The Submission Drive

Humans have a drive for social and intellectual submission, which is extremely dangerous.

There was a time when psychological "drives" were all the rage. The idea that humans have instincts much as other animals do was just entering the scientific consciousness, so finding and classifying them was an important task- the great work of figuring out the human unconscious, or subconscious. Drives for food, security, sex, dominance, and much else were found. Freud even elaborated a "death drive". But our current political epoch suggests another one- a submission drive.

To an independent minded scholar and skeptic, the behavior on the Republican side of the political spectrum is revolting. Falling all over themselves to fawn over a narcissistic megalomaniac? Check. Thinking nothing of flagrant corruption that makes Warren Harding look like a choir boy? Check. Explaining away gross incompetence and pointless cruelty across the entire policy space from economics to foreign policy? Check. What causes people to join and defend what amount to cults? For that matter, what causes people to join religions?

At one level, submission is eminently rational. Groups are always more powerful than individuals. The American archetype of the loner, the Clint Eastwood or John Wayne character riding alone to mete out justice and bucking the system- that is a fantasy. It is powerful precisely because it is so romantic and unrealistic. It is compensatory psychic food for the hemmed-in and submissive. In reality, the system always wins. Militaries win when they can gather up a bigger army than the other guys. Corporations win when they have bought all their competition and become the biggest on the block. Our social instincts lead us to join groups to gain power. 

But the submission drive seems to go way beyond this, allowing us to swallow alternate realities and even seek domination by others. An interesting form is when whole cultures convert their religion. Many times, such as during the colonial era, during the Christian conquests of Northern Europe, and during the Muslim conquests, the winning power foists its religion on another culture, a culture that grows quite rapidly to accept and adopt it as its own. Was one religion true-er or better than the other? Not at all. The new one is often significantly worse in many dimensions than the old. This is purely a power transaction where those who had submitted themselves to one archetype and narrative of cultural and supernatural power find themselves convinced that social and military coercion is a pretty important form of power too, perhaps signifying a new narrative that they should submit to. But once converted, the same psychic events happen. Leaders are idolized, scriptures are memorized, vestments are accessorized. In return, those who submit seek safety and guidance, buying into a (new) father figure archetype.

Joining a group inserts you into a hierarchy of domination. There are rewards for working your way up the ranks, being able to get others to serve you, having more influence and status. This most obvious in the military, with its obsession with colorful gradations, decorations, and uniforms. But it is true everywhere- in corporations, politics, organized crime, families. Submission is the price of entry, and it seems that to properly submit, one has to take on the a great deal more than just a signed contract. Members of organizations are constantly being tested for their loyalty, their buy-in to the ethics and goals of the organization, and its wider world-view. At IBM, they used to sing the company song. Modern corporate life is a complex compromise where some of the submittee's personal life is allowed to be separated from corporate control, and many boundaries are set by legal regime to prevent the organization from turning into a criminal entity and bar total domination of its employees, customers, business partners. 

However, other organizations are not so limited. Religion and politics are a bit less hemmed-in, and demand sometimes extraordinary kinds of fealty for the rewards on offer. In their variety of styles and cultures, they attract different temperaments of devotee. Overall, one has to say that people more prone to submission and participation in hierarchies tend to go to right-wing political, military, and religious organizations. Contrary to the cultivated image of hard-headedness and independence, conservatives turn out to submit more readily to domination by others. It is notorious that organizing Democrats is like herding cats. Likewise, university faculty tend towards independence and disorganization. Liberal churches are notoriously light on discipline and free with their theology. 

Conversely, Republican and conservative organizations spring up like weeds and have, aside from gobs of funding, remarkable discipline. The MAGA swoon for the current president is just one example of the lengths to which thought patterns can be bent in favor of the dominant leader of the moment. The corollary of greater mental submission by the followers is greater rewards and wider scope of action for the leaders. Making it to the top of such disciplined heap seems to turn psychology on its head, from submission to domination. Napoleon is a case study, working his way up the ranks, literally, to a position of ultimate power. Which promptly went to his head, causing him to veer in a conservative direction, and to wreck half of Europe. Cult leaders have time and again shown how poorly adapted we are to this much-sought after, but rarely successful, psychological transition.

The fascist/authoritarian moment that is glowering around the world has reactivated these extreme domination/submission dynamics, such as between Russia and Ukraine, and within so many far-right movements and the poitical systems they target. Fortunately, there are just fundamental temperamental barriers to the attractiveness of such movements, forcing them to take extra-legal measures if they are truly dedicated to overcome the resistence of the less submissive members of their societies.

• Much of this is drawn from a classic book, "Instincts of the Herd in Peace and War".
• Report card on the courts.
• Waymo is hitting the highway.
• Plastic.

My Religion is Star Trek

Denial of death and the origin of evil- Ernest Becker on religion.

I have always wondered about the purpose of clothes. Nudists obviously do as well. Sometimes you need to keep warm. But most of the time, clothes are a cultural convention full of signifiers of taste, status ... and something else. That something else is the illusion that we are not animals. Positively, absolutely, something wholly different and on another plane of existence. Not animals. 

Even a century and a half after Darwin explained that we are animals, there are plenty of people who cling to various stories of denial. But these stories have purposes that go well beyond this ontological illusion. Because not only are we animals, but we are animals without meaning. Animals that will die. That is, no meaning is given objectively. So just as we clothe our bodies with fabric, we clothe our spirits with illusions of meaning, for otherwise we could not live. 

I have been following a provocative podcast series, which spent a couple of episodes on Ernest Becker, a mid-20th century philosopher in the US. He posited that we all follow a religion, in the anthropological sense that we live in cultural structures that give us meaning. Structures that are fundamentally illusory, because there is no there there. Meaning has always been generated by us, for us, subjectively by our psychological proclivities for social connection and drama. We are psychologically adapted to make and seek meaning, though in the final analysis, however powerful they feel, these are all conjured, not given. Take Disney as an example. Many people get highly involved with, and take solace from, the narratives Disney puts out, in its parks, cruise ships, movies, merchandise, and other channels. Relentless provision of mechanically assembled archetypes and other psychological triggers that activate / soothe, inspire, and motivate apparently has a substantial market. 

While atheists take no end of potshots at the absurdities and hypocrisies of formal religions, they also live (and must live) in some sort of illusion themselves. The idea that learning and science makes for a more "objective" value system and life of meaning may be less absurd, but is no more objective. These values come with a rationale and a story, one of service to ultimately human ends of knowledge and betterment. But that doesn't make them true- just another set of values that must be gauged subjectively. And when measured by the ironic criterion of Darwinian success in promoting reproduction, they often turn out to be lacking. At the most basic level, getting through the day requires some kind of motivation, and that motivation, when it goes beyond the most animal requirements, requires meaning, which requires us to have some story that narrates a purpose to a life whose end is otherwise irredeemably meaningless. 

There is a problem, however, to Becker. The more enveloping and functional the narrative of meaning, the more any competing narrative becomes alien and threatening. Indeed, threatening narratives become evil. Thus Judaism became the nemesis of Christianity, and Catholicism that of Protestantism. If the meaning of our lives, in a spiritual and eternal sense, is devalued by another story that has competing status, there is no limit to our horror at its doctrines or our dehumanization of its adherents. Thence to crusades, religious wars, pogroms, and the delicately named "communal violence". The management of narratives of meaning thus is perhaps the most critical aspect of human affairs, as all religious leaders have known forever.

One can see the US civil war through this lens. The people of the South, wedded to slavery, justified it through their theology and culture. They were mortally offended by the busybodies of the North who dared cast aspersions on their moral narratives and justifications, not to mention their economic basis. Where "Uncle Tom's Cabin" may have broken through the indifference of Northern culture, it was met with outrage in the South- a stout defense of their powerful cultural and religious narratives. The conflict was spiritual and existential.

Becker did not have terribly novel solutions to the problems of meaning and counter-meaning. Just the meta prescription that arose in the enlightenment, secularism and in all the branches of modern psychology. Which is that understanding this dynamic and taking one's stories less seriously is the path to social peace. It may not be the path to optimal personal meaning, however. How do you compare the smorgasbord of Disney, mainline religion, Western Buddhism, science, and a thousand other sects and value systems to a traditional society with one church, one story, and one universe? The power of social and spiritual unity must have been tremendously validating and comfortable. So there has been a big tradeoff to get to our current state of social and spiritual innovation, plurality, and anomie. It is evident that our political moment is one of deep spiritual revanchism- of revulsion (by the more traditional-minded) against all this plurality, back towards a more benighted unity.

• Only Catholics go to heaven.
• Religious zealots have no clue whatsoever.
• Homelessness as a problem of affluence, gentrification, and too-good policing.
• But crime in DC? We know where that is.
• Cutting off our health to spite our libtards.
• The state of cars.

To the Stars!

Reviews of "Making it So", by Patrick Stewart, and "The Silent Star" from DEFA films.

When I think about religion, I usually think about how wrong it all is. But at the same time, it has provided a narrative structure for much of humanity and much of human history, for better or worse. It could be regarded as the original science fiction, with its miracles, and reports of supernatural beings and powers. Both testaments of the Bible read like wonder tales of strange happenings and hopeful portents. While theology might take the heavenly beings and weird powers seriously, it is obvious these were mere philosophical gropings after the true gears of the world, while the core of the stories are the human narratives of conflict, adversity, and morality.

In our epoch features a welter of storytelling, typically more commercially desperate than culturally binding. But one story has risen above the rest- the world of Star Trek. From its cold war beginnings, it has blossomed into a rich world of morality tales combined with hopeful adventure and mild drama. The delightful recent autobiography by Patrick Stewart brought this all back in a new way. Looking at the franchise from the inside out, from the perspective of a professional actor who was certainly dedicated to his craft, but hardly a fan of the franchise- someone for whom this was just another role, if one that made him an international, nay galactic, star- was deeply interesting. Even engaging(!)

As a Shakespearean actor, Stewart was used to dealing with beloved, culturally pivotal stories. And this one has become a touchstone in Western culture, supplying some of the models and glue that have gone missing with the increasing irrelevance of religion. It is fascinating how heavily people depend on stories for a sense of what it should, can, and does mean to be human, for models of leadership and community. Star Trek, at least for a certain segment of the population, has provided a hopeful, interesting vision of the future, with well-reasoned moral dramas and judgments. Stewart embodied the kind of leadership style that was influential far beyond the confines of Starfleet. And his deeply engaged acting helped carry the show, as that of Leonard Nimoy had taken the original series beyond its action/adventure roots.

Where the narrative of Christianity is obscurantist, blusteringly uncertain how seriously to take its own story, and focused on the occasional miracles of long-ago, Star Trek values the future, problem solving and science, while it makes little pretense of realism. On the other hand, it is fundamentally a workplace drama, eliding many important facets of humanity, like family and scarcity. Though in the Star Trek world money is worthless and abundance is the rule, posts on starships remain in short supply. There always will be shortages of something, given human greed and narcissism, so there is always going to be something subject to competition, economics, possibly warfare. Christianity hinges on preaching and conversion, based on rather mysterious, if supposedly self-serving, personal convictions. Its vision of the future is, frankly, quite frightening. Star Trek, on the other hand, shows openness to other cultures, diplomacy, and sharing in its eschatological version of the American empire, the Federation. (Even if they get into an inordinate number of fights with un-enlightened cultures.)

The Star Trek story is so strong that it keeps motivating people to make spaceships. Just look at Elon Musk, who, despite the glaringly defective logic of sending humans to Mars, persists in that dream, as does NASA itself. It is a classic case of archetypal yearnings overwhelming common sense, not to mention clear science. But that is a small price to pay for the many other benefits of the Star Trek-style world view- one where different cultures and races get along, where solving problems and seeking knowledge are the highest pursuits, where leadership is judicious and respectful, and humans know what they stand for.

In a similar vein, the Soviets, who led humanity into space, had their own fixations and narratives of space and the future. I recently watched the fascinating movie from the East German DEFA studios, The Silent Star, (1960), which portrays a voyage to Venus. It strikingly prefigures the entire Star Trek oeuvre. There are the scientists on board, the handsome captain, the black communications officer, the international crew from all corners of the earth, the shuttle craft, the talking computer, the communications that keep breaking up, and the space ship that rattles through asteroid fields, jostling the crew. While there are several pointed comments on the American bombing of Hiroshima to set the geopolitical contrast, there is, overall, the absolute optimism that all problems can be solved, and that adventuring to seek the truth is unquestionably the most exciting way to live. One gets the distinct sense that Star Trek was not so original after all.

It was time when technology had pried open the heavens for direct investigation, and what humanity found there was stunningly unlike what had been foretold in the scriptures. It was a vast and empty wasteland, dotted with dead planets and lacking any hint of deities. We had to create an alternative narrative, with warp drive and M-class planets, where humans could recover a sense of agency and engagement with a future that remains tantalizing, even if sober heads know it is as wishful as it is fictional. It is the story, however, that is significant, in its power to give us the fortitude to go forth, not out among the stars, but into a better, more decent community here on earth.

• The long Soviet fixation on Venus.
• The Star Trek that could have been.
• Some atheist cinema is, however, not so great.
• Biden's economic policies have been very good.
• Wrong. Vaccines did the work.
• We could have really stood with Ukraine.

Jews Demand Signs and Greeks Look for Wisdom, but We Preach Christ Crucified

Review of God of the Mind, by Rob Haskell

This blog had its start in a religious discussion, pitting a Christian perspective against an atheist one. That discussion never ended because these viewpoints inevitably talk past each other, based as they are on fundamentally different epistemologies and axioms. Is truth facts, or is it a person? Does it have a capital "T", or a little "t"? Does reality come first, or does faith? With this election, this conflict, usually politely ignorable at the cultural sidelines, has come front and center, as half the country has transferred a Christian style of reasoning to politics, with catastrophic consequences.

I very much wish I had had this book by Rob Haskell back in the day. It lays out in a concise and thorough way all (well, let's say many of) the philosophical and psychological deficiencies of god-belief. It is hands-down the best discussion I have ever read on the subject- well-written, with humor and incisive insight. For example, he provides the bible quote that I have used to title this post, in a discussion of Christianity's approach to reason and intellect. While reams of theology support Christianity with reasons, at the end of the day, any honest theologian and Christian thinker will say that reason doesn't get you there. Faith needs to come first. Only then does all else follow. And this "all" is laced with superstition, suspension of normal rules of evidence, submission to authority, and a need to convert the whole world to the same system of belief. It is, implicitly, a preference for unity and power over truth. No wonder they were marks for the charismatic authority of Donald Trump.

One of the most disturbing aspects of the whole debate is the moralism that creeps into what is ostensibly a reasoned discussion of viewpoints and philosophy. If one does not accept god, Christians have been taught to believe that there is a reason. Not a logical reason, but a moral reason. Depravity is a word that comes up. Lack of belief betrays a moral failure, because god is the foundation of all moral law (those twelve commandments!). Those outside the fold merely want their false freedom to enjoy debauchery and crime, without the nagging conscience, which is apparently implanted not by god at birth, (let alone by evolution, or by moral reasoning), but by regular sermons, loudly professed faith, and bible reading. A bible, we might note, that is full of militarism, sexual abuse, deceit, and political authoritarianism. The whole proposition is absurd, from the ground up, unless, of course, you are of the religious tribe, in which case it has an irresistible logic and allure.

No wonder Christians feel good, right, and justified. And feel a birthright to rule over all, to claim that the US is (or should be) a Christian nation. One where resistance to its moral imperatives would, at last, be futile.

But here we are, getting off track! Rob Haskell is a former protestant missionary and minister, graduate of Regent College, and came to his new positions through deep personal engagement and turmoil. He knows intimately of which he speaks. An interesting aspect of his book is that he is almost more focused on psychology than on philosophy. For it is psychology that drives religious conversion, drives people to prostrate themselves before the void, and drives a faith that calls itself truth. Without the indoctrination by families, for example, no religion would amount to much- certainly not Christianity. And indoctrination of the young is obviously a highly irrational process, combining the most powerful psychological forces known- peer pressure, parental pressure, authority, tradition, community, repetition, fancy costumes. Who could resist? And yet Christians have no problem claiming that the result of all this is belief in truth, with a capital T. 

Haskell recounts an educational experience he had inviting Mormon missionaries to an extended discussion of why he should take up Mormonism. They tout the book of Mormon, which Haskell knows very well is a absurd fabric of early nineteenth century prejudices and speculations. They tout the archeological work a few believers have undertaken to prove their scripture, which is highly dubious, to say the least. But at last, when reason fails and argument slackens, Haskell is urged to pray. Pray hard enough, and the light is sure to shine. And for Mormons, brought up with all the pressures and templates ready-made for their belief, such prayer is very likely to work, activating the archetypes and feelings conducive to agreement with their culture. Will the story or the prayer work for others? Rarely, but occasionally it does strike a nerve, especially in the psychologically vulnerable. Haskell recognizes, uncomfortably, that while the stories are different, the psychological methods used by the Mormons and by him as a missionary are eerily similar.

"This points back to what I've already described, namely that in evangelical thinking, and possibly in all religious thinking, the acceptance of certain crucial and non-negotiable ideas comes first. Then, after that acceptance comes the search for evidence that supports it. But that evidence always gets the short end of the stick. Evidence is great when it affirms the things that are accepted by faith. But here isn't a lot of interest in evangelical circles in evidence itself, or in thinking clearly about evidence. And when the evidence falls short, the believer goes back to where it all started: not evidence but faith. So, it's really a matter of wanting to have your cake and eat it too. There's a built-in permission to be sloppy. 'We like evidence!' says the evangelical, 'so long as it proves our point. but when the evidence brings up difficult questions, we reserve the right to toss it out and appeal to faith.' ... How can you have a serious conversation with someone who thinks like this? It's like talking with your teenager."

Rationalization and confirmation bias are fundamental aspects of human psychology. Science has developed an organized and reasonably effective way to address it, but other institutions have not, notably the echo chambers of current news and social media. We do it all the time, (I am certainly doing it here), and it is no wonder that Christians do it too. The problem is the lack of humility, where Christians revel in their fantastical story, impugn anyone so dense (if not evil) as to not get it, and twist the very vocabulary of epistemology in order to declare that "Truth" comes, not out of reality, but precisely out of unreality- a faith that is required to believe in things unseen and tales thrice-told.

• And he writes a blog, too.
• Example of typical religious condescension, by J D Vance's mentor, James Orr.
• The Discovery Institute will try anything...
• Then there is the no true Scotsman defense.
• The Supreme Court lowers itself still further.
• What makes a human brain?
• We continue speeding ever faster to disaster.
• Poisonous propaganda + AI = our future.

Where Did Flowers Come From?

Are angiosperms 135 million years old, or 275 million years old?

We live among a hodgepodge of plants from different evolutionary epochs, with flowering plants being the most recent, (including the even more recently evolved grasses), alongside the more ancient conifers, cycads, ferns, mosses, and lichens. All have a place in diverse ecosystems, but what is their true history? This has been difficult to establish in more than broad outlines, due, as usual, to the patchy nature of the fossil record, and the difficulties of aligning it with what we now have as the molecular record. Angiosperms have been a particular sore spot, ever since Darwin, who recognized that the sudden appearance and radiation of flowering plants, roughly 130 million years ago, was a problem for evolutionary theory.

A paper from a few years back offered a carefully aligned molecular and fossil analysis of angiosperms, coming to the conclusion that they actually originated ~275 million years ago (MYA), and must have persisted in some cryptic fashion through the ensuing 150 MY before making a splash in the fossil record. How is this kind of analysis done? First, the best early fossils are tabulated, with secure dating and clear characteristics that include them among angiosperms. The most ancient example is a sample of pollen, from roughly 125 million years, which looks strongly like it came from angiosperms. These fossils are also assigned to plant lineages, so that their appearance can inform the branching points of the phylogenetic diagram, whether that diagram is based purely on these fossils and their morphology, or based on molecular data.

Then a set of gene sequences is collected, which are conserved between all the surveyed species, and aligned so that their changes can be fed into a program that counts all the differences. It was clear through this work that some lineages changed faster than other ones (the faster ones are marked with blue flares towards the right. Since the sampled species are all ones that exist now (time 0), being able to provide DNA, and since the branch points are in any case shared between the lineages that descend from them(at their origination points), faster change / evolution in one lineage vs another will be readily apparent, and the researchers just have to make up some rules to judge where to come down in time assignments when faced with such discrepancies. The more serious problem is that such different speeds can totally derange this kind of analysis, making a faster-changing lineage seem much older than it is. So pinpointing the branch points between lineages is extremely important to pin down such hard-to gauge branch lengths. 

Biologically, it is now well known that lineages vary substantially (up to ten fold, less so in longer lineages and time spans) in their speed of molecular change.. molecular evolution is not a clock. Faster change tends to happen when populations are small, and when big evolutionary transitions have happened. For example, plants, and specifically angiosperms, have gone through whole-genome duplications that represent major evolutionary watersheds. These duplications supplied raw material for countless diversifications and specializations of genes, with especially rapid change in molecular sequences either released from previous selective constraints, or subject to new ones via new roles.

Integrated phylogenetic diagram of the evolution of angiosperms, marking key fossils that inform branch point timing (lettered blue circles), and ranges of possible branch points derived from the molecular alignments (red circles). At bottom is time, in millions of years before present.

What can explain the big gap in estimated angiosperm origins? There are three basic hypotheses. First is that the molecular data is correct, which implies that there is an extremely long (150 million years) history of cryptic angiosperms that have not (yet) been detected in the fossil record. There are smatterings of findings in the literature that suggest that such fossils may be (or may have been) found, but I don't think these have been widely accepted yet (especially when they come from highly questionable sources).

The second hypothesis is that something about the very early evolution of angiosperms (like the very early evolution of eukaryotes, and the very early diversification of macroscopic animals) was accelerated in molecular terms, (as discussed above in terms of differing rates between lineages), rendering the apparent molecular phylogeny much longer than the real one. That includes the prodigious radiation of the many lineages in the diagram above, all before the first fossil is found.

The third hypothesis, much beloved of creationists, is that god did it. A mystery like this is ripe for invoking the solution to all mysteries, which is it does not need to be explained in the normal mechanistic terms of the natural world, but rather can be chalked up to the author of all things, god. While this hypothesis, at least for believers, solves this one nagging mystery, it brings on a few others. Why does the rest of biology through this vast lineage still follow the plodding path of gradual (if uneven) development? Why jump in to create this mystery when so many other lineages in the fossil record do not present similar mysteries? Why did god insist upon, (presumably for the ultimate appearance of us as humans), the whole four billion year process of life's plodding development, when the whole thing could have been authored at once and at the start? What amazing societies we could have developed with a four billion year head start!

It is clear, therefore, that some hypotheses create more problems than they solve. Inviting scientists to consider and comment on harebrained hypotheses is not going to end well. The solution to this problem is going to be some combination of the first two hypotheses, of rapid molecular evolution at the start of a major radiation, and some as-yet missing material in the fossil record. Innovative organisms are very likely to be rare, though whole cryptic lineages surviving for many tens of millions of years is hard to posit without more evidence. Yet it is also a given that fossils will necessarily appear after the actual events of lineage branching, thus will always post-date the calculated molecular branching point.

• World albatross day.
• As if FOX wasn't bad enough.
• Ignorance (and cruelty) is MAGA.
• My vote is going to count.

The Impossibility of Morality

We have dark sides and do bad things. How come we all think we are good people?

Part of our political, and temperamental, divide revolves around how seriously to take morality. How idealistic to be about goodness, how hard to try, or whether to be more realistic to be about our dark side. For all the platitudes and commandments, the sad fact is that morality is impossible, so the question is perhaps more how intensively we blind ourselves to darkness rather than how dark we will actually be.

Weird, right? But the closer you look, the more impossible it is to follow any system of morality. There are Jains who will not hurt a fly, let alone eat meat. But plants have feelings too. And our guts contain astronomical numbers of organisms in a roiling dance of macabre death. What about them? Existence as a human is unavoidably destructive. Simpler moral systems preach kindness to others. But again, existence requires feeding one's own fire, and that must come at cost to something, or someone. Every trade is unequal, even if voluntary. Employees are notoriously exploited to give more than their fair share. The Earth is relentlessly exploited. There is no end to our appetites, as long as we are alive.

Psychologically, we build up defenses to say that we are no worse than others, that we are good people. Even if we are bad people, we say that we have been driven to crime, and it is no worse than the rich people who thoughtlessly abuse others. Or if we are a presidential candidate, we say that we are saving the world, and making America great, and the subject of cruel witchhunts. Self-defense is one more essential part of living, even if it comes at the expense of seeing the world clearly. Unflattering visions of our way of life are rejected and repressed, the more so if they come as criticism from others.

Defensive blindness is integral to "modern" life. The agriculture and food processing industry keeps the slaughterhouses hidden, the feedlots and inhumane poultry coops under wraps. The less we know, the better we feel. Money is the ultimate screen against the squeems and qualms of existence, shielding us from the rapacious mining that our electronics drive in tropical forests, the slave labor that makes our clothes, and countless other immoral and destructive processes we are ultimately responsible for. Clear consciousness of all this would make the whole system collapse.

Protesters carrying the pine tree flag of Christian nationalism. While doing good things for the country.

Religions offer their own forms of defense. Confession in the Catholic church is a classic way to touch the darkness, but then to be absolved and feel good again. Exorcisms are offered as well. Protestant approaches tend to focus more on works, like community service, or in fringier precincts, on sermons of self-glorification. Everyone who is reborn in Christ is part of the club, and though a sinner, is also good, glorious, and heaven-bound. Possibly, even, in the Mormon system, himself a god. How they engage with moral darkness varies tremendously by religion, but the common need is to control it, in ourselves and others, sufficiently that our self-image of goodness and light can be preserved.

The extensive repression of moral darkness leads to the countervailing temptation to take another peek at it, under controlled conditions. It is the inspiration for much art- the detective thiller, the horror movie, the general apparatus of drama. Without darkness, there is no interest or light. And people differ markedly in their approach to such material. The more liberal and optimistic tend to focus on the light side, not the dark side, and do so politically as well. They have more moral idealism and hope, which means they have more repression of darker tendencies. Kumbaya is sung. Conversely, the more "realistic", conservative attitude scoffs at the do-gooder idealism of the left, and sees darkness around every corner- in foreigners, in sexual transgression and expression, in fluid social systems, in change itself. They recognize that moral aspiration is futile- such as the woke trend of recent times .. the bending over backwards to every minority group, micro-aggression, every insect and animal, and the climate.. is putting up an impossible and futile bar. That sticking to basics and tradition is going to get us further than such refusal to recognize the dark reality of human existence. 

These valences are apparent in the Palestinian dilemma. As the Palestinians were expelled from Israel during its establishment, the Jews proclaimed a right for Jews all over the world to come to Israel. Meanwhile, the UN created a right of return for Palestinians, to the very same land that formed Israel. It was the ultimate expression of bleeding heart unrealism, and has led (in part) to the existentially stuck misery of Palestinians for all these decades, as the UN took it upon itself to nurture an absurd dream of return and set up a now-permanent refugee apparatus of feeding, schools, and health care, all of which fuels the seething anger and terrorist dreams of ever-growing generations of Palestinians.

Another example is the US war in Vietnam- a curious and tragic mix of blindness, idealism, and realism. We wanted to help the (South) Vietnamese defend themselves from communism. In light of what happened in North Korea in the ensuing decades, this was not a bad goal. North Korea is moral darkness incarnate- a cruel and criminal dictatorship. But once the enormity of the task became clear, the moral realists took charge, with the aim of bombing Vietnam and its neighboring countries into submission. But even such extreme measures failed, leaving us with the ashes of horrible means used in the service of a futile goal. The US media was increasingly unwilling to hide the horrors, bringing into American consciousness all this darkness, which turned out to be unbearable.

So, is it better to blind ourselves to the darkness, and risk destruction and error, or better to be realistic, explore it, even celebrate it, as the Homeric epics do, and gird ourselves to deal with it, and deal it out to others? As in most things, societies are probably best off with a mix of perspectives. This mix is perennially expressed in our political spectrum, though of late the right seems to have gotten caught up in a peculiar reaction against the pieties of the left. As the left has gained the cultural and governmental high ground, as shown by the triumph of gay rights, ever-increasing concern for racial minorities, and a rising tide of official movement on environmental concerns, the right has turned apoplectic. They seem to be saying ... "We love our trucks, we won the continent fair and square, and we won the racial contest as well.."- leave us to our spoils, and don't be so concerned about "fairness" .. life isn't fair or moral, but goes to the darkest, baddest winner. (One can hear echos of the Confederate South in all this clearly enough.) Those on the left who are besotted with woke-ness and fairness will be singing a different tune when they are not at the top of the heap anymore, in their well-gentrified, rich and safe neighborhoods.

Perhaps this portrayal is extreme, but extreme concern for the moral fairness within a society can blind us to other issues, such as the competitive underpinnings of life, both within and verus other societies, and the ultimate impossibility of being totally fair, or moral, as historical actors. A balance of moral idealism and realism about unavoidable dark aspects is needed, but not in a conflict that tears the society apart. That depends on communication between the two sides, and less totalizing certainty from each side's respective mechanisms that repress doubt and screen (or valorize, in extreme cases) various different aspects of darker morality. Religion is notorious for reshaping its adherent's realities and protecting them psychologically from their own evil actions. But left wing certainty functions similarly, with its echo chambers and pieties. So, as usual, deeper insight is needed, mostly of our own blind spots and what they are hiding, but also of how such mechanisms work across the spectrum.

• Eating animals and loving them.
• Ready to be gouged more efficiently?
• Is your car really worth it?
• Corals are dying.

Spiritual Resources for the Religiously Abstemious

Nones are now a plurality in the US. What are we supposed to do?

The Pew research institute recently came out with polling that shows a significantly changed religious landscape in the US. Over the last couple of decades, while the religious right has been climbing the greasy pole of political power, gaining seats on the Supreme Court, and agitating for a return to patriarchy, their pews have been emptying. The religiously unaffiliated, or "nones", comprise 28% of the US population now, almost double the level two decades ago.

One has only to see the rabid support evangelicals give their orange-haired messiah to understand what has been turning people off. Or glance over the appalling chronicle of sexual abuse unearthed in the Catholic church. Maybe the horsemen of the Atheist apocalypse have had something to do with it. Russia under Putin is strenuously demonstrating that the same system can be just as cruel with or without religion. But these patterns of gross institutional, moral, and intellectual failure, and their ensuing critiques, are hardly new. Luther made a bit of hay out of the abuses of the Catholic church, Voltaire, among many other thinkers, ridiculed the whole religious enterprise, and Hitler was a forerunner of Trump in leaning on religion, at least early in his career, despite being a rather token Christian himself (other than in the antisemitism, of course). What is new now?

A dramatic rise in numbers of people with no religious affiliation and little interest, from Pew polling.

I am not sure, frankly. Europe has certainly been leading the way, showing that declining religion is quite compatible with prosperous and humane culture. But perhaps this phenomenon is part of the general isolation and atomization of US culture, and thus not such a good thing. It used to be that a community was unthinkable without a church (or several) to serve as the central hub. Churches served to validate the good and preach to the bad. They sponsored scout troops, weddings, charitable events and dinners, and committees and therapeutic encounters of all sorts. They were socially essential, whether one believed or not. That leaders of society also led the churches knit the whole circle together, making it easy to believe that something there was indeed worth believing, whether it made sense or not.

Now, the leadership of society has moved on. We are mesmerized by technology, by entertainment, and sports, perhaps to a degree that is new. The capitalist system has found ways to provide many of the services we used to go to churches for, to network, to get psychotherapy, to gossip, and most of all, to be entertained. Community itself is less significant in the modern, suburban, cocooned world. Successful churches meet this new world by emphasizing their social offerings in a mega-church community, with a dash of charismatic, but not overly intellectually taxing, preaching. Unfortunately, megachurches regularly go through their own crises of hypocrisy and leadership, showing that the caliber of religious leaders, whatever their marketing skills, has been declining steadily.

The "nones" are more apathetic than atheistic, but either way, they are not great material for making churches or tightly knit communities. Skeptical, critical, or uninterested, they are some of the least likely social "glues". Because, frankly, it takes some gullibility and attraction to the core human archetypes and drama to make a church, and it takes a lot of positive thinking to foster a community. I would promote libraries, arts institutions, non-profits, and universities as core cultural hubs that can do some of this work, fostering a learning and empathetic culture. But we need more.

As AI takes over work of every sort, and more people have more time on their hands, we are facing a fundamental reshaping of society. One future is that a few rich people rake off all the money, and the bulk of the population descends into poverty and joblessness, unneeded in a society where capitalism has become terminally capital-intensive, with little labor required. Another future is where new forms of redistribution are developed, either by bringing true competition to bear on AI-intensive industries so that they can not take excess profits, or by thorough regulation for the public good, including basic income schemes, public goods, and other ways to spread wealth broadly. 

Such a latter system would free resources for wider use, so that a continuing middle class economy could thrive, based on exchanges that are now only luxuries, like music, personal services, teaching, sports, counseling. The destruction of the music recording industry by collusion of music labels and Spotify stands as a stark lesson in how new technology and short-sighted capitalism can damage our collective culture, and the livelihood of a profession that is perhaps the avatar of what an ideal future would look like, culturally and economically.

All this is to say that we face a future where we should, hopefully, have more resources and time, which would in principle be conducive to community formation and a life-long culture of learning, arts, and personal enrichment, without the incessant driver of work. The new AI-driven world will have opportunities for very high level work and management, but the regular hamburger flippers, baristas, cabbies, and truck drivers will be a thing of the past. This is going to put a premium on community hubs and new forms of social interaction. The "nones" are likely to favor (if not build) a wide range of such institutions, while leaving the church behind. It is a mixed prospect, really, since we will still be lacking a core institution that engages with the whole person in an archetypal, dream-like fantasy of hope and affirmation. Can opera do that work? I doubt it. Can Hollywood? I doubt that as well, at least as it applies to a local community level that weaves such attractions together with service and personal connection.

• Those very highly moral religious people.
• Molecular medicine is here.
• Why do women have far more autoimmune syndromes?
• What to do about Iran.
• "As we’ll see, good old-fashioned immortality has advantages that digital immorality cannot hope to rival." ... I am not making this up!

Empty Skepticism at the Discovery Institute

What makes a hypothesis scientific, vs a just-so story, or a religious fixation?

"Intelligent" design has fallen on hard times, after a series of court cases determined that it was, after all, a religious idea and could not be foisted on unsuspecting schoolchildren, at least in state schools and under state curricula. But the very fact of religious motivation leads to its persistence in the face of derision, evidence, and apathy. The Discovery Institute, (which, paranthetically, does not make any discoveries), remains the vanguard of intelligent design, promoting "skepticism", god, alternative evolutionary theories, and, due to the paucity of ways to attack evolution, tangential right-wingery such as anti-vaccine agitation. By far their most interesting author is Günter Bechly, who delves into the paleontological record to heap scorn on other paleontologists and thereby make room for the unmentioned alternative hypothesis ... which is god.

A recent post discussed the twists and turns of ichthyosaur evolution. Or should we say biological change through time, with unknown causes? Ichthyosaurs flourished from about 250 million years ago (mya) to 100 mya, with the last representatives dated to 90 mya. They were the reptile analogs of whales and dophins, functioning as apex predators in the ocean. They were done in by various climate crises well-prior to the cometary impact that ended the Cretaceous and the reign of dinosaurs in general.

Bechly raises two significant points. First is the uncertain origins of Ichthyosaurs. As is typical with dramatic evolutionary transitions like that from land to water in whales, the time line is compressed, since there are a lot of adaptations that are desirable for the new environment that might have been partially pre-figured, but get fleshed out extensively with the new ecological role and lifestyle. Selection is presumably intense and transitional fossils are hard to find. This was true for whales, though beautiful transitional fossils have been found more recently. And apparently this is true for the Ichthyosaurs as well, where none have been found, yet. There is added drama stemming from the time of origin, which is right after the Permian exinction, perhaps the greatest known extinction event in the history of the biosphere. Radiations after significant extinction events tend to be rapid, with few transitional fossils, for the same reason of new niches opening and selection operating rapidly.

Ichthyosaur

Bechly and colleagues frequently make hay out of gaps in the fossil record, arguing that something (we decline to be more specific!) else needs to be invoked to explain such lack of evidence. It is a classic god of the gaps argument. But since the fossils are never out of sequence, and we are always looking at millions of years of time going by with even the slimmest layers of rock, this is hardly a compelling argument. One thing that we learned from Darwin's finches, and the whole argument around punctuated equilibrium, is that evolution is typically slow because selection is typically not directional but conservative. But when selection is directional, evolution by natural selection can be startlingly fast. This is an argument made very explicitly by Darwin through his lengthy discussions of domestic species, whose changes are, in geological terms, instant. 

But Bechly makes an additional interesting argument- that a specific hypothesis made about ichthyosaurs is a just-so story, a sort of hypothesis that evolutionary biologists are very prone to make. Quite a few fossils have been found of ichthyosaurs giving birth, and many of them find that the baby comes out not only live (not as an egg, as is usual with reptiles), but tail-first. Thus some scientists have made the argument that each are adaptations to aquatic birth, allowing the baby to be fully borne before starting to breathe. Yet Bechly cites a more recent scientific review of the fossil record that observes that tail-first birth is far from universal, and does not follow any particular phylogenetic pattern, suggesting that it is far from necessary for aquatic birth, and thus is unlikely to be, to any significant extent, an adaptation. 

Ha! Just another story of scientists making up fairy tales and passing them off as "science" and "evolutionary hypotheses", right?  

"Evolutionary biology again and again proves to be an enterprise in imaginative story-telling rather than hard science. But when intelligent design theorists question the Darwinist paradigm based on empirical data and a rational inference to the best explanation, they are accused of being science deniers. Which science?" ... "And we will not let Darwinists get away with a dishonest appeal to the progress of science when they simply rewrite their stories every time conflicting evidence can no longer be denied."

Well, that certainly is a damning indictment. Trial and sentencing to follow! But let's think a little more about what makes an explanation and a hypothesis, on the scientific, that is to say, empirical, level. Hypotheses are always speculative. That is the whole point. They try to connect observations with some rational or empirically supported underlying mechanism / process to account for (that is, explain) what is observed. Thus the idea that aquatic birth presents a problem for mammals who have to breathe represents a reasonable subject for an hypothesis. Whether headfirst or tailfirst, the baby needs to get to the surface post haste, as soon as its breathing reflex kicks in. While the direction of birth doesn't seem to the uninitiated (and now, apparently to experts with further data at hand) to make much difference, thinking it does is a reasonable hypothesis, based on obvious geometric arguments and biological assumptions, that it is possible that the breathing reflex is tied to emergence of the head during birth, in which case coming out tailfirst might delay slightly the time it takes between needing to breathe and being able to breathe. 

This argument combines a lot of known factors- the geometry of birth, the necessity of breathing, the phenomenon of the breathing reflex initiating in all mammals very soon after birth, by mechanisms that doubtless are not entirely known, but at the same time clearly the subject of evolutionary tuning. And also the paleontological record. Good or bad, the hypothesis is based on empirical data. What characterizes science is that it follows a disciplined road from one empirically supported milestone to the next, using hypotheses about underlying mechanisms, whether visible or not, which abide by all the known/empirical mechanisms. Magic is only allowed if you know what is going on behind the curtain. Unknown mechanisms can be invoked, but then immediately become subjects of further investigation, not of protective adulation and blind worship.

In contrast, the intelligent design hypothesis, implicit here but clear enough, is singularly lacking in any data at all. It is not founded on anything other than the sentiment that what has clearly happened over the long course of the fossil record operates by unknown mechanisms, by god operating pervasively to carry out the entire program of biological evolution, not by natural selection (a visible and documented natural process) but by something else, which its proponents have never been able to demonstrate in the least degree, on short time scales or long. Faith does not, on its own, warrant novel empirical mechanisms, and nor does skeptical disbelief warrant them. Nor does one poor, but properly founded, hypothesis that is later superceded by more careful analysis of the data impugn the process of science generally or the style of evolutionary thinking specifically.

Imagine, for example, if our justice system operated at this intellectual level. When investigating crimes, police could say that, if the causes were not immediately obvious, an unnamed intelligent designer was responsible, and leave it there. No cold cases, no presumption of usual natural causality, no dogged pursuit of "the truth" by telegenic detectives. Faith alone would furnish the knowledge that the author of all has (inscrutibly) rendered "his" judgement. It would surely be a convenient out for an over-burdened and under-educated police force!

Evolution by natural selection requires a huge amount of extrapolation from what we know about short time scales and existing biology to the billions of years of life that preceeded us. On the other hand, intelligent design requires extrapolation from nothing at all- from the incredibly persistent belief in god, religion, and the rest of the theological ball of wax not one element of which has ever been pinned down to an empirical fact. Believers take the opposite view solely because religious propaganda has ceaselessly drilled the idea that god is real and "omnipotent" and all-good, and whatever else wonderful, as a matter of faith. With this kind of training, then yes, "intelligent" design makes all kinds of sense. Otherwise not. Charles Darwin's original hypothesis was so brilliant because it drew on known facts and mechanisms to account (with suitable imagination and extrapolation) for the heretofore mysterious history of biology, with its painfully slow yet inexorable evolution from one species to another, one epoch to another. Denying that one has that imagination is a statement about one's intelligence, no matter how it was designed.

• Only god can give us virulent viruses.
• The priest who knew it so well, long ago.
• A wonderful Native American Film- Dance me outside.
• With a wonderful soundtrack, including NDN Kars.
• We need to come clean on Taiwan.
• Appeasers, cranks, and fascist wannabes.
• Vaccines for poor people are not profitable.
• California is dumbing down math, and that will not help any demographic.

Consciousness and the Secret Life of Plants

Could plants be conscious? What are the limits of consciousness and pain? 

Scientific American recently reviewed a book titled "Planta Sapiens". The title gives it all away, and the review was quite positive, with statements like: 

"Our senses can not grasp the rich communicative world of plants. We therefore lack language to describe the 'intelligence' of a root tip in conversation with the microbial life of the soil or the 'cognition' that emerges when chemical whispers ripple through a lacework of leaf cells."

This is provocative indeed! What if plants really do have a secret life and suffer pain with our every bite and swing of the scythe? What of our vaunted morals and ethics then?

I am afraid that I take a skeptical view of this kind of thing, so let's go through some of the aspects of consciousness, and ask how widespread it really is. One traditional view, from the ur-scientific types like Descartes, is that only humans have consciousness, and all other creatures, have at best a mechanism, unfeeling and mechanical, that may look like consciousness, but isn't. This, continued in a sense by B. F. Skinner in the 20th century, is a statement from ignorance. We can not fully communicate with animals, so we can not really participate in what looks like their consciousness, so let's just ignore it. This position has the added dividend of supporting our unethical treatment of animals, which was an enormous convenience, and remains the core position of capitalism generally, regarding farm animals (though its view of humans is hardly more generous).

Well, this view is totally untenable, from our experience of animals, our ability to indeed communicate with them to various degrees, to see them dreaming, not to mention from an evolutionary standpoint. Our consciousness did not arise from nothing, after all. So I think we can agree that mammals can all be included in the community of conscious fellow-beings on the planet. It is clear that the range of conscious pre-occupations can vary tremendously, but whenever we have looked at the workings of memory, attention, vision, and other components assumed to be part of or contributors to conscious awareness, they all exist in mammals, at least. 

But what about other animals like insects, jellyfish, or bacteria? Here we will need a deeper look at the principles in play. As far as we understand it, consciousness is an activity that binds various senses and models of the world into an experience. It should be distinguished from responsiveness to stimuli. A thermostat is responsive. A bacterium is responsive. That does not constitute consciousness. Bacteria are highly responsive to chemical gradients in their environment, to food sources, to the pheromones of fellow bacteria. They appear to have some amount of sensibility and will. But we can not say that they have experience in the sense of a conscious experience, even if they integrate a lot of stimuli into a holistic and sensitive approach to their environment. 

The same is true of our own cells, naturally. They also are highly responsive on an individual basis, working hard to figure out what the bloodstream is bringing them in terms of food, immune signals, pathogens, etc. Could each of our cells be conscious? I would doubt it, because their responsiveness is mechanistic, rather than being an independent as well as integrated model of their world. Simlarly, if we are under anaesthesia and a surgeon cuts off a leg, is that leg conscious? It has countless nerve cells, and sensory apparatus, but it does not represent anything about its world. It rather is built to send all these signals to a modeling system elsewhere, i.e. our brain, which is where consciousness happens, and where (conscious) pain happens as well.

So I think the bottom line is that consciousness is rather widely shared as a property of brains, thus of organisms with brains, which were devised over evolutionary time to provide the kind of integrated experience that a neural net can not supply. Jellyfish, for instance, have neural nets that feel pain, respond to food and mates, and swim exquisitely. They are highly responsive, but, I would argue, not conscious. On the other hand, insects have brains and would count as conscious, even though their level of consciousness might be very primitive. Honey bees map out their world, navigate about, select the delicacies they want from plants, and go home to a highly organized hive. They also remember experiences and learn from them.

This all makes it highly unlikely that consciousness is present in quantum phenomena, in rocks, in bacteria, or in plants. They just do not have the machinery it takes to feel something as an integrated and meaningful experience. Where exactly the line is between highly responsive and conscious is probably not sharply defined. There are brains that are exceedingly small, and neural nets that are very rich. But it is also clear that it doesn't take consciousness to experience pain or try to avoid it, (which plants, bacteria, and jellyfish all do). Where is the limit of ethical care, if our criterion shifts from consciousness to pain? Wasn't our amputated leg in pain after the operation above, and didn't we callously ignore its feelings? 

I would suggest that the limit remains that of consciousness, not that of responsiveness to pain. Pain is not problematic because of a reflex reaction. The doctor can tap our knee as often as he wants, perhaps causing pain to our tendon, but not to our consciousness. Pain is problematic because of suffering, which is a conscious construct built around memory, expectations, and models of how things "should" be. While one can easily see that a plant might have certain positive (light, air, water) and negative (herbivores, fungi) stimuli that shape its intrinsic responses to the environment, these are all reflexive, not reflective, and so do not appear (to an admittedly biased observer) to constitute suffering that rises to ethical consideration.

Everything is Alive, but the Gods are all Dead

Barbara Ehrenreich's memoir and theological ruminations in "Living with a Wild God".

It turns out that everyone is a seeker. Somewhere there must be something or someone to tell us the meaning of life- something we don't have to manufacture with our own hands, but rather can go into a store and buy. Atheists are just as much seekers as anyone else, only they never find anything worth buying. The late writer Barbara Ehrenreich was such an atheist, as well as a remarkable writer and intellectual who wrote a memoir of her formation. Unusually and fruitfully, it focuses on those intense early and teen years when we are reaching out with both hands to seize the world- a world that is maddeningly just beyond our grasp, full of secrets and codes it takes a lifetime and more to understand. Religion is the ultimate hidden secret, the greatest mystery which has been solved in countless ways, each of them conflicting and confounding.

Ehrenreich's tale is more memoir than theology, taking us on a tour through a dysfunctional childhood with alcoholic parents and tough love. A story of growth, striking out into the world, and sad coming-to-terms with the parents who each die tragically. But it also turns on a pattern of mystical experiences that she keeps having, throughout her adult life, which she ultimately diagnoses as dissociative states where she zones out and has a sort of psychedelic communion with the world.

"Something peeled off the visible world, taking with it all meaning, inference, association, labels, and words. I was looking at a tree, and if anyone had asked, that's what I would have said I was doing, but the word "tree" was gone, along with all the notions of tree-ness that had accumulated in the last dozen years or so since I had acquired language. Was it a place that was suddenly revealed to me? Or was it a substance- the indivisible, elemental material out of which the entire known and agreed-upon world arises as a fantastic elaboration? I don't know, because this substance, this residue, was stolidly, imperturbably mute. The interesting thing, some might say alarming, was that when you take away all the human attributions- the words, the names of species, the wisps of remembered tree-related poetry, the fables of photosynthesis and capillary action- that when you take all this this away, there is still something left."

This is not very hard to understand as a neurological phenomenon of some kind of transient disconnection of just the kind of brain areas she mentions- those that do all the labeling, name-calling, and boxing-in. In schizophrenia, it runs to the pathological, but in Ehrenreich's case, she does not regard it as pathological at all, as it is always quite brief. But obviously, the emotional impact and weirdness of the experience- that is something else altogether, and something that humans have been inducing with drugs, and puzzling over, forever. 

Source

As a memoir, the book is very engaging. As a theological quest, however, it doesn't work as well, because the mystical experience is, as noted above, resolutely meaningless. It neither compels Ehrenreich to take up Christianity, as after a Pauline conversion, nor any other faith or belief system. It offers a peek behind the curtain, but, stripped of meaning as this view is, Ehrenreich is perhaps too skeptical or bereft of imagination to give it another, whether of her own or one available from the conventional array of sects and religions. So while the experiences are doubtless mystical, one can not call them religious, let alone god-given, because Ehrenreich hasn't interpreted them that away. This hearkens back to the writings of William James, who declined to assign general significance to mystical experiences, while freely admitting their momentous and convincing nature to those who experienced them.

Only in one brief section (which had clearly been originally destined for an entirely different book) does she offer a more interesting and insightful analysis. There, Ehrenreich notes that the history of religion can be understood as a progressive bloodbath of deicide. At first, everything is alive and sacred, to an animist mind. Every leaf and grain of sand holds wonders. Every stream and cloud is divine. This is probably our natural state, which a great deal of culture has been required to stamp out of us. Next is a hunting kind of religion, where deities are concentrated in the economic objects (and social patterns) of the tribe- the prey animals, the great plants that are eaten, and perhaps the more striking natural phenomena and powerful beasts. But by the time of paganism, the pantheon is cut down still more and tamed into a domestic household, with its soap-opera dramas and an increasingly tight focus on the major gods- the head of the family, as it were. 

Monotheism comes next, doing away with all the dedicated gods of the ocean, of medicine, of amor and war, etc., cutting the cast down to one. One, which is inflated to absurd proportions with all-goodness, all-power, all-knowledge, etc. A final and terrifying authoritarianism, probably patterned on the primitive royal state. This is the phase when the natural world is left in the lurch, as an undeified and unprotected zone where human economic greed can run rampant, safe in the belief that the one god is focused entirely on man's doings, whether for good or for ill, not on that of any other creature or feature of the natural world. A phase when even animals, who are so patently conscious, can, through the narcissism of primitive science and egoistic religion, be deemed mere mechanisms without feeling. This process doesn't even touch on the intercultural deicide committed by colonialism and conquest.

This in turn invites the last deicide- that by rational people who toss aside this now-cartoonish super-god, and return to a simpler reverence for the world as we naturally respond to it, without carting in a lot of social power-and-drama baggage. It is the cultural phase we are in right now, but the transition is painfully slow, uneven, and drawn-out. For Ehrenreich, there are plenty of signs- in the non-linear chemical phenomena of her undergraduate research, in the liveliness of quantum physics even into the non-empty vacuum, in the animals who populate our world and are perhaps the alien consciousnesses that we should be seeking in place of the hunt through outer space, and in our natural delight in, and dreams about, nature at large. So she ends the book as atheist as ever, but hinting that perhaps the liveliness of the universe around us holds some message that we are not the only thinking and sentient beings.

"Ah, you say, this is all in your mind. And you are right to be skeptical; I expect no less. It is in my mind, which I have acknowledged from the beginning is a less than perfect instrument. but this is what appears to be the purpose of my mind, and no doubt yours as well, its designed function beyond all the mundane calculations: to condense all the chaos and mystery of the world into a palpable Other or Others, not necessarily because we love it, and certainly not out of any intention to "worship" it. But because ultimately we may have no choice in the matter. I have the impression, growing out of the experiences chronicled here, that it may be seeking us out." 

Thus the book ends, and I find it a rather poor ending. It feels ripped from an X-Files episode, highly suggestive and playing into all the Deepak and similar mystical tropes of cosmic consciousness. That is, if this passage really means much at all. Anyhow, the rest of the trip is well worth it, and it is appropriate to return to the issue of the mystical experience, which is here handled with such judicious care and restraint. Where imagination could have run rampant, the cooly scientific view (Ehrenreich had a doctorate in biology) is that the experiences she had, while fascinating and possibly book-proposal-worthy, did not force a religious interpretation. This is radically unlike the treatment of such matters in countless other hands, needless to say. Perhaps our normal consciousness should not be automatically valued less than more rare and esoteric states, just because it is common, or because it is even-tempered.

• God would like us to use "they".
• If you are interested in early Christianity, Gnosticism is a good place to start.
• Green is still an uphill battle.

A Gene is Born

Yes, genes do develop out of nothing.

The "intelligent" design movement has long made a fetish of information. As science has found, life relies on encoded information for its genetic inheritance and the reliable expression of its physical manifestations. The ID proposition is, quite simply, that all this information could not have developed out of a mindless process, but only through "design" by a conscious being. Evidently, Darwinian natural selection still sticks on some people's craw. Michael Behe even developed a pseudo-mathematical theory about how, yes, genes could be copied mindlessly, but new genes could never be conjured out of nothing, due to ... information.

My understanding of information science equates information to loss of entropy, and expresses a minimal cost of the energy needed to create, compute or transmit information- that is, the Shannon limits. A quite different concept comes from physics, in the form of information conservation in places like black holes. This form of information is really the implicit information of the wave functions and states of physical matter, not anything encoded or transmitted in the sense of biology or communication. Physical state information may be indestructable (and un-create-able) on this principle, but coded information is an entirely different matter.

In a parody of scientific discussion, intelligent design proponents are hosted by the once-respectable Hoover Institution for a discussion about, well, god.

So the fecundity that life shows in creating new genes out of existing genes, (duplications), and even making whole-chromosome or whole-genome duplications, has long been a problem for creationists. Energetically, it is easy to explain as a mere side-effect of having plenty of energy to work with, combined with error-prone methods of replication. But creationistically, god must come into play somewhere, right? Perhaps it comes into play in the creation of really new genes, like those that arise from nothing, such as at the origin of life?

A recent paper discussed genes in humans that have over our recent evolutionary history arisen from essentially nothing. It drew on prior work in yeast that elegantly laid out a spectrum or life cycle of genes, from birth to death. It turns out that there is an active literature on the birth of genes, which shows that, just like duplication processes, it is entirely natural for genes to develop out of humble, junky precursors. And no information theory needs to be wheeled in to show that this is possible.

Yeast provides the tools to study novel genes in some detail, with rich genetics and lots of sequenced relatives, near and far. Here is portrayed a general life cycle of a gene, from birth out of non-gene DNA sequences (left) into the key step of translation, and on to a subject of normal natural selection ("Exposed") for some function. But if that function decays or is replaced, the gene may also die, by mutation, becoming a pseudogene, and eventually just some more genomic junk.

The death of genes is quite well understood. The databases are full of "pseudogenes" that are very similar to active genes, but are disabled for some reason, such as a truncation somewhere or loss of reading frame due to a point mutation or splicing mutation. Their annotation status is dynamic, as they are sometimes later found to be active after all, under obscure conditions or to some low level. Our genomes are also full of transposons and retroviruses that have died in this fashion, by mutation.

Duplications are also well-understood, some of which have over evolutionary time given rise to huge families of related proteins, such as kinases, odorant receptors, or zinc-finger transcription factors. But the hunt for genes that have developed out of non-gene materials is a relatively new area, due to its technical difficulty. Genome annotators were originally content to pay attention to genes that coded for a hundred amino acids or more, and ignore everything else. That became untenable when a huge variety of non-coding RNAs came on the scene. Also, occasional cases of very small genes that encoded proteins came up from work that found them by their functional effects.

As genome annotation progressed, it became apparent that, while a huge proportion of genes are conserved between species, (or members of families of related proteins), other genes had no relatives at all, and would never provide information by this highly convenient route of computer analysis. They are orphans, and must have either been so heavily mutated since divergence that their relationships have become unrecognizable, or have arisen recently (that is, since their evolutionary divergence from related species that are used for sequence comparison) from novel sources that provide no clue about their function. Finer analysis of ever more closely related species is often informative in these cases.

The recent paper on human novel genes makes the finer point that splicing and export from the nucleus constitute the major threshold between junk genes and "real" genes. Once an RNA gets out of the nucleus, any reading frame it may have will be translated and exposed to selection. So the acquisition of splicing signals is a key step, in their argument, to get a randomly expressed bit of RNA over the threshold.

A recent paper provided a remarkable example of novel gene origination. It uncovered a series of 74 human genes that are not shared with macaque, (which they took as their reference), have a clear path of origin from non-coding precursors, and some of which have significant biological effects on human development. They point to a gradual process whereby promiscuous transcription from the genome gave rise by chance to RNAs that acquired splice sites, which piped them into the nuclear export machinery and out to the cytoplasm. Once there, they could be translated, over whatever small coding region they might possess, after which selection could operate on their small protein products. A few appear to have gained enough function to encourage expansion of the coding region, resulting in growth of the gene and entrenchment as part of the developmental program.

Brain "organoids" grown from genetically manipulated human stem cells. On left is the control, in middle is where ENSG00000205704 was deleted, and on the right is where ENSG00000205704 is over-expressed. The result is very striking, as an evolutionarily momentous effect of a tiny and novel gene.

One gene, "ENSG00000205704" is shown as an example. Where in macaque, the genomic region corresponding to this gene encodes at best a non-coding RNA that is not exported from the nucleus, in humans it encodes a spliced and exported mRNA that encodes a protein of 107 amino acids. In humans it is also highly expressed in the brain, and when the researchers deleted it in embryonic stem cells and used those cells to grow "organoids", or clumps of brain-like tissue, the growth was significantly reduced by the knockout, and increased by the over-expression of this gene. What this gene does is completely unknown. Its sequence, not being related to anything else in human or other species, gives no clue. But it is a classic example of gene that arose from nothing to have what looks like a significant effect on human evolution. Does that somehow violate physics or math? Nothing could be farther from the truth.

• Will nuclear power get there?
• What the heck happened to Amazon shopping?