The News

 The average American spends an hour consuming news daily. Whether we're reading right-leaning or left-leaning news, articles often grab our attention by utilizing language or focusing on stories that inspire anger or fear, and often serve to reinforce our preconceptions. It's often anger- or fear-provoking articles that best grab our attention and serve as "click-bait". News organizations can now quickly judge how well an article garners clicks, and are able to continually refine their techniques so as to demand more and more of our attention. Since we spend so much time ingesting such articles, the news inevitably leads to an increase in anger and fear even beyond the hour we spend reading it. Most Americans cite the news as a source of stress in their life, myself included. And while the news is sometimes actionable (i.e. voting, helping out candidates with our money or time, canvassing, attending protests, writing our congressman, and getting involved with local politics), most of the news we read is beyond our control. It's not necessary to read the news every day in order to take meaningful action- we use this excuse to justify our time spent, but in reality we're spending so much time reading the news because it is addictive, particularly in the modern fear/anger-provoking format.

And by ingesting polarizing news, we become irrationally pessimistic. As Steven Pinker notes in Enlightenment Now, most of us (even academics and journalists) are unaware of the innumerable ways in which the world is improving. The news provides us with dramatic stories about destruction, death, and decline that our minds interpret as a pattern, when really they're the exception. Over 100,000 people lift themselves out of extreme poverty daily- extreme poverty will likely become a thing of the past in some of our lifetimes. War? Increasingly uncommon. Teenage pregnancy rate in the US? Currently lower than it's been in 50 years. Divorce rate in the US? Declining since 1980's. Global deforestation? Is now slower than reforestation- net reforestation the size of India is expected in the next 30 years. And while global warming is clearly a vital threat to humanity that we must do everything we can to address, we may be underestimating the exponential growth in knowledge/technology that is likely to help us weather the storm (rapidly declining costs of solar power and electric car batteries, for instance). 

The news also inspires hate, on both sides of the political spectrum. Yes, Fox News regularly features anecdotes of illegal immigrants that are criminals, leading their viewers to incorrectly assume that illegal immigrants are more likely to commit crime than citizens (actually they're LESS likely to commit crimes, and cities with higher percentages of illegal immigrants are SAFER than cities of comparable size). But likewise, readers of left-leaning news get the impression that Trump voters are all racists and deserving of our contempt. Yes, white republicans on average score worse on implicit bias testing towards Blacks, but that doesn't give one license assume all republicans are racist.  Is it any worse to be prejudiced towards republicans than prejudiced towards minorities?

Liberal contempt for rural and working class white folks is likely one of the chief reasons Trump barely lost to Biden. How is it possible, after all the bad press, all the scandals, all the lies, for Trump to still get 47% of the popular vote? How is it possible that most republicans favor liberal policies (53% of republicans support a wealth tax, 62% of republicans support raising minimum  wage to $15, 69% of republicans support lowering eligible age for Medicare, 72% of NRA members support universal background checks), and yet they still don't identify as liberals? For many republicans, it may be related to the impression that liberals don't like rural or working class whites. Andrew Yang notes:

"I would say, ‘Hey! I’m running for president!’ to a truck driver, retail worker, waitress in a diner, and they would say, ‘What party?’ And I’d say ‘Democrat’ and they would flinch like I said something really negative or I had just turned another color or something like that. So you have to ask yourself, what has the Democratic Party been standing for in their minds? And in their minds, the Democratic Party, unfortunately, has taken on this role of the coastal urban elites who are more concerned about policing various cultural issues than improving their way of life that has been declining for years."

If you were a rural or working class white, and sensed that liberals instinctively thought you were racist or ignorant, wouldn't it be difficult to join their political party? Party identification is often more related to a sense of belonging than to policy positions. And who is it that's making rural whites feel like they aren't a part of liberal culture? I would say it's not primarily liberal politicians- I doubt you'd find Obama or Biden quotes that denigrate rural white folks. It's the media. It's movies like Borat, that make fools of rural white folks. It's the press- which has a double standard when it comes to racism- it shouldn't be ok to label racist white women as "Karen", you certainly wouldn't do that with female names common to other ethnicities. The specious argument in response to this is that whites benefit from white privilege, thus would benefit from some demoting. But hate doesn't inspire love, only love can do that. Be the change you wish to see in the world- we must treat everyone with respect, if we want others to do the same.

So what can I, as an individual, do to bridge the divide? First, we don't need to be reading the news everyday, it increases stress, anxiety, fear, and dislike of those who think differently than us. Second, we must vote with our clicks- utilize news that is measured in its presentation, such as Reuters, that simply presents the facts without a lot of emotional language. Third, just as we're learning to be anti-racist, we should apply this to media that encourages contempt of rural/working class whites as well. 

Absence of suffering isn't exactly the same as happiness

I think it's helpful to make a distinction between absence of suffering and happiness. Some things that we generally think of as making you positively happy in reality just relieve suffering. For instance:

Wealth: This is the most obvious example. It's commonly noted that wealth only correlates with happiness up to somewhere around the average income, enough to meet your basic necessities. Having excess money alleviates the suffering associated with poverty, but in general doesn't actually lead to sustained happiness in the long run. I once heard that winning the lottery only improves your happiness for the first 6 months, then you return to your baseline level of happiness, not sure if that's true but I wouldn't doubt it.

Physical Health: Being healthy and pain-free alleviates the suffering associated with illness and pain, but doesn't of itself lead to sustained happiness.

House: having a huge house probably doesn't lead to happiness, nor does the size of your yard if you're an adult. I'll admit that certain other things about a house could actually lead to happiness, for instance a location that lends itself to befriending your neighbors, or amenable to gardening, or close to fun activities, etc.

If you're looking forward to something that you think will make you really happy, sometimes it might be more accurate to expect this thing to alleviate suffering, but not actually lead to sustained happiness. For instance, if reading the news makes you depressed, and you look forward to the day that the president isn't in the White House, keep in mind that your actual happiness derived from his ouster will be fleeting when that day comes, albeit this particular source of suffering will no longer be there. Or if you think you'll be really happy when you you're retired, keep in mind that you may relieve any suffering associated with your job, but that doesn't necessarily mean of that you'll be happy. Likewise if you're looking forward to graduating, or completing some project or goal, the happiness derived from these achievements may be fleeting when the times comes around.

I'd contend that even at a time in your life where all the usual sources of suffering have been eliminated, you're pain free, comfortable, living without fear, you love and are loved, and your every desire has been satiated, that while that all this would be a wonderful thing, it won't necessarily guarantee that you're particularly happy.  Actual positive happiness is based on what you're doing/feeling/thinking this very instant. Laughing, dancing, singing, enjoying time with another person, enjoying this moment, enjoying whatever you're thinking about, "In the Zone" with some activity that's self-directed and challenging, enjoying your meal, enjoying your exercise, enjoying your book, enjoying your work, doing something that gives you a sense of meaning such as helping others or working on a project, etc. Of course enjoying this moment is much easier when there aren't background sources of suffering.

My main intent here is to avoid the misconception that one's current unhappiness will suddenly turn to happiness when X happens. While it may be that your chief source of unhappiness will be neutralized if X happens, to be positively happy will take more than that, it will take enjoyment in the moment. So try to be happy and enjoy the moment now, don't put it off to some later date.

Stamp Out Nostalgia

After reading Enlightenment Now by Steven Pinker I've come to realize how important it is to celebrate the progress humanity has made in the past few centuries. Too many people feel things are getting worse. But on almost every measurable outcome things are improving worldwide and in our nation: US crime, infant mortality worldwide, extreme poverty worldwide, teenage pregnancies US, childhood obesity US, deforestation in Brazil is down, extinction rates are falling, wars are less frequent, children's IQ is improving for reasons unclear, etc etc.

And yet nostalgia abounds. It's suddenly occurred to me how dangerous nostalgia is. Hitler utilized nostalgia for a largely mythical German Aryan past, resulting in the genocide of Jews and other minorities. Brexit was partially fueled by nostalgia for a simpler time, and may lead to a serious economic downturn in the UK in March if no deal is reached. "Make America Great Again" plays on people's nostalgia for ~1950s, and manifests as Nationalism, anti-immigrant, pro-Christian. The Lost Cause movement (which preposterously re-imagines the American South battling for states' rights as opposed to preservation of slavery) also plays on nostalgia, with the ultimate intent of perpetuating suppression of Southern blacks. Nostalgia is a very effective tool of demagogues, and is closely tied to racism.

Who's nostalgic? I'd proffer the following groups are more susceptible: People that are struggling financially, especially if they're not doing as well as their parents did. People who aren't respected in society. Older people, perhaps uncomfortable with the pace of change, or perhaps looking upon their childhoods with rose-tinted glasses. People who live in places of decline, i.e. many rural places. People who live in a country that is or is perceived to be declining (pre-WWII Germany, the American South, UK, US).

I've been trying to gently correct people when they say something nostalgic. I tell them "Actually crime goes down every year." "Actually kidnapping by a stranger is now exceedingly rare." "Actually the world is rapidly improving on almost any measurable outcome." If I'm talking to a patient and have some good news to report, such that their condition is now treatable thanks to a particular medical advance, I also remind them that the world is always getting better. It's the perfect way to try to help people become more progressive in their thinking, and it doesn't sound at all political, so it gets past their instinctive defenses. 

What evolutionary pressure drove human evolution?

Humans evolved a number of characteristics that differentiate them from other apes (less hair, shorter gut, weaker muscles, complex language, complex tool use, walking upright, dexterous hands, cooperation capable of larger tribes). What was the evolutionary pressure driving our unique evolution? Giraffes feed on leaves too high for other animals to reach, driving their long necks.  And thanks to the pressure of using dams/ponds for protection, the beaver's teeth wear easier in the back than the front, and are constantly growing, which means their chisel-like teeth self-sharpen with heavy use cutting down trees. Can we point to a similar niche that could explain the multitude of unique human adaptations?

To answer this question, let's start with determining the core evolutionary breakthroughs that led to modern humans?

It would seem to come down to two principal innovations: Complex tool use and Complex Language. I suspect most of the other adaptations depend on these two innovations. For instance, we can afford to have short/weak intestines because we mastered fire (tool use) which provides food that's easier to digest. We don't require (lice-prone) hair to cover our whole body because we can use animal skins and shelters for warmth (tool use). We are weaker and slower than other apes our size (and require ~50% less calories than Neanderthals) because we use tools, language, and cooperation for defense and hunting and can therefore get by with weaker bodies. We walk on two legs presumably so we can carry tools with our hands. And we form much larger groups than other primates, and are rather good at cooperating within our tribe, which is also predicated on language (without language you can't have such large groups- gossip, reputation, rules, religion, agreements, are necessary to motivate individuals to correct behavior and maintain cohesion in large groups, and all these depend on language). So I think to understand what was the driving force behind human evolution, we can focus on what sort of niche drove language and tool use.

To answer this question, note the following facts:

-Homo Erectus and Neanderthals hunted meat, including large mammals for food (but also ate cooked vegetables based on isotope analysis of bits of food on Neanderthal teeth!)

-Neanderthals were present in Europe for ~600,000 years and went extinct around the time of the arrival of humans in Europe 40,000 years ago 

-The quaternary extinction event is the widespread extinction of appx 173 large mammals (over 70% of large mammal species outside of Africa) that began around the time humans arrived on each continent (it was less dramatic in Africa likely because the mammals had time to evolve fear of humans as humans' hunting skills progressed). 

-In Europe, large mammals survived alongside Neanderthals for 550,000 years, but many quickly succumbed to the arrival of humans

-Thus humans were apparently quite skilled at hunting large mammals, apparently way better at it than the Neanderthals: In fact, if you accept that humans were the cause of the quaternary extinction event, you'd have to conclude that humans are the best hunters on Earth. I doubt any other predator in the history of Earth has caused so many extinctions.

-What makes us successful hunters? Tool use (i.e. spears, arrows (sometimes with poison-tips), traps, dogs, etc.) and complex cooperation and planning for the hunt (i.e. let's start a brush fire that pushes animals off that cliff, or let's all surround this herd of horses and on my signal slowly enclose them, spearing them as they escape).  I'd guess a group of 50 well-coordinated spear-wielding humans can kill pretty much any mammal they please. 

So, in conclusion, I'd guess that much of our unique characteristics evolved as a result of hunting.

What will people do when robots can do our jobs for us?

People have been worried that automation would lead to widespread unemployment ever since the Industrial Revolution. The Luddites, 1810's British textile workers, revolted violently against new labor-saving machinery that promised to replace skilled textile workers with machines operated by unskilled workers.
Apple, the largest publicly traded corporation in the world, makes around 100 billion per year in revenue, but only pays approximately 10 billion per year in salaries.
Researchers from the University of Chicago have documented a worldwide downward trend in the share of labor income in the last three decades, in the form of lower wages and benefits with increased inequality across industries, and a rising share going to capital income, beyond what can be explained by recession, and attributed to structural changes in technology, market structures and labor unions.^[22]
I'm afraid  as technology progresses, there will be less and less need for human labor as computers and robots supplant more and more human skills. Experts vary on their estimate, but some are saying as early as 2030 (or perhaps 2100 or later), there will be a technological singularity. This is the moment at which computers will become capable of creating an even more intelligent computer. At this point, it's thought that there would be a sudden exponential increase in the intelligence and abilities of computers/robots, to the point that not only would computers become more intelligent than humans, their intelligence, organization, and superhuman capabilities would surpass our ability to even comprehend them. This could happen in our lifetime.
It may depend on your perspective, but for me this is a frightening prospect. Bill Joy's widely read 2000 article for Wired magazine "Why the Future Doesn't Need Us" explores the dystopian possibilities resulting from the singularity. There's lots of disturbing ways this could play out: humans might go extinct (through famine or violent robot rebellion), or we might end up with frightening levels of inequality with a tiny class of humans that own the fully-automated production of the robots, with no one else having any source of income.  According to this article on cnet.com, Bill Gates, Stephen Hawking, and Elon Musk are all concerned about the threat of machines that can think for themselves.
Having gotten terribly depressed by our prospects for the future, I tried to think of some scenario in which this yields a utopia. My optimism is not unfounded. Overall the world has improved since the Industrial Revolution- it's more tolerant of diverse religions/ethnicities/cultures, we do a better job taking care of the poor, we have less premature death from preventable or treatable diseases, the crippled can often be enabled to walk, and less people die violent deaths than ever before (see Steven Pinker's TED talk on The Surprising Decline in Violence from Biblical Times to the Present). Could things keep improving for us with the aid of the singularity?
My utopia would go something like this: since there wouldn't be any need for human labor, we would need to be provided welfare by the "government" (whatever that would be). Also, most humans I know thrive from activity (while reclining in sun under palm trees year after year, or spending all day playing video games, sounds appealing, I think in reality endless relaxation is a recipe for depression), thus we would need something to keep us being productive and active. One possibility for ensuring we stay busy in a world where human labor is obsolete is to create an economic system that rewards improvements in well-being. For instance we could be rewarded with "Well-Being Coins" for performing or achieving things that are likely to increase the well-being of ourselves or others. We might get 1 Well-Being coin for 30 minutes of exercise, 2 for visiting with an elderly neighbor, 4 for hosting a party, 1 for practicing violin, 2 for meditating, 2 for contemplating the divine, and 10 for completing a painting. We might even lose points if we spent all day alone despite feeling lonely, or if we didn't exercise all day but could have. Achievement of goals, nurturing relationships, improving health, finding sources of meaning, or doing activities that allow for "flow" would all earn people coins (this could all be tracked effortlessly by the tiny computers we'd all be wearing). The coins would be the only form of currency, and could be used for purchasing robotically-derived goods and services, or perhaps there would still be some commodities that people would still insist be human-produced (such as live music, art, drama, religious services, perhaps food?).
Kuwait is a modern-day demonstration that we are capable of creating such a society.  Kuwait is one of the top five wealthiest per capita nations thanks to proceeds from oil. If you're a citizen of Kuwait, your income is guaranteed- you're either provided with a government job (most people take this option), or some 10% work in the private sector, but if they don't make some minimum amount of income, then the government supports their income anyway. Note that everyone's given a government job, apparently to keep them busy.
Even in the run-up to the singularity, we're already experiencing declines in the need for human employment I'm afraid. I'm glad I didn't end up in the field of artificial intelligence, which is potentially an unethical profession if you believe the above, and I'll be supporting hand-made items and local small farms whenever possible. I'd say I won't be using Siri anymore, but for the moment she seems harmlessly simple.

Mathematical Argument for the Likelihood of Extraterrestrial Life

Great news from the Kepler Space Telescope data: astronomers are finding lots of planets in the habitable zones of our neighbor stars. So many in fact, that if you extrapolate to the entire universe, there may be, depending on who you ask, 5x10^19 habitable planets (i.e. rocky, with temperatures that would allow for liquid water). Intuitively, one would think it fairly certain that there are other planets with life given this massive number. To support this intuition, one can make the following mathematical argument:

Suppose for simiplicity there are 10^19 habitable planets in the universe.

And let L represent the chances that life of any sort forms on a habitable planet.

If L is 1/10^18 or better, then there is almost certainly life on other planets (for instance, if L = 1/10^18, the chances of exactly one planet (and no more) are 0.05%) (based on the Poisson formula).

If L were by sheer coincidence exactly 1/10^19 then you might actually have exactly one planet with life (i.e. earth), but even then the chances of exactly one planet are 1/e, or appx 36% (again based on the Poisson formula) (for the mathematically inclined reader, this could also be represented as lim (as x-->infinity) of (x-1/x)^(x-1) which, beautifully, equals 1/e). 

If L is 1/10^20 or worse, then the chances of any planets with life becomes increasingly tiny. (even if L = 1/10^20, chances of life having formed anywhere at all would be 10%, and if L = 1/10^21, then chances are 1%). 

The fact that life formed soon after Earth's temperatures became habitable means that L is likely WAY better than 1/10^19 (to give you an idea, there are appx 10^19 grains of sand on Earth). 

A couple interesting articles:

1) It's actually possible that we could identify life on other planets within the next ten years by searching for "biosignatures" in planets' atmospheres (looking for combinations only likely to occur w/ life)

http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=28976

2) Possible alien megastructure could explain some unusual data from a particular star, discovered by the Kepler Space Telescope:

http://news.discovery.com/space/alien-life-exoplanets/has-kepler-discovered-an-alien-megastructure-151014.htm

Why was Rome so successful?

I particularly enjoy questions about our past that lead to an understanding of how we arrived where we are today.  By understanding how Rome came to dominant the Mediterranean world, we understand a crucial step in the formation of Western culture, giving us a greater understanding of why things turned out the way they did. Countless aspects of European culture were learned from the Romans. Before the Roman Empire, much of Europe was populated by barbarian tribes such as the Celts, illiterate and often nomadic. By 400 AD the Romans had civilized much of Southern and Western Europe, introducing Roman government, alphabet, numerals, language, architecture, philosophy, law, roads, agricultural techniques, and ultimately Christianity. Later governments, particularly the US, would adopt many Roman ideas in their constitution. The world today would look drastically different had a small village on the River Tiber named Rome not grown to dominate the Mediterranean world.

Rome began around 750 BC as a collection of rural villages along the River Tiber. The local geography provided a number advantages: the Tiber provided navigable access to the Mediterranean, nearby salt flats were a source of wealth, the surroundings had excellent soil that until ~1000BC had been fertilized by numerous active volcanoes in the area, and the city was located on five hills, making it easier to defend.

I believe Rome also benefited from its relative open-mindedness in terms of other cultures and ideas. For example, Rome frequently found itself in need of a larger labor force, and throughout most of its history foreigners were offered citizenship if they moved to Rome. Earlier in its history, it was also not uncommon for foreigners to gain power, for instance around 600 BC Tarquin, son of Greek royalty, became king (Rome had 3 political phases: Kingdom (750-509BC), Republic (509-49BC), and Empire (49BC-476AD), and is said to have brought Greek influence to Rome. And, learning from the example of Alexander the Great, once a town surrendered to Roman forces, local nobility frequently retained positions of power in the town. In addition, captured peoples were welcomed as citizens of Rome and foreign religions were tolerated, as long as proper deference was paid to the Roman pantheon. With such tolerance, captured peoples were less likely to revolt, and Rome, open to new ideas, learned immensely from its neighbors, especially the Greeks.

Romans were at times enamored with Greek culture, and Roman culture was in many ways shaped by Greek culture. Cicero writes "It was indeed no little rivulet that flowed from Greece into our city, but a mightly river of culture and learning." Roman legend claims that Rome was founded by the twins Romulus and Remus, later claimed to be descendants of Aeneas, a Trojan prince who escaped Troy with a small group of settlers at the time Troy fell to the Greeks (perhaps around 1200 BC). While this is surely myth, it reflects Rome's great debt to Greek culture. In the beginning of its history, Rome was flanked by the Greek-influenced Etruscans to the north, and Greek colonies throughout Southern Italy and Sicily. Many of the areas that became part of the Roman empire had previously been part of Alexander's empire and had been heavily influenced by Greek thought. Later in its history, many Romans learned Greek or would even study abroad in Athens. Many of the ideas that made Rome capable of building a vast empire were learned from the Greeks: the alphabet, the use of numerals, law, philosophy, and technology. And while Rome was never purely a democracy as Athens had been, the plebians (common citizens) usually had a powerful voice in government through elected tribunes and direct votes, and could not easily be ignored by the non-elected branches of Roman government.

I also wonder to what extent Homer's epics, the Iliad and the Odyssey, shaped Roman history. His epics, perhaps written around 800BC, had an enormous influence on Greek and Roman thought and perhaps even history. The characters in these epics primarily seek glory. They are fiercely proud, intolerant of the slightest insult, and hold that lineage and bravery were more important than the pursuit of wealth. Alexander the Great (300's BC) was greatly inspired by Achilles, and some believe that having Achilles as a role model potentially drove Alexander in his endless pursuit of territory, in order to attain immortal glory. Similarly, I wonder if this pursuit of glory over wealth was behind the fantastic ambitions of some of Rome's great expansionist leaders.

Another aspect of Roman tradition that drove its expansionism was this: one of the most effective ways of climbing the political ladder was conquest of new territory. For instance, Caesar's conquest of Gaul ultimately lent him the support needed to become the first emperor in 49BC.

Also quite important was the culture of self-sacrifice for the good of Rome. Two dramatic examples of this occurred during the battle to quell a revolution of Rome's Latin neighbors in 341BC. The battle was led by the two "Consuls" (co-leaders of the republic, with only one year terms), Titus Manlius and Publius Decius Mus. Titus sent a squadron of cavalry, with his son Titus among the leaders, to do some reconnaissance but with strict orders not to take part in any fighting. His son, passing close to the enemy lines, was taunted by an enemy commander. Against his father's instructions, he agreed to a jousting contest with the commander and killed him, as the remaining soldiers looked on. When Titus discovered that his son had disobeyed him, he said "Titus Manlius, you have respected neither Consular authority nor your father's dignity. I believe that you yourself, if you have any drop of my blood in you, would agree that the military discipline you undermined by your error must be restored by your punishment. Go, lictor, bind him to the stake." The army watched horrified as Titus' son's neck was severed on his father's orders. The other consul, Decius, made the ultimate sacrifice. After ascertaining from a priest that victory could be assured if only he would "devote" himself (i.e. commit suicide in order to persuade the gods to take the lives of your enemy as well), he said a prayer, leapt on a horse, and rode directly into the enemy's ranks where he was promptly killed. These stories give you an idea of the extent of the devotion of (some of) the ruling class to Rome's cause. Such a culture of self-sacrifice surely played a part in Rome's success.

So, to sum up, much of the success of the Roman empire was due to its inheritance of Greek traditions, strategic location, interest in expansion, tolerance of and interest in other cultures, and a relatively well-organized governing class that valued, at least earlier in the empire, devotion to Rome above self. Sounds a lot like some later empires and nations. I'm curious if relative tolerance (cultural/religious) is common to many great empires/nations (for instance, Mughal Empire, Alexander the Great's Macedonian Empire, Athens during its Golden Age, British Empire, United States). Though there are clearly lots of exceptions (the Spanish Empire boomed during the Spanish Inquisition).