Martin Luther King

January 18 is Martin Luther King Day in the US. I am sure it was this observance that prompted an admirer to write that Martin Luther King, Jr. (1929-1968) is perhaps the greatest philosopher of our time.

I never thought of Martin Luther King as a philosopher but I guess he is, even those he is not listed in any philosophy dictionary as such. Nevertheless, his philosophy transformed America, and as a result, the world. His philosophy was aimed at ending segregation and racism in America, and improving human rights. To paraphrase Bertrand Russell, circumstances determined Kings philosophy and in turn his philosophy determined circumstances. He is what is known as an operational philosopher, an advocate who put his philosophy/beliefs to work, a philosopher who walked the talk, so to speak. Other operational philosophers who advocated and advanced the human condition are Freud (psychoanalysis) and Benjamin Spock (child rearing).

It was probably the Supreme Court’s 1954 decision to desegregate all schools in America that provoked King to do battle against segregation and racism. No matter how influential and unanimous (9-0) that Court ruling was, on its own it had little power to improve race relations in America. It was a start. But many jurisdictions, mostly in the south, ignored and fought that ruling. And there still existed a cultural stubbornness and a lack of will in the country that had to be addressed before the old folkways on race would change. As an abstraction the Court’s dictate was insufficient to change cultural attitudes and behavior. True social change would have to come from beneath, in a more tangible form, not through court rulings, but through peaceful activism and the process of appealing to people’s better instincts and sense of universal justice. It was the mechanism of King’s philosophical conviction and diligence about America doing right by its people, and not the law per se, that started to turn things around and began transforming America racial relations for the better.

But would his philosophy have resonated as well in another time as it did in the 1950-60s? Would people have listened to his message 20 years earlier, before WWII? My feeling is that earlier, America wouldn’t have been so receptive to his call for social and racial justice because they were preoccupied with other issues, like surviving and just making a living. But the era of the 1950-60s was different. His message was in tune with the time, which was more affluent, thinking about the future and wanted change. His philosophical outlook alined itself perfectly with the demographics and the sociopolitical sensibilities of the day.

What made his philosophy especially poignant and powerful was not just that he was a great orator but that the world was ready for it. Prior to King the world was engrossed in other issues, like economic recovery and wars. Furthermore, the technology to distribute his grievous message did not exist yet. It was television that created the mass audience that made the difference. Without television I don't thing enough people would have visualized or appreciated what King was talking about, that race relations in America were scandalous. The people who counted and could make a difference saw on television, for the first time, the injustices perpetrated in the southern US, of Americans attacking other Americans. People were horrified and motivated by what they saw on TV, scenes of racial injustice and brutality, and demanded reform. King's speeches on TV gave it all the more impact and urgency.

The world at the time of King was changing dramatically. Human rights had come to the forefront because of what happened during WWII and the Holocaust. People had become more aware of the ill treatment many people around the world were receiving, because of the growth of information and communications, such as from television. King was central to the issue and the point man in changing attitudes towards race in America, changes that would eventually resonate around the world.

Issue 75 of Philosophy Now was about existentialism, a philosophy that centers on the individual and the human condition. It came to prominence after WWII as a reaction to authoritarianism from despots like Hitler. Under Hitler many individuals were grossly maltreated. Jews and others were stripped of their personal dignity and put in concentration camps, either as slave labor or to be executed. The ideals and purpose of existentialism was to empower people, to build self-esteem and create an army of independent minded thinkers and activists that would challenge and fight authoritarianism in order that no government or ethnic group would ever strip others of human dignity. King emerged on this wave of existentialism that was sweeping the world. He helped put existential ideals about human dignity and civil rights into practice like no other individual before.


What gave King’s call for racial equality further traction was the generation he was speaking to. This generation was the so-called baby boom generation, whose mass numbers began emerging at the close of WWII, in the second half of the 1940s. After the war the birth rate shot up dramatically as soldiers returned from the front and as the world began to feel more optimistic. It was a generation like no other, in numbers and sensibilities. As Leonard Steinhorn wrote in his book, the Greater Generation: In Defense Of The Baby Boomer Legacy, it was a generation that was not blindly going to accept the status quo set by the previous generation, of social intolerance and unquestionable deference to authority. This generation of boomers was in sync and exceptionally empathetic with Martin Luther King’s fight for social justice. It was a generation determined to hold America to its founding ideals of equality for all under the law. Without this reforms-minded generation King’s philosophy may have fallen on deaf ears and not led to the social transformation America needed, if was going to be the exceptional nation it trumpeted itself to be.

King’s influence was also felt in the fact that he drew attention to America’s Achilles heel at a very critical time in its history. During the Cold War, America, touting its democratic values and superiority, was in competition with its rival communism for the hearts and minds of the world as to which was the more ideal form of governance. America had to show the world that it was truly the land of justice and opportunity for all, as advertised. But King, in drawing attention to its social inequality, embarrassed America in its propaganda war with communism. King's pursuit for racial justice and equality for all forced America to reexamine itself and work to end its segregationist policies against African-Americans if it hoped to win the propaganda war against communism.

For America King was a savior. At the time it was a country sitting on a tinderbox of race relations. This too points to him as being the man of the hour. A significant portion of America’s population felt alienated in their own country because of their color. What heighten tensions more is that many African-American’s had become more educated and conscious of the injustices perpetrated against them. They wanted the same rights that were accorded their white counterparts. Other African-Americans who had recently returned home from wars, defending America and democracy in WWII and Korea, expected equality and recognition for their contributions. These people wanted their due rights as citizens, especially if they were expected to help defend and build the nation. Although there were race riots during King’s tenure, his peaceful marches for equal justice for all Americans and the awareness he raised, helped defuse a situation that potentially could have gotten worse and ripped the country apart even further.

King's philosophical legacy empowered millions of people economically and politically. He also fought for workers rights. His fight for emancipation provoked legislation that gave the vote to millions of African-Americans, who, because of their race, had been deliberately denied that right. Because of his efforts the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was pasted, one of the greatest pieces of legislation in history. Perhaps King's greatest political legacy is the election of America's first black president, Barack Obama, which couldn’t have occurred if it wasn’t for the struggle he waged.

Machiavelli wrote: “The human tragedy is that circumstances change, but man does not.” We humans still don’t like change. But if Americans had not heeded King’s advocacy for social change in order to combat racial discrimination that would have been a real tragedy.

Egypt and Democracy

Egypt has no hope of becoming a democratic society without secularism, where people of all stripes and beliefs have a hope of being treated equally. The chances of secularism (which also includes the separation and sharing of power) taking hold there in the near future is remote. But in the far future it is possible. But a lot of social upheaval and violence is going to have to occur first, like happened in Europe over the centuries.

True and lasting democracy is impossible without secularism. If Egypt was a country of only one religion then secularism would not be a problem, because everybody would be of one mind and of one culture, wanting the same thing. In the West we have managed to develop a culture of inclusion and multiculturalism, where different ideas reconcile and coexist with each other. But Egypt and most of the Muslim/Arab world do not understand this culture. It is not in their blood, or DNA. They are still tribal. A major belief that continues to persist in this world, among tribes, is that either one rules or dies at the hands of another. Power sharing among tribes or political parties is not an option or a component, such as it is in the West.

If Morsi, the deposed president of Egypt, acted secular and shared power with his opponents he would still be president. His followers say he was democratically elected so he should still be in office and not have been removed by the military. But he certainly didn't acted democratically in office. He consolidate power within his own tribe and like minded supporters. Democracy doesn't work that way. One problem is that even though Morsi was elected democratically the institutions to backup and uphold the democracy people voted for didn't exist to insure or implement it.

Egypt is still a closed society, not open to the majority. Until it begins to open up to all Democracy is out of the question.

Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey once said that democracy is like a train you get off when you arrive at the station. In other words, he believes that the democratic process is just about being elected and once elected, in a democratic fashion, you forget about it until the next election. This is how Morsi and his followers in Egypt see democracy; it is just about being elected and nothing more. For these men (Putin of Russia is another one) democracy is just a means to and end - legitimately gaining the opportunity to consolidate power.

Erdogan is wrong. Democracy is an ongoing proposition. Democracy is also about being accountable and transparent with the people. But he ignores that part. When journalists try to keep his government accountable and transparent, and challenge his authority, they are arrested and thrown in jail. Turkey has more journalist in prison than any other country.

One of Erdogan's ministers said that those journalist in jail are not real journalist. I guess if people reporting in the media and the press disagree with you they are not true journalists, because they aren't towing the party line. While in office Morsi of Egypt tried to do the same thing.

Evolution/Economics

Going back to Evolution, perhaps we can learn from it why the income gap between rich and poor is getting wider. Perhaps we should look more closely at the difference between elephants and birds to get a better understand of why. 

Seriously, though, Evolution is changing how we will do economics in the future, due to climate change, rising sea levels and other geographic changes. But I don't think economics will ever have the same impact on Evolution. But who knows. Perhaps some day we will have the economic tools to role back the negative influences of human activity on nature and restore things to their rightful splendor.

There is one area where economists have not examine evolutionary nature closely enough to understand why a particular economic paradigm failed and another didn't. Why did communism collapse and capitalism triumph? The answer is in nature's laws, particularly the second law of thermodynamics, more commonly known as entropy.  Since communism ignored this law, in more ways than one, it stagnated and collapsed. It refused to change, which is the way to combat entropy. On the other hand, capitalism has ascended because it is constantly reforming in order to avoid entropy. Even the financial crises of 2008 was a means of reform, to change old and bad habits.

Evolution and Economics

"Evolution has changed all we know about how humans behave, compete and co-operate. When will economics catch up?"

I don't know, but the question seems to relate to things that are unrelated. However, the two subjects are related in the sense that they are both connected to humans. But evolution is a building mechanism whereas economics is a facilitator. Economics facilitates the evolutionary process in nature and human living. Evolution stays evolutionary. Economics is more difficult. It is always having to reinvent itself to keep up with the constant changes evolution introduces. That is why most times it is like "nailing jello to the wall". 

To me it is like evolution doesn't concern itself with the laws of nature. But economics does. Economics concerns itself most with entropy, an evolutionary force that economics is always trying to combat and keep ahead of. (Communism succumbed to entropy.) One thing that evolution and economics have it common is that they are both renewal forces. But economics 'packages' the evolutionary forces so they are related to humans. Economics takes out much of the sting and rawness of evolution, which is more 'red in the tooth'.

As for the crises of 2008, economic theory hit a wall. Economic theory became too hubristic and too big for it britches. Can one find such an instance in evolution?

“Philosophy is the discipline that is primarily concerned with conceptual crises.”

My conceptual crisis has been with the way of the world and human governance. I’ve been wondering why democracy and capitalism have become the dominant governing principles and the ones most sought after. What are the causes and mechanisms behind their ascendency? These are questions I sensed an answer to but didn’t have the wherewithal to answer. I didn’t find compelling enough the usual reasons given by scholars and historians. It is thus I turned philosophy as a possible means of discovery and explanation. Perhaps I was influenced by something Bertrand Russell wrote, that “that circumstances of men’s lives do much to determine their philosophy, but, conversely, their philosophy does much to determine their circumstances.” Could, then, philosophy be one of the factors behind why the world is as it is? One thing I do know is that philosophy has introduced me to concepts, powers of reasoning and lucidity of thought I would otherwise never have had. 

I guess there is a philosophy behind the hobby of model railroading like there is behind any human endeavour. Obviously one of philosophical aspects behind it is the love of trains and locomotion. Another is a need to recreate a reality, often an idealistic or past reality. For some it is a form of escapism from the real world, like going to the movies. Also there is a personal metaphysics and aesthetics involved.

I started my present train set after a trip to Switzerland. For me Switzerland represented a huge train set, with its many winding tracks, train viaducts and railway tunnels. It seemed so compact, like a train set. I wanted to recreate some of that in my basement. I loved the mountains and the valleys of Switzerland and how they contrasted with the train tracks and the rolling stock that ran on them. The contradiction between the raggedness of nature and the cultivated lines of the railroad tracks was gripping.

I once asked a psychologist for an explanation as to why I was drawn to the parallel lines of railway track. She explained that it meant I was a futurist, peering into the future along railway tracks that go off into the distance. It is also emblematic of of how I see the world developing, along parallel lines.

Union Pacific U50 locomotive, N scale

Rand, Jobs, Rachmaninoff, Strauss

The other day I watched a BBC documentary that featured Ayn Rand. All of a sudden I saw her in a different light. She was interviewed by Mike Wallace in 1959, who asked her about Objectivism, a philosophy she devised. Her ideas have gathered quite a following, especially among entrepreneurs and business people. Objectivism puts self-interest and profit first, which, as you can imagine, has drawn a lot of cynicism from the other side. But the philosophy is also about self-responsibility and achievement, which is hard to argue against. I also learned that Rand’s favorite building is New York City’s Empire State Building, which she lived near to.

I never thought I was an Ayn Randian. In fact I have often railed against her philosophy because of its selfish, self-centredness and the greed it promotes. But the interview convinced me that in some ways I am a Randian. If loving the Empire State Building makes you one, then I am one. But seriously, it was something she expounded on that made me believe I am one, that the world you see and experience is yours, that you are the centre of it. She didn’t believe that we are just a mere speck in the scheme of things, nor do I.

A few years ago I met a homosexual who said he was a Randian. That sounded contradictory to me because I couldn’t imagine Rand supporting homosexuality. After all, Rand was a conservative, at least that is what was attributed to her. But she was quite a liberal since she wasn’t a traditionalist like most conservatives tend to be. She believed that people had the inalienable right to pursue their own happiness. So this young man was doing just that, standing up for his rights and being proud of his sexual orientation.

Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism is basically a push-back philosophy, a push-back against the existing state of affairs. It’s a counterbalance to the status quo and the inevitable creeping intrusion of the state and government. It appeals to those who are anti-egalitarian. In many ways, though, it will not become the sum-total behaviour of society since its libertarianism is too harsh for all. Moreover, because of its ‘survival of the fittest‘ mentality it would be unrealistic in the broader social context. In total, its laissez-faire, extreme free market principles would be far too harsh and high octane for a society to endure in the long run. The most influence it will have is as a secondary philosophy but one still influential enough to have an impact as an irritant and agitator to the powers that be, which is good since that keeps a economic/political system churning and from atrophying. Its championing individualism and independent mindedness also serves to keep authoritarianism and dictatorships at bay. One redeeming quality it has is that it encourages personal responsibility and achievement, which has the effect of enhancement and pushing the limits of human endeavour.    

As I was writing part of this essay I was listing to Rachmaninoff’s Piano Concerto 3. Earlier I had adapted that concerto as background music for a slideshow I put together about New York City, a montage that features many pictures of the Empire State Building. So it came to me that perhaps this concerto was also a favourite of Rand since she too loved that magnificent skyscraper. Perhaps Rand bonded with Rachmaninoff since they both fled their motherland Russia for America in order to freely pursue their own interests. Rand also fancied herself a rationalist. Everything she did, she’d argue, was rational. The Empire State Building’s form exuded a rationality. Rachmaninoff’s concerto is full of rational sensibilities. To my ear this piano concerto embodies the romance and grandeur of that majestic building and the city that surrounds it, which Rand and I both fell in love with because of their dynamism and vitality.

The documentary that featured Ayn Rand also interviewed a couple of entrepreneurs who had a hand in developing ‘Silicon Valley‘ as the center of the hight-tech/intel  industry. Ayn Rand’s philosophy really appealed to them because of what it implied, that as driven individuals they were the forgers of not only their own destiny but were also forces for universal good. With their business savvy they were at the forefront and believed that in their hands was the future of humankind. In pursuing their dreams and own self-interests they were making the world a better place. To put it mildly, they were not only full of themselves but as singleminded as Ayn Rand was. But to their way of thinking that was not such a bad thing since their actions, they believed, were enhancing and elevating civilization to a higher plain. These individuals were really swept up and set alight by Rand’s philosophy, so much so that they even named their children after her.

The day before starting this essay I began reading Steve Jobs‘ biography by Walter Isaacson. As I read it I was reminded of Ayn Rand. As I read Isaacson’s description of him, Jobs was a Randian without even knowing it. With her philosophizing Rand had pinpointed an independent spirit that resides in many of us and a sense of wanting to strike out on our own while ignoring convention. Jobs wanted to be his own person and had little respect for conventional wisdom. He embarked on creating a new wisdom for himself and the world.

Shortly after watch the documentary with Ayn Rand I watched one that included Leo Strauss, who taught political philosophy at the University of Chicago. After viewing the two documentaries I realized that Rand and Strauss were diametrically opposed to each other, even though they were both embraced by conservatives. Even their mentors were at opposite ends, Rand’s was Aristotle and Strauss‘ was Plato.  Rand was suspicious of authority and didn’t view it as essential for achieving  social cohesion. Strauss, on the other hand, believed that some measure of authority and hierarchy was essential for a cohesive society. He viewed religion as a social cohesioner. Rand was an athiest and saw religion as irrelevant and dangerous.

There was no mention of Rand or Strauss in the biography about Steve Jobs. Nevertheless, I found both characters there, in the persons of Jobs and one of his teachers. One of Jobs teachers was John McCollum, an ex-military man who believed in discipline and respect for authority. Jobs didn’t believe much in discipline or authority. Jobs was 

independently minded like Ayn Rand. But Job’s teacher was more in line with the thinking of Leo Strauss and became quite angry when Jobs showed a lack of respect for authority and established procedures.

There was an intensity about Steve Jobs. This was both good and bad as Isaacson explains. Jobs’ intensity was a result of his pronounced bipolar, binary nature. By way of further making sense of this Isaacson quoted the great German mathematician Johannes Kepler, who declared that “nature loves simplicity and unity”. Isaacson added, “So did Steve Jobs”. In other words, Jobs intensity and binary way was like that of Nature’s, creative because of the embracing of diametrically oppose ideas like simplicity and unity(complexity). Though Jobs had a split personality that clashed and contradicted itself, it was the spark plug of creation in him.

The central theme here is binary. It is what Nature, Rand, Rachmaninoff, Jobs  Strauss all have in common. It is what enables computing, through the binary code of 0 and 1. It is critical to the function and development of organisms and systems. Its dual components engender the “invigorating tension” that gives life. Steve Jobs unique binary disposition made him the creative genius he was. Rachmaninoff was able to make music because of his and the binary combination of notes he used to make music. Societies are composed of and function on binary principles, such as the binary engagement of males and females, individuals and groups. Political systems also have their binary combinations such as the diametrically opposed ideas of liberal and conservative. They also have the opposing ideas of Rand and Strauss, one extolling the virtues of individualism and the other of groups.

Science & philosophy fiction

Philosophy loves science fiction. Or is the other way around, that science fiction loves philosophy? Whatever it is, both speculate and help present and explain hypotheticals. They conduct thought experiments about the future and other possible scenarios. The format of science fiction is a vehicle a writer can use to express a dubious scientific view that could not otherwise be presented or explained. And philosophy can help legitimize a science fiction story which otherwise might sound ridiculous and implausible. Both genres give heft to the other.

We have science fiction. But is there such a thing a philosophy fiction. Perhaps science fiction is really philosophy fiction. And that begs the question, whether science and philosophy are that separate from each other. The theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking thinks they are and believes that philosophy is no longer of use. However, he's bias. The philosopher V.W. Quine believed that the philosophy of science is philosophy enough. Perhaps the opposite is also true. 

What would the stories of Frankenstein by Mary Shelly or The Time Machine by H.G. Wells be like if they hadn't had the added touch of the writer's philosophical take on life? My sense is that they would sound foolish. To my mined that is what most science fiction is, foolish, without the added affect of philosophy. Philosophy gives the genre credence.

When science fiction becomes reality that's when philosophy comes into its own. Up to that point philosophy is mostly theory and speculative. Nevertheless, philosophy can be of service to science fiction on the road to becoming reality, if that is the case. It acts as the middleman between theory, which science fiction is, and practice. Philosophy is the discussion that takes place about the possibility of science fiction becoming a reality and operational. 

Robots have been science fiction for years. Driverless cars have been science fiction since the the 1950s. But no longer. They are becoming a reality. Google is developing and promoting driverless cars, which are close to being approved. But this technology raises new philosophical questions.

When robots were just science fiction the philosophical discussion was about if and whether they were possible and how they might change our lives. Today, now that they are reality, the philosophical discussion is different. Most robots are used in manufacturing and a lot of the talk is about the human cost and the jobs they have displaced. We are also hearing a lot about other robots, drones, which are used by the military to seek out and kill terrorist. The philosophical discussion there circles around whether it is morally right to use them and where the authority to use them should come from. Drones are also being used by police departments and the paparazzi industry, further invading people's privacy. Why, someday that metaphoric fly on the wall might well become reality. 

Philosophy Now magazine did a cover story on moral machines, as to whether they exist or should be made to exist. In a way the robotic, driverless car is a moral machine. It is designed and programmed to behave properly, to protect its passengers from accidents. It will be a great way for the elderly and disabled, who no longer have the capacity to drive, to still get around in an independent fashion. (That makes me think that there should be moral guns that instinctively don't shoot people they shouldn't. Is that science fiction?)

But the driverless car raises new philosophical questions for others. One concern, though it may sound ridiculous, is about losing ones freedom and independence if they have to depend on them to get around. Some might view the driverless car as conspiratorial, as another move by the powers that be to take control.

Now there's an example of philosophy fiction, conspiracy theories.

DNA data storage

This sounds like science fiction but human-like DNA is being used to store data. (The practice is still in its infancy.) Up to now the data that is used in computing has been stored and warehoused in huge facilities that require a lot of electricity. A constant flow of electricity is required to keep the data galvanized. I am not quite sure how it works but DNA storage of data will not require the huge amounts of electricity that are now being used. DNA and the data it has on it does not require electricity to keep it galvanized. 

Image the data we have stored on our own DNA. It is like our memory stick. Imagine also that someday somebody will be able to tap into our own personal DNA to extract personal information. Everything we've done in life or thought will be have been encoded on our DNA. So if a terrorist is interrogated for information and is not forthcoming he wouldn't have to be tortured. Instead, the interrogators will just tap in his DNA - no fuss, no muss.

Sustainability

Sustainability, whether economic or environmental, has been one of the dominant issues of our time. As The New York Times explained it, sustainability - aka sustainable development, is about “strategies for meshing human activity with the limits of the planet and the needs of future generations”.

Back in 1996 the environmental writer Bill McKibben wrote an OP-ED piece in the NYT calling sustainability a "buzzless buzzword", mere jargon. He found the idea repulsive and a waste of time; a hollow sentiment. He thought the philosophy behind it wouldn't necessary discourage anyone from consuming more or from further exploiting the Earth's limited resources. He disdained the terminology because it was usually coupled with the imperatives of 'growth' and 'development', such as 'sustainable growth' or 'sustainable development'. For McKibben growth and development were incompatible with sustainability, a contradiction in terms. He wrote, "Sustainability is doomed, because it does not refer to anything familiar." To his way of thinking adopting the idea would lead to the opposite - unsustainability.

Well, the idea of sustainability is not dead but alive and well, judging by its constant mention and usage. I am often coming across articles on the subject, one of the latest being in National Geographic. The idea of sustainability (adopted as policy by the UN in the mid 1980s) didn't implode as McKibben imagined. That's because there is something about it that captures the human imagination. There is something inherent and practical about the idea. It captures and articulates the complex, dual situation we find ourselves in today, in a world that is pulling in two different direction, of expansion so as to maintain a life style while trying to protect the environment for the future. And it does sound familiar, contrary to what Mckibben said, because humans have been involved in it for a long time, just not that aware of it.

McKibben believes the term sustainability was meant to obfuscate the issue of human activity's impact on the environment, to postpone the day of reckoning, as he put it. He favors another term - "mature", thinking that we are all or should be mature enough to see the writing on the wall, so to restrain ourselves from developing and growing anymore. His idea is that in our maturity we should learn to live within our needs and stop growing physically. Instead, he says, we should focus on our moral, spiritual and cultural development. He thinks "maturity", not sustainability, is the buzzword that will truly motivate us to be environmentally prudent, as though we are all mature enough to comprehend the issue. However, the reason his choice of mature hasn't taken off is because the concept is dull. 'Mature' sounds stodgy. It lacks dynamism, while "sustainability" has a ring of optimism and opportunity.

The buzzword 'mature' is meant to appeal to our sense of Reason. The reasoning behind it is that we ought to be mature enough, especially in the developed world, to realize that for the sake of the environment and the planet's wellbeing we can't continue to grow and develop our economies as we have or else there will be nothing left. However, we don't live in the rational, mature world McKibben envisions. For one thing, the growing and developing economies of the world haven't reached that point yet. They are not yet ready or willing to be mature in the manner we in the developed world can afford to be. The developing world wants to catch up with the rest. For them maturity be dammed. They feel it's their right to grow and develop like we have. Imposing maturity on the developing world, like father knows best, would imply that they scale back on their economic ambitions, most likely making them resentful and hostile towards the rest of us. At least with the idea of sustainability there is the likelihood of a cooperation and working together, to find solutions so as to maintain a livable and workable environment.

Perhaps, them, it was McKibben who was delusional in thinking that "mature" would win the day and become the buzzword in persuading us to become better stewards of our environment. Perhaps someday we may all be so mature and enlightened. But in the interim the idea of sustainability make more sense. It is pragmatic term emblematic of both our consumer and conservation instincts that will encourage the development of systems that both protect and replace the resources we are certainly not going stop needing so that we survive and continue.

I wonder what kind of strategies 'mature' would devise for meshing human activity with the limits of the planet? It doesn't sound very engaging to me. Of the two buzzwords "sustainability" sounds more sophisticated and energetic. It pushes the boundaries and explores new frontiers. It forces use to be inventive and remain active. "Mature" conjures the idea of downsizing, that one is ready to quite or retire.

I often think about what the optimistic economist Julian Simon believed. To quote one of his colleague: “He believed that the world needs problems because they make us better. Problems make us better off than if they had never occurred”. And our meshing with environment has give us a heap of problems.

And that is what I think about the act of sustainability. It works with problems. It makes us look further than we generally would, to seek solutions and alternatives, to reinvent ourselves, activities that keep us from atrophying and withering away.

Crooked Timber

Kant wrote, Out of the crooked timber of mankind, nothing straight was ever made.

He may not have gotten that idea all by himself. He may have been inspired by a passage in the Bible, from the book of Ecclesiastes where it is written "That which is crooked cannot be made straight" [1:15]. On discovering that Kant probably applied it to his philosophy, to reconcile the perversion and absurdity he saw around him.

The philosopher Isaiah Berlin interpreted the Crooked Timber of Humankind metaphor as an admonishment against dogma and perfection. He believed that if a system of human governance set itself up deliberately to straighten out human flaws it would inevitably amount to totalitarianism. This is what he saw the utopian vision of communism trying to do, as endeavoring to straighten out that crooked timber of humankind, which as we know ended in absolute failure.

Another interesting passage from Ecclesiastes is hedonistic, which its preacher, narrator shares with us, invoked, no doubt, by the meaningless and drudgery he saw in life: "Then I commended mirth, because a man hath no better thing under the sun, than to eat, and to drink, and to be merry: for that shall abide with him of his labour the days of his life, which God giveth him under the sun" [8:15]. That passage could have inspired the passage in the American Declaration of Independence that encourages the 'pursuit of happiness', as an elixir to the drudgery of life.

Nietzsche and other existentialist may have also been influence by Ecclesiastes and the absurdity and meaningless it attaches to live. Nietzsche, it was written, "is one of the first to recognize the absurdity of human existence as the necessary basis for creative life and to stress the importance of irrational and illusional factors in shaping human behavior". Perhaps he was thinking about religion when he observed that.

I was reading the autobiography by psychotherapist Viktor Frankl in which he mentioned another existentialist, Soren Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard once said, to quote Frankl, " anyone who offered a corrective had to be biased, thoroughly biased". Frankl was thinking of his own bias, of the corrective in psychotherapy he offered his patients.

Frankl was a surviver of the Holocaust. It was probably his existentialism that afforded his survival. Had he not been one he may not have survived. His existentialism gave him a certain strength and outlook on live, which balanced life's absurdities against its more admirable ones, and reconciled humanity's crooked timbers with its straighter ones.

Milton Friedman

A lot of people think the economist Milton Friedman (1912-2006) was a god. In his lifetime he was viewed as the god of the free market. His economic theories were adopted by, to name a few, Margaret Thatcher in Britain and Ronald Reagan in the U.S. Those economies, like may others, found new life with some of his suggestions, like those of monetary policy, tax cuts and privatization.

What first brought Friedman to prominence, and won him the Nobel Prize in Economics (1976), was his theory in monetary policy. He believed that the proper control of the money supply was the fundamental key to a healthy economy and a stable world. Good monetary policy was the key to keeping down inflation, an occurrence that has in the past caused great hardship and instability in many nations. Friedman's fame grew from his theory that if the U.S. had controlled its currency better during the Great Depression that event may not have happened. Likewise, it is believed that if Germany after WW1 had not printed money like crazy in order to fulfill the financial demands put on it by its vanquishers, it wouldn’t have descended into the economic abyss it did, making it ripe for a despotism like Hitler.

My thoughts are that we learn from experience. So I think one should take Friedman's idea, that the Great Depression could have been prevented if the U.S. had only managed its currency better, with caution and skepticism. What Friedman suggested is that the U.S. and others, in the 1920's and 30's, had the wherewithal to be good monetarists, but failed to act so. However, I think they had no such wherewithal in those days because people back then were still inexperienced in such matters, as in prudent monetary policies. Nevertheless, people still insist on transposing the knowledge we have today on a less sophisticated world of the past. I mean, sure, with the knowledge we have today we probably could have prevented WW1 or WW2. But that was a different world, absent of the knowledge and the dynamics we have today.

Friedman's policies have railed against socialism. Now, I am no socialist but I have socialist tendencies, like the belief in universal and state run health systems. Such coverage can lift an anxiety of people’s shoulders which potentially can free people to function better. And by what I see in the countries that do have it, for the most part, the practice of medicine works better than in the US and the costs are lower, and life expectancy is longer. I thus believe in a mixed economy in which aspects of capitalism and socialism are mixed and balanced off against each other. And this type of governance is what is spreading around the world, including in the U.S., albeit kicking and screaming all the way. After all, universal health care is one way to help balance the inequalities that the broader economy generates.

I appreciate and believe in some of Milton Friedman's ideas. And they would probably all work if conditions were perfect. One thing he did believe is that if you have a free and open market the facts and information about it should also be free and accessible. This is something that did not occur during the 'subprime market' in mortgages of the past decade. The information and facts surrounding subprime loans and their derivatives were not open to scrutiny and were dishonest. Many of the facts and realities about the subprime market and their 'toxic assets' were manipulated and hidden by Wall Street. This was the major reason for the financial calamity we have today, chiefly due to a lack of transparencies in the mortgage lending practices of the last decade.

Friedman realized that a measure of regulations and consumer protections had to be in place to keep markets honest, fluid and mutually beneficial. He knew that unfettered market on their own were not the 'hole grail' because of their potential for human abuses. This is something the Bush administration failed to see in its unquestioning acceptance of laissez faire, unfettered markets. As a consequence that unquestioning acceptance seriously destabilized the US economy due to the administration's blind faith that the free market on its own, with as little interference from government as possible, can solve society's major problems. (So blinded by faith was George W. Bush that he really didn't understand what went wrong.)

Milton Friedman's fundamental policies in the wrong hands have incurred a naive and reckless approach to economic activity. They have also encouraged abuses. But he would be the first to recognize that's what comes with the territory due the natural capacity to do wrong and get things wrong. Oh, if only we could hear from him today.

Parsimony

In his article "Parsimony (In as few words as possible)", issue 81 of Philosophy Now, Toni Vogel Carey, wonders if nature loves simplicity. I'm sure it does, like any enterprise does, especially at the beginning when it's essential.

In business, particularly at the beginning, it is essential to be parsimonious. It helps keep one in business. There is an axiom we've all heard: If you take care of the pennies the dollars (pounds) will look after themselves. In other words, parsimony and taking care of the nominal stuff is an initial, important step in business.

There is a saying, Don't sweat the details. But that would be like not being parsimonious or taking care of the nominal stuff. Before one can have the luxury of not sweating the details one has to first make sure the details are looked after and are in place. After a business has taken off and started to succeed then one can stop sweating the details and pennies, but never take your eye of the ball, as the saying goes.

However, there is a balance involved. For instance, if one remains too parsimonious and frugal in business, as Adam Smith cautioned against, one will stifle development and growth. So one has to learn how to keep parsimony in the background while learning to spend and take risks so that the business grows. Nevertheless, parsimony should remain a core issue.

If one examine any entity, whether in nature or in business, there is always a simple, parsimonious beginning. But there is a paradox. The option is not to remain simple and parsimonious. In order to survive and continue we must become complex and create intricate systems.

The opposite to parsimony is excess. Ironically, parsimony can has its own excess. For example, a simplistic, parsimonious mindset can lead to the excesses of fundamentalism and extremism, as we've seen with religions.

"Economics Does Not Lie"

There's an intriguing thought: Economics doesn't lie.

Such was the topic of an article written by economist Guy Sorman in the summer of 2008 in “City Journal”, a conservative quarterly magazine about urban affairs. It was written prior to the financial crisis that began to unfold later that year. Was it a coincidence that it was written just before the crisis or was it meant to be a warning about what was to come?

I’d say it was more a coincidence because it didn’t foretell anything about the looming crisis. In fact, it ignored and even praised many of the economic, laissez faire activities that were responsible for the greatest recession America has experienced since the Great Depression. So it got me thinking, how did economics not lie in this instance?

I'm not saying that the discipline of economics lies. On the contrary: basically it tells the truth. It’s built on natural law and reason. I know, for instance, that free market economics is far more truthful than the planned economics of communism and totalitarian states, which are easily manipulated. However, people can still make a liar out of the free market just by not telling the truth about what’s going on. It’s made a liar when it isn’t transparent, such as happened with the opaque transactions that led to the crash of 2008. It lies when it isn’t held accountable, when the rules and regulations are deliberately flouted and ignored. Those lies gave us the greatest economic turmoil in memory. Eventually, though, the chickens came home to roost. In the end market economics freed itself from those lies and told us the truth, that the crisis was a consequence of many questionable and unethical practices. Economics teaches us to be thrifty and good managers. Sadly, though, those prerequisites and truths were lost on many who should have known better, like the bankers and politicians.

One of Sorman’s heroes is Milton Friedman, a Nobel laureate in economics who truly believed in the free market. But Friedman believed that if a free market was going to function optimally and truthfully information about business had to be transparent and up front. If business dealings are not open to scrutiny, cheating and lying are more likely to take place. Nevertheless, that’s what happen during the years building up to the financial/economic crisis of 2008. Information was withheld from investors, information that could have prevented or at least tempered the crash. Information was withheld was about ‘toxic’ assets pertaining to questionable financing. Duplicitous assets were hidden in derivatives that were then sold to unsuspecting investors. To further compound the lies, those dubious investments were approved by the very rating agencies that were meant to keep tabs on the financial industry. If Friedman were alive today he would be appalled at the breaches of trust and lies told to unsuspecting investors.

Though it was due to a combination of events, the ‘housing bubble’ was the chief culprit of the economic crisis of 2008, the economics of which represented a catastrophic lie. The bursting of the housing bubble had a devastating ripple effect on all sectors of the economy, leaving banking, the core of an economy, especially vulnerable. And there were plenty of lies to go around, encouraged by fees, greed and poor monitary policy. People deceived themselves in thinking that the price of houses would keep going up indefinitely. Mortgage brokers lied when they made loans to people they knew couldn’t afford them. Ironically the loans were nicknamed ‘liar loans’ because they were based on, what else, lies. The mortgage brokers lied when falsifying documents about the credit worthiness of borrowers. Many borrowers lied about their incomes, as to whether they could afford the monthly payments or not. Each party suspected that the other was lying but the practice continued. And to further compound the lies, these liar loans were deliberately camouflaged and bundled up with healthier securities by Wall St. brokerage houses in the form of derivatives and then sold to unsuspecting investors. To add insult to injury, and more lies, these derivates were given AAA rates by supposedly independent credit agencies like Standard & Poor and Moody’s, companies that were literally working both sides of the street. Their behavior amounted to crony capitalism, which constituted another massive lie and a major threat to the free market.

The Attorney Generals of all fifty US states tried to put an end to the lies. They knew about the liar loans and their potentiality for economic disaster. They wanted to protect consumers from the predatory loans that were being made by mortgage companies and banks knowingly for the profits they generated. But the Bush administration blocked them from implementing such laws because it interfered with a major Bush agenda, an agenda to expand the ownership of homes. It was a veiled, clumsy attempt to enrich the middle class as it had done for the rich with a tax cuts. For all its good intentions, Bush’s dreams for an expanded ‘ownership society’ was predicated on a political ideology equivalent to a house built on sand. Oh, there were economists who warned about this policy but were roundly dismissed as killjoys.

In his article Sorman says that economics is no longer just theory but is now an actual science. (Being a science should have made it more truthful.) As he explained, we have learnt so much from past economic experience that the world can now depend on and ensure itself reasonable economic stability. Economists have developed models and equations that show precisely how the fundamentals work, that there is a certainty in economic outcomes. So what happened that we are now facing one of the greatest economic crises to hit modern civilization? What happened to the science we were supposed to have learned from, the science that was supposed to offset the lies?

What happened is that even though economics may not lie, humans still do. Humans still cheat and cut corners. Human are fallible and that fallibility can negatively impact economic outcomes if not kept in check. That’s why over the years, having gained a lot of experience about our weaknesses and less than truthful natures, we have formulated regulations and backup system to minimize and fend off economic disasters like the one we are experiencing today. Experience gave economics its status of science. But along the way, somehow, mostly due to political ideology, faith and hubris, the science and experience that we learned over the time was discarded in a matter of years, giving the world the economic crisis of 2008, the likes it hasn’t seen in some time.

Chicago -Toronto

Chicago-Toronto

I took a walk around the neighborhood this morning. It was a gloriously rich morning with not a cloud in the shy. I walked through the University of Toronto campus. It remained me of a walk I had through the University of Chicago campus last year. One could say that the Chicago campus is more beautiful. But it is miles away from the center of the city. Toronto’s campus is right in the middle of the city. It is more accessible to city folk like me. To get to the U of C from the city center one either needs a car or has to take the train. One, though, could walk the distance, as I did one hot Sunday we were there, the day of the Chicago Marathon on October 8, I believe. That was a long, hot walk.

Toronto has the distinction of being the condominium (condo) capital of North America. Buildings have been going up like crazy. As I walked around the neighborhood this morning I pasted three condo projects in the works. That was within a small radius. If I expanded my radius just a bit more I would have included four more projects. And within the last couple of years at least another five new condos had been completed in the vicinity. One of the developments almost nearing completion is the Four Season Hotel/Condominiums, a fifty-two story elegant glass skyscraper. Its penthouse recently sold for an astonishing 28 million dollars. Another project just about ready to get under way is a 70 story building at the main intersection of Yonge and Bloor. This development was originally slated to start in 2008 but was canceled because of the global financial crisis of that year. That project was financed by Lehman Brothers, an investment bank that when belly up in September 2008.

In contrast, Chicago has not faired so well in its building projects due to the financial crisis. Another reason could be is that it had already been over built. One notable project that was canceled was the Spire, a 2000 feet skyscraper on the waterfront. When there I remember seeing the huge hole that was to be its foundation. Recently, though, the Trump Tower in Chicago was complete. It is now the second tallest building in the city, at 90 stories. Toronto too will soon have its own completed hotel/condo Trump Tower at about 57 stories high, located in the financial district.

We visited Millennium Park in Chicago. A major attraction in the park is a steel sphere-like sculpture, which you can walk inside and under. It is intriguing because once inside it you can see yours and everybody else’s reflection on its shiny metal ceiling. Looking at it from outside it looked like a helmet. It reminded me of Darth Vader’s helmet in the Star War movies. Millennium Park is built on reclaimed land, reclaimed from railroad lands and parking lots. The railroad and the station are now beneath it. It has really revitalized the area and the city. Toronto has a similar revitalization going on with the reclaiming of old railway lands near Lake Ontario for development of condominiums, parks and entertainment facilities.

I decided to walk the distance from Millennium Park to the University in the south Chicago. Walking the distance was an eye opener. I started it just as the marathon was winding down. The Park was inundated with runners who had just finished the race. In my walk I went through multiple neighborhoods. One of the most dramatic things I saw was the convention center, McCormick Place, the largest convention center in the United States and surely North America. Its size was unbelievable. I also went through some well-to-do districts and some not so well-to-do districts. The contrasts in neighborhoods is something we don’t see in Toronto.

I reached Hyde Park, the area in which the U of C is situated, about two and a half hours later. We were staying with a friend who had located there from Toronto. We were spending our Canadian Thanksgiving weekend with her. The other day I was walking through the Annex area of Toronto, which is situated quite near the U of T, and I had memories of Hype Park in Chicago. Both areas are similar, well manicured and inhabited by intellectuals and professionals.

Chicago and Toronto are similar in may ways. Both names are derived from native Indian words. They are both Great Lake cities. They both lost in their bids to host the Olympics. They both had Great Fires that destroyed much of their city centers. Both are major transportation hubs for air and rail traffic. Because of their railroads both are large, pivotal freight distribution centers. Apart from being two great university towns they are both great cultural centers. Both cities at one time had the similar moniker of ‘hog town’.

Chicago has one thing Toronto never had, a famous gangster, Al Capone. Chicago is famous and notorious around the world because of Capone, probably the most famous gangster in the world. I don’t think Toronto has anything to match that notoriety. However, one area Toronto beats Chicago in is theater. Toronto is the third largest theater production center in the world, next to New York and London. And Toronto does have the famous CN Tower and a sports arena with a retractible roof, build side-by-side on former railway land.