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.

AI's Hunger for Energy: How Rising Energy Demands Could Reshape Our Future

 

Artificial intelligence may not consume food like humans, but its insatiable appetite for energy is a challenge we must address responsibly

Arun Kumar

Arun Kumar + AI: AI's Hunger for Energy

Summary: As AI technology advances, its escalating energy demands are beginning to resemble the sci-fi trope of civilizations expanding to fuel their growth. AI’s demand for energy is urging tech giants like Google and Microsoft to invest in nuclear energy to support their vast data networks. Alongside these technological advances will come significant ethical and environmental challenges.

The vision of an advanced civilization with a relentless hunger for energy, driven to expand beyond its limits to fuel its growth, is a familiar theme in science fiction. In many futuristic tales, civilizations become so reliant on energy-intensive technologies that their search for power sources drives them to conquer other worlds. Today, however, this sci-fi scenario doesn’t seem entirely far-fetched. The evolution of artificial intelligence (AI), and the massive energy needs it brings, may soon push us to rethink our relationship with energy in profound ways.

AI’s hunger for power is very real. Demand for electricity has prompted some of the world’s largest technology companies to explore power solutions to meet their needs. This quest for energy could propel us into an era where cutting-edge energy resources are no longer just a convenience but a necessity for continuing the advancements we wish to pursue.

The AI Energy Appetite: More than Just a Data Center Issue

Artificial intelligence is a transformative technology, reshaping everything from medicine and finance to education and entertainment. However, it comes at a price — namely, the staggering amount of electricity required to train, run, and maintain AI systems. A simple natural language model, for instance, requires an enormous amount of computational power to train, consuming more energy in a few hours than the average household might use in several years.

This exponential demand is driven by the fact that AI systems thrive on data, and to create meaningful insights, they need to analyze colossal datasets, requiring processing and storage on an immense scale. Today’s data centers — massive, sprawling facilities housing thousands of computers — are responsible for providing the infrastructure for these operations. And as AI models, and their scope continue to grow, so does its demand for energy. With this spike in demand, AI’s need for power is fast becoming a key issue, prompting technology companies to explore more advanced energy options.

Big Tech Courts Nuclear Power

To address the rising energy needs of AI, tech giants are beginning to look beyond traditional energy sources like fossil fuels and renewable resources. While renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, have come a long way in efficiency and cost-effectiveness, they still have limitations. For one, they are subject to weather conditions and geographical constraints, making it difficult to guarantee a steady energy supply for data centers that require round-the-clock operation.

Enter nuclear power. Nuclear energy provides a consistent, reliable source of power. In recent years, big tech companies such as Google, Microsoft, and Amazon have all made significant investments or partnerships related to nuclear energy. For instance, Microsoft recently announced a partnership with a nuclear fusion company to meet its long-term energy needs. Google has also been exploring nuclear options, recognizing that nuclear energy’s low-carbon footprint and reliability make it an attractive option for its vast network of data centers.

The Environmental and Ethical Implications

With increased demand for power, there are also ethical and environmental considerations that cannot be ignored. Nuclear energy, while relatively clean in terms of carbon emissions, comes with its own set of environmental challenges, including the risks of radiation leaks and the problem of nuclear waste. Then there’s the issue of whether it’s ethical to dedicate such vast resources to powering AI and data centers when those resources could be allocated to other pressing global issues, such as healthcare, clean water access, or food security.

If AI continues to develop, it may not just be the algorithms and models that evolve, but our very approach to energy production and consumption may also see a paradigm shift.

Final Thoughts

While today’s AI developments are promising, they bring with them a need for power that is testing the limits of our current energy infrastructure. In an AI-powered world, energy may no longer be a silent, secondary consideration. It could become a central aspect of our society, influencing our environmental policies, economic priorities, and ethical decisions. Whether or not we turn to nuclear power — or even more futuristic energy solutions — remains to be seen. But one thing is certain: AI’s energy appetite is beginning to echo science fiction tales.

Ciao, and thanks for reading.

Aging Together: A Journey of Friendship and Pickleball

 

Growing old together means you’ll always have someone to remind you where you left your glasses… because I’ll probably be sitting on them.

Arun Kumar

Arun Kumar + AI: Aging Together

Summary: In a retirement community, a group of us ‘aged people’ arrived around the same time, sharing the journey of settling in and embracing new activities like pickleball. Over time we will grow older together. Though we’re all beginners now, our skills and interests will mature differently, and our paths will diverge. Yet, our true connection lies in aging together. Slowly, our chats will turn from playful banter to comparing aches and pains of old bodies, eventually becoming watchers on the sidelines observe the new arrivals go through a similar drill.

Recently, moving into a retirement community marked the start of a new chapter for us. Although I’m still working, we made the transition for a couple of reasons: to settle into a place where we want to retire while we’re still active and capable of handling the challenges of a big move, and to escape the long, cold winters of our previous home.

We’re now settling in, and part of this process involves engaging in the variety of activities offered by our new community, a 55+ retirement community. While we do that, I’m starting to realize that, as I age, I’ll be sharing a unique journey with fellow retirees — especially those who, like us, arrived around the same time.

We’ve started to establish new routines and friendships, including our introduction to pickleball — a game that we newcomers are all learning to play. For now, we’re united by our inexperience and eagerness to try something new, making each misstep and missed shot part of the fun (and, occasionally, the cause of an audible curse).

As we get our feet wet together, I realize that, over time, some of us will progress faster than others, and our skill levels in pickleball will start to vary. Some will join more experienced players as they advance, others may be content staying where they are, and still others may decide it’s not their cup of tea and move on to try different activities.

But regardless of where our pickleball skills take us, one thing will remain constant: we will age together. Gradually, our conversations will shift from discussing games and learning new skills to comparing aches and pains, sharing doctor recommendations, and reflecting on changes we never anticipated. Over time, as we become less active players and more spectators, our courtside chats will evolve into quieter observations from the sidelines.

Our shared aging would be woven into the life of getting older in this community. None of us arrived here in our youth — we are all here precisely because of the stage of life we’re in — old. Our being here is contingent of being over 55 and we are required to provide evidence for it (e.g., the drivers license).

Our shared aging is part of the fabric of life in this community. None of us arrived here in our youth — we’re all here precisely because of the stage of life we’re in: older adulthood. Our residence here is contingent on being over 55, something we even had to verify (for example, with a driver’s license).

As us, the old people get older together, our days will be marked by shared experiences, and mutual support that the process of aging requires. In the end, this gradual, graceful aging will be our common bond, reminding us that while each of us may have our own aches and individual journeys, we are also on a journey together. Towards that, pickleball is just an excuse for greater adventures.

As we, the older generation, continue aging together, our days will be shaped by shared experiences and the mutual support that growing older requires. In the end, this gradual, graceful aging will be our common bond, reminding us that, while each of us has our own aches and individual journeys, we are also on a shared path. On that journey, pickleball is just the beginning of adventures yet to come.

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.

The Basic Premise of Evolution

We are the representatives of the cosmos; we are an example of what hydrogen atoms can do, given 15 billion years of cosmic evolution — Carl Sagan

Arun Kumar

Arun Kumar + AI

Evolution: What does it imply? What are its origins? Is there an external entity that determines the course of evolution? Does it follow a specific direction, from left to right or vice versa? Does it always lead to more complexity, or can it result in regression? These questions may seem daunting, but the underlying principles for answers may be simpler than we think.

When we encounter the term ‘evolution,’ we have a visceral understanding of its meaning. Simple definitions for evolution could be ‘a process of change in a certain direction’ or ‘a gradual process of change and development.’ The most common context that comes to mind when we hear the word ‘evolution’ is the evolution of biological forms.

In living organisms, evolution is a ubiquitous and a powerful concept. Beginning with the emergence of self-replicating molecules, it has led to the creation of incredibly complex and intricate biological forms, including us. Its omnipresence suggests that the underlying principles must be simple. Otherwise, how could it be replicated repeatedly across time (across different epochs) and space (across different continents)?

The process driving evolution is indeed quite simple. If certain conditions are met, which can readily occur in a variety of situations, it is, in fact, an inevitability.

The essential (or necessary and sufficient) conditions for evolution to occur are:

1. Availability of limited resources.

2. A population with varying traits that require these resources for its continuation.

3. Traits to vary in their relative efficiency in procuring resources.

4. Sufficient time: Time for the processes underlying (i.e., natural selection) to play out.

Over time, evolution is an inevitability in a population, provided there is variation in traits, a mechanism for these traits to be inherited, and a selective force for traits to be favored, the simplest form of which is the efficiency of traits in resource acquisition.

That is it.

Evolution transpires when a population with diverse traits competes for the limited resources essential for their survival. Over time, the traits that are more efficient in securing resources become predominant. The selective filter in this process, which determines which traits will dominate, is the relative efficiency (or fitness) of these traits in obtaining resources. In biological evolution this process is referred to as natural selection, with ‘natural’ indicating that the selection is a spontaneous process devoid of any external entity providing guidance.

The four conditions listed above can occur in many situations.

The presence of limited resources: Resources are indeed always limited. The universe may have a lot of energy, but it is not infinite. For every living entity on the Earth, the ultimate resource is the radiation from the Sun that falls in per unit area at a location.

Diversity of traits: Random fluctuations, like mutation during cell replication, guarantee that traits among a population competing for resources will differ.

Relative efficiency of traits: Differing traits will vary in their ability in procuring resources. One could be a devil’s advocate and ask why it cannot be otherwise? Well, you can advocate that, but it is not going to happen on its own and has to be forced.

Time: The universe has plenty of that at its disposal.

Whenever and wherever these conditions are met, a process similar to evolution and natural selection gets established. Some examples are:

Biological evolution: This is often the first context that comes to mind when we discuss evolution. Biological entities vie for a finite pool of resources. Those possessing traits that provide an advantage in resource acquisition have a higher likelihood of survival and reproduction. Over the course of generations, these advantageous traits tend to prevail.

Cultural evolution: Every day, 60,000 songs, each with unique traits, are uploaded to Spotify. These songs (and their creators) compete for the limited attention of listeners. Those with the most appealing traits not only survive but also gain popularity, and their appeal becomes timeless.

Societal evolution: New social norms and practices are constantly emerging. Those that benefit society, such as the development of agrarian societies that contribute to the advancement of the human tribe, are adopted, survive, and over time, become prevalent norms and practices.

Technological Evolution: New technological inventions and innovations, each with unique traits and marketing strategies, are continually emerging. They compete for limited financial resources or perceived customer niches. Those that align with customer preferences eventually dominate the market and establish their presence.

Psychological evolution: We may not realize it, but certain psychological preferences, such as discounting the future, opting for the path of least resistance, and a fondness for sugars, are all psychological traits that gave us an advantage in the past. Although they may be detrimental to our current environment, we are still beholden to them.

Linguistic evolution: New words, such as ‘finistophobia’, are coined with the intent of conveying specific meanings. Those that effectively meet the perceived need to express a particular sentiment or action become established, leading to the evolution of languages over time.

Economical evolution: Rise and fall of new startups or continuation of established corporations vying for the money investors have been another wonderful example of evolution.

The crux of the matter is that if you delve into any aspect of the universe undergoing change and development, where an unseen force is guiding the process, it is likely that the process similar to evolution of biological forms that is at work behind the scenes.

Ciao.

The ubiquitous Bell Curve

 

Insurance payouts rely on actuarial tables using the bell curve to predict claims and set premiums.

Arun Kumar

AI Generated Image

The Bell Curve: Its prevalence in natural and social phenomena often leads to its perception as a fundamental law. At its core, the bell curve is a statistical (as opposed to a physical) concept where the distribution of a characteristic in a population is symmetrically arranged around a central value. As the characteristic’s value deviates from this central value, fewer individuals in the population are likely to exhibit it. This distribution, when plotted with the characteristic value on one axis and the number of individuals on the other, takes on the shape of a bell.

Consider the scenario where we measure the heights (characteristics) of all adults (population) in a town. Most adults will have heights around the average (say, 5.5 feet) (central value), forming the peak of the distribution of height vs. number of people with that height. As the heights deviate from this average, the number of people with those heights decreases, creating a bell-like shape. Thus, fewer people are found at the extremes of very short or very tall.

There are countless enigmatic forces that result in the bell curve distribution of characteristics in natural and social phenomena. We may not fully understand why the characteristics of living beings follow a bell curve, but the fact they do necessitates that we grapple with its implications.

Small initial differences, amplified by positive feedback, can lead to a broadening of the bell curve, indicating increased variance or disparities over time. In the context of wealth distribution, minor initial differences in financial resources can, over time, result in significant wealth inequalities. This is exemplified by the fact that the wealthiest 1% possess nearly twice as much wealth as the remainder of the world combined. Indeed, the bell curve is at the heart of stark disparities.

To get a feel how the bell curve can broaden, consider wealth as an example. Imagine a population where, initially, everyone possesses the same amount of wealth. However, individual characteristics, which are inherently diverse, influence how individuals manage this wealth. Some individuals, being frugal, might save their wealth for future needs. Others, with a forward-thinking mindset, might invest their share. Yet others, driven by hedonism, might squander their wealth on immediate pleasures. Over time, these differing characteristics lead to small disparities in wealth, which eventually grow to become significant wealth inequalities as time passes.

The ubiquitousness of the bell curve, and its inevitable broadening over time, underscores the basic reason that disparities plague our society and are in constant need to be managed.

Given the ubiquity of the bell curve, it’s impossible to find societies where all individuals share identical characteristics. This is a fundamental trait of all groups, whether they’re human or composed of other animal species. One notable distinction is that in animals, physical variations are more consequential, whereas in humans living in the current era, psychological differences tend to have broader implications.

Indeed, the development of social norms and policies like taxation are attempts to manage the implications of the bell curve. These measures aim to mitigate the extremes and reduce disparities, particularly in wealth distribution.

Political ideologies often differ in their approach to how to manage the consequences of the bell curve. Democrats, for instance, generally advocate for policies that aim to flatten the bell curve, promoting a sense of equality. Republicans, on the other hand, often favor a laissez-faire approach, allowing natural forces to shape the distribution. If this results in a broadening of the bell curve, they view it as a natural outcome.

Indeed, the bell curve is a prevalent concept that significantly influences various aspects of our lives and society. The development and enforcement of societal norms are efforts to counteract its implications, as evidenced by historical fluctuations between periods of inequality and attempts at equalization. It could be argued that history is a narrative of societies wrestling with the effects of this omnipresent statistical phenomenon. However, it is important to remember that while the bell curve can offer insights, it cannot not mend its own consequences. It is us who possess the power to guide our societies and adhere to norms that foster fairness and equality. By doing so, we can counteract the consequences of the bell curve.

Ciao.

Bell Curve makes utopia a dream

 You gotta beware of the utopian train of thought, mate. That’s usually the first step towards fascism — Daniel Clausen

Arun Kumar

AI Generated Image

Somewhere in the dark recesses of our hearts, we dream about living in a land of utopia. It is a land where the likes of dysfunctional and shortsighted politicians we have do not exist. It is a land of harmony where wars and conflicts are not the norm. It is a land where the lives of Alexei Navalny are not lost, and reasons remain shrouded behind the fog of war. It is a land of harmony, equality, tolerance, sustainability, and where people, immersed in contemplative thought, walk around wearing togas.

Can a land of unforced stable utopia exist?

The notion of unforced utopia needs unpacking. We all have seen dystopian movies where a utopia seems to exist — citizens have basic necessities, enjoy life, and do wear togas and may even walk around slowly lost in contemplative thoughts. But as the story unfolds, we learn that the air they breathe is infused with some brain altering chemical that keeps their mind content. Or when citizens wake up in the morning they take a blue pill that keeps them in a state of euphoria all day.

Later we find out that citizens are divided into have and have nots and the haves, for some ulterior motives that benefit their own kind, are controlling the have nots with exogenous means.

An unforced utopia, however, will exist on its own volition and no external manipulations will be required to keep it functioning. Is it a place where citizens self-govern, do not administer exogenous means, and yet, are able to have a long-lasting, stable utopia?

What is it that makes it seem like that such utopia would be an impossible?

That invisible culprit is the Bell Curve.

Bell curve is a phenomenological description of the consequences of forces that are responsible for differences that occur in nature, including humans. Examples of differences include shades of hair color, variations in height, variations in IQ.

Take the example of the shades of hair color. As a single fertilized cell starts to divide and multiply, along the developmental path to becoming a healthy baby, progressive generations of cells start to take on specialized roles, including some that will become hair follicles. What color the hairs would have depends on the two pigments Eumelanin (responsible for brown to black hair shades) and Pheomelanin (responsible for red hair shades) that hair follicles will produce.

Along this development pathway, random fluctuations that are part of gene expression subsequently result in physiological and psychological differences determine the characteristics of hair colors.

The type and amount of two pigments in the hair follicles generate, and how they are distributed, create a wide variety of hair colors among individuals and is determined by a switch in a particular protein synthesized by a gene within the follicle cells. The underlying biological processes may be complicated and hard to comprehend, but the external characteristics they determine — the hair color — follows a bell curve.

Differences in hair color is one example and may be benign in the context of having further downstream consequences, but inevitable differences exist in characteristics like IQ, or physical strength, which have larger ramifications. Can an unforced stable utopian society exist that pays due respect to such differences, and yet, manage not to fall apart?

A potential problem with differences in characteristics is that their direct or indirect consequences start to cascade into other differences, and left on their own, can result either in amplification or growing range of inequalities in social, physical, intellectual, financial realms. Individuals higher in IQ may be able to corner larger levels of resources (financial or otherwise). With those resources, hire an army of people to protect their interests. Looking around we know how the story goes.

To curb the runaway influence of positive feedback that can lead to growing inequalities, and to bring some level of equitability for the greater good, requires external management.

A utopian society that wishes to be tolerant of differences, cannot exist without drawing some boundaries to manage differences in the population and keep them within acceptable levels to avoid dissent and discontent. Figuring out where to draw the line marking the limits of tolerance is a wicked problem and cannot be addressed to everyone’s satisfaction.

Where to draw lines? Should someone be allowed to offer opinions even if they are hurtful to a few others? If someone wants the right to carry arms, is that okay? What about the tax rate and trying to bring some measure of equality between have and have nots? If the answer to any of these questions is yes, the resulting utopia is not a utopia of its own volition. It is not organic.

An unforced utopia would require a collection of people with the same characteristics, but the way nature works, and how ubiquitous the bell curve is, that is an impossibility.

The Bell Curve is the reason that unforced stable utopia will forever remain an imaginary place.

Ciao.

Managing Consequence of the Bell Curve

 

As long as inequality and other social problems plague us, populists will try to exploit them — Kofi Annan

Arun Kumar

AI Generated Image

Bell curves are ubiquitous, characterizing the myriad phenomena in the universe. Their presence is more pervasive than even the deities we revere. Given their universality, it could be argued that bell curves warrant a place of honor in our places of worship.

Consider any collection of entities — people, trees, or even the seemingly mundane egg consumed at breakfast. Quantify any of their attributes — height, lifespan, weight, or yolk color. In the distribution of these quantified characteristics, a bell curve emerges. The population’s dominant tendency is to cluster around the average, with instances decreasing as we move away from this central value.

While the bell curve is a phenomenological representation of the outcomes of forces causing variations in a population, its existence can be leveraged to interpret our world. This concept can be further elucidated with some examples.

Evolution signifies the transformation in the traits of living organisms over time, propelled by the mechanism of natural selection. This mechanism necessitates variations within a population, which typically follow a bell curve distribution. By interacting with these differences and selectively favoring certain traits within the constraints of the surrounding environment, gradual changes in species and the process of evolution are facilitated.

Within a societal context, if one views variations in Intelligence Quotient (IQ), represented by a bell curve, as inherent outcomes of the process from a single cell developing into a fully grown human, these differences result in a stratified society that necessitates management.

Throughout our life’s journey, we soon realize that future outcomes are not predetermined but often adhere to a bell curve. To predict potential futures, methodologies have been devised to generate multiple possible scenarios. Financial planners utilize the Monte Carlo method, testing the robustness of our current financial status under various assumptions of future market returns. Weather models, through a process known as ensemble forecasting, are executed multiple times to provide us with probabilities of what may happen tomorrow, such as a 30% chance of rain.

In all these instances, it’s not necessary to understand the underlying causes of the bell curve that depicts the non-uniformity in a population. However, the existence of this pattern can be utilized to interpret the world’s behavior and guide us in navigating its complexities.

In anticipation of the bell curve’s existence, we are counseled to remain optimistic yet prepare for the worst, maintain a positive outlook while exercising caution, and face the future fearlessly, all the while staying aware of potential risks.

In the personal sphere, the existence of the bell curve not only adds intrigue to life (after all, who desires monotony day after day), but it can also lead to unexpected setbacks, disrupting our meticulously planned future. We’ve all heard tales of individuals leading healthy lifestyles — exercising regularly, maintaining a balanced diet, minimizing various life stressors — only to be struck by a severe illness. Conversely, there are instances where one of the longest-living individuals was a smoker. Go figure.

Interestingly, the existence of the bell curve also leaves its mark on the divergent perspectives that Democrats and Republicans hold regarding the management of differences.

In a society riddled with various inequalities — financial, intellectual, physical — that can be represented by the bell curve, Democrats advocate for government policies and regulations in areas such as the economy, education, and healthcare, all with the aim of reducing these disparities. They are more inclined to believe that individuals facing adversity are often victims of circumstances beyond their control. Efforts are made to establish social safety nets to ensure that people maintain at least a minimum standard of living and are not left behind. While it’s acknowledged that some may exploit these policies, the overall positive impact on public welfare resulting from these measures is believed to outweigh the occasional misuse.

Conversely, Republicans often attribute individuals’ hardships to their own actions. For instance, they might argue that those in need of assistance are in their predicament due to a lack of motivation or ambition. They hold the belief that with enough determination, one can overcome their current circumstances. They argue that providing aid to the less fortunate may inadvertently discourage them from improving their situation. Republicans tend to advocate for policies that limit government intervention in the economy, education, and universal healthcare, and often favor business-friendly policies such as tax reductions. They justify their policies with the argument that these measures would actually help reduce inequality. Perhaps their perspective is that in the long run, a reliance on Social Darwinism will lead to the overall improvement of society, even if it means sacrificing a few individuals along the way.

The crux of the matter is that the inherent variations represented by the bell curve, and the strategies for managing them, fundamentally underpin the ideological differences between Democrats and Republicans.

An additional consideration is that without external intervention, minor variations represented by the bell curve tend to amplify. The convergence towards the mean (and the pursuit of equality) necessitates external management. Socialism embodies the effort to counteract the bell curve’s tendency to widen, while capitalism, through its laissez-faire approach, accelerates its expansion.

Revisiting the ubiquity of the Bell Curve, our very existence is indebted to its presence, as nature inherently resists uniformity. Following the Big Bang, the formation of galaxies and the stars within them can be attributed to minor density fluctuations. Assisted by gravity, these fluctuations led to an escalating concentration of mass at certain locations, which ultimately gave rise to galaxies and stars.

If differences cannot be eradicated, is the bell curve the fundamental obstacle in dreams of utopia? Stay tuned.

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.