Magellan, the Movie

The story of Magellan's voyage is positively cinematic.

It has now been five hundred years since the first circumnavigation of the world, by Ferdinand Magellan. This feat doesn't generally get as much fame as Columbus's discovery of the Caribbean, even though Columbus didn't know what he was doing, and kept not understanding what he had done long after he returned. By the time, thirty years later, that some more of the new world had been explored, and the Portuguese had also entered the Indian ocean around the bottom of Africa, the overall geography of the earth had not advanced a great deal, still being based on Ptolemy's significantly (about 30%) too-small estimate. But the lure remained- how to get to the all-important spice islands in a more convenient way. 

And it was a very commercial lure. Magellan had little scientific interest in all this, per se. He was a mariner through and through, and had done extensive research with his colleagues, mapmakers, and astronomers. But most of all he was desperate to make some money after a wide-ranging, but not very well-paid, career with the official Portuguese fleet. He had visited India and what is now Malaysia, and had heard from a friend who had finally found the spice islands, and had decided to stay there. So when Magellan went to the King of Portugal to propose his westward voyage around the tip of South America, it was a strictly commercial venture, hopefully easier and shorter than the trip around Africa and through the Indian ocean. But the king was uninterested, as the Portuguese already were using the eastern route, and didn't seem much point in trying another, unknown one. Columbus had already tried that gambit and had not gotten much for it. Not much in the way of spices, at any rate.

So Magellan stormed off in a huff, renounced his allegiance to the Portuguese crown, and made his proposal to the Spanish king instead. Now that logic made more sense. The Spanish and Portuguese had come up with a colonial demacation line, the treaty of Tordesillas, that split the Atlantic, which is what gave Brazil to the Portuguese. But this line in imaginary fashion extended around the globe to the other side, and depending how big that globe was, might award the spice islands (the southern islands of the Indonesian archapelago) to Spain, not Portugal. Devising a route from the other side might get Spain there faster, and also avoid unpleasant conflict with sea lanes that were now busy with Portuguese shipping. So the expedition was approved and launched in 1519.

It is a fascinating story, and gets more and more interesting as it goes on, with exotic locations, spectacular discoveries, first contact with far-flung natives, mutiny, hangings, and maroonings. It is very well-told by Tim Joyner, in his definitive and meticulous 1992 book. One aspect that did not come up, however, was that Magellan and colleagues could have come up with a much more accurate estimate of the circumference of the globe by their thorough knowledge of latitude. Longitude- that was difficult to calculate, though his voyage made amazing advances in this respect as well. But if they were imaginative enough to consider that the globe was round in all directions, then the circumference around the poles, which was well within their ability to calculate with precision, would have told them that Ptolemy was way off, and that scurvy was going to be their lot in traversing the Pacific ocean (which Magellan named, incidentally).

A top-secret 1502 map of the known world, from Portugal. The coast of Africa is well-detailed, while farther areas are quite a bit murkier. Crucially, nothing is known of the southern extent of South America.

The last ship, of the five that embarked on the expedition, limped back into San Lucar, near Seville, Spain, three years later, bedraggled and desperately bailing out their bilge. But it brought back a treasure of cloves, as well as a treasure of information. The expedition had poisoned relations with numerious natives, not to mention the Portuguese, who quickly overtook and imprisoned the small contingent left at Ternate, one of the spice islands. In fact, Magellan himself died in a reckless attack on a thousand natives in what is now the Philippines. 

So the mini-series version would have to be told by someone else. And that should be Antonio Pigafetta, the self-appointed anthropologist of the expedition. A worldly fellow from Lombardy who had been employed at the Vatican, he was part of its ambassadorial delegation to Spain when he heard about Magellan's plans. He appears to have jumped at the chance for adventure, and kept detailed dairies of the events of the voyage, to which all subsequent authors are hugely indebted. He even kept a day log which he was surprised to see finally came up a day short- precisely the day that one loses when following the setting sun around the world. He seems to have been quite a character, who had high respect for Magellan, and whose adventurousness also saved him from scurvy, which tended to afflict the more squeamish eaters, who were put off by eating rats and whatever else came to hand. 

So there you have it, perhaps a twelve part miniseries spanning the globe, rich with drama, suffering, scenery, deceit, greed, blind ambition, valor, and victory, telling of one of the great adventures of mankind.

• What are we doing in Africa? And what is China doing there?
• Jared Huffman represents me.

Science Fiction as Theology

Let's look higher than the clouds. Let's look to the stars.

I have always been rather dismissive of theology- the study of something that doesn't exist. But if one takes it in a larger sense of a culture of scripture, story telling, morals, and social construction, then sure, it makes more sense. But then so do alot of other stories. I have been enjoying the Foundation series via streaming, which is at best "inspired" by the original books, yet takes its premises reasonably seriously and grows a complex and interesting set of story lines to what by the end of the first season is a positive and promising conclusion. I would ding it for excessive adherence to Star Wars-style action and simplistic morality, compared with the more cerebral original, but that is only to be expected these days.

Science fiction is having a golden age, as a way to tell important, probing stories and consider alternative futures. The Star Trek franchise generally sticks with hopeful futures, which I certainly favor. Their world is post-money, post internal conflict, post-disease. But philosophically alive through contact with other civilizations. The theological implications are momentous, as we envision a culture very different from our own, and blessed with various magical means of deliverance, like transporters, replicators, and warp drives. Where the "science fiction" books of the Bible were mostly dystopian (Job, Revelation, Genesis), Science fiction in our era straddles the line, with plenty of dystopian offerings, but also hopeful ones. Whether Star Wars is hopeful might be a matter of debate, since bad guys and bad empires never seem to go away, and the position of the resistance is always impossibly dire.

White male mathematician Hari Seldon takes on the role of god, in the Foundation series. He calculates out the future of the galaxy, clairvoyantly predicting events, and then comes back from beyond the grave to keep guiding his flock through crisis after crisis.

Are Star Trek futures any more realistic than those of Revelation? Are they theologically more sound? I think yes on both counts. Revelation is a rather unhinged response to the late Jewish era in its apocalyptic relations with Rome, as it headed into exile and the diaspora. There is a welter of reworked Old Testament material and obscure references, turning into florid visions that have misled Christians for centuries. Star Trek and the other science fiction franchises, on the other hand, are a bit more restrained in their visionary quests and escatologies, and more hopeful, for abundant futures where some problems have been solved while other forms of politics and history continue to call for strong moral values. This is quite different than the bizarre and ecstatic culmination of Revelation at the end of history, in the last days.

We also get to live out the visions, on a small scale, as technology advances in the real world. Smart phones have transformed our lives, for instance, one promise kept from the early science fiction days. And our only real hope for dealing with climate change is to harness better technologies, rather than going down dystopian roads of degrowth, famine, and war. So there are real futures at stake here, not just visions of futures.

While our current physics totally bars the adventures that are portrayed in contemporary science fiction epics, their theological significance lies in their various visions of what humanity can and should do. They, as Revelation, are always keyed to their historical moment, with America ascendent and technologically advanced over other cultures. But they do not use their magical elements and story arcs to promote quiescence and slack-jawed wonder at the return of the son of god, who will make everything right and mete out judgement to all the bad people. (Or do the opposite, in the case of Job.) No, they uniformly encourage resistance against injustice, and hopeful action towards a better world, or galaxy, or universe, as the case may be.

• Some communities rode out the hurricane just fine.
• Loretta Lynn, RIP.
• Eye care- another frontier in predation.
• Christians can't deal with disagreement, claim oppression.
• If you need to delve further into sociopathic narcissism ...
• Essential background on Ukraine.

For the Love of Money

The social magic of wealth ... and Trump's travel down the wealth / status escalator.

I have been reading the archly sarcastic "The Theory of the Leisure Class", by Thorstein Veblen. It introduced the concept of "conspicuous consumption" by way of arguing that social class is marked by work, specifically by the total lack of work that occupies the upper, or leisure class, and more and more mundane forms of work as one sinks down the social scale. This is a natural consequence of what he calls our predatory lifestyle, which, at least in times of yore, reserved to men, especially those of the upper class, the heroic roles of hunter and warrior, contrasted with the roles of women, who were assigned all non-heroic forms of work, i.e. drudgery. This developed over time into a pervasive horror of menial work and a scramble to evince whatever evidence one can of being above it, such as wearing clean, uncomfortable and fashionable clothes, doing useless things like charity drives, golf, and bridge. And having one's wife do the same, to show how financially successful one is.

Veblen changed our culture even as he satarized and skewered it, launching a million disgruntled teenage rebellions, cynical movies, songs, and other analyses. But his rules can not be broken. Hollywood still showcases the rich, and silicon valley, for all its putative nerdiness, is just another venue for social signaling by way of useless toys, displays of leisure (at work, no less, with the omnipresent foosball and other games), and ever more subtle fashion statements.

Conversely, the poor are disparaged, if not hated. We step over homeless people, holding our noses. The Dalit of India are perhaps the clearest expression of this instinct. But our whole economic system is structured in this way, paying the hardest and most menial jobs the worst, while paying some of the most social destructive professions, like corporate law, the best, and placing them by attire, titles, and other means, high on the social hierarchy.

As Reagan said, nothing succeeds like success. We are fascinated, indeed mesmerized, by wealth. It seems perfectly reasonable to give wealthy areas of town better public services. It seems perfectly reasonable to have wealthy people own all our sports teams, run all our companies, and run for most political offices. We are after all Darwinian through and through. But what if a person's wealth comes from their parents? Does the status still rub off? Should it? Or what if it came from criminal activities? Russia is run by a cabal of oligarchs, more or less- is their status high or low?

All this used to make more sense, in small groups where reputations were built over a lifetime of toil in support of the family, group, and tribe. Worth was assessed by personal interaction, not by the proxy of money. And this status was difficult to bequeath to others. The fairy tale generally has the prince proving himself through arduous tasks, to validate the genetic and social inheritance that the rest of the world may or may not be aware of. 

But with the advent of money, and even more so with the advent of inherited nobility and kingship, status became transferable, inheritable, and generally untethered from the values it supposedly exemplifies. Indeed, in our society it is well-known that wealth correlates with a decline in ethical and social values. Who exemplifies this most clearly? Obviously our former president, whose entire public persona is based on wealth. It was evidently inherited, and he parlayed it into publicity, notariety, scandal, and then the presidency. He was adulated, first by tabloids and TV, which loved brashness (and wealth), then by Republican voters, who appear to love cruelty, mean-ness, low taste and intellect, ... and wealth. 

But now the tide is slowly turning, as Trump's many perfidies and illegal practices catch up with him. It is leaking out, despite every effort of half the media, that he may not be as wealthy as he fraudulently portrayed. And with that, the artificial status conferred by being "a successful businessman" is deflating, and his national profile is withering. One might say that he is taking an downward ride on the escalator of social status that is in our society conferred largely by wealth.

All that is shiny ... mines coal.

Being aware of this social instinct is naturally the first step to addressing it. A century ago and more, the communists and socialists provided a thoroughgoing critique of the plutocratic class as being not worthy of social adulation, as the Carnegies and Horatio Algers of the world would have it. But once in power, the ensuing communist governments covered themselves in the ignominy of personality cults that facilitated (and still do in some cases) even worse political tyrannies and economic disasters. 

The succeeding model of "managed capitalism" is not quite as catastrophic and has rehabilitated the rich in their societies, but one wouldn't want to live there either. So we have to make do with the liberal state and its frustratingly modest regulatory powers, aiming to make the wealthy do virtuous things instead of destructive things. Bitcoin is but one example of a waste of societal (and ecological) resources, which engenders social adulation of the riches to be mined, but should instead be regulated out of existence. Taking back the media is a critical step. We need to reel back the legal equation of money with speech and political power that has spread corruption, and tirelessly tooted its own ideology of status and celebrity through wealth.

• California police could use some supervision too.
• Marin- a cruel gerontocracy?

Desperately Seeking Cessation of Desire

Some paradoxes, and good points, of Buddhism.

I have been reading "In the Buddha's Words", by Bhikkhu Bodhi, which is a well-organized collection / selection of translations of what we have as the core teachings of Buddhism. It comes from the Pali canon, from Sri Lanka, where Buddhism found refuge after its final destruction in India after the Arab invasions, and offers as clear an exposition of the Buddhist system as one can probably find in English. A bit like the scriptures of Christianity, the earliest canons of Buddhism originate from oral traditions only recorded a hundred or so years after Buddha's death, but as they are slightly less besotted with miraculous stories, the collection has more of a feeling of actual teaching, than of gnomic riddles and wonder stories, not to mention Odyssean mis-adventures.

Both prophets make audacious claims, one to be god, or its son, the other to have attained a perfectly enlightened state with similar implications for everlasting life (or lack of rebirth, at any rate). Each extends to his followers the tempting prospect of a similarly exalted state after death. Each teaches simple morals, each attracts followers both lay and career-ist, the latter of whom tend to be rather dense. Each launched an international sensation that bifurcated into a monastic/ascetic branch of professional clerics and a more popular branch that attained a leading role in some societies.

But Buddhism has attained a special status in the West as something a bit more advanced than the absurd theology of Christianity. A theology that could even be deemed atheist, along with a practice that focuses more relentlessly on peace and harmony than does what Christianity has become, particularly in the US. It is congenial to seekers, an exotic and edgy way to be spiritual, but not religious.

But how much sense does it really make? For starters, much of the Buddhist mythology and theology is simply taken from its ambient Hindu environment. The cycle of rebirth, the karma that influences one's level of rebirth, the heavens and hells, all come from the common understandings of the time, so are not very particular to Buddhism. Buddhists did away with lots of the gods, in favor of their own heros (Buddha, and the Bodhisattvas), and developed a simplified philosphy of desire, suffering, and the relief of suffering by controlling desire, optimally through advanced meditation practices. Much of this was also ambient or at least implicit, as Buddha himself began as a normal Indian ascetic, trying to purify himself of all taints and mundane aspects. For his Buddhist Sanga, he dialed things back a bit, so that the community could function as a social system, not a disconnected constellation of hermits.

Bodhisattvas floating in heaven. These are Buddhists who have attained enlightenment but not entered permanent heaven, choosing rather to have compassion on humanity in its benighted state.

As a philosophical system, it seems paradoxical to spend so much effort and desire in seeking nirvanna and the benefits of lack of desire. To sit in meditation for years on end demands enormous discipline. To submit to a life of begging and poverty takes great will and desire for whatever is promised on the other side. This is not evidence of lack of desire, much less the kind of wisdom and knowledge that would license its practitioners to advise lay people in their mundane affairs (or politicians in affairs of state). And the ethical system that Buddha promulgated was simple in the extreme- merely to be and do good, rather than being and doing bad, all staked on the age-old promise that just deserts would be coming after death.

No, Buddha was clearly a charismatic person, and his insight was social, not philosphical. Remember that he was a prince by birth and education. I would suggest that his core message was one of nobility- of idealism about the human condition. In his system, nobility is not conferred by birth, but by action. All can be noble, and all can be ignoble, regardless of wealth or birth. For the mass of society, it is control over desire that allows virtue and prosperity- i.e. nobility. Those who are addicts, whether to power, to drugs, to bitterness, to sex, or innumerable other black holes of desire or habit, are slaves, not nobles. This is incidentally what makes Buddhism so amenable to the West- it is very enlightenment-friendly kind of social philosophy.

The monks and Sanga of Buddhism were to be the shock troops of emotional discipline, burning off their normal social desires in fires of meditation and renunciation, even as they were on the hook for a whole other set of desires. Which are, in my estimation, wholly illusory in their aim, despite the various beneficial effects of meditation, in this world. They provide the inspiration and template for the society at large, modeling a form of behavioral nobility that any and all can at least appreciate, if not aspire to, and model in their own circumscribed lives and ethical concerns. I think that is the real strength of the Buddhist system. The monks may be misled in philosophical terms, but they fulfill a critical social role which governs and moderates the society at large. 

The monks provide another benefit, which is population control. One of the greatest pressures on any society is overpopulation, which immiserates the poor, empowers the rich, and can ultimately destroy its resource base. While the monastic institutions are a great burden on their societies, they also help keep them sustainable by taking in excess males who might otherwise become brigands and parents. This is particularly evident in traditional Tibet, despite the corruption of the monastic system by clan rivalries and even occasional warfare.

The fact of the matter is that desire is the staff, even essence, of life. Those who lack desire are dead, and Buddhist monks sitting in endless renunciation are enacting a sort of living death. Nevertheless, they have an important function in their societies, which is one we see replicated in the priests of Orthodox and Catholic Christianity (most of the time) and other ascetics and clerics around the world. Buddha was right that the management of desire is absolutely critical to individual and communal social life. Compare his system, however, with the philosophy of the Greeks, which arose at roughly the same (axial) time. The Greek philosophers focused on moderation in all things- another way, and I would offer, a healthier way, to state the need for discipline over the desires. They additionally fostered desires for knowledge and as complex ethical investigations, which I would posit far outstripped the efforts of the Buddhists, and gave rise, though the Greeks' continuing influence over the Roman and ensuing Christian epochs in Western Europe, to a more advanced culture, at least in philosophical, legal, and scientific terms, if not in terms of social and political peace.

• Meanwhile, a Christian court makes us a Christian nation, like it or not.
•  Length of Covid infection and viral shedding is unaffected by strain or vaccination status.

God Save the Queen

Or is it the other way around? Deities and Royalties in the archetypes.

It has been entertaining, and a little moving, to see the recent celebration put on by Britain for its queen. A love fest for a "ruler" who is nearing the end of her service- a job that has been clearly difficult, often thankless, and a bit murky. A job that has evolved interestingly over the last millenium. What used to be a truly powerful rule is now a Disney-fied sop to tradition and the enduring archetypes of social hierarchy.

For we still need social hierarchy, don't we? Communists, socialists, and anarchists have fought for centuries against it, but social hierarchy is difficult to get away from. For one thing, at least half the population has a conservative temperament that demands it. For another, hierarchies are instinctive and pervasive throughout nature as ways to organize societies, keep everyone on their toes, and to bias reproduction to the fittest members. The enlightenment brought us a new vision of human society, one based on some level of equality, with a negotiated and franchise-based meritocracy, rather than one based on nature, tooth, and claw. But we have always been skittish about true democracy. Maximalist democracies like the Occupy movement never get anywhere, because too many people have veto power, and leadership is lacking. Leadership is premised naturally on hierarchy.

Hierarchy is also highly archetypal and instinctive. Maybe these are archetypes we want to fight against, but we have them anyhow. The communists were classic cases of replacing one (presumably corrupt and antiquated) social hierarchy with another which turned out to be even more anxiously vain and vicious, for all its doublespeak about serving the masses. Just looking at higher-ranking individuals is always a pleasant and rewarding experience. That is why movies are made about the high ranking and the glamorous, more than the downtrodden. And why following the royals remains fascinating.

But that is not all! The Queen is also head of the Anglican Church, another institution that has fallen from its glory days of power. It has also suffered defections and loss of faith, amid centuries-long assaults from the enlightenment. The deity itself has gone through a long transition, from classic patriarchial king in the old testament (who killed all humanity once over for its sins), to mystic cypher in the New Testament (who demanded the death of itself in order to save the shockingly persistent sinners of humanity from its own retribution), to deistic non-entity at the height of the enlightenment, to what appears to be the current state of utter oblivion. One of the deity's major functions was to explain the nature of the world in all its wonder and weirdness, which is now quite unnecessary. We must blame ourselves for climate change, not a higher power. 

While social hierarchy remains at the core of humanity, the need for deities is less clear. As a super-king, god has always functioned as the and ultimate pinnacle of the social and political system, sponsoring all the priests, cardinals, kings, pastors, and the like down the line. But if it remains stubbornly hidden from view, has lost its most significant rationales, and only peeps out from tall tales of scripture, that does not make for a functional regent at all. While the British monarchy pursues its somewhat comical, awkward performance of unmerited superintendence of state, church, and social affairs, the artist formerly known as God has vanished into nothing at all.

• Fisheries are killing far more than fish.
• Grooming on youtube.
• Wolves really touch a nerve.

Evolution Under (Even in) Our Noses

The Covid pandemic is a classic and blazingly fast demonstration of evolution.

Evolution has been "controversial" in some precincts. While tradition told the fable of genesis, evolution told a very different story of slow yet endless change and adaptation- a mechanistic story of how humans ultimately arose. The stark contrast between these stories, touching both on the family tree we are heir to, and also on the overall point and motivation behind the process, caused a lot of cognitive dissonance, and is a template of how a fact can be drawn into the left/right, blue/red, traditional/progressive cultural vortex.

This all came to a head a couple of decades ago, when in the process of strategic retreat, anti-evolution forces latched onto some rather potent formulations, like "just a theory", and "intelligent design". These were given a lot of think tank support and right wing money, as ways to keep doubt alive in a field that scientifically had been settled and endlessly ramified for decades. To scientists, it was the height of absurdity, but necessitated wading into the cultural sphere in various ways that didn't always connect effectively with their intended audience. But eventually, the tide turned, courts recognized that religion was behind it all, and kept it out of schools. Evolution has more or less successfully receded from hot-button status.

One of the many rearguard arguments of anti-evolutionists was that sure, there is short-term evolution, like that of microbes or viruses, but that doesn't imply that larger organisms are they way they are due to evolution and selection. That would be simply beyond the bounds of plausibility, so we should search for explanations elsewhere. At this point they were a little gun-shy and didn't go so far in public as to say that elsewhere might be in book like the Bible. This line of argument was a little ironic, since Darwin himself hardly knew about microbes, let alone viruses, when he wrote his book. The evidence that he adduced (in some profusion) described the easily visible signs of geology, of animals and plants around the world, (including familar domestic animals), which all led to the subtle, yet vast, implications he drew about evolution by selection. 

So it has been notable that the vistas of biology that opened up since that time, in microbiology, paleontology, genetics, molecular biology, et al., have all been guided by these original insights and have in turn supported them without fail. No fossils are found out of order in the strata, no genes or organisms parachute in without antecedents, and no chicken happens without an egg. Evolution makes sense of all of biology, including our current pandemic.

But you wouldn't know it from the news coverage. New variants arise into the headlines, and we are told to "brace" for the next surge, or the next season. Well, what has happened is that the SARS-COV2 virus has adapted to us, as we have to it, and we are getting along pretty well at this point. Our adaptation to it began as a social (or antisocial!) response that was very effective in frustrating transmission. But of late, it has been more a matter of training our immune systems, which have an internal selective principle. Between rampant infections and the amazing vaccines, we have put up significant protective barriers to severe illness, though not, notably, to transmission.

But what about the virus? It has adapted in the most classic of ways, by experiencing a wide variety of mutations that address its own problems of survival. It is important to remember that this virus originated in some other species (like a bat) and was not very well adapted to humans. Bats apparently have countless viruses of this kind that don't do them much harm. Similarly, HIV originated in chimpanzee viruses that didn't do them much harm either. Viruses are not inherently interested in killing us. No, they survive and transmit best if they keep us walking around, happily breathing on other people, with maybe an occasional sneeze. The ultimate goal of every virus is to stay under the radar, not causing its host to either isolate or die. (I can note parenthetically that viruses that do not hew to this paradigm, like smallpox, are typically less able to mutate, thus less adaptable, or have some other rationale for transmission than upper respiratory spread.)

And that is clearly what has happened with SARS-COV2. Local case rates in my area are quite high, and wastewater surveilance indicates even higher prevalence. Isolation and mask mandates are history. Yet hospitalizations remain very low, with no one in the ICU right now. Something wonderful has happened. Part of it is our very high local vaccination rate, (96% of the population), but another part is that the virus has become less virulent as it has adapted to our physiology, immune systems, media environment and social practices, on its way to becoming endemic, and increasingly innocuous. All this in a couple of years of world-wide spread, after billions of infections and transmissions.

The succession (i.e. evolution) of variants detected in my county. 

The trend of local wastewater virus detection, which currently shows quite high levels, despite mild health outcomes.

So what has the virus been doing? While it has many genes and interactions with our physiology, the major focus has been on the spike protein, which is most prominent on the viral surface, is the first protein to dock to specific human proteins (the ACE2 cell surface receptor), and is the target of all the mRNA and other specific subunit vaccines. (As distinct from the killed virus vaccines that are made from whole viruses.) It is the target of 40% of the antibodies we naturally make against the whole virus, if we are infected. It is also, not surprisingly, the most heavily mutated portion of the virus, over the last couple of years of evolution. One paper counts 45 mutations in the spike protein that have risen to the level of "variants of concern" at WHO. 

"We found that most of the SARS-COV-2 genes are undergoing negative purifying selection, while the spike protein gene (S-gene) is undergoing rapid positive selection."

Structure of the spike protein, in its normal virus surface conformation, (B, C), and in its post-triggering extended conformation that reaches down into the target cell's membrane, and later pulls the two together. Top (in B, C) is where it binds to the ACE2 target on respiratory cells, and bottom is its anchor in the viral membrane coat (D shows it upside-down). At top (A) is the overall domain structure of the protein, in its linear form as synthesized, especially the RBD (receptor binding domain) and the two protease cleavage sites that prepare it for eventual triggering.

The spike protein is a machine, not just a blob. As shown in this video, it starts as a pyramidal blob flexibly tethered to the viral surface. Binding the ACE2 proteins in our respiratory tracts triggers a dramatic re-organization whereby this blob turns into a thin rope, which drops into the target cell. Meanwhile, the portion stuck to the virus unfolds as well and turns into threads that wind back around the newly formed rope, thereby pulling the virus and the target cell membrane together and ultimately fusing them. This is, mechanistically, how the virus gets inside our cells.

The triggering of the spike protein is a sensitive and adjustable process. In related viruses, the triggering is more difficult, and waits till the virus is engulfed in a vesicle that taken into the cell, and acidified in the normal process of lysosomal destruction / ingestion of outside materials. The acidification triggers these viral spike proteins to fire and release the virus into the cell. Triggering also requires cleavage of the spike protein with proteases that cut it at two locations. Other related viruses sometime wait for a target host protease to do the honors, but SARS-COV2 spike protein apparently is mostly cleaved during production by its originating host. This raises the stakes, since it can then more readily trigger, by accident, or once it finds proper ACE2 receptors on a target host. One theme of recent SARS-COV2 evolution is that triggering has become slightly easier, allowing the virus to infect higher up in the respiratory system. The original strains set up infections deep in the lung, but recent variants infect higher up, which lessens the systemic risks of infection to the host, promotes transmissibility, and speeds the infection and transmission process. 

The mutations G339D, N440K, L452R, S477N, T478K, and E484K in the spike region that binds to ACE2 (RBD, or receptor binding domain) promotes this interaction, raising transmissibility. (The nomenclature is that the number gives the position of the amino acid in the linear protein sequence, and the letters give the original version of the amino acid in one letter code (start) and in the mutated version (end)). Overall, mutations of the spike protein have increased the net charge on the spike protein significantly in the positive direction, which encourages binding to the negatively charged ACE2 protein. D614G is not in this region, but is nearby and seems to have similar effects, stabilizing the protein. The P681 mutation in one of the cleaved regions promotes proteolysis by the enzyme furin, thus making the virus more trigger-able. 

What are some other constraints on the spike protein? It needs to evade our vaccines and natural immunity, but has seemingly adapted to a here-and-gone infection style, though with periodic re-infection, like other colds. So any change is good for the purpose of camouflage, as long as its essential functions remain intact. The N-terminal, or front, domain of the spike protein, which is not involved directly in ACE2 binding, has experienced a series of mutations of this kind. An additional function it seems to have is to mimic a receptor for the cytokine interleukin 8, which attracts neutrophils and encourages activation of macrophages. Such mimicry may reduce this immune reaction, locally. 

In comparison to all these transmissibility-enhancing mutations, it is not clear yet where the mutations that decrease virulence are located. It is likely that they are more widely distributed, not in the gene encoding the spike protein. SARS-COV2 has a remarkable number of genes with various interactions with our immune systems, so the scope for tuning is prodigious. If all this can be accomplished in a couple of years, image what a million, or a billion, years can do for other organisms that, while they have slower reproduction cycles and more complicated networks of internal and external relations, still obey that great directive to adapt to their circumstances.

• Late link, on receptor binding vs immune evasion tradeoffs.
• Yes, chimpanzees can talk.
• The rich are getting serious about destroying democracy.
• Forced arbitration is, generally, unconscionable and should be illegal.
• We could get by with fewer nuclear weapons.
• Originalism would never allow automatic or semiautomatic weapons.

E. O. Wilson, Atheist

Notes on the controversies of E. O. Wilson.

E. O. Wilson was one of our leading biologists and intellectuals, combining a scholarly career of love for the natural world (particularly ants) with a cultural voice of concern about what we as a species are doing to it. He was also a dedicated atheist, perched in his ivory tower at Harvard and tilting at various professional and cultural windmills. I feature below a long quote from one of his several magnum opuses, Sociobiology (1975). This was putatively a textbook by which he wanted to establish a new field within biology- the study of social structures and evolution. This was a time when molecular biology was ascendent, in his department and in biology broadly, and he wanted to push back and assert that truly important and relevant science was waiting to be done at higher levels of biology, indeed the highest level- that of whole societies. It is a vast tome, where he attempted to synthesize everything known in the field. But it met with significant resistance across the board, even though most of its propositions are now taken as a matter of course ... that our social instincts and structures are heavily biological, and have evolved just as our physical features have.

Cooking With Solar

Who knew cooking with energy from the sun would be so difficult?

Cooking with rays from the sun- what could be more delightful, or more efficient? The same rays that warm the skin can heat food as well- one merely needs to concentrate the heat a few fold. Well, doing so is remarkably difficult to do in practical terms. Not only do you need to concentrate the sun's heat, but then you have to preserve the heat you collect, without blocking out the light with all that insulation. This can be quite a trick. Thermostatic control? You must be joking- none of the currently sold or proffered DIY projects incorporate such an extravangance. The current state of play is a slightly demented world of youtube videos, fly-by-night companies, and charitable efforts pointed at developing regions. But rest assured, it can be done.

Naturally, the most significant drawback is that the sun doesn't shine all the time, confining solar cooking to mid-day times, and sunny conditions. Several kinds of cookers have been developed, each with individual drawbacks and features. 

• Parabolic stove
• Vacuum tube oven
• Closed box oven
• Open panel oven

First off, the parabolic solution puts the premium on power. While the other cookers are akin to ovens, this one is more like a range / stove. It gets extremely hot and cooks in a hurry. The concentrated light from the sun needs, however, to be constantly tracked and aimed at the pan on the burner. Yet it is an invisible flame, presenting some difficulty. It can burn a finger or blind you in an instant. One company developed a reasonably practical design, complete with glowing video. But then it promptly shut down and disappeared, I assume due to the daunting legal liability implied in selling such an appliance. These cookers remain very much a DIY, and at your own risk, proposition.

A parabolic cooker- adjust often, and use with care!

Second are vacuum tube ovens, which are basically thermos bottles with sun-facing inputs. These have outstanding insulation, so they capture the radiation coming in very effectively, storing it as heat. They can be used in cloudy conditions and maybe in non-mid-day conditions. The downside is that the thermos structure limits capacity for food, and also hides it from view. These also come in water-heating versions, filling a core camping and emergency need.

A vacuum tube style of oven. This one has quite high capacity. The central thermos provides extremely effective insulation, collecting every bit of the insolation.

Third are closed-box ovens, which are perhaps the most widely used form of solar cooking. Given enough insulation and a well-sealed glass top, you can make a reasonably practical oven out of cardboard boxes, wood, or metal, which get up to 350 degrees °F. This is a slow kind of cooker, perhaps more like a crockpot than an oven, taking quite a bit of time to heat up. They are not so sensitive to light direction, so can be left out for lazy afternoon and will still work. This is an amazingly active area of DIY activity, with endless variations. One of the most impressive I have seen is a sleek, low oven build of glass and wood, meant to stay outside full time.

 A commercially made box oven, with glass top and room for one or two pots.

A DIY version of a box oven, with clean lines and very high capacity.

Lastly, a more portable version of a solar oven is an open panel oven, where a set of foldable or collapsable reflective panels surround the pot, without much other structure. These are maximally simple, and aimed at camping and other portable needs. But they need something extra to hold in the heat around the pot, which may be a plastic oven bag, or a pair of glass bowls that go around the black pot inside. When properly protected, set up, and with large enough collectors, these can get to 300 degrees and work well cooking stews, rice, etc. These enjoy a wide variety of DIY efforts and styles as well, and one of the best is offered by a maker in Southern California.

A panel cooker being used on the go. Note the glass bowl holding the central pot.

Those are the current types, each with its pluses and minuses. Once one considers solar cooking, it is natural to want to deploy it to those who really need it- the rural and poor around the world, who have lots of sun, and not many other resources. The scourge of traditional cooking fuels in these areas is particularly alarming, usually being wood, coal, or dung, which lead to deforestation, climate change, land depletion, and copious pollution, both indoor and outdoor. Thus solar cooking becomes another sort of colonial dream foisted on the less fortunate, who have not set up proper infrastructure to pillage the earth and pollute the atmosphere. But the various impracticalities of solar cooking, including inconvenient timing, outdoor location, low capacity, slow speed, unusual, non-local, and fragile materials, have doomed such efforts to marginal effectiveness. Maybe some further leap in the technology, like incorporating a heat storage mechanism (rocks?) might solve some of these problems. It is amazing, really, how convenient the stored /reduced forms of carbon (in biomass and fossil fuels) are for our needs, and how hard they are to replace.

• Shades of WW2: All Russia wants is a little elbow room.
• The gravitational wave observatories are running, and recording the death spirals of black holes.
• The next presidential election could start a civil war.
• Carbon tax, now.
• Good sleep, good life.

Myth and Science

Stories we tell about how things work.

I am reading an ancient book about ancient myths, covering some of what was known of the ancient world's stories circa the mid-20th century (that is, the "developed" ancient world of Egypt, the Near East, China, India, etc.). The authors occasionally seem exasperated that their colleagues- the ancient authors of these stories and myths- do not always take their stories as seriously as scholars themselves do, after having so painstakingly learned the relevant languages, unearthed the precious tablets, papyri, inscriptions, and other sources, compared different versions, and interpreted them in light of the historical setting. No, ancient myths can be playful affairs, evolving in dramatic complexity, freely mutating to serve the needs of the moment in their mutable oral traditions. This is especially true the farther back you go into ethnographic history, such as into the stories of the Inuit and other First Peoples of North America. It is evident that ancient societies varied widely in their theological and mythological sophistication, and particularly how closely entwined these were with the centers of power.

Inuit mythologies and their custodian, the shaman.

The scholarly apparatus around myth studies has a very earnest and modernist cast, which derives from two sources. First is Christianity, which as an extreme political and social elaboration of ancient religions has progressively reified and codified its myths. Inheriting a grab-bag of disparate ancient myths and stories, Christianity shored up its social position and theological bona fides by insisting that it was all true. The more sclerotic and far-reaching its bureaucratic structure, the more tightly it held to the absolute truth of its dogmas. A second aspect was the enlightenment and the rise of scientific modernity. That world view was not interested in playful myths of psychodrama, but in hard truths of how the world really works, stripped of the colorful trappings. Competition with this world view helped to further push religious dogmas in an absolutist direction, to that point where today, both Christian Evangelicals and fundamentalist Islamists insist that their scriptures are literally true, handed down from an all-powerful god who really exists and is not fictive construct meant as a playful expression of our scientific ignorance on one hand, and our love of social drama on the other. Anthropologists took their cues from all this, assuming that the precious myths they were studying had to be expressions of a society's absolute truths, organizing principles, and deepest motivations. But perhaps they were originally ways to pass the time and enchant a few youngsters.

Science is telling stories, too. Are they really so different? On the one hand, our need to orient ourselves in the world remains unchanged from ancient times, so the core purpose of explaining reality and society through complicated tales of causes and effects remains. And to a lay person, the explanations of quantum mechanics or cosmic inflation are no less impenetrable than myths about gods and dragons. Thus the scientists who are the custodians of these stories find themselves in the ironic position of a new priesthood, cultivating the cultural narrative around origins, natural phenomena, biology, and the like, while extending these stories in systematic ways that the priests (and alchemists, and shamans, and druids) of yore could only dream about, if they could even conceive of such reliable beliefs untethered from social drama and social control. But today's scientists can't and won't inject ancillary drama into these stories, so they will remain split off from their traditional roles and uses.

So the telling of dramatic stories and the consequent management of society through the narratives of origins, myths, and meaning- if ancient myths really did fulfill these functions, which is perhaps an anachronistic construction on our part, or at least varied widely with the nature of ancient societies- are skills having nothing, really, to do with the scientific enterprise of today, and thus nothing to do with this new priesthood. Who takes these roles?

Theology would seem the natural place for the living and socially relevant myth. But theology has split definitively from science, from history, and indeed from reality, nurturing narratives that are absurd while claiming they are true, and which in their antiquity and provincialism are impossibly remote from our current concerns, morals, and social ability to relate even allegorically. Theology has thus become lost in a sterile wilderness, doomed to be cut off from its mythical and social power. Even the more liberal and elastic precincts, if they do not insist on absolute literal truth, adhere to the crusty old stories of the Bible, which while occasionally artistic, are mostly a maddening hodgpodge and, frankly, boring. What was riveting in antiquity about lengthy ancestor lists, angry gods, virgin births, and ascending into the clouds is ridiculous today. 

The story-telling mantle has obviously been taken over by Hollywood- by the Marvel series, Star Treks, Star Wars, Potter series, and similar epics of modern fantasy. They bend reality in classically mythical ways, make up their own theology as they go along, (and throw it away as casually with the next installment), and communicate constantly updated social mores. The graphics are otherworldly, the stories and morals are updated, but the fundamental sophistication of these stories can't really be said to have advanced much. They are speaking to human nature, after all- a conversation between our inborn archetypes and the social and technological conditions we find ourselves in.

The key point is that Hollywood myths are taken as intended- as fertile and mind-expanding fantasies with social and moral lessons that are (hopefully) beneficial and relevant for our times. They are not trying to claim their myths as true- that would be absurd. Thus they do not collide with either scientific or theological claims, and use myth as it was originally and truly intended- as the dreamlike realm of symbolic human drama, full of lessons, yes, but not scientific ones, or even pseudoscientific ones.

• An outstanding dissection of just how bad US policy and behavior was in Afghanistan.
• Facebook / Fecebook is a cesspool, by design.
• Dead ender racism.
• A mutagenic drug to save us all.
• How about those great vaccines?
• Some nice piano.

Being American

With apologies to those outside the US, throughout the Americas, naturally.

The meaning of being an American is obviously a bit fraught right now. The US had a heyday in the post-WW2 era, when we ruled the world and enjoyed breakneck technological and economic growth. Many seem to think that the conditions of that era are some kind of birth-right, that a lifestyle of mainline Christianity, hamburgers, and trucks is a cultural patrimony worth fighting for, against the existential changes wraught by demography, immigration, climate change, and education. We have come a quite a way from the days of the Civil War, when a similar fight revolved around the right to keep Black people in bondage, but the current historical predicament does rhyme, as they say.

The US is still an incredibly rich country, and a technological leader in countless fields. But at the same time, other countries with lower military budgets and fewer world policing duties show us up in better living conditions, and more progressive political systems. But that is obviously not what grates on the right wing base- that other countries may be more liberal, prosperous, and happy. (Though in fairness, such competing countries are typically also less diverse, and thus have higher social solidarity, from a tribal / ethnic perspective, which does seem to be striking a chord with the right wing). No, what grates is that their god-given right to the American way is dissolving, for all kinds of reasons, but none that completely irresponsible policy, cynical politics, and general greed and obtuseness can't make go away, at least for a little while.

During the Civil War, Lincoln through his Gettysburg address and other writings tried to forge a new vision of what America was about, one with world-wide significance that left behind the stasis and meanness of slavery for the promise of equal opportunity and human development in an abundant and growing land. It was that vision that propelled the US through the next century, through railroads, flight, military might, the oil age, and to our current age of computer and biomedical technological frontiers.

It is clear that we again need a new vision, now that our peak of relative military and economic power is waning. There is no going back. Climate change is making sure of that, even if the Chinese don't follow it up with other unpleasant facts on the ground. The US of old is irrevocably gone, and pining for it isn't going to bring it back, especially if destroying our democracy is the method chosen to get there. What is worse, our moral authority is even more imperiled than those harder forms of power and influence.

Atlanta Olympics opening ceremonies, featuring lots of Stetson hats and pickup trucks.

Remember the 1996 Atlanta Olympics? Dreadful generally, but what sticks in my mind is the fleet of pickup trucks that were featured in the opening ceremony. How incredibly tone-deaf, and what an homage to greed and planetary destruction. But now, a quarter century on, we are still fighting that same fight, between those looking to the past, and those looking to the future. The past was one of abundance, thanks to the bountiful nature that the US was endowed with (or stole brutally from its occupants). The future looks a bit less abundant, because of the damage we ourselves have wrought on the way to all these technological wonders. Also because our population is itself unsustainable, and needs to be smaller, even after we adhere to more sustainable lifestyles and technologies. The future is going to be difficult, no question, and it will require us to think harder, and feel more keenly about others and the environment around us. Merely raping the environment will no longer do (just as chaining and whipping other humans no longer did a century and a half ago). We will have to work with it and in many cases, make sacrifices to heal it. Even pay reparations.

Land-grant colleges endowed throughout the US, courtesy of far-thinking Republicans of the Civil War era.

That is pretty clearly where the new vision of America should be going. To a prosperous future that is sustainable at the same time that it is abundant and equitable. This is a hard task, politically as well as technically, far more difficult than the great things we have accomplished in the past, like the Manhattan project or the Apollo program. And one can sense that the younger generations are ready for this task- they just need a little encouragement and vision to get us there.

• The Taliban is better at politics than the US, or its Afghan allies, were. Politics, Islamic-style.
• On the importance of spirit and core values.
• Realignments in Asia.
• What do you do if your party is a minority?
• Natural selection at work.
• "Valuing your bodily integrity"- idiots with degrees.
• Trash-talking Larry Summers.

This Starship has Gone off Course

Review of the Star Trek Discovery series.

At risk of outing myself, I do occasionally watch Star Trek franchise material. Their original series was incredibly hokey by today's standards, but contained a beloved kernel of curiosity and adventure, and the franchise later matured into a thoughtful and inspiring series in The Next Generation. The ensuing series, such as Deep Space Nine and Voyager, kept to similar themes, and had fine moments (such as the spiritual environment of Bajor, and its supernatural orbs, within their orb cabinets). The last series of the original franchise, Star Trek Enterprise, was sort of a dull affair, with particularly wooden acting, before it veered, in its last season, into total "war on terrorism" territory with torture and other gratitous violence. My watching of the movies has been spotty, and I won't comment on those, as they are not really at the heart of the franchise, as I see it.

What makes (or made) Star Trek special was its modicum of thoughtfulness and philosophy, in a medium and genre otherwise ridden with thoughtless stereotypes, plots, and action. Its genre originated in the Western, but evolved into something all its own, which now can be endlessly replicated, mocked, and spoofed. While fights, killing, and other elements of typical plots abound, there are also elements of curiosity, scientific pursuit, ethical conundrums, and genuine compassion. It is in some ways a workplace drama, but about people who are all passionate about the work they do, making its world one to look forward to, and its tasks ones of adventure. At its very best, it can interrogate relevant social dilemmas in a way that is distanced enough to be entertaining and novel, while incisive enough to pack a punch.

A lengthy and rich history, but what does the future hold?

The three more recent renditions of Star Trek have included an independent series by Seth McFarlane, (The Orville), and official reboots from Paramount including an animated series (Lower Decks), a Patrick Stewart vehicle (Star Trek: Picard), and its main series, Star Trek: Discovery. The Lower Decks offering has been delightful- a very snappy, funny, and intelligent spoof of the whole Star Trek concept,  (and those who watch it), located on the USS Cerritos, named after perhaps the most uninteresting city in California. Only one season has been put out so far, but it has been superb, and fundamentally consonant with the founding Star Trek ethos.

The Orville series has been perhaps the best of the new bunch, despite not being an official part of the franchise. All the names have been changed- such as a "Planetary Union", in place of the United Federation of Planets. While it was originally conceived as heavy on the humor- some quite juvenile- McFarlane was clearly (and perhaps invountarily) taken with the Star Trek concept, and has progressed, as the episodes went on, to more adventurous and serious plots, ending up with complex time travel and one of the most thrilling episodes of TV I have even experienced (season 2.20, concerning the Kaylons, whose name may derive from the Mary Kay franchise ... who knows?). With the third season, his ambitions may have outstripped his resources, in addition to running into a Covid-induced hiatus. That season may never appear.

Meanwhile, Paramount put most of its effort into the Star Trek: Discovery series. This is set slightly before the original series, and features tremendous production quality, and a typical mixed cast of aliens and ethnicities on the bridge. But something seems to have gotten lost along the way. We are immediately launched into a war with the Klingons, who are now so festooned with makeup that they look like giant toads. Rather than exploring strange new worlds and civilizations, we are cast right into a heart-pounding deathly fight with a baroque enemy, complete with gratuitous torture and operatic pomposity on both sides. It is like we have landed in a Die Hard 2 reboot instead of a Star Trek series. "Discovery", indeed!

One would think that, to an erstwhile fungal researcher, the mycelial spore drive central to the Discovery plots would be a welcome bit of fictional technology. The premise is that an invisible (if sparkly) fungal mycelium pervades the galaxy, allowing suitably tuned neural systems to map it out and then follow its paths by travel that is not warp 5, not warp 10, but instantaneous in time. The crew's first tuned neural system was a humble tardigrade microbe, blown up in the show to monster proportions and strength. Later they develop an interface to a crew member, who sacrifices his sanity to the need for speed. Even given the modest standards of Star Trek tech talk/science-y fiction, all this is absurdly ridiculous. While tardigrades may be able to stand exposure to space, they can hardly live there. Likewise with fungi and their mycelia, (not the same as spores), which need water like anyone else. These technologies are so transparently and carelessly grabbed from decade-old issues of Science News that it is embarrassing. If the writers could not come up with something even remotely plausible, it would have been better to devise a nonsense bit of techtalk, which has a storied history in the franchise.

On the whole, Discovery has been a severe disappointment, at least to someone with minimal tolerance for empty action plots. As of episode 9, I can only watch a few minutes at a time before hitting action-trauma overload. Thankfully, there is streaming. It would be unimaginable to watch this the old-fashioned way, as everyone did who was fortunate enough to see the original series over its first few decades of broadcast and syndication.

• The success of the Western US electricity interconnect market.
• The biosphere is falling apart.
• Need a solar car port?
• What a course on inequality would look like.

UFOs, God, and the Evidence of Absence

Sometimes, what you can't see isn't really there. And why you may see it anyway requires some deeper consideration.

A recent New Yorker story resurrects the topic of unidentified flying objects. While drawing quite a bit of well-deserved humor from the field, it also teases some putatively serious observations, and notes that the field has gotten some high-level love from politicians like Harry Reed, Ted Stevens, and Marco Rubio. On the whole, it was disappointing to see mostly uncritical treatmtent of this retread story. Are any UFOs actually objects? The answer to that is almost universally no. Almost all turn out to be optical phenomena, which come in a startling variety that leave observers dumbfounded. The rest are mistaken aircraft, test rockets, balloons, and pranks of various sorts. Reports of UFOs have trailed off over the decades, as their cultural weight has diminished, and people's imaginations drift off to other preoccupations. Yet die-hards remain, finding conspiracies, coverups, and compelling evidence. What is one to say?

It is worth taking a big step back and asking why, over all this time, and over all the people who have been looking for clues, either for or against, nothing concrete has been found. There are no space ships, no alien bodies, no extra-terrestrial materials or technologies. There is nothing- nothing whatsoever to show for all the shocking observations, pregnant hints and leading questions. Nothing for all the political pressure and top-secret investigations.

We'd know if they were really coming.

It shouldn't have to be said, but I will say it anyway, that religion has similar evidence behind it. Namely none. For all the heartfelt convictions, the positive thinking, lovely intuitions, and entrenched tradition, the supernatural remains fugative from observation. Is this by definition? Not at all. Plenty of religious claims, and the ones that are most moving and effective in efforts of proselytization, are very this-worldly- the virgin births, the resurrections, the water from wine, the walking on water, the revelations directly from god, etc. 

While formal logic says that lack of evidence is not positive proof of absence, it is evidence for lack of evidence, which says alot about the momentous claims being made, about UFOs, as well as analogous conspiracies and super-powers. It is absurd to seek, after so many UFO sightings have been resolved as oddities of the atmosphere, of optical, even collective, illusion, innocent projects, or even pranks, for the "real" evidence, the true story behind the coverup, etc. It bespeaks an archetypal imagination, and, philosphically, a grasping at straws. 

Lack of evidence is a serious philosophical condition, in areas where evidence should be readily available and has been fervently sought. If aliens were routinely flying through the atmosphere, we have the technology to detect them. We have countless satellites looking down to earth as well as up into the heavens, at incredible resolutions. We are increasingly using radar to detect birds, in their migrating millions. Surely an alien spaceship would show up with little problem. Naturally, the aliens do not want to be detected, and have the technology to hide themselves from view, allowing only odd glimpses during unusual weather. Did I mention grasping at straws?

What was a scientific problem thus becomes, by process of elimination, a psychological problem. Why do alien and all-powerful beings have such a hold on our imaginations? Could it be that the constellation of childhood is phenomenally durable, causing us to assume/imagine parental figures in political, celestial, and philosophical spheres? We are right now falling atavistically into a renewed kingship psychological complexes with authoritarian figures, not only amongst the Republicans in the US, but all across the world from Brazil to India. After a couple of centuries of shaking off such fixations, it is disappointing how durable our imaginative and affiliative psychology is, and how fragile the discipline it takes to recognize that the parents are not out there, in whatever guise or color, and that we are fully responsible for our world.

• Religion and Q.
• More on aerosol spread of SARS-CoV2, with pictures.
• Notes on qualified immunity.

The Autism of Politics

Our politics is an inarticulate communal search for expression of emotion.

I recently saw "A Brilliant Young Mind", a British take on growing up with autism. It is one of the most beautiful movies I have ever seen, exploring themes of family, loss, and love with wrenching sensitivity. The challenge of expressing, even feeling, one's own emotions is at the heart, naturally enough, for people on the spectrum. There is a fight by family members to crack that shell, to establish communication that expresses the love they know is there, and which will build warmth and confidence.

One theme is the power of speech- the bullying in school, the words of love from a parent. We may have recited the saying about sticks and stones, but it isn't true. Humans feel and use speech as touch, like Chimpanzees use grooming, to soothe each other. Music functions similarly, to touch others with shared emotions, strengthening essential bonds of trust and empathy. We also use speech also to attack each other, and climb the social hierarchy on the bodies of those cut down by words. 

Well, politics is a natural extension. We feel strongly that there should be someone in charge of each political unit- one person who embodies and expresses our feelings about the whole. It is not just a job, or an executive position, but a strongly archetypal role, which includes the work of binding us together through speech, or not, as our collective mood dictates. We have just been through an administration dedicated to the destructive power of speech, firing off tweets to cut down friends and enemies, formulating cryptic messages supporting inequality, tribalism, and racism. 

But political speech is hobbled by the vast population it addresses. The movie above spoke to me, perhaps because I felt familiar with many of its themes and dilemmas, or happened to appreciate its artistic approach. But it may not speak to you. Politics is about finding the largest possible audience, using the vaguest possible formulations to which listeners can impute their feelings about the body politic. It is thus necessarily painfully awkward, smothered in platitudes, and minimally communicative. In short, a little autistic. 

A still from the movie, with the main character and his mother in a typical pose.

So we as citizens are all in the position of wanting the collective to satisfy a some very deep needs for connection, security, and self-realization and expression. But we are reading a cryptic body politic and leadership for clues of true intention, hidden beneath what may be a voluble exterior of near-meaningless speech, and at the same time confounded by a lack of transparency and radical lack of personal access to those people who are the leaders. Conversely, those leaders are sequestered in their security and network bubbles, wanting (ideally) to understand and share the feelings of their constituents, but unable, simply by the scale of the enterprise, to do so. And anyhow, seeking the average feeling or attitude in a democracy ends inevitably in a muddled middle. Thus leaders are confined to rhetoric that in recent inaugurations, state of the union addresses, and so forth has been bland and weak, as uninspired as it is uninspiring. 

Our political / psychological needs seem to differ along temperamental / party lines, with Democrats forever searching for the healing leader who can reach out across the divide to bring a larger coalition together to accomplish empathetic ends, for the downtrodden, for the environment, and for the future. On the other hand, Republicans seem, since at least the time of Goldwater, to be unhopeful about change, and the future in general, indeed motivated by fear. Their quest is for a leader who will advocate for the hard truths of the inherent and useful infairnesses of life to restore the social hierarchical order, keep out aliens, and keep down the restive and poorly paid masses. The last administration was unusually forthright about the whole program, thus speaking into an intense rapport with its "base", while foresaking the traditional mincing "compassionate conservative" or "city on a hill" gestures that have in the past served to sugar-coat that message.

But speaking to the base turned out to be a disastrous political strategy, losing the House, Senate, and Presidency in turn. However powerful in expressing, even generating, rare emotional responses in that base, it failed to follow the most basic principle of political math. So we are back now to the anodyne stylings of a new Democratic administration, back to a normal relationship, which is to say not much of a relationship, between the leader and the led. Which is a great relief on the national level, even if it would be maddening and unsatisfying on any personal level.

• Are you on the spectrum?
• That music in our heads.
• The true nature of conservative jurisprudence.
• Myths, magic, and gods- right or wrong?
• Hamsterkauf?
• Bill Mitchell on inflation and other historical matters.
• Some delightful piano.