The Irony of Short-Term Economic Pain

 

In the current US political landscape, where the wealthy elite don their suits and deliver impassioned speeches, a recurring theme emerges: the promise of long-term prosperity through short-term pain.

This narrative is championed by figures like Elon Musk, the billionaire entrepreneur who assures us that reducing government spending will lead to a brighter future. Musk often speaks of “temporary hardship” as a necessary evil on the path to “long-term prosperity.” He assures us that the economic pain resulting from his cost-cutting proposals will be short-lived and ultimately beneficial.

The same message is echoed by President Trump. In a speech to Congress, he mentioned that there would be a “little [short-term] disturbance” from his plan to impose tariffs on billions of dollars in goods, but he confidently asserted that it wouldn’t be long before the larger benefits of tariffs set in.

As we listen to this rhetoric, one can’t help but marvel at the irony of such statements coming from those least likely to feel the sting of economic hardship. After all, what’s a little disturbance when you’re sitting on a mountain of wealth?

The irony here is palpable. Billionaires with resources beyond the reach of most people speak of economic pain as if it’s a minor inconvenience. Perhaps they imagine that the average person can simply dip into their vast reserves of wealth to weather the storm.

But let’s be real: the economic pain resulting from such policies is unlikely to affect billionaires in any meaningful way. Instead, it will be ordinary citizens who bear the brunt of these changes. The lower one is on the wealth ladder, the worse the pain of this “little disturbance” will be.

What’s missing from these statements is any mention of the wealthy offering their own resources to mitigate the pain felt by those most in need.

Imagine an alternate universe where billionaires put their money where their mouths are and used their wealth to support those struggling through the period of hardship. Instead of preaching about the virtues of short-term pain, they could provide tangible assistance to help people get through the tough times until the promised long-term benefits materialize.

So, the next time we hear billionaire politicians being poetic about the virtues of short-term pain, let us take a moment to appreciate the irony.

One more thought — since when anything in the future is assured to go certain way or is guaranteed to be a “little disturbance.”

Ciao, and thanks for reading.

Social Darwinism: Why Right-Wing Republicans Should Embrace Childless Cat Ladies

 

Social Darwinism: Because nothing says ‘survival of the fittest’ like inheriting a trust fund and lobbying for tax cuts.

Arun Kumar

Arun Kumar + AI

Summary: Explore the satirical paradox of Social Darwinism among right-wing Republicans and their baffling opposition to childless cat ladies. Discover why embracing this trend could be their ultimate Trojan horse strategy.

Ah, Social Darwinism, the beloved mantra of right-wing Republicans in the US. It’s a philosophy that suggests if we just let the notion of the survival of the fittest play out in society, the well-being of the masses will magically improve. It’s a bit like believing that if you throw a bunch of monkeys in a room with a typewriter, they’ll eventually write the evolutionary history of the universe. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves.

Now, here’s where things get interesting. These very same proponents of Social Darwinism seem to have a peculiar bone to pick with the so-called “childless cat ladies.” You know, those left-wing liberals who, in their quest for career advancement, wanting to see the world, wanting to have fun without children in the tow, choose not to have children. According to the right-wing narrative, this is a travesty of epic proportions. It is something against the very notion of why we were created and any opposition to it needs to be remedied. But wait, is not the survival of the fittest and Social Darwinism will allow them to achieve their goal? Letting nature take its course and let left-wing liberals lose the battle?

Let’s break it down. If left-wing liberals are choosing not to have children, they’re essentially opting out of the gene pool. In the grand scheme of Social Darwinism, this should be a cause for celebration among right-wing Republicans. After all, if the left-wingers aren’t reproducing, their ideas and values will eventually fade away, correct? It’s the ultimate victory without lifting a finger.

But instead of embracing this natural selection process, right-wing Republicans are up in arms about it. They scoff at the notion of childless cat ladies, as if having a feline companion is somehow a threat to the fabric of society. It’s a baffling contradiction. If they truly believed in Social Darwinism, they should be encouraging this trend and not opposing it. Let the left-wing liberals wipe themselves out by not leaving behind any progeny. It’s the perfect Trojan horse strategy.

Imagine the possibilities. Right-wing Republicans could start a campaign promoting the joys of a child-free life. They could highlight the benefits of career advancement, financial freedom, traveling the world, and, of course, the companionship of a loyal cat. They could even throw in some tax incentives for those who choose not to have children. It’s a win-win situation. The left-wing liberals, without feeling embarrassed, will take the bait and live their lives as they see fit. In taking this Machiavellian approach, the right-wing Republicans get to watch their ideological opponents slowly disappear.

In conclusion, the opposition to childless cat ladies is a curious case of cognitive dissonance among right-wing Republicans. If they truly believed in Social Darwinism, they would see the value in letting nature take its course. Instead, they find themselves in the awkward position of opposing a trend that could ultimately work in their favor. Perhaps it’s time for a new mantra: “Embrace the cat ladies, for they are the harbingers of our victory.” Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have a laser pointer and some cats to attend to.

Ciao, and thanks for reading.

The tale of Justice Stalwart

 

I don’t know that there are any short cuts to doing a good job -Sandra Day O’Connor

Arun Kumar

Arun Kumar + AI

Once upon a time, in the hallowed chambers of the highest court, Justice Stalwart sat in his high-backed leather chair, ready to ponder the weighty matters of equality and fairness before him in an impartial and unprejudiced manner.

On this particular day, unusual urgency was apparent in the rustle of legal briefs, and in the hushed whispers of clerks. Along with signs that something unusual was in the air, something else tugged at Justice Stalwart thoughts — an old memory of an upside-down flag fluttering in the wind and how it might affect the proceedings today.

It had begun innocently enough. Justice Stalwart’s wife, Delilah, had always been enthusiastic about flags. She collected them — American flags, state flags, even obscure historical flags, and sometimes on whim, created entirely new flags of made-up countries, like Drussia. Their home resembled a museum of vexillology in a peaceful and non-descript suburb.

But one day, the winds of discord blew through their neighborhood.

Anne Hutchinson, their neighbor, had erected a sign in her yard — a glittering, cursive proclamation that read, “Fay Umptray.” The sign sparkled like a rebellious star against the suburban backdrop. Delilah, ever the patriot, took offense. She marched over, her indignation flaring like a phosphorus matchstick.

“Anne,” she said, her voice trembling with righteousness, “this sign is an insult to our democracy!”

Anne raised an eyebrow. “Delilah, it is free speech. We are allowed to express our opinions. Particularly, against the aging politicians who chase and grab our cats.”

Enraged Delilah retreated to her own yard and unfurled one of finest American flag in her collection and hoisted it upside-down. It was her way of saying “This is my protest against my neighbors indecent and uncalled for behavior.”

And so, the flag flew — an emblem of defiance, a silent scream against perceived injustice.

Justice Stalwart was caught in an awkward situation and when confronted by journalists squarely put the responsibility for an upside-down flag in his front yard on his wifie’s shoulder and tried to come away clean.

Then came the day we started this story from — the day Justice Stalwart sat on the bench, robes billowing, ready to hand over judgments as needed.

The case before him involved a First Amendment challenge. A man had burned the flag during a protest, claiming it was his right to do so. The courtroom buzzed with anticipation wondering what stance Justice Stalwart would take, particularly in the backdrop of an upside-down flag flying in his own house.

Justice Stalwart leaned forward, his eyes narrowing. The flag outside the window, that stubborn symbol, seemed to mock him. He remembered Delilah’s fervent defense, her insistence that the upside-down flag was a symbol of her voice and way he had distanced himself from the incident. But now, faced with the same situation but in a dissimilar context, he had different thoughts.

“Your Honor,” the attorney argued, “burning the flag is an act of free speech. It is protected.”

Justice Stalwart glanced at the flagpole outside the window. The stars winked at him, as if daring him to decide. He thought of Anne’s sign of political defiance, of Delilah’s rebuttal, all in the name of free speech.

And then he spoke. “The flag,” he said, “is more than cloth. It is a canvas for our ideals, our past struggles as a nation. Desecrating it is a dishonor to the country.

The attorney blinked. “Your Honor, but you yourself stood complacent and watched the flag fly upside-down.”

Justice Stalwart straightened. “In this case,” he declared, “the flag was burned not as act of freedom but out of disrespect to the history of our nation.”

There was a pin drop silence in the courtroom.

The flag outside fluttered, as if ashamed of double standards right under its shadow.

Justice Stalwart walked out into the sunlight, his mind a whirlwind of conflicting allegiances. And somewhere, in the quiet corners of his heart, he wondered if he had made the right choice.

Ciao.

Epilogue: If I was in the Chambers of the court on charges of flying an American flag upside-down and put forward the defense that I had nothing to do with it and it was an act concocted by my spouse on whom I have no control over, I wonder what Justice Stalwart’s viewpoint and decision would be? Not what he passed on himself.

People in high places think that they can get away with any misdemeanors of ethical or moral issues. Do they really think that people hold a shred of belief in cockamamie stories they tell to justify their unethical behavior?

The employees of the United States federal service (the Executive Branch) have to take an ethics training once a year and are told that they cannot receive a gift exceeding in value above $20, and if they do, they could be fired for breaking the law. The same rule either does not apply to the members of the legislative and judiciary branches or they know that they can get away with.

The double standards want to make us, the common citizens, simmer in a silent rage.

Hard Work: It is Necessary but not Sufficient for Success in Life

 

Humans make choices — but they are never independent choices. Every choice depends on a lot of biological, social and personal conditions that you cannot determine for yourself. I can choose what to eat, whom to marry and whom to vote for, but these choices are determined in part by my genes, my biochemistry, my gender, my family background, my national culture, etc. — and I didn’t choose which genes or family to have.” — Yuval Noah Harari

Arun Kumar

Arun Kumar + AI

The United States (U.S.) is often referred to as the land of opportunity, where success is believed to be achievable through hard work. It is commonly held notion that hard work is both a necessary as well as a sufficient condition for success in America. This belief implicitly suggests that if one does not achieve success, it is due to a lack of willingness to work hard, or worse, an innate character flaw that makes individuals avoid working hard.

This topic often sparks debate when I converse with two of my ‘successful’ friends, who, like myself, are first-generation immigrants to the U.S. Judging by the quality of our lives in our adopted country, it’s fair to say that we have indeed achieved success, and hard work was a significant factor in where we are. As we approach the end of our careers, we all have comfortable homes and substantial savings to ensure a good retirement.

It is a controversial subject matter between the three of us because I believe in the position that hard work is necessary to be successful, but it is not sufficient. My friends believe that hard work is necessary and also sufficient to be successful.

The notions of “Necessity and sufficiency” are part of formal logic and mathematics but if you try to understand its meaning, the very first sentence (In logic and mathematics, necessity and sufficiency are terms used to describe a conditional or implicational relationship between two statements) will make eyes glaze over and make you mumble ‘whatever.’

In layperson’s language different options of necessary and sufficient (i.e., with one being true while other being and/or not true) in the context of hard work and being successful are:

#1 Necessary and sufficient: “Working hard is necessary and sufficient for being successful,” means you cannot be successful without working hard, and if you work hard, you will definitely be successful.

#2 Necessary but not sufficient: “Working hard is necessary but not sufficient for being successful,” means you cannot be successful without working hard, but just working hard alone will not guarantee success. You might also need other factors like talent, opportunity, luck, etc.

#3 Sufficient but not necessary: Working hard is sufficient but not necessary for being successful,” means if you work hard, you will be successful, but there might be other ways to achieve success as well, like having a unique talent, getting a lucky break, or receiving an inheritance. [Note: For our discussion, this option is same as option #1].

My friends opine that hard work is both necessary and sufficient for success, and inwardly, they are looking at themselves in the mirror as shining examples. What they forget is small events and nudges along their journey that helped them to be what they are today.

Our decision to pursue a Ph.D. program in the U.S. speaks volumes about us. Back in our home countries, we were considered above average. Our family background provided us with the opportunity to attend reputable colleges and receive quality education, which served as a springboard for our journey to the U.S. to further our studies. We had the means to attend college, a commitment that, despite being more affordable in our home countries compared to the U.S., is still a luxury not everyone can afford. Therefore, while hard work played a significant role in our journey, it was not the sole determinant of our success. By sheer luck, the family we were born in had a lot to do with it.

While I prefer not to disclose specifics about my friends, I can share that my journey to a U.S. university for a Ph.D. program involved a mix of hard work and good fortune. Originally, a colleague of mine was slated to travel to the U.S. as part of an exchange program. However, due to health complications, they were unable to seize this opportunity, instead I took their slot. This stroke of luck, coupled with my dedication and effort, has led me to where I am today. I know that my friends have experienced similar fortuitous circumstances on their paths as well.

However, prior to the fortunate events that shaped our life’s journey, it was the circumstance of our birth that initially set the stage.

There is a proverb that compares the conditions of our birth to the luck of winning a lottery. This metaphor encapsulates the idea that the circumstances of one’s birth, including geographic location, socioeconomic status, and family structure, can profoundly impact one’s life opportunities and outcomes. The lottery analogy underscores the randomness of birth; our time and place of birth are determined purely by chance, not by any actions or decisions on our part. This viewpoint emphasizes the influence of luck and circumstance in our lives from the outset. It serves as a potent reminder of the numerous uncontrollable factors that can shape our life paths.

I was born into a middle-class family in a country that, while it had its share of corrupt politicians and social issues (which persist to this day), was not plagued by wars or genocide. Issues like corruption, while significant, did not cripple our society. I was fortunate to have a stable family and the opportunity to attend a reputable school and college. From the outset, the odds were in my favor.

The circumstances of our birth are the initial state from which our life trajectory develops, and these starting conditions bear considerable influence.

Certainly, there are always exceptions to the rule. Figures such as Nelson Mandela, frequently dubbed ‘black swans,’ rise from the most daunting situations conceivable. Through determination and tenacity, they break through barriers. Nonetheless, these cases are outliers and do not set norms for the majority of us.

There is often a tendency among successful individuals to downplay the role of luck and unique opportunities in their journey, holding divergent perspectives and losing sight of their roots. This mindset is also prevalent among the current generation of Republicans. They tend to believe that if someone has not managed to extricate themselves from their predicament, it is due to a lack of effort on their part.

The crux of the matter is that success in life necessitates challenging work. While hard work enhances the probability of success, it doesn’t assure it. This is akin to maintaining a healthy diet and regular exercise regimen, which can potentially extend one’s health span. However, there is no guarantee that the desired outcomes will be achieved.

I wonder if there is any action in the present that is both essential and adequate to ensure the certainty of future outcomes. Suddenly, all that one is working towards and is on the verge of achieving can be thrown off course. An ordinary medical check-up can abruptly flip our lives, turning a blissful existence into a nightmare.

Thus, the three of us continue to engage in lively debates over the matter, while maintaining amicable relations, which is the most important aspect of having friends.

Ciao.

Why do people vote for the likes of Trump?

 

Donald Trump has been saying that he will run for president as a Republican, which is surprising since I just assumed he was running as a joke — Seth Meyers

Arun Kumar

AI Generated Image

Why do individuals across various nations cast their votes for leaders like Trump? This is a man who once stared directly into the sun during a solar eclipse, altered a hurricane’s projected path using a marker, proposed to cater a university football team with hundreds of burgers amidst a government shutdown, and referred to far-right protestors as “very fine people.” The list continues.

Despite everything, in 2016 he was elected as the President of the United States. It’s a daunting thought if he is to be re-elected in 2024. The survival of US democracy would be at stake.

What does a certain segment of the population see in him that makes them willing to vote for him? It’s an interesting question to ask. The answer could be an interplay of various elements such as personal and societal values and beliefs, political ideologies, economic circumstances etc. of the electorate.

To answer this question, a recent article in The Guardian explored why Americans continue to vote for Trump. The article suggested that people’s values tend to cluster around two types of traits — intrinsic and extrinsic, which could be somewhat analogous to people being introverts and extroverts. The author suggested that “People at the extrinsic end of the spectrum are more attracted to prestige, status, image, fame, power, and wealth. They are strongly motivated by the prospect of individual reward and praise. They are more likely to objectify and exploit other people, to behave rudely and aggressively and to dismiss social and environmental impacts. They have little interest in cooperation or community.”

The article went on to say that “Trump, perhaps more than any other public figure in recent history, is a walking, talking monument to extrinsic values.” Simultaneously, societal values have been increasingly shifting towards the adoration of extrinsic values. These include the acquisition of wealth, increased attention to the self, and the pursuit of material possessions as a source of happiness (leading to a cycle of hedonistic consumption, etc.). As these values become more prevalent, a figure emerges who openly champions these values that people hold within. For Trump, this connection was the ticket to presidency.

Another probable reason that people vote for Trump could be rooted in evolutionary psychology that has left us with some psychological traits that are now imbedded in our psyche. Trump either possess the intelligence to recognize and manipulate these traits or has an instinctual knack for playing chords that resonate with our psyche.

Our inclination towards certain psychological traits can be attributed to the principles of natural selection. Natural selection is a process in which organisms with traits that favor survival and reproduction tend to produce more offspring than their peers, leading to an increase in the frequency of such advantageous traits over generations. These traits could be either physical or psychological.

Some examples of these psychological traits include a preference for people similar to us (a trait referred to as kinship or tribalism), a heightened sensitivity to negativity (which helped us recognize dangers in the wild), engaging in risky behaviors (stemming from our quest to be the alpha male), and discounting the future (with the present being more important than an uncertain future), to name a few. Each of these traits can be argued to have given us some advantage in the pursuit of survival and reproduction.

Consider kinship. In the wilderness, life can be dangerous when lived alone. The chances of survival and reproduction increase if we become part of a tribe and look after each other’s common interests for survival, such as sharing food and taking turns to keep watch while others sleep. However, this same trait also leads to conflicts among tribes and has been responsible for genocides in recent history.

Similarly, fear and anxiety are crucial emotions that have helped human survival. Our brains are wired to respond to potential threats, preparing our bodies to flee or fight a perceived danger. Even today, the mere rustling of grass behind our backs triggers the thought that it could be a snake and cause our hair to stand on end.

Through the evolutionary trajectory that has brought us to this point, the psychological traits that were beneficial for our survival and reproduction have become ingrained in us. The timescale of human civilization, which is about 10,000 years, is not long enough compared to evolutionary time for these traits to disappear. Even though our environment has changed, and we are no longer hunter-gatherers, these same traits continue to shape our behavior in the present.

The downside is that these traits can be manipulated and exploited, particularly in the context of political gains. Humans are gullible, and politicians and snake oil salesman have figured that out.

Offer people a slogan — MAGA — and create a sense of belonging to a tribe. Play on their fears of liberals taking over and people will be threatened. Assert your dominance and demonstrate that you are the alpha male, and they will perceive you as a powerful figure. Prioritizing immediate gains and offering what people want, even if it may harm future generations, is an easy sell. These manipulations resonate with our inherent traits, leading people to align with your cause and vote for you to become the President.

Trump possesses another characteristic that sets him that attracts the crowd. It’s his audacity (or perhaps narcissistic recklessness) to say things that are often left unsaid, and yet, he manages to evade grave consequences. Ordinary individuals, on the other hand, may feel constrained by social norms or fear of ostracism from their peers, and thus refrain from expressing similar sentiments, even though they might harbor them. Wouldn’t other people like to utter statements equivalent to “I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn’t lose any voters, OK?” or “I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. … Grab ’em by the… You can do anything” and still manage to evade repercussions?

And so, it seems some of the reasons people vote for politicians the likes of Trump are (a) these politicians have a visceral feeling about what resonates with the psychological traits that the process of natural selection has endowed us with, and (b) they are prone to say things out loud (and seemingly get away with them) that normal people only wish we could say.

I almost forgot, there is another reason that people vote for him. In him, they see a person who is willing to degrade and denigrate those who they perceive as being ‘holier than thou’ (e.g., liberals, human rights supporters, backers of sustainable development), but who are beyond the reach of their hands. It is figures like Trump who can satisfy their anger that seethes within and can bring them retribution without facing arrest or prosecution.

In Trump they see a Roman Emperor who would drag the people they dislike into the colosseum’s arena through the Gate of Life to be humiliated, insulted, and debased while they sit in the galleries and cheer on the spectacle hoping that by the evening the Gate of Death shall receive the fallen. Through Trump they see their path for revenge. In Trump, they see the Roman Colosseum.

Help us all if the 2024 Presidential election goes in favor of Trump.

Ciao.

Parallels between politics and evolution

 

It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change. Leon C. Megginson

Arun Kumar

AI Generated Image

There are many parallels between politics and evolution. To understand equivalence, first a brief introduction to evolution.

Evolution is a change in the characteristics of living things over time. It’s the process through which populations and species change with time. It is a process that led to longer necks for giraffes over time.

The driving mechanism behind evolution is natural selection. It is the process where organisms with traits that favor survival and reproduction tend to leave more offspring than their peers, causing these advantageous traits to increase in frequency over generations. The mechanism of natural selection is an elegant concept and has a far-reaching explanatory (and predictive) power. Its sweep is so wide that it may sound like a triviality in that if something does not exist then it must not have the advantageous trait to fit the environment.

Passing along of the advantageous traits to a larger pool of offsprings leads to the evolution of different species, a process known as speciation (the process by which populations evolve to become distinct species).

To summarize, natural selection resulting in evolution of species is like a game played in an arena where different species, and sub-species within a species, are vying for a limited amount of resources and the ones that have the right traits to garner the available resources are best suited to survive and reproduce. As a result, such traits become slowly speciated and a new species evolves.

One such advantageous trait is discounting the future (also known as temporal discounting). It is the tendency of humans and animals to value immediate rewards more highly than future rewards.

Take two species in the arena that has limited resources to offer. One species is short sighted and focuses on immediate gains while the other is a planner and tries to anticipate the future and plans for that. The mechanism of natural selection favors the first because the future is uncertain, and what one prepares may not occur.

Now let us return to another game played in the arena, i.e., politics.

In the game of politics

· limited resources are the limited voting pool that different politicians are fighting for.

· advantageous traits are winning strategies that garner those votes.

· Lastly, equivalent to survival and reproduction is getting elected.

Strategies that succeed in cornering larger fraction of voting pool help in getting elected (and reelected). The advantageous strategies might also become speciated among the other, or in the next generation of politicians. For example, Trump using unique brand of politics, if continues to be successful, may become a widely followed strategy.

Extending this parallel between the game of evolution and politics is also the notion of discounting the future.

Similar to the fact that discounting the future is an advantageous trait for natural selection and evolution, it is also an advantageous strategy in the game of politics. In politics it is not advisable to appeal to the voters for the good of humanity 50 years from the present and hope to win. The advantageous strategies for winning the vote, by discounting the future, focus on the present good for the voting pool. [Note — it is only when the voting pool itself has the betterment of generation to come in their psyche that politicians will think about not discounting the future]

The consequence of discounting the future in politics, however, can be devastating. Living in the present, however, we do not realize how.

The consequences include runaway climate change because appealing to the good of the future at the expense of the current populace is not a winning strategy. The social security trust fund in the United States may be declining and may be only 10-years away from running short of pay off, and yet, since the solution for the future population may involve a sacrifice from the current generation, no politician wants to propose a solution on their watch.

And yet, while discounting the future, we keep debating about trivialities like abortion rights, legalizing pot etc. and keep going in circles. It is hard to realize that discounting the future may bring us to a dystopian future where current debate and conflicts would not even matter.

And so, although the game of politics and evolution have lots of parallels, discounting the future in the game of politics is a terrible strategy for the future of humanity.

Ciao.

We bicker, therefore we are

 

How can anyone govern a nation that has two hundred and forty-six different kinds of cheese? Charles de Gaulle

I’d rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University — William F. Buckley, Jr.

Arun Kumar

AI Generated Image

16 February 2024, the headline in the local newspaper says, “The House has embarked on a 12-day winter recess, joining the Senate’s two-week recess and leaving a long list of critical unfinished business on Capitol Hill”. All we can do is roll my eyes and say Really, WTF?

The Congress is going on a recess when the US government does not have an approved budget to function, and it is almost three months into the budget year. For now, it is only authorized to spend a limited amount of money to meet its obligations and the current authorization for some government agencies to stay open will run out on 1 March 2024, which is just two days after the Congress returns from their winter recess. Immediately after they come back, to keep the government functioning, there would be a flurry of finger pointing, negotiations, extorting etc. to pass another temporary authorization.

Instead of going to the recess, members of the Congress should all be tied to their chairs and not allowed to leave the chambers until they have completed their primary job of passing the budget before the fiscal year begins. Their lack of responsibility barely registers in the psyche of the nation.

The Congress does not have the time to pass the budget and yet has time to spend on frivolous activities like engaging in the impeachment of a Cabinet Secretary or harboring dreams of impeaching Joe Biden, all for the sake of petty tit for tat. Sometimes, it seems like we have elected a bunch of toddlers to the Congress and each one is engaged in some random act of nonsensical behavior hoping that when all is summed together would make some progress.

If we were not to do our job, the Congress would take the high road and preach to us on our responsibility, our moral duty, and incompetence. At a more basic level, if we were not to do our job, we would be shown to the door by our employer and told not to return. Of course, someone would raise their hand and point out that if members of the Congress are incompetent they could be voted out. The election process, however, is so rigged, or the voters so complacent that the norms of democracy no longer work.

Perhaps it is the case that we get what we deserve. If the world goes up in flames, humans as a species become extinct, or return to dark ages depicted so often in dystopian movies, it is what our collective ignorance asked for.

One has to wonder why the US Congress is so dysfunctional? Was it always like this? Why do the opposite sides of the Congress have to disagree on every proposal? If one says it is day then even if it is bright outside, the other has to insist that no, it is night. They must feel a moral obligation to do so. Is the electorate they represent so different from each other? One wants basic health care, and the other does not. One wants basic human dignity, but the other does not. Do basic human needs across the blue and red states differ that their elected members shall oppose each other?

In the end, the fundamental goal of the members of the Congress is to get reelected and perhaps making the legislative branch so dysfunctional helps them win the election. Perhaps they go back to their electorate and brag that I worked my ass off to make sure that no decisions are made and deserve to be elected again.

There should be a clause in the job description of the members that if they do not pass the budget before the start of the fiscal year, they will be fired from the position they hold and will not be allowed to seek reelection.

The way things currently stand, in the front of Congress there ought to be a plaque that carries the inscription “We bicker, therefore we are.”

Hope you can tell that I am frustrated (and venting) at Congress to go on the recess while Rome burns, and so should you be. It is frustration of the feeling of impotent that there is nothing the eight billion people on this planet can do against the likes of Trump and Putin.

The world is going downhill, and the caretakers of our government have the gall to say, “Sorry, Gone Fishing.”

Ciao.

Also worth browsing:
Congress has long struggled to pass spending bills on time

The Congressional Fundraising Treadmill, July-September 2021

Our acts today influence the probability of our extinction in tomorrow

 It is short sightedness in us that lets people elect leaders like Trump into positions of power, and thereby, immediately increase the probability of our extinction.

Arun Kumar

AI Created Image

The future is all about probabilities. In some cases, it may be a heavily loaded dice and it is easy to fall in the perception of certainty. Psychologically it also helps to perceive the future as deterministic. I get on the plane at Dulles International Airport on the way to Geneva, and while boarding, there is never a thought that there is non-zero probability that the flight may never get there. In my mind, I am already visualizing checking into the hotel, taking a shower, and weather permitting, heading out to take a walk along Lake Geneva.

In my mind’s eye, it all feels so natural and the way the universe functions.

A good thing about the probabilities associated with future alternatives is that our actions in the present can change the probabilities of possible outcomes. Eating healthy foods and exercising does not completely eliminate chances of getting hit by some catastrophic ailment in the future but it does tilt the odds against that it may happen. A good example is to quit smoking and the influence it has on reducing the probability of getting lung cancer. But then, I have also been told that the longest living person on the planet was a smoker.

But don’t let this factoid make you think that it could also be you or that you are invincible and reach for another cigarette. Odds are much higher that you would come to regret it later.

If the future is associated with probabilities, what is the probability of human extinction? While we are at it, it would also be good to think about how my (and our) actions in the present affect the probability of human extinction. Let us not for a moment be lulled by the notion that it is an impossible outcome. The history of evolution is rife with examples of species that have gone extinct, some because of evolutionary pressures while others because of catastrophic events, like the impact of a celestial object burning up in the atmosphere.

The probability of our extinction depends on how many ways the Earth can become an inhospitable place for us to live. Some of the ways things can go wrong are beyond our control — a super volcano shrouding Earth in a blanket of darkness, or the trajectory of a primordial black hole intersecting with the trajectory of Earth.

Then there are ways that are within our control and our (collective) behavior in the present has the power to alter the probability of our extinction. The unfortunate fact is that some of the factors that could lead to the self-extinction of human civilization are of our own creation.

While incredible advances in science and technology have raised the lot of humanity, they have also created novel pathways that could lead to human extinction — nuclear weapons and the doctrine of mutually assured destruction (MAD), climate change, some scientist tinkering with the genes of viruses. Among them climate change holds a unique place in that it is driven by our ever-growing need for energy.

To fight against the ravages of entropy, our body needs external sources of energy (calories). Other technological advances catering to human convenience, desires for a better life etc. also require energy in addition to what is needed to simply sustain us. In fact, the former is now much bigger than the latter.

Until we do find cleaner sources of energy, we have to rely on fossil fuels, a consequence of which is changes in the atmospheric composition and increase in CO2 and other gases that are changing climate patterns to which our social and agricultural norms adapted to. Indications are that changes in Earth’s climate and its consequences (e.g., rising temperature, changes in extremes events, melt of sea ice in polar caps and sea level rise) are predicted to create social and ecological havoc, unless…

…unless we decrease our energy consumption from fossil fuels.

Perhaps one day new innovations will lead to cleaner sources of energy (e.g., fusion) and issues we have created will find solutions, but until then, an effort is needed to reduce our energy consumption and try to increase reliance on cleaner sources of energy that are already available to us.

Individually we can do something, and indeed we do but is that going to be effective? The idealist among us would say it does, that the ocean is made of individual drops, that efforts by individuals can turn the tide, but they are just feeling good cliches and in reality not going to make a dent in the issues that we are now facing. Instead…

…what we are going to need to enhance the probability of our continued survival as a species is a collective action, and importantly, a collective transformation in psychological traits that helped us survive and reproduce (for example, psychological traits like urge to dominate, kinship bias, preference to discount the future etc.). Is there any chance that could happen?

In the end, the increasing the probability of human civilization will come down to assessing the probability of collective evolution of humanity in shaking off psychological traits that are deeply embedded in our psyche.

One of the primary psychological traits that is likely to be our downfall is discounting the future (i.e., our tendency to prefer immediate rewards over the ones in future). The propensity of humans and animals to discount future returns for short-term benefits has a logic to it. This trait likely evolved because it was beneficial in environments where the future was uncertain and immediate rewards were critical for survival.

The bottom line is that how we act today is continually altering the probability of our eventual survival. That combined with our tendency to discount the future is a recipe for sharply increasing the probability of our extinction.

Perhaps, we will become extinct (or slide back to dark ages) is not an impossibility but an evolutionary imperative. It happens to all civilizations that may have come into existence in various parts of the universe but went extinct and is the reason we have not been visited by aliens.

Ciao.

Choice of compassion

 Arun Kumar

Pixaby

Few months back, standing on the back deck at our home, at the edge of the woods, we saw a fawn hobbling along. It looked injured, vulnerable, and alone. There was no sign of the mother or a herd that it belonged to. It felt like it was left behind. In its condition, it was not going to be around for long. 

The fawn's mother must have tried to help. That is what mothers do. She must have licked the wounds, nudged the baby to get on its feet and keep moving. Such efforts on her part are the innate nature of being a mother. Care and love a mother has for her child are the mandates natural selection puts on us for our continued survival. A lineage that did not do so, will not be around for long.

Perhaps, one can even say that if a branch on the evolutionary tree is green, that branch has an innate sense of mothers taking care of the newborn.

The same invisible hand of natural selection, in the end,  however, also guided the mother, and the herd, to eventually move on and leave the injured fawn behind. Compassion comes at a cost. For the herd, taking care of the injured fawn was a necessary strategy, but only to a point.

Are we the same? Merely pawns in the hand of natural selection which does the cost-benefit analysis and tells us to take care of the newborn to a point, but no more.

Hopefully not. Hopefully, we ignore the answer on the piece of paper the cost-benefit analysis spits out.

For us humans, the scope of compassion is broader. Not only do we have an innate drive to take care of a newborn, we also have the capability of making the  conscious choice of compassion that goes much beyond what natural selection dictates. 

As an individual, and as society, we make a conscious choice of compassion above and beyond what is required for the mere survival of ourselves as a species. 

Perhaps our ability to make a conscious choice to be compassionate is yet another characteristic that differentiates us from animals.  There are plenty of unfortunate people among us - young, adult, old - who do need help to keep their heads above the water. That sometimes also includes you and me.

We have made a choice to help those who get hit on the head by lightning. And misfortune strikes in innumerable ways, and ensnares many. These strikes begin from the moment we are born.

At the moment of our birth, we are dealt the genetic lottery. Some, for no fault of their own, draw a bad hand, and from the very beginning, are severely disadvantaged to carry on in this world on their own.

After the moment of birth, life proceeds smoothly but the dangers of being struck are not over. Besides our best efforts, and through no fault of our own, anyone among us can fall prey to sudden adversity.

There are plenty of ways for lives to unravel at any moment, and they do. If there is a way, our sheer numbers on the planet assures that some of us will fall victim to each and all of the possible ways. Anything that can go wrong does go wrong. Sometimes, horribly so.

When life does go awry, the unfortunate among us could use the safety net, a helping hand, to get back on their feet and feel the dignity of being a human again. 

In the animal kingdom, being unfortunate ends the journey in a hurry. With the evolution of intelligence within us, we have made the choice to be compassionate and to help those in need. This choice allows us to blunt the cold brutality nature can be.

The choice of compassion, however, comes with a cost.

Seeing compassion to its logical conclusion needs resources.  Those resources can only come from developing appropriate social structures - social security, medicare, food stamps, and various other safety nets. 

Since resources these days are equivalent to some form of transaction between people in the form of money, taking care of unfortunate souls requires some redistribution of wealth. Take a little from those who have more than sufficient and give it to the needy.

Did someone just whisper socialism and liberals?

The mechanics to turn compassion into a reality begins to sound like socialism, and those who see this as the right path, the liberals. Doesn’t it? To get to that socialism it is also essential that  the voice of the majority is heard, and hence, the need for democratic forms of government. 

Then there is the other side. Capitalism and (modern day) Conservatives.

Take the example of the present day conservatives in the US (mostly republicans). Their often heard drumbeat continuously wants to dismantle the safety nets that are desperately needed for a society that makes the choice to be compassionate. Their motto is survival of the fittest.

Their war cry is to chant "Conservatives think like lions. Liberals think like lambs."

You have to wonder, what kind of society do present day conservatives really want? What is their end game? A society based on principles of Darwinism? A society based on the coldness that natural selection could be? Leave the unfit, old, ill, and decrepit behind? Because that would be the natural thing for natural selection to do. 

Do conservatives want a society without compassion? Indeed, there is a notion of social Darwinism where everyone’s well being depends on the strength of their two limbs, intellectual wherewithal, and the strength of their heart, lungs, and their ability to avoid the pandemic.

Deep down, do conservative really believe what they preach from the podium? 

If by some misfortune, a republican (preferably a politician; they are ones who babble the most) fell into a dark hole, will they live up to their words and will not want anyone to extend a helping hand? Perhaps we should give the test to all senators and house representatives, and let them be Dan Aykyrod in Trading Places and see how they emerge two hours later when the trial ends.

We should let them walk over hot coals and see if they come out at the other end with their principles intact.

As for the fawn, we did not see it again. Perhaps it got devoured by the conservative lions who tore up the safety net that compassionate lambs had put together.

Ciao.