Jonathan Singer and the Cranky Book

An eminent scientist at the end of his career writes out his thoughts and preoccupations.

Jonathan Singer was a famous scientist at my graduate school. I did not interact with him, but he played a role in attracting me to the program, as I was interested in biological membranes at the time. Singer himself studied with Linus Pauling, and they were the first to identify a human mutation in a specific gene as a cause for a specific disease- sickle cell disease. After further notable work in electron microscopy, he reached a career triumph by developing, in 1972, the fluid mosaic model of biological membranes. This revolutionized and clarified the field, showing that cells are bounded by something incredibly simple- a bilayer of phospholipids that naturally order themselves into a remarkably stable sheet, (a bubble, one might say), all organized by their charged headgroups and hydrophobic fatty tails. This model also showed that proteins would be swimming around freely in this membrane, and could be integrated in various ways, ether lightly attached on one side, or spanning it completely, thereby enabling complex channel and transporter functions. The model implied the typical length of a protein alpha helix that, by virtue of its hydrophobic side chains, would naturally be able to do this spanning function- a prediction that was spot-on. He could have easily won a Nobel for this work.

I was intrigued when I learned recently that Singer had written a book near the end of his career. It is just the kind of thing that a retired professor loves to do in the sunset of his career, sharing the wisdom and staving off the darkness by taking a stab at the book biz. And Singer's is a classic of the form- highly personal, a bit stilted, and ultimately meandering. I will review some of its high points, and then take a stab of my own at knitting together some of the interesting themes he grapples with.

For at base, Singer turns out to be a spiritual compadre of this blog. He claims to be a rationalist, in a world where, as he has it, no more than 9% of people are rational. Definition? It is the poll question of whether one believes that god created man, rather than the other way around. Singer recognizes that the world around him is crazy, and that the communities he has been a part of have been precious oases amid the general indifference and grasping of the world. But changing it? He is rather fatalistic about that, recognizing that reason is up against overwhelming forces.

His specific themes cover a great deal of biology, and then some more mystical reflections on balance and diversity in biology, and later, in capitalism and politics. He points out that the nature/nurture debate has been settled by twin studies. Nature, which is to say, genetics, is the dominant influence on human characteristics, including a wide variety of psychological traits, including intelligence. Environment and nurture is critical for reaching one's highest potential, and for using it in socially constructive ways, but the limits of that potential are largely set by one's genes. Singer does not, however, draw the inevitable conclusion from these observations, which is that some kind of long-term eugenic approach would be beneficial to our collective future, assuming machines do not replace us forthwith. Biologists know that very small selective coefficients can have big effects, so nothing drastic is needed. But what criteria to use- that is the sticky part. Just as success in the capitalist system hardly signals high moral or personal qualities, nor does incarceration by the justice system always show low ones. It is virtually an insoluble problem, so we muddle along, destined probably for continued cycles of Spenglerian civilizational collapse.

Turning to social affairs, Singer settles on "structural chaos" as his description of how the scientific enterprise works, and how capitalism at large works. With a great deal of waste, and misdirected effort, it nevertheless ends up providing good results- better than those that top-down direction can provide. He seems a sigh a little that "scientific" methods of social organization, such as those in Soviet Russia, were so ineffective, and that the best we can do is to muddle along with the spontaneous entrepreneurship and occasional flashes of innovation that push the process along. Not to mention the "monstrous vulgarity" of advertising, etc. Likewise, democracy is a mess, with most people totally incapable of making the reasoned decisions needed to maintain it. Again, the chaos of democracy is sadly the best we can do, and the duty of rational people, in Singer's view, is to keep alive the flame of intellectual freedom while outside pressures constantly threaten.

Art, and science.

What can we do with this? I think that the unifying thread that Singer was groping for was competition. One can frame competition as a universal principle that shapes the physical, biological, and social worlds. Put two children on a teeter-totter, and you can see how physical forces (e.g. gravitation) compete all the time, subtly producing equilibria that characterize the universe. Chemical equilibria are likewise a product of constant competition, even including the perpetual jostling of phospholipids to find their lowest energy configuration amidst the biological membrane bilayer, which has the side-effect of creating such a stable, yet highly flexible, structure. With Darwin, competition reaches its apotheosis- the endless proliferation, diversification, and selection of organisms. Singer marvels at the fragility of individual life, at the same time that life writ large is so incredibly durable and prolific. Well, the mechanism behind that is competition. And naturally, economics of any free kind, including capitalism and grant-making in science, are based on competition as well- the natural principle that selects which products are useful, which employees are productive, and which technologies are helpful. Waste is part of the process, as diversity amidst excess production is the essential ingredient for subsequent selection. 

And yet.. something is missing. The earth's biosphere would still be a mere bacterial soup if competition were the only principle at work. Bacteria (and their viruses) are the most streamlined competition machines- battlebots of the living world. It took cooperation between a bacterial cell and an archaeal cell to make a revolutionary new entity- the eukaryotic cell. It then took some more cooperation for eukaryotic cells to band together into bodies, making plants and animals. And among animals, cooperation in modest amounts provides for reproduction, family structure, flock structures, and even complex insect societies. It is with humans that cooperation and competition reach their most complex heights, for we are able to regulate ourselves, rationally. We make rules. 

Without rules, human society is anarchic mayhem- a trumpian, dystopian and corrupt nightmare. With them, it (ideally) balances competition with cooperation to harness the benefits of each. Our devotion to sports can be seen as a form of rule worship, and explicit management of the competitive landscape. Can there be too many rules? Absolutely, there are dangers on both sides. Take China as an example. In the last half-century, it revamped its system of rules to lower the instability of political competition, harness the power of economic competition, and completely transform its society. 

The most characteristic and powerful human institution may be the legislature, which is our ongoing effort to make rational rules regulating how the incredibly powerful motive force of competition shapes our lives. Our rules, in the US, were authored, at the outset, by the founders, who were- drumroll please- rationalists. To read the Federalist Papers is to see exquisite reasoning drawing on wide historical precedent, and particularly on the inspirations of the rationalist enlightenment, to formulate a new set of rules mediating between cooperation and competition. Not only were they more fair than the old rules, but they were designed for perpetual improvement and adjustment. The founding was, at base, a rationlist moment, when characters like Franklin, Hamilton, Madison, and Jefferson- deists at best and rationalists through and through, led the new country into a hopeful, constitutional future. At the current moment, two hundred and fifty years on, as our institutions are being wantonly destroyed and anything resembling reason, civility, and truth is under particularly vengeful attack, we should appreciate and own that heritage, which informs a true patriotism against the forces of darkness.

• Bill Mitchell on AI.
• How this drives politics.
• And can thought survive against an onslaught of slop?
• Paul Krugman on abasement.
• Is evil lack of religion, or too much religion?

Man is Wolf to Man

The current administration's predatory and corrupt version of capitalism.

What is corruption? Isn't capitalism all about getting as much money as you can? Then doesn't it follow that there can be no such thing as corruption, which is defined as going against the rules? What rules?

We as a country go on a trip with every new president, learning about their nature and values as we accompany them through their brief span of history. Few presidents wear very well after their honeymoon, since the process of getting elected requires some shading of the truth, truth that inevitably comes out later on. The current administration is an odd example, since in his first term, Trump was not allowed (for very good reasons!) to be himself. The second time round has been a different story, and we are getting a deep look at his character. 

The US has always had a double relationship with capitalism, tilting between rampant competition / exploitation and reverence for rules and legal systems. Slavery, obviously, is the foremost example, with slaveholders enshrining in a document dedicated to human freedom their own legal rights to property in comprehensively oppressed people. The founders, on making their constitution, feverishly set to work creating institutions for the common good, such as the treasury, mail system, judicial system, patents, and military. But, at the same time, we have long had an ideology of free enterprise- of land, resource, and human exploitation almost without limit. 

Charles Ponzi was not working in Italy, after all, but in the US, as was Bernie Madoff. Now crypto is the popular mechanism of picking people's pockets, facilitating mundane crime such as money laundering and ransomware attacks at the same time that it provides flourishing vistas of direct fraud, in rug pulls, hacks, and market manipulation. A recent article reviewed the pathetic world of multilevel marketing, another model of predation where ambitious entrepreneurs are sucked into schemes that are engineered both to fail, and to induce the victims to blame themselves.

The administration has clearly made it its mission to celebrate these forms of business- the predators, the grifters, the destructive businessmen among us who think that taxes are for little people, and rules for someone else. Consumer protection agencies have been shuttered, the IRS eviscerated, investigations cancelled. Pardons have been going out, not only to the January 6th conspirators and their militias, but to the money launderers, the corrupt politicians, and crypto bros. It is a sustained campaign of norm and rule-breaking by a grossly tasteless, shockingly greedy and small-minded president, (and sexual predator), who cannot conceive of rational policy, uncorrupted institutions, or fairness, much less civility, as a principle. A person with deep psychological problems. And thus, is incapable of long-term policy that is the bedrock of durable, functional institutions, either commercial or governmental.

Following gold, like a cat following a laser pointer.

We are all worried about fascism, as that seems to be the aesthetic and the model of power the administration is tending towards. But what they have done so far doesn't even come up to the level of fascism, really. The president is not smart enough to have a coherent policy or ideological platform. The weave does not leave room for a program that would be attractive beyond the nihilistic base. There are inclinations, and moods, and tantrums, love for Putin, and a lot of nostalgia for policies of decades, if not centuries, ago. There is hate. But without a program that binds all these ingredients into even a marginally coherent approach to the future, it will inevitably fall apart. True believers don't do policies or reason- conspiracy theories are enough. Thinking, apparently, is for libtards. 

The fact of the matter is that capitalism is not equivalent to the law of the jungle. A legal system, and rules, are required to prevent capitalists from making military forays into each other's empires, and to prevent the workers from taking up their pitchforks, among much else. It is founded on the limited liability company, itself a legal construct, not to mention all the financial, educational, and physical infrastructure that forms its essential background. There is no going Galt here. Indeed, the whole point of captialism is not to screw everyone and make a few people very rich. Rather, it is to diffuse labor, useful products and productive technologies across society in a way that utilizes everyone's talents and supplies everyone's needs.  The point is general prosperity, not inequality. 

Institutions are built on rules, and they can die two ways- either people disregard and lose faith in the rules, (maybe because they are made by corrupt processes), or the rules become so elaborate and sclerotic that the point of the institution is lost. These ways map roughly onto our political divide, which, when it compromises to the middle produces something akin to a functional mean. But the current administration, and its ideology of thorough-going corruption on personal, business, and governmental levels, is, with the connivance of an equally unhinged supreme court, creating a legacy of cruelty and destruction that is surely a sad way to mark next year's anniversary of our institutional founding.

• How the wingnut evangelicals, rightist Catholics, and their funders have bought into the burn-it-all-down program of predation, with a little help from the Russians.
• Being populist means lying, unfortunately.
• We can and should give real help to Ukraine. How about blockading Russian rather than Venezuelan tankers?
• A hiring hellscape, with AI battling on both sides.
• Destroying science, at the NIH.

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.

The Role of Empathy in Science

Jane Goodall's career was not just a watershed in ethology and primate psychology, but in the way science is done.

I vividly remember reading Jane Goodall's descriptions of the chimpanzees in her Gombe project. Here we had been looking for intelligent alien life with SETI, and wondering about life on Mars. But she revealed that intelligent, curious personalities exist right here, on Earth, in the African forest. Alien, but not so alien. Indeed, they loved their families, suffered heartbreaking losses, and fought vicious battles. They had cultures, and tools, deviousness and generosity. 

What was striking was not just the implications of all this for us as humans and as conservationists, but also what it overturned about scientific attitudes. Science had traditionally had a buttoned-up attitude- "hard science", as it were. This reached a crescendo with behaviorism, where nothing was imputed to the psychology of others, whether animals or children, other than machine-like input/output reflexes. Machines were the reigning model, as though we had learned nothing since Descartes. 

Ask a simple question, get a simple answer.

This was appalling enough on its own terms, but it really impoverished scientific progress as well. Goodall helped break open this box by showing in a particularly dramatic way the payoff possible from having deep empathy with one's scientific object. Scientists have always engaged with their questions out of interest and imagination. It is a process of feeling one's way through essentially a fantasy world, until one proves that the rules you have divined actually are provable via some concrete demonstration- doing an experiment, or observing the evidence of tool use by chimpanzees. It is intrinsically an empathetic process, even if the object of that empathy is a geological formation, or a sub-atomic particle. 

But discipline is needed too. Mathematics reigns supreme in physics, because, luckily, physics follows extremely regular rules. That is what is so irritating and uncomfortable about quantum mechanics. That is a field where empathy sort of fails- notoriously, no one really "understands" quantum mechanics, even though the math certainly works out. But in most fields, it is understanding we are after, led by empathy and followed by systematization of the rules at work, if any. This use of empathy has methodological implications. We become attached to the objects of our work, and to our ideas about them. So discipline involves doing things like double-blind trials to insulate a truth-finding process from bias. And transparency with open publication followed by open critique.

In the 20th century, science was being overwhelmed by the discipline and the adulation of physics, and losing the spark of inspiration. Jane Goodall helped to right that ship, reminding us that scientific methods and attitudes need to match the objects we are working with. Sure, math might be the right approach to electrons. But our fellow animals are an entirely different kettle of fish. For example, all animals follow their desires. The complexities of mating among animals means that they are all driven just as we are- by emotions, by desire, by pain, by love. The complexity may differ, but the intensity of these emotions can not possibly be anything but universal.

• "He will pretend false votes, foul play, hold possession of the reins of government."

Dopamine: Get up and Go, or Lie Down and Die

The chemistry of motivation.

A recent paper got me interested in the dopamine neurotransmitter system. There are a limited number of neurotransmitters, (roughly a hundred), which are used for all communication at synapses between neurons. The more common transmitters are used by many cells and anatomical regions, making it hazardous in the extreme to say that a particular transmitter is "for" something or other. But there are themes, and some transmitters are more "niche" than others. Serotonin and dopamine are specially known for their motivational valence and involvement in depression, schizophrenia, addiction, and bipolar disorder, among many other maladies.

This paper described the reason why cancer patients waste away- a syndrome called cachexia. This can happen in other settings, like extreme old age, and in other illnesses. The authors ascribe cachexia (using mice implanted with tumors) to the immune system's production of IL6, one of scores of cytokines, or signaling proteins that manage the vast distributed organ that is our immune system. IL6 is pro-inflammatory, promoting inflammation, fever, and production of antibody-producing B cells, among many other things. These authors find that it binds to the area postrema in the brain stem, where many other blood-borne signals are sensed by the brain- signals that are generally blocked by the blood-brain barrier system.

The binding of IL6 at this location then activates a series of neuronal connections that these authors document, ending up inhibiting dopamine signaling out of the ventral tegmental area (VTA) in the lower midbrain, ultimately reducing dopamine action in the nucleus accumbens, where it is traditionally associated with reward, addiction, and schizophrenia. These authors use optically driven engineered neurons at an intermediate location, the parabrachial nucleus, (PBN), to reproduce how neuron activation there drives inhibition downstream, as the natural IL6 signal also does.  

Schematic of the experimental setup and anatomical locations. The graph shows how dopamine is strongly reduced under cachexia, consequent to the IL6 circuitry the authors reveal.

What is the rationale of all this? When we are sick, our body enters a quite different state- lethargic, barely motivated, apathetic, and resting. All this is fine if our immune system has things under control, uses our energy for its own needs, and returns us to health forthwith, but it is highly problematic if the illness goes on longer. This work shows in a striking and extreme way what had already been known- that prominent dopamine-driven circuits are core micro-motivational regulators in our brains. For an effective review of this area, one can watch a video by Robert Lustig, outlining at a very high level the relationship of the dopamine and serotonin systems.

Treatment of tumor-laden mice with an antibody to IL6 that reduces its activity relieves them of cachexia symptoms and significantly extends their lifespans.

It is something that the Buddhists understood thousands of years ago, and which the Rolling Stones and the advertising industry have taken up more recently. While meditation may not grant access to the molecular and neurological details, it seems to have convinced the Buddha that we are on a treadmill of desire, always unsatisfied, always reaching out for the next thing that might bring us pleasure, but which ultimately just feeds the cycle. Controlling that desire is the surest way to avoid suffering. Nowhere is that clearer than in addiction- real, clinical addictions that are all driven by the dopamine system. No matter what your drug of choice- gambling, sugar, alcohol, cocaine, heroin- the pleasure that they give is fleeting and alerts the dopamine system to motivate the user to seek more of the same. There are a variety of dopamine pathways, including those affecting Parkinson's and reproductive functions, but the ones at issue here are the mesolimbic and mesocortical circuits, that originate in the midbrain VTA and extend respectively to the nucleus accumbens in the lower forebrain, and to the cerebral cortex. These are integrated with the rest of our cognition, enabling motivation to find the root causes of a pleasurable experience, and raise the priority of actions that repeat those root causes. 

So, if you gain pleasure from playing a musical instrument, then the dopamine system will motivate you to practice more. But if you gain pleasure from cocaine, the dopamine system will motivate you to seek out a dealer, and spend your last dollar for the next fix. And then steal some more dollars. This system shows specifically the dampening behavior that is so tragic in addictions. Excess activation of dopamine-driven neurons can be lethal to those cells. So they adjust to keep activation in an acceptable range. That is, they keep you unsatisfied, in order to allow new stimuli to motivate you to adjust to new realities. No matter how much pleasure you give yourself, and especially the more intense that pleasure, it is never enough because this system always adjusts the baseline to match. One might think of dopamine as the micro-manager, always pushing for the next increment of action, no matter how much you have accomplished before, no matter how rosy or bleak the outlook. It gets us out of bed and moving through our day, from one task to the next.

In contrast, the serotonin system is the macro-manager, conveying feelings of general contentment, after a life well-lived and a series of true accomplishments. Short-circuiting this system with SSRIs like prozac carries its own set of hazards, like lack of general motivation and emotional blunting, but it does not have the risk of addiction, because serotonin, as Lustig portrays it, is an inhibitory neurotransmitter, with no risk of over-excitement. The brain does not re-set the baseline of serotonin the same way that it continually resets the baseline of dopamine.

How does all this play out in other syndromes? Depression is, like cachexia, at least in part syndrome of insufficient dopamine. Conversely, bipolar disorder in its manic phase appears to involve excess dopamine, causing hyperactivity and wildly excessive motivation, flitting from one task to the next. But what have dopamine antagonists like haloperidol and clozapine been used for most traditionally? As anti-psychotics in the treatment of schizophrenia. And that is a somewhat weird story. 

Everyone knows that the medication of schizophrenia is a haphazard affair, with serious side effects and limited efficacy. A tradeoff between therapeutic effects and others that make the recipient worse off. A paper from a decade ago outlined why this may be the case- the causal issues of schizophrenia do not lie in the dopamine system at all, but in circuits far upstream. These authors suggest that ultimately schizophrenia may derive from chronic stress in early life, as do so many other mental health maladies. It is a trail of events that raise the stress hormone cortisol, which diminishes cortical inhibition of hippocampal stress responses, and specifically diminishes the GABA (another neurotransmitter) inhibitory interneurons in the hippocampus. 

It is the ventral hippocampus that has a controlling influence over the VTA that in turn originates the relevant dopamine circuitry. The theory is that the ventral hippocampus sets the contextual (emotional) tone for the dopamine system, on top of which episodic stimulation takes place from other, more cognitive and perception-based sources. Over-activity of this hippocampal regulation raises the gain of the other signals, raising dopamine far more than appropriate, and also lowering it at other times. Thus treating schizophrenia with dopamine antagonists counteracts the extreme highs of the dopamine system, which in the nucleus accumbens can lead to hallucinations, delusions, paranoia, and manic activity, but it is a blunt instrument, also impairing general motivation, and further reducing cognitive, affect, parkinsonism, and other problems caused by low dopamine that occurs during schizophrenia in other systems such as the meso-cortical and the nigrostriatal dopamine pathways.

Manipulation of neurotransmitters is always going to be a rough job, since they serve diverse cells and pathways in our brains. Wikipedia routinely shows tables of binding constants for drugs (clozapine, for instance) to dozens of different neurotransmitter receptors. Each drug has its own profile, hitting some receptors more and others less, sometimes in curious, idiosyncratic patterns, and (surprisingly) across different neurotransmitter types. While some of these may occasionally hit a sweet spot, the biology and its evolutionary background has little relation to our current needs for clinical therapies, particularly when we have not yet truly plumbed the root causes of the syndromes we are trying to treat. Nor is precision medicine in the form of gene therapies or single-molecule tailored drugs necessarily the answer, since the transmitter receptors noted above are not conveniently confined to single clinical syndromes either. We may in the end need specific, implantable and computer-driven solutions or surgeries that respect the anatomical complexity of the brain.

• Thoughts about corruption.
• The Fed is extraordinarily powerful.
• But our Stable Genius is going downhill.
• The real deal with autism.

Gold Standard

The politics and aesthetics of resentment. Warning: this post contains thought crime.

I can not entirely fathom thinking on the right these days. It used to be that policy disputes occured, intelligent people weighed in from across a reasonable spectrum of politics, and legislation was hammered out to push some policy modestly forward (or backward). This was true for civil rights, environmental protection, deregulation, welfare reform, even gay marriage. That seems to be gone now. Whether it is the atomization of attention and thought brought on by social media, or the mercenary propaganda of organs like FOX news, the new mode of politics appears to be destructive, vindictive spite. A spiral of extremism.

It also has a definite air of resentment, as though policy is not the point, nor is power, entirely, but owning the libtards is the real point- doing anything that would be destructive of liberal accomplishments and ideals. We know that the president is a seething mass of resentments, but how did that transform alchemically into a political movement?

I was reading a book (Deep South) by Paul Theroux that provides some insight. It is generally a sour and dismissive, full of a Yankee's distain for the backwardness of the South. And it portrays the region as more or less third world. Time and again, towns are shadowed by factories closed due to off-shoring.  What little industry the South had prior to NAFTA was eviscerated, leaving agriculture, which is increasingly automated and corporatized. It is an awful story of regression and loss of faith. And the author of this process was, ironically, a Southerner- Bill Clinton. Clinton went off to be a smarty-pants, learned the most advanced economic theories, and concluded that NAFTA was a good deal for the US, as it was for the other countries involved, and for our soft power in the post-world war 2 world. The South, however, and a good deal of the Rust Belt, became sacrifice zones for the cheaper goods coming in from off-shore.

What seemed so hopeful in the post-war era, that America would turn itself into a smart country, leading the world in science, technology, as well as in political and military affairs, has soured into the realization that all the smart kids moved to the coasts, leaving a big hole in the middle of the country. The meritocracy accomplished what it was supposed to, establishing a peerless educational system that raised over half the population into the ranks of college graduates. But it opened eyes in other ways as well, freeing women from the patterns of patriarchy, freeing minorities from reflexive submission, and opening our history to quite contentious re-interpretation. And don't get me started on religion!

So there has been a grand conjunction of resentment, between a population sick of the dividends of the educational meritocracy over a couple of generations, and a man instinctively able to mirror and goad those resentments into a destructive political movement. His aesthetic communicates volumes- garish makeup, obscene ties, and sharing with Vladimir Putin a love of gold-gilded surfaces. To the lower class, it may read expensive and successful, but to the well educated, it reeks of cheapness, focusing on surface over substance, a bullying, mob aesthetic, loudly anti-democratic.

Reading the project 2025 plans for this administration, I had thought we would be looking at a return to the monetary gold standard. But no, gold has come up in many other guises, not that one. Gold crypto coins, Gold immigration card, Oval office gold, golden hair. But most insulting of all was the ordering up of gold standard science. The idea that the current administration is interested in, or capable of, sponsoring high quality personnel, information or policy of any kind has been thoroughly refuted by its first months in office. The resentment it channels is directed against, first and foremost, those with moral integrity. Whether civil servants, diplomats, or scientists, all who fail to bend the knee are enemies of this administration. This may not be what the voters had in mind, but it follows from the deeper currents of frustration with liberal dominance of the meritocracy and culture.

But what is moral integrity? I am naturally, as a scientist, talking about truth. A morality of truth, where people are honest, communicate in truthful fashion, and care about reality, including the reality of other people and their rights / feelings. As the quote has it, reality has a well-known liberal bias. But it quickly becomes apparent that there are other moralities. What we are facing politically could be called a morality of authority. However alien to my view of things, this is not an invalid system, and it is central to the human condition, modeled on the family. Few social systems are viable without some hierarchy and relation of submission and authority. How would a military work without natural respect for authority? And just to make this philosophical and temperamental system complete, one can posit a morality of nurture as well, modeled on mothering, unconditional love, and encouragement.

This triad of moralities is essential to human culture, each component in continual dynamic tension. Our political moment shows how hypertrophy of the morality of authority manifests. Lies and ideology are a major tool, insisting that people take their reality from the leader, not their own thoughts or from experts who hew to a morality of truth. Unity of the culture is valued over free analysis. As one can imagine, over the long run of human history, the moralities of nurture and authority have been dominant by far. They are the poles of the family system. It was the Enlightenment that raised the morality of truth as an independent pole in this system for the culture at large, not just for a few scholars and clerics. Not that truth has not always been an issue in people's lives, with honesty a bedrock principle, and people naturally caring whether predicted events really happen, whether rain really falls, the sun re-appears, etc. But as an organizing cultural principle that powers technological and thus social and cultural progress, it is a somewhat recent phenomenon.

It is notable that scientists, abiding by a morality of truth, tend to have very peaceful cultures. They habitually set up specialized organizations, mentor students, and collaborate nationally and internationally. Scientists may work for the military, but within their own cultures, have little interest in starting wars. It is however a highly competitive culture, with critical reviewing, publishing races, and relentless experimentation designed to prove or disprove models of reality. Authority has its place, as recognized experts get special privileges, and established facts tend to be hard to move. At risk of sounding presumptuous, the morality of truth represents an enormous advance in human culture, not to be lightly dismissed. And the recent decades of science in the US have been a golden age that have produced a steady stream of technological advance and international power, not to mention Nobel prizes and revelations of the beauty of nature. That is a gold standard. 

• The theme does strike a nerve.
• In the name of free speech, thought crime will be punished.
• The war against propaganda.
• How fun it is in a culture of cruelty.
• A great drying is taking place.
• Is there no limit to the corruption?
• 200 years of trains.

The Revenge of History

China's cyclical history and the practice of meta-politics.

I have been studying the basics of Chinese history, getting my dynasties straight. And one observation made by everyone is the cyclicity of this history- the way it swings between unity and division, rise and collapse. One might say, however, that the real through-line is that of strong-man rule. Whether during warring states or in a unified empire, there has never been democracy in China. The states may be small or large, but they are always run by the same principle- authoritarianism. Thus the political evolution of China has been more concerned with how to ameliorate authoritarianism, with Confucianism the major (and Taoism and Buddhism the minor) modes of an (aspirational) ethic of rule that is more humane than the legalist school of pure power.

For example, one can ask the question: Why in such an ancient culture with such a lengthy political tradition, could Mao and the communist party turn it all upside down in the 20th century? Clearly it was not quite the revolution that it seemed, bringing not another system, but another emperor to the throne, one of astonishing cruelty, who killed off roughly 1/20 to 1/10 of the population over his career.

China's history is certainly a retort to the "End of History" school of thought, which had hoped to find in Western-style democracy the final refuge of humanity. One that all people and nations would recognize and join after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Hopes were nurtured that Russia might find its way to democracy, as they were towards China as well, after we did so much to encourage its capitalist development. Neither were requited, and now we ourselves are slipping into the quicksand of authoritarianism. What is going on?

One can view the American founding as a sort of meta-politics, where the best and the brightest got together, not to wage a war for supremacy, but to conceive a system that would allow continuous political development without bloodshed. Make up a few rules, set a few precedents, and we were launched on a political voyage that only descended into civil war once, and otherwise has maintained a responsive and distributed system of political control. Such meta-politics attempts to evade "real" history, which is made up of naked contests for power. One can say that it "gamified" politics by taking it off the plane of warfare, and onto a more benign plane of electoral and civic argument. It has been a shining example of human efforts to rise above our base nature.

But there is a problem, which is that it is still a contest for power, and the more serious the participants, the more tempted they are to change the rules of the game, back to the naked forms of yore. It is only the revulsion of the public against defectors that can confine power to those willing to play by the game's rules. And that revulsion has steadily eroded over the recent decades. I would place the start of this process at Newt Gingrich, who first whipped his caucus into shape with a discipline that eliminated individual conscience, and who sharpened propaganda and flamethrowing into political art. The FOX-based media ecosystem has eviscerated truth and principle as political concepts, not to mention empathy, and now celebrates political criminality as a matter of course. We are at war.

Again, China has never known democracy, so its political culture vacillates merely between more or less benign autocracies. From the astonishingly brutal rule of the Qin, to the cosmopolitan states of the Tang and Song. The "mandate of heaven", which is to say, popular opinion, is important, but is usually expressed through the ability of a revolutionary strong man to gather support. Muslim political culture is similar, having few suggestions about how a ruler should be chosen, but assuming always that there will be a ruler. The overall theme is that, especially by the "realist" school of foreign policy, history and the normal course of events are composed of naked contests for power, won by the most ruthless, shameless, and cruel. The ideas of the enlightenment offered an end to this state of affairs, by making politics about what they should be about- the opinions of the governed- systematically and peacefully. But to do that, the opinions of the governed also need to be enlightened, capable of sanctioning a politician for breaching the rules of the game, even if that politician is on their side. And that is what is so clearly missing today, as we gradually slip back into history.

• A letter from China.
• How do they make it with so many losses? Tax fraud.
• Bill Mitchell on crypto.
• Russia's attitude towards peace.

Money For Nothing: Two Views of Crypto

Is crypto more like gold or a simple scam?

I have to confess some perplexity over crypto. Billed as currencies, they are not currencies. Billed as securities, they are not securities, either. They excite a weird kind of enthusiasm in libertarian circles, in dreams of asocial (if not anti-social) finance. From a matter of fringe speculation, they are migrating into the culture at large, influencing our politics, and becoming significant economic actors, with a combined market cap now over three trillion dollars. For me, there are two basic frames for thinking about crypto. One is that they are like gold, an intrinsically worthless, but attractive object of fascination, wealth storage, and speculation. The other is that they are straight Ponzi schemes, rising by a greater-fool process that will end in tears.

Currencies are forms of money with particular characteristics. They are widely used among a region or population, stable in value, and easy to store and exchange. They are typically sponsored by a government to ensure that stability and acceptance. This is done in part by specifying that currency for incoming taxes and outgoing vendor and salary payments. They are also, in modern systems, managed elastically, (and intelligently!), with ongoing currency creation to match economic growth and keep the nominal value stable over time. Crypto entities would like to be currencies. However, they have far from stable value, are not easy to work with, and are not widely used. Securities, on the other hand, have a basis in some kind of collateral (i.e. the "security" part) like business ownership, a contract of bond interest payments, etc. Crypto does not have this either. Crypto has only its own scarcity to offer, a bit like cowrie shells, or gold. Crypto entities are not investments in productive activity. Indeed, they foster the opposite, as their only solid use case has been, at least to date, facilitating crime, as demonstrated by the ransomware industry, which asks to be paid in Bitcoin.

So how about gold? Keynes railed against gold as the most useless, barbaric form of wealth, inducing people to dig holes in the earth and cause environmental degradation. And for what? A shiny substance that looks good, and is useful in a few industrial applications, but mostly was, at the time, held by governments in huge vaults, notionally underpinning their currency values. Thankfully we are past that, but gold still holds fascination, and persists as a store of value. Gold can be held in electronic forms, making it just as easy to hold and transfer as crypto entities, if one is so-inclined. Critically, however, gold is also physical, and humanity's fascination with it is innate and enduring. Thus, after the apocalypse, when the electricity is off and the computers are not connected anymore, gold will still be there, ready to serve as money when crypto has evaporated away. 

Bitcoin barely recovered from an early crisis. 

How durable is the fascination with crypto, as a store of wealth, or for any other purpose, under modern, non-apocalyptic conditions? Bitcoin is the grand-daddy of the field, and seems to have achieved dominance, certainly the field of criminal money laundering and transfer, as well as libertarian speculation. It appears to have a special mystique, whether from the blockchain, its "mining" system, or its mysterious pseudonymous founder. The other forms of crypto range from respectible to passing memes. There is a fascinating competition in the attention space that constitutes the crypto markets. Since they do not have intrinsic value, nor governmental buy-in, they float entirely on buyer sentiment, in a greater-fool cycle of rises and falls. Crashes in the stock market are halted by fundamental value of the underlying asset. As the speculative fervor wanes, vultures step in to, at worst, liquidate the assets. But for crypto, there are no assets. No fundamental value. So crashes can and do go to zero.

There are also external factors, like the fact that many crypto entities have been outright scams, or the environmental costs of Bitcoin, or their facilitation of criminality, which may eventually draw popular and regulatory scrutiny. Boosters have been trying to get the Federal Reserve and other validating entities to buy into the crypto craze, and political contributions from newly crypto-riche holders and exchanges have transformed the landscape to one that seems increasingly sympathetic, especially on the Republican side. Thankfully, the smaller memecoins have market caps in the low millions, so do not present a threat as yet to the financial system, in the almost certain event of their evaporation once each meme passes. This blasé acceptance of "securities" that are pure schemes of speculation is a sad commentary on our current age. The sophisticated investor of today would not study corporate efficiency, market prospects, or finances. He or she would be conversant in current memes on social media, ready to jump on the newest one, and sensitive to the withering of older memes, in an endless conveyor belt of booms and busts. 

It is weird how people fail to learn the lessons of the past, from the tulip craze and other speculative booms. Where there is no value, there is likely to be a very deep crash. The libertarians among us, who may have been gold bugs in the past and now have flocked to the new world of crypto, may represent a psychological type that is ineradicable, so motivated to ditch the humdrum official currency for anything that offers a whiff of notional independence, (though being tethered to the new crypto infrastructure of exchanges and wallets is not for the faint of heart or independent-minded), that they can float these crypto entities indefinitely. But in the absence of deeper value, might their psychologies change to those of hawkers who get in at the ground floor and make out, while the schlubs who buy at the top are left holding the bag? It comes down to human psychology in the end- what is personally and socially valuable, who you think your counterparts are on the other ends of all these trades, and who (and what sort of motivation) is making up the institutions and communities of crypto.

• Star Trek was fighting the cold war.

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.

Jimmy Carter, on Work

Jimmy Carter's "An Hour Before Daylight".

One marked contrast between the recent political conventions was the presence of former presidents. The Republicans had none, (excepting the candidate), not even the very-much alive George W. Bush, or past candidates such as Mitt Romney. The Democrats had two, plus Hillary Clinton, not to mention the current president, Joe Biden. There was additionally a representative of a fourth, Jimmy Carter, to say that he will be happily voting for Kamala Harris in the fall. It speaks to the extremist journey the Republican party has been on, compared to much more conventional (sorry!) path of the Democrats, with recognizably consistent values and respect for character and institutions, both their own and those of the country at large.

None of these Democratic leaders grew up rich. Each was formed in modest circumstances, before joining the meritocracy and working their way up. The Democratic party is now generally viewed as the party of educated people, government workers, and minorities, against the Republican coalition of the very rich and the very poor. One might summarize it as strivers through the educational system, as opposed to strivers through the capitalist system. For one group, being kind, smart, and hard-working are the annointing signs of god, while for the other, it is being rich. Some (usually Republicans) may think these are equivalent, but the current candidates demonstrate the opposite.

This theme is exemplified by the career of Jimmy Carter, who worked his way through Annapolis and a naval career partly spent in the naval nuclear program under Hyman Rickover, then worked his way to the Georgia governorship, the Presidency, and then kept on working through retirement, churning out books and doing good works. The finest of his books, (which are, frankly, a mixed bag), is apparently his memoir of his early life and environment, "An Hour Before Daylight". The theme, for me, was work- hard work. Carter grew up on a large farm, and worked constantly. The book's title comes, naturally, from when the farm day starts. There are pigs to feed, eggs to collect, cows to milk. There are fields to plow, trees to chop down, fences to mend, products to sell, and supplies to buy. The work was evidently endless, as it is on any family farm, and while Carter tells of many swimming, hunting, amorous, and other expeditions, it is the cycle of chores and worries around the farm that was clearly formative.

Jimmy with family, in his Sunday best.

But he was not the hardest worker. His family owned a lot of land, and in this segregated time during the depression, had numerous sharecropping tenants and employees, all black. Carter comments gingerly about this system, balancing his worship of his father with clear descriptions of the hopelessness of the tenant's position. They worked without dreams of attending Annapolis, or inheriting a large estate. Rather, debt was the typical condition, as the Carters ran the supply store as well as owning the land. Carter looked up to many of these employees and tenants, and recounts very close and formative relations throughout his childhood, with both black children and adults. At least until he was drawn, as the system had designed it, into the segregated churches and schools.

Jimmy at his most intense, a naval graduate.

It is hard to grasp, in our heavily urbanized and regulated existence, where work is a 9-5 job and we dream of weekends, family leave, remote work, and retirement, how much work went into a normal existance like this on a farm. Success depended not only on unstinting work, but on an even temper, shrewd foresight, family support, good community relations (including church attendance), and a lot of luck. The wealth and power of the US was built on this kind of scrabbling for economic survival and advancement. The capitalist system continually applied the screws, lowering prices for cotton when too much was being produced, a particular crisis during the depression. Carter tells of the continual inventiveness that his family devoted to new ventures, like selling flavored milks, roasted pecans, sugar cane syrup, boiled peanuts, and tomato catsup, all from their own crops. Not everything was successful, but there was a continual need, even in this out-pf-the-way rural area, to meet the market and keep coming up with new ideas for making money.

Most of all, Carter speaks with pride of his and his family's work. It provided their sustenance, and their relationships, and was thus intrinsically and automatically meaningful. Headed by a benevolent regime, at least as he understood it under his parents, it was an ideal world- busy, endlessly challenging, stimulating, and productive. This is what we need to think about in these end times of the loneliness epidemic and the plague of homelessness and meaninglessness. Religion was a strong presence, but hearing Carter tell it, it weighed relatively lightly on him and his family, (other than sister Ruth, perhaps, who became a renowned evangelist), being more a solace to the poor than a spur to the well-to-do. Their meaning came more from their community and their many and varied occupations. So when people speak of basic income programs, one has to ask whether that really addresses the problem. Much better might be a guaranteed job program, where everyone is offered basic work if they can not find it in the private sector. Productive work that benefits the community, along the lines of the WPA projects of the depression. Work is critical to meaning and mental health, as well as to our communities and nation.

• Zoning and housing.
• Religious nutters lose their minds.
• Another great use of crypto- pig butchering.
• Unbutchering one candidate's garble.
• It smells like the mob.

Welcome to Lubyanka!

Another case of penal systems illuminating their culture.

Most of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's In the First Circle is a desultory slog, at least if you have already read the Gulag Archipelago. But there are a few glorious set-pieces. One is the mock trial of Prince Igor of Kiev that the prisoners stage in their free time, a bitter satire of the Soviet judicial system. The second is a meticulous description of how prisoners are brought into and introduced to the Lubyanka prison- the central prison of the KGB/FSB/Cheka/GPU/OGPU/NKVD/NKGB, etc.. the frequently renamed, but never-changing organ of the Russian government.

The character is Innokenty Volodin, a Soviet diplomat who has recently had second thoughts about the rightness of the Soviet system, and has placed a call (around which the book's plot, such as it is, mostly revolves) to the Americans to prevent Russia from obtaining certain critical atomic secrets. Solzhenitsyn carefully prepares the way by portraying Volodin's rarified position and luxurious life. As was customary, Volodin is lured into his arrest under false pretenses, and finds himself driven to the prison almost before he knows what has happened. Then, with almost loving detail, Solzhenitsyn describes the not just systematic, but virtuosic process of degradation, step by step, shred by shred, of Volodin's humanity, as he is inducted into Lubyanka.

One cardinal rule is that prisoners must have no contact with other prisoners. Even to see others is forbidden. As they are conducted from one cell to the next, they are shoved into mini phone-booth cells if another prisoner is being conducted in the opposite direction. Their possessions are gradually taken away, down to buttons, belts, and steel shoe shanks. They are shorn. They are sleep deprived. They are relentlessly illuminated by glaring bulbs. They are spied on constantly. They are moved relentlessly from place to place and disoriented. In the middle of the night, the building is abuzz with activity, as though this were the very nerve center of the Soviet empire. 

While the rest of Russian society is mired, or cowed, in mediocrity, this is a shining point of competence. The purest expression of its obsessive leader, and the product of decades of careful study and accumulated wisdom. It is also a deeper expression of the nature of Russian society- its reflexive despotism and its strange infatuation with suffering. The closest thing we have is mafia culture, with its honor codes, brutality, and constant battle for dominance. Chess, the emblematic game of Russia, expresses this view of life as a pitiless contest to crush one's opponent. There may be a lot of historical reasons for this nature, such as the long centuries of Mongol rule, the many invasions, both ancient and modern, and the perceived success of leaders such as Ivan the Terrible and Stalin, but it is a deep and disturbing aspect of the Russian psyche. 

Should we have expected anything else, in the long road of declining relations after the cold war? Should the Russian people give thanks to the ruthlessness of their national leadership and psyche for the current position of relative power they wield in the world, far out of proportion to their population or economic strength? Other countries with larger populations peacefully mind their own business, avoid outside entanglements, and eschew invading their neighbors. It is the bullies, the intransigent, and the cruel, who appear to account for most of the drama in the world. Should we understand them, or fight against them?

• Another way to crush spirits.
• It is good to be outside.
• AI is not helping job seekers.
• On paying the devil his due.
• Why have kids anymore?