Galaxy, for something that manages to travel right at the speed of light. (One of the consequences of Einstein's theory is that nothing can ever exceed the speed of light; it's an absolute upper bound.) For that light-speed trip, no time has passed at all! In fact, an object traveling at the speed of light can traverse the entire universe (and back, if it wishes) and never register any time lapse!

What kind of “thing” could travel at the speed of light? Well, light itself does, which we may describe as photons zinging along at c. Photons can do this only because they have no mass... they are completely immaterial. A consequence of  photons being massless is that they always are moving at the speed of light... they can exist only as moving particles.

So if you could ride along with a photon at the speed of light, you would in essence become immortal. Of course, your material being would never withstand the trip, but the massless photon can. So, for us material mortals back home, photons would require five million years for the round trip to Andromeda, but to them, they do it in no time at all.  That, it seems to me, is a definition of immortality.

As I pondered this fascinating result recently, it occurred to me that, while we material beings are mortal—often also described as being temporal, ephemeral, or perishable critters—some religions consider our souls to be immortal. If we do have a soul, it is immaterial; it is massless.

So a massless soul—like the massless photon—can only exist as something traveling at the speed of light. It could go on its merry way forever (that time lapse of “forever” being what we stationary mortals would measure), taking no time at all, from its perspective. Would that not be a definition of our soul being immortal?

Expeditious Evolution

From the very beginnings of life on Planet Earth to today, evolution has gradually brought about change and adaptation. As environmental conditions have altered, bringing about new climates, life forms have soon followed suit—the luckier variations altering to thrive in the new situation, while the less fortunate ones died out. This elegant process has caused relentless and progressive adaptation on the part of plants and animals—with the result that, at any given moment in time, the mix of living species is fairly well balanced.

There have been, however, numerous occasions when the environment changed so dramatically and rapidly that many species could not adapt quickly enough, so they became extinct. There have been half a dozen or so catastrophic events that caused some 70-95% of plant and animal species to disappear, but life soon adjusted and began to flourish again, as new species came into existence.

We are now in the midst of the latest major environmental change. It is being designated as the Anthropocene Age transformation—whereby the planet is rapidly heating. This change is being brought about by humans. And the rate is hundreds and thousands of times faster than in any comparable change in the past! That faster pace will likely see the extinction of far more species than in the past.

And yet there is already evidence that some animals are currently altering their physiology, in attempts to adapt to the warmer conditions. Some of these critters have slowly evolved (over millions of years) to find ways to radiate excess body heat. Birds' beaks help them cool, because their bills are not covered with insulating feathers. Similarly, some furry animals have evolved hairless ears, tails, and legs, in order to shed excess heat.

Current scientific research is showing that some bird species are adapting to hotter climates by growing larger beaks—to radiate heat better. Some mammals are growing longer ears or less hair on their legs. Some bats have had their wing size increase. This is evolution in action, and is rather heartening. But there may well be more to the story that is less heartening. Might these recent changes negatively impact other bodily needs, such as the ability to avoid predators or attract sexual partners? Might the changes be better at dissipating heat, but worse off for other needs?

Most importantly, the Anthropocene climate change is occurring at breakneck speed—over dozens of years, rather than thousands. That is too fast for some species to respond. Unable to change in time, they face the prospect of disappearing. Time will tell, as they say.

Squirrel Quirks

I have enjoyed observing the behavior of many different animals around the homestead, over the last several decades. My motivation to do so, besides the delight of watching them, is to learn how to better live with them (1) by coming to know the qualities of the critters that I consider beneficial or enjoyable, in order to find ways to welcome them into our routine. (2) For those animals I find problematic, it similarly helps to understand them, so that we may coexist with minimal strife. (3) And for the vast majority of critters who I see as neither enjoyable nor annoying, it still helps to get to know them as members of Nature's wonderful world.

The more I learn about our resident critters, the more I come to see each one as a unique individual. Not all mice or crows or oak trees behave identically. They each have their own peculiar traits, and that has sometimes led me to see them as possessing personalities... personalities that differ, just as each human has their own unique disposition. For example, some mice are bolder than others. Some deer are more curious. Some chickadees are more tame than others. I sometimes even come to feel that I can tell one individual from another—simply through its familiar behavior.

Now comes a study by researchers at the University of California Davis, that shows squirrels exhibit human-like personality traits. The researchers spent lots of time observing and tracking a certain species of squirrel. They observed such things as how various squirrels reacted to their mirror images or how closely one could approach a squirrel before it ran away. But most of the work was simply hours of watching and noting—the classic technique of ethology, such as championed by Jane Goodall and Franz de Waal (both of whom I have written about before).

What they found in squirrels was a wide range of bold, aggressive, athletic, and sociable behaviors. Some squirrels were simply more outgoing. Bolder and more active squirrels covered more territory and were more successful at finding food. Aggressive squirrels claimed better perches, from which to spot food or predators. However, those same audacious critters sometimes paid the price of being at greater risk for accidents or predation. Doesn't that seem similar to various human personalities? Audacious men often score better with women, but also are more likely to get into fights. Sociable people tend to have a wider circle of friends, but often have more shallow relationships than shy people.

One of the results of the UC Davis study was that the researchers came to see individual squirrels as “who” rather than “it.” I sometimes have even given names to individual animals who I have come to recognize as having distinct personalities.

Jupiter's North Pole

 

This is a photo of Jupiter's north pole, taken by NASA's Juno spacecraft. At the center of the photo is a huge cyclone, surrounded by eight smaller ones. Juno was launched in 2011 and arrived at Jupiter in 2016, to study its atmosphere and interior composition. The mission is ongoing.

Colonialism’s Triple Transgressions

The sins of colonialism are beginning to be recognized and acknowledged, in recent years. By definition, colonialism is “the policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers and exploiting it economically.” European states did it to indigenous lands in the Americas, the Mideast, Africa, and Asia. The US later followed suit and exploited American Indians, as well as countries in Central and South America and throughout the Pacific. The admission of these colonial transgressions has been a long time in coming—partly because the winner always writes history and because the colonial powers of the West often convinced themselves that they were called to spread the word of civilization and modernization (often describing it as “the white man's burden”). They saw themselves helping to civilize backward peoples. In fact, it was brutal exploitation.

Western colonialism has committed three successive types of crimes, that began over half a millennium ago, and continue through today.

The first crime was the invasion and domination of dozens of lands, the world over. This was not war—it was simply a takeover by the stronger invader. Although the rationalization was often given of spreading civilization, in fact the real reason was to acquire resources and to expand the territory of the dominant country. The colonial powers extracted oil, minerals, agricultural products, and even people (to enslave). Introduced agriculture was established in the conquered lands—to export back to the homeland such products as rubber, cotton, sugar, tobacco, drugs, etc. People of the occupied lands were often forced either to purchase these products or create them for the pleasure and wealth of the residents of the colonial powers.

The second crime committed by the colonialists was to abruptly pull out their forces and administrators, when pressure mounted to terminate the occupation, in the mid 20th century. They left behind a debilitated situation, whereby the former colonies were unprepared to govern themselves adequately. Corruption that had begun under foreign rule blossomed and crippled chances to bring about a functioning and just society. In many cases, the former colonies—now ostensibly autonomous—remained under the economic thumb of the former rulers. They remained dependent and exploited—now by corporations, rather than by military force.

The third crime of the colonialists is being played out on the international stage today, as millions of refugees from the former colonies flee the terrible conditions there—of war, poverty, and failed governments. The former colonial powers—predominantly Europe and the US—do their best to block the refugees from entering and finding safe haven. This is particularly merciless, given that the population of the developed states is declining, and they could benefit from the presence of the refugees. Instead of a deserved welcome, refugees are met with a xenophobic response.

Many people think that we live in a post-colonial world—that the offenses are behind us. A more honest appraisal, however, shows that the colonial transgressions are ongoing.

Aristotle’s Administrations—Part 3

At the founding of the USA there was an additional factor that compromised the ability of the USA to be a true democracy: slavery. Of the 13 original states that ratified the proposed constitution, about half of them (in the South) based their economies on slavery. They feared that they would become dominated in a representative government by the more populace northern states, so they forced two compromises to be written into the Constitution, as a condition of their joining the union: (1) their voting power must be augmented by adding three-fifths of their enslaved people to their population, and (2) the creation of the Senate as a legislative body made up of two representatives from each state. The first compromise gave the slave states more weight in the House of Representatives, which is based on population; and the second compromise did much the same in the Senate, by giving the less-populated slave states an equal two-senator power to the more populated northern states.

So, the US form of government—from the perspective of Aristotle's six types of regimes—is neither a true democracy nor a true oligarchy. It falls somewhere in between. In fact, our tendency is actually toward a plutocracy, not an oligarchy. What is the difference? An oligarchy is the rule by a small, elite group, while a plutocracy is rule by the wealthy. It is a fine distinction, but an important one, as the real power in the US today is held by the rich… that so-called 1% that has amassed increasing power, the last few decades.

So what could be done; what changes might be required, to move the US towards a real democracy? There are several specific changes that could be implemented. Here are a few: (1) Eliminate the various forms of voter suppression that are currently being practiced by several states; such as making it difficult for non-white people to vote (there are many laws that do so), stop arbitrary purging of voter lists, eliminate gerrymandering (manipulating the boundaries of voting districts so as to favor one race/class or party), and other methods of blocking some people to vote. (2) Eliminate the electoral college, which has allowed several men to become president when in fact they lost the popular election. (3) Change the Senate election rules, so that smaller, more rural states do not possess the outsized power that they wield today. (4) Set term limits for members of Congress and the judiciary. Many of them stay in power for decades and begin to behave more like aristocrats than citizens. (5) Set campaign contribution limits. Today's laws favor the rich and those with close connections to corporate funds, which is the source of plutocrats holding power.

Any or all of these specific changes would bring about a more genuine democracy, but there are two general or systemic changes that have their origins going back to those ancient Greeks. The first—and fundamental—change would be to educate the populace. The minority of educated and well-to-do citizens from ancient Athens to the 21^st century have always been suspicious of the masses—especially those common folks who are uninformed and are rarely involved in governance. The fear is that the multitudes—if given a little power—will wreak havoc, because they simply do not understand the complexities of running a country. If they pursue their own personal interests, the “greater” interest of the nation will go unanswered.

There is some validity to this fear. What is the simplest way to allay it? Educate the citizenry! It is a simple concept, although not at all easy to implement—mostly because our education system does a poor job of edifying people. Critical and discerning thinking are of low priority. Our educational process is interested in creating obedient people, not independent thinkers.

Even more detrimental today to creating an educated populace is the spread of misinformation on social media. Worse yet is intentional disinformation aimed at the populace. A working democracy requires informed citizens—not confused and deluded people swayed by fallacious “facts.” Where false rumors once spread with impressive speed through the populace, disinformation in the internet age goes viral and proliferates literally at the speed of light.

The second general change that could strengthen democracy is to appoint representatives not by flawed and biased elections that favor the rich, but by lottery. This option would best be implemented by combining it with the previous educational option. A lottery would be truly impartial, in that every citizen would be called upon to serve. It would eliminate the grip that plutocrats currently possess, by forcing a more equitable representative body of citizens to be in control. Like the New England town meeting, a lottery process would be more complicated and time consuming than our representative election process, but would be far more impartial than today's unequal and unfair voting practices. There is one feasible example of a lottery system operating in today's society: the appointment of juries. An accused member of society can request trial by jury—a form of judgment by one's peers, chosen randomly.

I am thankful for a recent introduction to Aristotle's six varieties of regimes. It has helped me step back and see the bigger picture and then to highlight the ways in which modern regimes—especially those who claim to be democratic, especially in my own country, the USA—measure up to democracy's tenets or how they fall short.

Aristotle’s Administrations—Part 2

Fast forward to the world today. Does true democracy exist? Again, the definition of a democracy is governance by all people for the benefit of all people. As  Abraham Lincoln aptly described it, “of the people, for the people, and by the people.” The purest form of democracy today can be found in the governance of small groups, such as New England town meetings—wherein all citizens gather, discuss issues (thereby informing each other), and then all vote.

When a populace grows larger than a few dozen people, however, direct democratic participation is not feasible. It is far too cumbersome and time-consuming to assemble everyone and to allow all views to be expressed. So most democratic states today practice a form of representative democracy—wherein individual citizens are elected to represent their constituency. The representatives then gather, to discuss and vote on behalf of their electors.

This form of governance, however, is often not a true democracy in practice, for several reasons. The first reason is that elections are often not fair and balanced—thus the people's representatives often do not actually act on behalf of all of their constituents. This situation can occur when voting restrictions prevent some people, such as the poor or minority citizens, from voting. 

A second reason is that, although representative democracy should be open to any citizen choosing to run for office, it usually is not; only those with the necessary finances and connections are able to mount a campaign. Thirdly, while a true democracy requires representatives to have term limits, actual democracies often operate more like aristocracies, in that those in control attempt to maintain their positions and power indefinitely.

But possibly the greatest shortcoming of present-day democracies that fall short of the goal is that citizens are not well informed, so even if they can vote, they often do so with a misguided understanding. Uninformed and misinformed citizens can be dangerous. This was a fundamental concern of ancient Athenians. They did not trust common people to understand the complexities of governance. Only those who had vested interests in society, and who were experienced and were educated, should be allowed to participate, they maintained. Women and enslaved people did not qualify. Thus, although Athens is regarded as the West's first practicing democracy, it was not a case of all people having a voice in managing the affairs of state. It was not an authentic democracy.

Turning to the USA—regarded by many (especially its citizens and officials) as the modern world's most enduring and valid democracy: How does my country rate, by Aristotle's classification, as a democratic society? The US Constitution begins with the words “We the people...” and continues, to imply that this government is established for the purpose of ensuring that its citizens are in control of their political and economic destiny.

Those are noble intentions, but two major concerns guided the efforts of the founders of the US Constitution, that compromised their ability to form a true democracy: (1) a tyrant like King George III must be blocked from unilateral and absolute control and (2) commoners could not be trusted with the reins of power. (They shared that second concern with the ancient Athenians.) 

Going back to Aristotle's three forms of regime that he saw as having the welfare of the people as top priority, the American founding fathers were determined to avoid forging a tyranny (rule of one), as well as a real democracy (rule of the many); the latter because they distrusted the ability of commoners to govern. Thus, they established a constitution and a governmental methodology that actually is a blend of autocracy and democracy. Those founders were, after all, well-to-do, propertied, and educated white men (virtually no women.) They even fancied themselves as aristocrats—people who occupied an upper class position, and they expected to remain in that elevated position.

As a result, the US Constitution and America's subsequent implementation of its government created a flawed democracy. The founders did a pretty good job of avoiding a tyrant, but also shut out the voices and participation of over half of its citizens. Their fear of the “tyranny of the masses” was very strong.

Next time, more on US democracy…