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).

Why Monotheism

I find this question fascinating: Why is it that the majority of the world's population is monotheistic? Is there some reason that monotheism is more attractive than polytheism? Or perhaps monotheism allows for a more successful empire? Or is it simply a coincidence of history? Or is it better rephrased as: Why are the two largest religions derived from Judaism?

Three thousand years ago, the vast majority of the world was likely polytheistic. Then Judaism developed, but was not widespread. Around 600's BC Zorastrianism (monotheistic) developed, and became one of the world's largest religions thanks to the spread of the Persian empire, but declined in 300's BC after Alexander the Great toppled the empire. So again by 0 AD there were very few monotheists. Today there are approximately two billion Christians and 1.5 billion Muslims, with a current world population of 6.7 billion (see here for breakdown).  By contrast there are 1 billion Hindus (polytheistic). There are around 1 billion Buddhists (Buddhism, in it's original form, is neither mono- nor polytheistic as the Buddha simply taught how to reach enlightenment but did not identify particular gods, however many later forms developed local deities and divine figures). In other words, monotheism likely developed relatively late in human history, yet now most people are monotheistic.

1) My initial thought is that monotheism has become more popular due to it being more reasonable to the rational mind than polytheism: For the modern person, science has come to explain most of the concepts that previously required supernatural explanation. A science-minded person tends to believe either in no god, or in an unknowable god that was responsible for the creation of the universe. For Christians, Muslims, and modern Jews,  God is similarly unknowable: God is judge, lawmaker, and can control events, but does not have a personality or form. (Granted, in parts of the Old Testament God has a personality, as when he walks in human form around the Garden of Eden, or argues with Satan about how faithful Job is, but these stories feel out of place compared to the usual sense of the formless and abstract God). Alternatively, in a polytheistic religion such as Hinduism or Roman paganism, gods are frequently less abstract and have particular personalities. For instance Vishnu is often pictured with four arms, riding on his eagle Garuda. (That said, Hinduism has a diverse range of thought and, unlike Roman paganism, has versions that are monotheistic.) In summary, it seems that belief in a single abstract god is less at odds with a scientific worldview than a group of personal gods with character and form. Thus it's not surprising that as the world has become more aware of the scientific viewpoint, we find that monotheism has become more popular.

2) While I really like the above idea, it is not really borne out if you look at the historical details. In reality, many people are Christian or Muslim as a result of historical empires and colonization.

Background: The Roman empire was pagan for most of it's history but converted to Christianity in the time of Constantine in 300's AD. Thus Europe became Christian. Then Europeans, through colonization and proselytization, led to Christianity in the Americas, large parts of Africa, Australia, and many smaller areas. Also, after the fall of the Roman empire in 400's AD, the eastern "Byzantine" half of the Roman empire lived on and was responsible for spreading Christianity to Russia. I am less familiar with how Islam spread, but generally it spread initially through the conquests of the Arab Empire in 600's AD (Middle East, North Africa, Spain), and subsequently through proselytization along Arab trading routes in South Asia,  Southeast Asia, and in parts of Africa.

 So our original question, why did monotheism become so popular, can partly be boiled down to Why was the Arab Empire so successful? (I don't know enough about Arab history to answer this), and Why did the Roman Empire convert to Christianity?

3) Why did the Roman Empire convert to Christianity? You might think it was political. Yes, Constantine converted to Christianity, enforced religious tolerance, and halted persecution of Christians throughout the vast Roman Empire. But leading up to this point, Christianity was spreading rapidly in spite of political opposition and persecution. So while later spread of Christianity can be explained primarily by political events, at least the early spread of Christianity was a result of organic growth. And why was Christianity spreading so quickly, at first mostly among the lower classes of the Roman Empire? This is a question with, I would guess, lots of contributing explanations. But I think it boils down to a) One of the tenets of Christianity is the importance of proselytizing, and b) Christian teachings were particularly attractive to the lower classes (i.e. the meek shall inherit the earth, a rich man is unlikely to go to heaven, Jesus is the son of a humble carpenter and focuses his teachings on lower classes, an eternity of happiness awaits you at death, etc.).

So how does this relate to the original question: why did monotheism become so popular? Is it a coincidence that Judaism, at first the only monotheistic religion of the Roman Empire, and a small minority religion, produced an offshoot that spread rapidly through the Roman Empire? And then produced another offshoot that led to Islam and the Arab Empire?

Jesus' teachings are thought by modern scholars to be heavily influenced by the Pharisee sect of Judaism that was growing in popularity during his lifetime. Some Pharisee writing, preceding Jesus' life, sound similar to New Testament teachings: "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your friend. That is the whole Torah." -Hillel the Elder, 1st century AD. "A learned bastard takes precedence over an ignorant High Priest." And the Pharisees, unlike their theological opponents the Sadducees, believed in resurrection of the dead. The Pharisees are considered more democratic than the aristocratic Sadducees. At the time of Jesus, the Pharisees were a minority sect among the Jews, but their philosophy turned out to be quite popular and shortly after Jesus' death would become the majority view of Judaism, and is the forebear of Rabbinic Judaism. Thus Jesus' teachings were not coming out of the blue; they were a development of contemporary Jewish ideas that were themselves evolving through theological debate within the Jewish community. 

Thus again we can boil down our original question partly by asking: Why did Judaism, via the Pharisees, produce this very attractive and self-multiplying version of itself where other contemporary religions did not?

To help answer this question, let's start by asking: How was Judaism different from other Roman religions? As the Roman Empire spread, the cults and gods they encountered were often incorporated into the Roman pantheon. People were free to continue participating in local cults as long as they agreed to participate in the traditional Roman ceremonies as well. Jews, initially the only monotheists in the empire, refused to worship other gods. At times this caused problems, but at other times they received special exemptions from the state. Thus Judaism was unique in that, through the fixed monotheistic dogma found in the Torah, it was not able to be assimilated like other religions. In fact we see that today, with Judaism being one of the oldest surviving religions in the world, despite numerous periods of persecution and exile. Thus it appears that monotheism helps a religion resist assimilation.

Is there a relationship between monotheism and proselytizing? Hinduism and Buddhism usually avoid proselytizing and believe there is more than one true way (Hare Krishna's are an exception). Judaism does as well. However, both Christianity and Islam believe there to be only one true way and place great emphasis on winning converts. It seems like an easy step to go from the self-confidence and immutability that is inherent in monotheism, to believing that other religions are incorrect, and thus believing in the necessity of proselytizing. Is this true? If monotheism tends towards proselytizing, then this would seem to be the key answer to the original question. Historically, most religions are polytheistic and most religions do not proselytize. However, the two largest religions worldwide run counter to this trend: both are monotheistic and proselytize.

In conclusion, I think the reason for the ultimate success of monotheism is likely related to its inability to be assimilated into other religions, its tendency to believe that other religions are incorrect, and its tendency to lead to proselytizing. (This is similar to evolutionary biology: genes spread that assist individuals in a) surviving to adulthood, and b) procreating. Richard Dawkins would call monotheism a successful "meme.") In addition, it was incidentally helpful that the Roman Empire conquered Jewish territory, allowing an attractive and accessible offshoot of Judaism to spread throughout the empire, an empire that would be a major foundation for European and ultimately global culture.

I'm very interested to hear your thoughts. Please leave a comment.

Note that a previous version of this post incorrectly asserted that Pharisees proselytized. My evidence for this was very weak. Thanks to Esther for pointing this out.

The Power of Practice

It's interesting how much one can accomplish with effective practice of a skill. I recently read an article by Joshua Foer, an author who, as an experiment, decided to devote himself to improving his memory. Over the better part of a year, he trained his memory to memorize long lists of numbers, the order of a deck of cards, poetry, etc. By the end of his brief but intense training he was able to memorize the order of a deck of cards in 1 minute, 40 seconds at the USA Memory Championship (a United States record).

At one point in his training he hit a plateau and wasn't able to improve his times. He spoke to his memory trainer, a psycholigist named K. Anders Ericsson, and learned the following:

"[Ericsson] found that top achievers [in any skill] typically follow the same general pattern. They develop strategies for keeping out of the autonomous [plateau] stage by doing three things: focusing on their technique, staying goal-oriented and getting immediate feedback on their performance. Amateur musicians, for example, tend to spend their practice time playing music, whereas pros tend to work through tedious exercises or focus on difficult parts of pieces. Similarly, the best ice skaters spend more of their practice time trying jumps that they land less often, while lesser skaters work more on jumps they’ve already mastered. In other words, regular practice simply isn't enough. To improve, we have to be constantly pushing ourselves beyond where we think our limits lie and then pay attention to how and why we fail."

Similarly, the way to get past the plateau we all reach with typing speed is to practice typing 10 - 20% faster than usual. By pushing yourself past "good enough" you'll make mistakes, learn to figure out what's slowing you down, and move past it.

It is remarkable that this author, with no particular aptitude for memorizing, using this intensive practice technique, became the US champion in less than a year. Practicing in this way is demanding and frustrating, and is not the way most of us practice. I wonder if some skills that we consider significantly based on innate talent (great skill at a musical instrument, solving math problems, learning languages, certain sports, juggling, creative writing, drawing, sense of humor) are more based on determined practice than we realize. If an average person can become a national memory champion in less than a year using this technique, it seems possible that most skills could be attained more quickly and more extensively than we realize.

Our minds are so incredibly plastic- so ready to tackle any challenge if forced to do so. Blind people can learn echolocation (blind man Ben Underwood can do remarkable things, such as play basketball. Armless people can do amazing things with their toes (i.e. play piano). Deaf people read lips. If you wear lenses that turn the world upside down, within a few days your brain turns the image upright. Oliver Sacks eloquently discusses this plasticity, and it's persistence into old age, in his article on the NYTimes website. Persistent challenge can be the key that unlocks the incredible potential of our brains.

What if intelligence (narrowly defined as problem solving ability, for instance as measured by IQ) is actually the product of something more basic, a long-standing determination to not give up when approaching problems? The repetitive challenges squarely faced thus sharpen the mind's problem-solving ability. My friend Luke recently told me his brother is raising their child using a new parenting concept in which you avoid telling a child how smart or intelligent she is. Instead you compliment her determination. By focusing a child's self-confidence on their determination rather than intelligence, when they come to a difficult problem they are more likely to keep working at it rather than get frustrated and stop.

There is something beautiful about honing the mind to accomplish seemingly unreachable goals. Such an accomplishment must bring with it a great sense of pride and meaning.

Living Well

As mentioned at the end of the happiness post, all this talk of pursuing happiness seems to be narrow-minded. Are there times when making a decision that is likely to decrease happiness might still be the more noble decision? An article by philosopher Ronald Dworkin in the most recent issue of the New York Review of Books (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/feb/10/what-good-life/) addresses this question.

This article makes the case for a concept he calls "Living Well".  Living well means navigating life in a way that you can look back on with pride.  "In my own view, someone who leads a boring, conventional life without close friendships or challenges or achievements, marking time to his grave, has not had a good life, even if he thinks he has and even if he has thoroughly enjoyed the life he has had." If you agree with this statement, then you agree that a good life is not just about happiness, but about living life well.

So what does that mean? It's up to the individual. The interesting point is that some of the ways people might consider "living well" are actually counter-productive to happiness. Some possible examples of living well yet reducing happiness: Risking your life for a cause (i.e. David Cato, Ugandan gay rights activist, just murdered yesterday; or fighting for your country). Creating a business can be much more stressful and risky than working for someone else and may lead to unhappiness, but if you're proud of the business then that increases meaning. An artist who devotes his life to his art to his own detriment and without reward. Monasticism.

Rainer Marie Rilke in Letters to a Young Poet recommends to an aspiring poet a life of privation and social isolation in order to explore the depths of the soul and thus improve his poetry. "Therefore, dear Sir, love your solitude and try to sing out with the pain it causes you." In his letters, Rilke recommends the young poet single-mindedly pursue his goal of becoming a greater poet, with no thought to his own happiness. Suffering can be valuable in this pursuit. From this perspective, striving for happiness as a primary goal in life seems a bit vacuous. Similarly, in 1939 Pulitzer-prize winning playwright Maxwell Anderson wrote:

To the young people of this country I wish to say:
If you practice an art, be proud of it, & make it proud of you; if you now hesitate on the threshold of your maturity, wondering what rewards you should seek, wondering perhaps if there are any rewards beyond the opportunity to feed & sleep & breed, turn to the art which has moved you most readily, take what part in it you can, as participant, spectator, secret practitioner, or hanger-on & waiter at the door.  Make your living any way you can, but neglect no sacrifice at your chosen altar.   It may break your heart, it may drive you half mad, it may betray you into unrealizable ambitions or blind you to mercantile opportunities with its wandering fires.  But it will fill your heart before it breaks it; it will make you a person in your own right; it will open the temple doors to you & enable you to walk with those who have come nearest among men to what men may sometimes be.

Capitalist economists traditionally have focused on improving overall wealth as the primary goal for a nation. Some economists have recently proposed focusing on improved happiness as a nation rather than improved wealth (which seems obviously preferable). But what if even this is not the best metric? Is our focus on happiness cultural? Would this focus on happiness as one of the primary goals of life seem foreign to someone from a different era?

The Coincidental Beginnings of Agriculture

One question I have always thought interesting is why agriculture cropped up independently in Mesopotamia, China, North America, and central Africa, all between 10,000 and 5,000 years ago. Anatomically modern humans developed in East Africa something like 100,000 to 200,000 years ago. They then left Africa something like 80,000 years ago. For something like the first 100,000 years of our existence, we didn't develop agriculture, but within the past 10,000 years we developed it in at least 4 areas independently. What happened 10,000 years ago that created this shift?

There is no consensus on this question. Here are some relevant facts: 1) While technically the Earth's been in an ice age for the past 2.6 million years, we're currently in the midst of a relatively warmer time called an "interglacial" period. This warmer period began 10,000 years ago. Prior to that, from 110,000 years ago to 10,000 years ago, was a "glacial" period, in which glaciers covered much of Europe and North America.  2) There was a great number of extinctions ("Late Pleistocene Extinction Event") of large animals between 50,000 and 10,000 years ago. These extinctions tend to coincide with the arrival of humans into each animals ecosystem. For the most part these large animals were naive to human hunters and did not have time to evolve to be afraid of those spindly humans. For the most part this did not occur in Africa, where large mammals were exposed to human hunters from the very beginning and were thus able to evolve as the humans' hunting skills improved.

Everything below this  line is pure speculation.

It would seem that the almost simultaneous (geologically speaking) development of agriculture at multiple locations around the globe occurring soon after the last glacial period ended is not a coincidence. The changing weather and ecosystems that came with the warmer climate must have somehow led to agriculture. And with hunting becoming increasingly difficult as easy to kill naive large mammals were depleted, humans everywhere likely became increasingly dependent on plants for calories.

Another factor that may have come into play: once humans had spread around the globe, it is thought that human population reached equilibrium  at somewhere around one million people. Equilibrium of course means that humans were competing with each other for limited resources, thus human tribes were likely in close proximity to each other, fighting over territory, some tribes starving to death or being decimated by their neighbors, etc. In such an environment, agriculture would be ripe for development as, once it was developed, it would allow for much higher population densities. It seems that something about the end of the ice age combined with hunter/gatherer humans existing at maximum capacity must have led to the development of agriculture.

Another interesting point that I read about last year in The Economist was a computer model that demonstrated the importance of population density in maintaining knowledge. This model showed that in a non-literate culture, where technology is learned directly from other humans, knowledge will tend to be forgotten over the millennia if there is an insufficient population density to keep that knowledge alive. Thus perhaps the beginnings of agriculture may have developed in many different places at many different times, but couldn't survive to maturity unless it was in a region where lots of humans were living. Thus, it could be that something about the end of the ice age created better conditions for hunter/gatherers in Mesopotamia, China, and the Americas that allowed for higher population densities, thus allowing agricultural technology to mature.

The Contingency of Christianity

Background: I believe that there was likely a creative spirit of some sort, or "God," that created the universe, possibly with the intention of having intelligent life develop. There are two main questions that science is unlikely to ever answer: 1) How did the universe come about?, and 2) Why is it that I, and presumably all humans and most animals, experience "consciousness," i.e. awareness of my existence. Hence I believe in a higher power that's beyond our understanding. However, while I believe in God, I no longer believe in Christianity or any other religion.

One of the realizations that led me away being a Christian is how contingent my being born Christian was on world events. There have been many spiritually enlightened individuals over the course of human history, some of whom created new ways of living and believing. Moses, Jesus, Paul of Tarsus (without whom we would never have heard of Jesus), Lao-Tzu (founder of Taoism), Siddharta Gautama ("The" Buddha, founder of Buddhism), Bodhidharma (one of the fathers of Zen Buddhism), and many more that we've never heard of. The reason the current inhabitants of the United States are mostly Christian is because the US was primarily a British colony. Britain, while initially "pagan," became Christian because it was a part of the Roman Empire.  The Roman Empire was Christian in part because Emperor Constantius had a Christian wife (or concubine, history's not clear on this) who fathered his son Constantine, who, when he became emperor, was sympathetic to Christians since his mother was Christian. (Although it seems Christianity was gaining popularity in the Roman Empire pretty rapidly and probably would have become the dominant religion regardless of Constantine's tolerance.)  The reason Christianity was able to spread through the Roman Empire was because Jesus and Paul were part of the Roman Empire. If Judaea had not been conquered by the Roman Empire, or if the Roman Empire had never developed, Jesus would likely have been forgotten. If China hadn't stopped most of it's maritime explorations in the 1400's, North America might have been colonized by Chinese rather than British colonists. If that had happened the US might be predominantly Buddhist. There are probably thousands of religions in the history of humankind, and certainly more than one of them has important things to teach us. The reason I was born Christian is contingent on many historical events. It's counterintuitive to think that only one religion, the one I happened to be born into, is the only right one. There is no rational reason that one should have faith in a single religion. It seems that the only way to be Christian and still maintain rationality is to take the viewpoint of my Christian friend Peyton Bowman: "It may not be rational to be Christian, but I choose to believe in it because I am a stronger and better person for it."

Human Evolution

Humans have many traits that separate us from our closest relative, the chimpanzee. Thinking about the differences between chimps and ourselves can give us insight into human evolution. Some differences:
We have much less hair.
We have a shorter gut.
We are better at throwing objects accurately.
We have hooded nares.
We are weaker and slower than chimps.
We don't have fangs like chimps.
We walk on two legs primarily.
We have emotional tears.
We have more subcutaneous fat than other primates, that tend to store more fat around their gut.
We have more complex language and tool use, including fire.
How do we explain these differences? Was it a single niche that brought about all these changes, or a series of different environmental pressures over millions of years?

Everything below is pure speculation:

Our nearest living ancestors live in trees, so the first change in niche for protohumans must have been the transition to living on the ground, potentially in savannas. Chimpanzees are already pretty intelligent, and are known to use a variety of tools, though with their long fingers and short thumbs they have some difficulty with precision tool use. On the other hand, baboons, who live mostly in savannas, have hands that are better able to grasp objects, though do not use tools as often as chimpanzees.  Why not? Since chimpanzees are more intelligent than baboons, the most reasonable conclusion is that baboons aren't intelligent enough to significantly use tools. When protohumans made the transition to living on the ground full time, this allowed the hand to focus on adapting fully to tool use rather than tree-climbing. I think one reasonable conclusion from all these facts is that the major story of protohuman evolution is: There was an intelligent tree-dwelling primate, more intelligent than other primates, that made the transition to living on the ground, developed dexterous hands, and started using more and more tools, thus driving increasing intelligence. It seems likely that this increase in tool use created the pressure for bipedalism, allowing a greater variety of tool use (such as walking with a spear).
Once the protohumans started using more and more tools, many traits likely followed as a result. For instance, the use of fire for cooking is the likely explanation for the shorter gut as it takes less gut to digest cooked food (with cooking we basically externalized a portion of digestion, like a spider who injects digestive juices into his trapped prey). Perhaps our shorter hair is a result of our ability to create clothing out of the hides of other animals and warm ourselves by fire, thus making it unnecessary to spend the calories growing our own pelts. Our ability to throw objects accurately is likely related to hunting, perhaps with spears. We are weaker and slower since we can protect ourselves and hunt using tools rather than spend calories maintaining large muscles. 
There's an interesting theory called the aquatic ape hypothesis. It states that at some stage, protohumans spent enough time in the water collecting food that it affected our evolution in a variety of ways. I think the most clear example of the explanatory power of this theory is our hooded nares, which keeps water out of the nose unless you turn upside down.  Other examples include reduced hair and increased subcutaneous fat, characteristics found in many mammals that spend lots of time in the water (subcutaneous fat is a better insulator than hair when wet).  Some proponents of the theory push it further, saying bipedalism developed to help protohumans wade in water while keeping their head above the waterline (when apes wade across rivers they do so on two legs).
Incidentally, early, anatomically modern humans did often live on beaches. For instance, the first wave of human migration out of Africa around 70,000 years ago or so, moved primarily via the coast of the Indian Ocean, arriving in Australia around 40,000 years ago. The fact that this first migration moved along the coast suggests they were beach-combers. Similarly, some scientists believe that once Asian peoples arrived in the Americas around 15,000 years ago, they rapidly moved down the Pacific coast, then later migrated inland, again suggesting a beach-combing society.
What was the driving force behind language? Perhaps for teaching tool use or planning for complex hunting and trapping maneuvers? And why music? And why does it seem our intelligence is so complex and adaptable, beyond the needs of a hunting/gathering society (able to develop quantum mechanics or play a Rachmaninoff piano concerto, for example)? Why do we laugh at humor?

Happiness

There's been lots of talk about happiness the past few years: the popular press frequently reports on happiness studies, and I find I'm often discussing the causes of happiness with friends. Here are a few thoughts:

First of all, some interesting results: The best way to spend your money is to buy events (going out to eat, concert, etc.) rather than items.  One of the most enjoyable types of activity is that which is both self-directed and challenging (thus working under close direction from a superior is not ideal, nor is repetitive tasks). There's evidence that sun-exposure, not just to your skin but to your retina, is important for happiness. Six months after winning the lottery, you're likely to have returned to your baseline happiness.  Six months after becoming paraplegic, you're likely to have returned to your baseline happiness.

I've been very focused over the past couple years in optimizing my happiness. And while this has been productive, I wonder if I'm too narrow in my focus. In his article in the NY Times in October (http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/06/the-spoils-of-happiness/?scp=2&sq=happiness&st=cse), philosopher David Sosa argues for the separation of the terms "pleasure" (the internal state of mind) and "happiness" (which is feelings of pleasure in response to something positive in the external world). For example, suppose there were a drug that provided unlimited highs without any negative internal side effects such as withdrawals or hangovers. The drug user would be said to be experiencing pleasure but not happiness. Happiness would be reserved for feelings of pleasure associated with our relationships with others or other events in the real world, such as laughing with friends or succeeding at a chosen goal.

My friend Bob told me about a study showing that the average parent acknowledged being less happy when they became parents, but then the vast majority of course said they did not regret having kids. So why have kids? I think this might help demonstrate the difference between "pleasure" and "happiness".  A successful parent, I imagine, feels a deep sense of happiness from time to time as their child matures, achieves certain things, returns their love. In this TED lecture (http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/rufus_griscom_alisa_volkman_let_s_talk_parenting_taboos.html), the founders of a parenting blog describe the happiness curve after having a child as becoming intensely sinusoidal, with lots of highs and lows, as opposed to the relatively stable contentment they experienced during their DINK years (dual-income, no kids). This idea that it can be preferable to experience extremes of emotion rather than stable contentment reminds me of the Tennyson quote: "'Tis better to have loved and lost, than never to have loved at all."

In what way is money related to happiness? Here are some relevant facts:
Scientists who win a Nobel prize live longer than those who were candidates for winning but didn't. British bureaucrats live longer the higher they are in the bureaucratic hierarchy. In a study in rural China, one's income relative to fellow villagers was twice as important as absolute income in determining happiness. I recently heard a quote from a super wealthy financier who said that acquiring wealth became primarily about keeping score in the global financial game. These ideas highlight the importance of out-competing one's peers to happiness. Once a certain degree of basic needs are met, it seems that further increases in income affect happiness primarily through a sense of out-competing one's peers rather than purely enjoying the increased size of your house or quality of your car as things in themselves.

I think this is nicely illustrated by people living in NYC being accustomed to living in small spaces: the wealthier you are the larger, more convenient space you're able to afford in NYC. Yet even people making millions of dollars a year live happily in spaces with less square footage than a lower middle class person might have in a rural area. And yet the lower middle class person may find himself wishing he had a bigger space, not appreciating that his desire is really just relative; that one can be very happy living in a small space if you're able to avoid comparing yourself to your peers.

It seems that this competitive aspect of happiness could be overcome. If your happiness is negatively affected by your lack of wealth, it might help to re-orient your self-esteem so that it's measured by things more important than your relative wealth.  For many people, lack of wealth is a great source of unhappiness, and can lead to credit card debt, divorce, working too many hours per week, working in a job you dislike. Almost no income level is immune from this condition. Even people in the top 5% income bracket can experience stress regarding their finances, which is a shame. One of the most important things that wealth provides is a sense of security in not having to worry about money. But by spending too much on a home, a car, expensive hobbies, one can end up just as stressed about money as someone in a lower income bracket.

If you have lots of wealth, might it be considered unethical to flaunt it too greatly? By displaying your wealth you're not only pandering to your own competitive spirit, but also inspiring envy in your peers, and reducing their happiness? And wouldn't you consider the happiness gained by driving a Porsche every day more in the category of "pleasure" rather than "happiness"?

Addendum: After writing this article, I still felt I hadn't captured a nagging feeling: that focusing a life on pursuing happiness is a bit near-sighted, that at times happiness should have to be sacrificed for something greater. This article (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/feb/10/what-good-life/) in the New York Review of Books answered that nagging feeling. I've addressed this in the post "Living Well." 

Sparta

Just read about the life of Spartan citizens c. 500 BCE.  Has expanded my perspective on my own life:

The basic story is that Spartan citizens began taking over neighboring areas, and turning many of the people in those areas "helots," essentially slaves. The helots continued to live with their family on their original land, but were forced to contribute appx 50% of their crops to the Spartan citizen that owned them. Their freedom was also very limited.  They were subject to intermittent, essentially random, acts of violence.

As Sparta became increasingly powerful, more and more areas were subjugated, with the population of Spartan citizens staying around 8,000 or so men. In order to maintain their hold on their enslaved populations, which greatly outnumbered the Spartans, the Spartans developed a martial culture unlike anything I've ever heard of, which is the really interesting part of all this:

To be a Spartan citizen you had to be the legitimate son of a Spartan citizen. Males lived with their mother (and sometimes their father) until age 7. At that point they left home, joining their peers in a long and arduous process of acculturation and physical training which continued until age 30. They learned to be "hoplites", the armed warriors that together form the feared Spartan phalanx, a tight mass of highly organized, disciplined, and expensively armored Spartan citizens wielding spears. During their training they are taught by older warriors. It seems that their lives were completely focused on their training. Any sort of excess was discouraged. There was no currency, in order to discourage the amassing of wealth. The only measure of wealth was how much helot land you owned. Meals for all were meagre, including a dark bloody pork soup that was thought inedible by other Greeks. Not all male citizens were able to complete the training; those that didn't were ostracized and lost certain privileges enjoyed by the remainder of the citizens. The only male citizens that didn't train were the sons of the two kings. By creating this highly disciplined martial culture the Spartans were able to maintain their stronghold over the helots despite being vastly outnumbered. They were also able to take over larger and larger areas.

Now of course this whole situation was presumably miserable for all concerned- the helots lived in constant fear of their masters and the Spartans lives were very restricted. But it's also beautiful how the Spartan culture was so deeply ingrained into the hoplite. Spartan hoplites were regarded as the best warriors of the known world. In addition to skill and strength, they had learned extreme discipline. Their discipline and willingness to die for the Spartan cause is illustrated by the Spartan's stand at the pass at Thermopylae:

The Persian Empire was marching with a massive army, with a large Navy alongside, south through Greece, intending to conquer Athens, Sparta, and the rest of Southern Greece.  The Greeks tried to halt the Persians at the narrow pass at Thermopylae, a tiny path at the time between the Aegean Sea on the east and mountains to the west. A small group of Spartan (and other) hoplites, led by the Spartan King Leonidas, managed to hold the pass for a few days. A local traitor told the Persians of a small path through the mountains that would allow the Persian army to get past the phalanx and surround the small group. When the Spartans learned they'd been surrounded, it was clear that staying at the pass would be fatal. However, the Spartans hoped to at least delay the advance of the Persians to allow preparations to be made back home for further defense. King Leonidas sent home any hoplites who had not yet born a son. Those that had sons stayed to die alongside their king in defense of their land. When the Spartans heard the Persians had threatened to darken the sky with arrows in the upcoming slaughter, one Spartan replied "So much the better, we will fight in the shade." Essentially every hoplite that stayed to defend the pass died.

When I think of self-interest, I usually think of money, especially the luxury it buys. For the Spartan, it sounds like the amassing of wealth (aside from land) and enjoying luxuries such as exotic food was actually undesirable. The Spartan actually prefers the life of privation. And this isn't just the elite or some minority group, this is the entire male population of Sparta. So what does selfishness mean to the Spartan? He simply seeks personal honor, but according to the rules he has learned, personal honor is good for the group.  What would the Spartan version of Bernie Madoff look like? Deceiving others for personal gain is much less attractive if there is little perceived benefit from being wealthy.

Is the desire for luxury actually something we learn culturally? Until I learned all this about Spartan culture I guess I assumed that desire for luxury and comfort was a basic human instinct. But now that I think about it more, I wonder if luxury is an acquired taste? I heard a story about Bedouins being rescued by Westerners from the desert during a drought and being offered beds indoors, but many of them didn't like it and resumed sleeping on the ground outside. A monk from any religion, by definition, avoids luxury. Siddharta, the protagonist in Herman Hesse's book of the same name, is successful due to his ability to wait, fast, and read. Perhaps unlearning the taste for luxury is empowering. In middle class America, it seems that lots of distress is created by "living beyond your means," ending up in stressful debt in order to feed the hunger for luxury. Without the desire for luxury, it's much easier to earn enough to forget about money. And with no desire for luxury, greed and graft are not temptations. The question "How much money would it take to get you to do X?" would not have an answer. I'd be successful to unlearn the taste for luxury.