Category Archives: Sociology

How our society handles energy, science, and choices

Academic Prison

Posted on by
29
The Ivory Tower behind bars (E. Jason /Getty Images).

You may have noticed a recurring theme on Do the Math that involves prisons. Inspired by Ishmael, I compare modernity to a prison whose bars few inmates can even detect: prison life is all they’ve ever known. The brain creates a prison that for many becomes more real than the universe itself. The last post cast Richard Feynman as a prisoner of modernity. If challenged about the hypocrisy of eviscerating modernity while enjoying a house, car, grocery store, and internet I tend to point out that a prisoner can offer perhaps the most legitimate complaints about prison or even the entire penal concept. Moreover, if I tried to live an authentic ecological life in my location, I would soon end up in an actual prison after violating any number of property rights and other laws that function to keep people in the modernity pen. Likewise, we know what happens to people who take direct action to disable infrastructures and institutions of modernity, right?

I did, at least, manage to break free from one major harness of modernity. I left my academic job at age 53. In doing so, I took a 75% paycut and effectively said no-thank-you to perhaps millions of dollars of cumulative income. Granted, this is different from a 100% paycut. But I hope it can be appreciated as a substantial step away from the treadmill, imposing a much simpler and lower-impact lifestyle. I don’t pretend to be living in right relationship to the Community of Life, but neither do I feel that I, personally, must accomplish the full journey if I can use my time to help many others start the journey themselves. It will take generations—facilitated by the inevitable dynamic duo of death and replacement. Rome wasn’t destroyed in a day.

Academia is its own sort of prison, which is what we’ll examine here. You’ve no doubt heard much ballyhoo about academic freedom, which sounds great. But maybe that’s akin to a prisoner being allowed unsupervised time in the prison library on account of good behavior. The ostensible freedom has both soft and hard limits.

Continue reading →

Views: 1147

Feynman's Sentence

Posted on by
49
Wikimedia Commons

On the second page of the first volume of Richard Feynman’s famous Lectures on Physics (Lecture 1, Section 2), we find the paragraph:

If, in some cataclysm, all of scientific knowledge were to be destroyed, and only one sentence passed on to the next generation of creatures, what statement would contain the most information in the fewest words? I believe it is the atomic hypothesis (or the atomic fact, or whatever you want to call it) that all things are made of atoms—little particles that move around in perpetual motion, attracting each other when they are a little distance apart, but repelling upon being squeezed into one another. In that one sentence, you will see, there is an enormous amount of information about the world, if just a little imagination and thinking are applied.

That sentence exposes another type of sentence: a sort-of prison sentence Feynman was serving—as most of us are—confining us to our cells within modernity. In the Epilogue to my energy textbook, I raised this point and suggested an alternative along the lines of “Treat nature at least as well as we treat ourselves.” It’s sort of a golden rule that extends beyond the usual boundaries of human supremacy. Today I would go further.

As for Feynman, let’s take a look at how one of the broadest thinkers in physics can still be held captive in a narrow rut.

Continue reading →

Views: 1787

A Lawful Anarchist

Posted on by

You know me: I’ll go after almost any aspect of modernity, including technology, agriculture, or even written language. Let’s now take a big swipe at “The Law.” But first, we’ll need to get a few common reactions out of the way.

When I suggest that a rigid, codified legal system is an abomination that humans are better off not suffering, strong objections instantly arise on the basis that a lawless modernity would be a chaotic nightmare for all sorts of reasons.

I totally agree: modernity absolutely needs a legal system in place. So, sure: anarchy is no way to run modernity, but here’s the catch: modernity is no way to run humanity, or life on Earth more generally. Modernity, it appears, initiates a sixth mass extinction, and is thus effectively synonymous, just as unsustainable is synonymous with failure. Modernity has no deep-time ecological vetting, and is a transient offshoot that has—in a relative eye-blink—caused tremendous disruption to the prospects for a happy life for countless members of the Community of Life, including, of course, future humans.

So, ask not what modernity needs, because doing so is basically asking what the sixth mass extinction needs. As far as anyone knows, and certainly as the actual evidence reveals, the two are inseparably part of the same phenomenon. So, let’s get over prioritizing what modernity needs. Laws are among those “necessities” of the sixth mass extinction—a.k.a. modernity.

Continue reading →

Views: 1854

When Space Becomes Silly

Posted on by
Transport transfer in 1925: we’ve all done this by now, right? (Wikimedia Commons)

Recent posts have compared belief in a space future to belief in Flat Earth, and also compared living in space to hijinks like keeping a crewed airplane flying for over two months straight. Indeed, a number of insights might be gained by comparing the quest for flight to the space ambitions that followed.

Long before fuel-powered flight was demonstrated in 1903, human-powered flight had been a perennial dream of early inventors. It wasn’t until decades later that the much harder task of human-powered flight became possible—aided by modern lightweight materials. Yes, it can be done, but only if you’re a world-class athlete and content to travel at running speed a meter or two off the surface (remaining in ground-effect). Likewise, supersonic commercial flight is possible but not practical enough to remain an option. And it is possible to keep two people up in an airplane for 65 days.

Just because something can be demonstrated as a stunt does not mean it is destined to become normal practice. In particular—as I pointed out in an earlier post—occupation of a space station shares a lot in common with sustaining people in continuous airplane flight, which was once quite the enterprise. But after 1959, people stopped even trying. The exercise had crossed the line from meaningful to a silly waste of effort.

In the first half of the 20th Century, few (in techno-industrial cultures) would question the merits of attempting to keep people airborne as long as possible. It was exciting—proof of man’s greatness and progress into the novel. Given some degree of technological development since that time, we could presumably beat the 65 day record by a large margin, perhaps even demonstrating indefinite airborne capability—if sufficiently driven and provided adequate funds. But the proposal would likely—and fittingly— elicit shrugs and questions as to what the point would be. From my perspective, similar responses should accompany proposals for living in space. The question, then, is: when will we collectively become comparably dismissive of proposals for humans in space?

Continue reading →

Views: 3818

2025: A Space Absurdity

Posted on by
Space is sillier. Howard W. Cannon Aviation Museum (from this site).

I recently connected faith in space colonization to Flat Earth belief, even though these might seem to be on opposite ends of the spectrum—as Flat-Earthers contend that NASA is a hoax and that artificial satellites are not real (wait: because they’re artificial?). What connects these groups is a belief in something that’s not actually real: based more on imagination than fact, and working backwards from what they wish to be true. I’m not saying the groups are equivalent by any stretch, but that they do share something in common, at core.

Anyway, this observation sparked a few conversations that prompted me to resurrect old arguments (see Why Not Space and chapter 4 of my textbook), but also add some new ones. Here, I share some of these new perspectives and related calculations.

Continue reading →

Views: 7093

Were You Happy?

Posted on by
Close enough. By Tdorante10 (Wikipedia Commons)

As I learn more about the way humans used to live before agriculture (and a few still do today), I am often reminded of an experience I had in my youth that contains parallels to the situation Indigenous groups find themselves in today. Things were going pretty well for them before their lifeways were destroyed: they had life figured out.

Aside from a brief coda, I’ll let parallels speak for themselves. My small tribe will play the part of displaced people, and the Western “authority” figure will be obvious. In making this parallel, in no way do I mean to imply that my momentary discomfort has even the slightest equivalency. That said, the experience still offers a window, even if a very grubby one.

Oh—and if the story comes off as boring, I do apologize, but that’s only because it hasn’t been embellished.

Continue reading →

Views: 3119

A Theory Gone Flat

Posted on by
Flat Earth and spotlight sun, by Towarzysz Przewodniczący (Wikimedia Commons)

Am I really going to do this? Am I going to spend time on a topic so far from legitimacy as Flat Earth? Doing so risks affording a tiny bit of credibility to an idea that hasn’t earned it, as if I doth protest too much.

Reasons to bother: 1) illustrate direct observation in action; 2) emphasize the power of listening to what the universe tells us rather than insisting on insufficient mental models as “truth”; 3) provide examples of how mental models go wrong; and 4) I made some graphics worth sharing. While a bit of a tangent from my usual “serious” topics, I figure I can have a little fun once in a while.

The focus will be on conspicuous observations anyone can confirm, personally, without too much effort—even from memory, in fact. I’ll skip the literally dozens of ways I have personally measured and confirmed the spherical Earth, which would make for boring reading. Lots of things break in Flat-Earth scenarios, including GPS navigation (no satellites; broken math), gravity (would crumple a disk-Earth into a sphere in no time; plumb bobs would point more north the farther south one went), and what we’ll focus on here: sunsets. No more sunsets, folks—and any sunsets (or sunrises) you might believe yourself to have seen aren’t what you made them out to be, according to Flat-Earthers.

Rather than denigrating the people who subscribe to Flat-Earth beliefs, I’ll focus on observation. I’m not aiming to convince Flat-Earthers; nothing I say (as an obvious shill for the mega-conspiracy) can replace the sense of community and unconditional support they receive from their FE-family. Any of us might go to extremes of twisted and easily-refuted logic to preserve what’s most important to us. Modernity fails humans in countless ways—loss of intimate tribe being among them. We can forgive those seeking to recapture what’s been lost.

Continue reading →

Views: 4926

Food Makes Babies

Posted on by
From Boston Public Library via Wikimedia Commons.

Daniel Quinn returned to the theme that “food makes babies” so often in his writings that it would seem he was continually dissatisfied either with the clarity of his case, or with objections people had, or both. I get it. I often return over and over to the same thorny themes, each time thinking I’ll finally nail it. The exercise is as much for improving internal clarity as anything.

Many of the comments following my coverage of Daniel Quinn’s Ishmael focused on the food–baby issue. The more recent post on The Story of B dwells on the topic as well, so I figured it would be worth dedicating a post to the matter, trying to covering all the angles.

The statement that increasing food production leads to increases in population touches a nerve for some people, which is what makes it a valuable topic to explore. For some, the statement seems to be an affront to their notion of control. It implies that humans are “no more than” animals, which takes direct aim at our most prized mythology: human supremacism—relating to Ishmael’s second dirty trick: that we “evolved from the slime”—barely tolerated by modernists, but only in a narrow technical sense.

Now, the objections are not without demonstrable legitimacy. In this post, I will start with the basics, point out key objections, then see what we can make of it.

Continue reading →

Views: 4774

Off the Marx–Hitler Spectrum

Posted on by
The colors blue and red are used in the U.S. to represent political left and right, which at the extremes might be said to run from communism to fascism., Yet even that’s a tiny slice of the whole. (Image by Philip Ronan, Gringer; Wikimedia Commons)

We are accustomed to a left–right political spectrum. But said spectrum is only a tiny corner of the whole space of possibilities, even though practically everyone you know is wedged into it. Similarly, we use the word “light” to implicitly mean the narrow range of radiant energy that’s visible to human eyes, despite its being only a thin sliver of the full electromagnetic spectrum. All modern political schools share and support the context of an aberrant, exploitative modernity, making them real “birds of a feather.”

One window into political leanings is to elucidate an honest assessment of what one cherishes the most. But be careful about taking at face-value what people say they care most about. Sometimes they might even fool themselves. Below is a list whose scope (number of beneficiaries) increases as one moves down, and which might imperfectly map onto political leanings.

  • Self/Ego
  • Power
  • Corporations
  • Market economy
  • Small businesses
  • Families
  • Welfare of all people

That’s usually where it stops, in terms of scope. Some might also care for the environment, but only insofar as people have access to clean air, water, food, and don’t suffer health maladies from pollution. The first item on the list doesn’t map cleanly onto left–right (no shortage of self-centered leftists!), but belonged on a list of what people care most about. One form that self-prioritization can take is personal salvation in a religious context.

Megalomaniacs, dictators, oligarchs, and authoritarians populate the top of the scale. Fascists also lean toward that upper end, as do—I would say—many MAGA Republicans in the U.S. Traditional Republicans occupy more of the middle range, while Democrats tilt toward the lower end. Marxists might be said to be all the way down. Yet, the demarcations are not clean, allowing funky mixtures. The overwhelming majority of political parties, for instance, work to support a vibrant market economy.

Ralph Nader ran for president of the U.S. in 2000, far enough to the left of George W. Bush and Al Gore that he characterized the two as “Tweedledum and Tweedledee”—implying a nearly inseparable twinness to the two. From far enough away, that’s what it looks like. A radical leftist or rightist will see all establishment politicians as muddled enablers of a dysfunctional system.

Where do I fall on this spectrum—or am I even on it? I’m going to make you wait for a short bit.

Continue reading →

Views: 7002

Daylight Ravings Time

Posted on by
Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

Having just switched again to Daylight Savings Time (DST) in the U.S., it’s a good opportunity for me to express my misgivings on the matter. I’m not going to delve into the history or motivations: that’s what Wikipedia is for. The main take-away will be what it says about—and does to—our perceived relationship to the world.

The parents of my friend from Puerto Rico nailed it. He had moved to Rhode Island for college, and called them every week at a certain time. A few months in, he warned them that next week he’d be calling an hour later than normal (as they would perceive it) due to the time change. “What kind of arbitrary shenanigan is that?! You can’t go around just changing the clocks! Balderdash!” I’m sure that’s the exact translation from Spanish. In any case, I’m in total agreement!

The Phenomenon

Noon is loosely defined as the middle of the day, when the sun is at its zenith—crossing the north–south meridian. This was the cardinal moment of the maritime day, when sextants marked the apex of the sun’s daily journey across the sky and hourglasses were reset accordingly: eight bells; change of watch (not wristwatch, in this case). By comparing local noon to an accurate chronometer (clock)—set to Greenwhich time, for instance—one could ascertain longitude on the planet, which transformed navigation and quelled many anxieties about being blown onto a lee shore in the dark of night.

Continue reading →

Views: 3936