Monday’s Mtg: What Should Americans Be Nostalgic For?
Candidate Donald Trump’s explicit appeal to nostalgia, to “make America great again,” was one of the keys to his victory. We never “win” anymore and he alone (!) knew how to return us to our former greatness. It would be essay to do, actually, since the only thing keeping us from a restoring this glorious past was weak leaders. Political sophisticates laughed it all off, confident that, like other populists, he was just telling folks what they wanted to hear, that the best of a gauzily-recollected past could be easily restored through force of will.
Who’s laughing now? More specifically for Monday’s meeting, what did President Trump mean about making “us” “great” “again?” What did the voters that responded to it hear? Why are so many Americans so nostalgic suddenly and why? A sea of ink has been spilled already trying to answer those questions, so I thought we should take our best shot.
I imagine our main focus will be trying to understand why and how Trump marshalled a vague nostalgia and those beliefs’ ongoing role in our current political crisis. But, I think a close look at the phenomenon could be enlightening in other capacities. The study of nostalgia appears to be its own little sub-field in social science these days. According to Professor Google, experts believe that feeling nostalgic about the past (whether a real or imagined past) is common. It’s normal and even healthy. Every generation pines for the good old days. Even these kids today, with the hair and the clothes and the Mary Jane.
But, a lot of people have commented on the dark undertone of today’s highly-politicized nostalgia. Trump’s vision of an American Carnage is of a glorious past betrayed by domestic traitors and rapacious foreigners. It’s zero-sum and divisive, authoritarian, and pretty much unobtainable the way he promised it. Still, in my opinion voters’ desire to go back to happier times should not be haughtily dismissed as only a desire for restored White supremacy or U.S. hyper-dominance and imperialism. I think we could have a great discussion on many aspects of this topic, not just the worst ones. Maybe using these questions.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS –
- What is nostalgia? Are there different kinds of it or motives for it? What psychological and sociological functions does it perform?
- Are Americans really more nostalgic than usual these days? Why? Who is the most/least nostalgic and what does that tell us?
- What specifically do (some) people want back? (e.g., personal/physical security? Economic opportunity/independence? Societal respect? Societal morality or hierarchy? Racial, ethnic, or gender privilege? National prestige/domination?)
- Who and what do they blame?
- How did nostalgia get weaponized for our current political era?
- Can politics really restore any of these things? What do people want our leaders to do?
SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –
- Nostalgia is good for you. Recommended.
- Every U.S. generation…
- …thinks society has decayed, and
- …loves the decade of their youth – but the elderly really love the 1950s. Recommended.
- Consumerism drives a lot of our nostalgia. Interesting.
- Technology could change nostalgia A LOT. Even more interesting.
- Don’t panic over nostalgia its’ mostly harmless. It’s a misplaced yearning by both Left and Right.
- Panic. Trumpism is…
- A “politics of loss and revenge.” and “the religion of White nostalgia.” Either recommended.
- The traditional family: “The way we never were.” [link fixed]
- Let’s not yearn for the Cold War.
NEXT WEEK: Sanctuary cities.
Monday’s Mtg: “Trans-Humanism” – Will/should science reinvent the human species?
If you’ve never heard of Monday’s Halloween-appropriate topic, missing our meeting to trick or treat won’t spare you forever. Science and technology cannot yet enhance human capabilities so radically that any of us could transcend humanity’s natural limits and become Trans-human.
But as the articles below describe, we’re getting there. Major advances are being made in key areas, like genetic engineering, pharmacology, and wearable/implantable technologies for the body and brain. Debates over the bioethics of human enhancement technologies have been raging for years already. There has been at least one Presidential blue ribbon commission on bioethics (GWB’s “Cloning Commission”), and an international Trans-humanist movement that has sprung up. The call is coming from inside the house.
Panning Trans-humanists types as over-the-top techno-optimists is easy and fun. But, I think Aaron’s topic ideas is a great one. The ethical, religious, and political implications of it are fascinating, IMO. I’ll be at the meeting. But Aaron will introduce the topic and preside and I look forward to a very interesting discussion of our possible Gattaca-like, Brave New World.
SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –
- The frontiers that might lead us to “Trans-humanism:”
- The science and ethics of human enhancement. Good intro, but 13pp.
- Building a better you. Shorter, NYT.
- Wiki’s Trans-humanism entry.
- When will we know we are in a post-human age? Recommended.
- We are already more enhanced by technology than we realize.
- In support of Trans-humanism:
- It would not erode belief in social and political equality.
- Opposition is mainly scaremongering, says the libertarian Reason Magazine (more from same source).
- Opposed:
- We must resist our eugenic impulses. Recommended.
- We must stop well-short of radical enhancements to our species.
- Related issue: How much longevity is too long?
Next Week (Nov 7): Hillary Clinton and feminism’s successes, failures, and future.
Monday’s Mtg: Will Space Colonization Ever Happen?
Despite terrorist attacks and other dramatic day-today events, both life and the business of public policy go on. Zelekha suggested we talk about the future of space exploration, with an emphasis on one of its more intriguing (if highly speculative) aspects: The potential for human colonization of space. With any luck, we will have a very knowledgeable guest speaker on the topic.
NASA has been busy exploring Mars and other parts of our solar system in the past few years, and other nations plan to start doing so. A NASA manned mission to Mars is planned for the 2030s as part of a comprehensive plan for future space exploration that the agency issued just last month. A private sector consortium wants to send an 80-person 80,000 [tomato, tomahto] colony to Mars within a few decades, although its plans have been widely panned.
We may have a guest speaker for Monday who is very knowledgeable on space exploration. Robert Lock, Carl’s son and my old friend from high school, is an engineer at the Jet Propulsion Lab in Pasadena. Robert has worked on various deep space probe missions at JPL for decades. He will be able to fill us in on NASA’s future plans for exploring the solar system, as well as give us a basic tutorial on what makes colonizing space so difficult and expensive a proposition.
Carl and I are still trying to secure Rob’s presence on Monday. In the meantime, here are some basic articles on the space program and the promise and peril of colonization.
Discussion Questions –
- WHAT: What is planned in space exploration in the coming decades? By NASA? By the U.S. private sector? By other countries?
- COLONIZATION:
- Is anybody seriously studying colonizing space in our lifetimes?
- What has the research concluded?
- WHY: Why try to colonize space, anyway? Pros and cons.
- HOW: What are the big technical barriers to colonization? The biggest cost and political barriers?
- NASA’s future in general.
SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –
- Our 2011 mtg on space exploration focused on Obama space plan, especially privatizing parts of it.
- General articles on colonizing space: Recommended.
- Will we ever colonize Mars? (Universe Today Mag)
- How about on the moon? (Discover Mag)
- Wiki entries: Space Colonization + Colonization of Mars.
- Why colonize space at all?
- We must colonize Mars despite the huge cost. Recommended.
- Because earth’s long term safety is in danger.
- Wrong. We should NOT even try, says a UCSD astrophysicist. Recommended!
- NASA’s Mars plan of 10/15:
- What’s in it.
- GOP hates it. (Note: The real target = Gut NASA climate research budget)
- Private sector plans to go to/colonize Mars.
Next Week: Is the United Nations Worth Having?
Monday’s Mtg: The Transgendered in America.
Transgendered Americans historically have been among the most marginalized and persecuted among us, and they still are. Yet, slowly, the country is waking up to the existence of transgendered (TG) people and some degree of acceptance is geminating in the mass culture. The actions of a few, high-profile celebrities like Caitlyn Jenner and Laverne Cox (the Orange Is the New Black actress) have helped to ease the process forward.
Politically, change is in the air too. President Obama’s Justice Department has interpreted Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to apply to TG-Americans. Obamacare basically bans discrimination in health insurance. The Pentagon will lift the ban on trans soldiers. The LGBT movement is taking TG rights seriously, including them in the broader struggle. I’ve read articles that say transgender equality is the next frontier of civil rights.
But, it’s a tough sell to millions of Americans. The transgendered are a small, little understood, and historically despised and feared group. Discrimination is widespread and not at all a social taboo in many parts of the country. Bathroom use seems to freak out some people, especially.
My goal for Monday’s meeting is pretty basic, since I do not know much about this subject myself: A little education. Plus maybe it would be useful to discuss how our society traditionally defines gender and the challenge that TG people pose to this definition. The idea that a person has the right to define for him/herself which gender he/she (rather than have it defined for them by the shape of their genitals and society) is the core moral question, is my understanding. I also would like to get into the politics of TG equality, especially in California. I believe our state has been a controversial pioneer in adding TG to anti-discrimination and public accommodation laws.
Discussion Questions –
- What does being transgender mean? What other terms are used these days to describe the spectrum of gender ID and sexuality?
- How many TG Americans are there, and where and how do they live?
- How bad is persecution? Why does it happen? Why does TGs’ existence bother so many people?
- How quickly are cultural norms of acceptance changing?
- What legal protections exist for the transgendered? Are any of the political demands of the transgendered community unreasonable? What arguments are made in opposition other than just, “ew, it’s gross?”
SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –
- What does transgender mean?
- Transgender terminology. Or, see here for even more complexity and, maybe a sense of why all of this might be unsettling to traditionalists.
- Transgender people FAQ, from an advocacy org. Recommended.
- Seven questions you were afraid to ask.
- Or: Just skim Wiki entry on transgender.
- Are they “born that way?” Great but long.
- Discrimination:
- Levels are staggering as is the suicide rate.
- Long list of issues TG people have to deal with. Click on a few issues.
- Bathroom use (told you) is a flash point. Bill O’Reilly’s War on Urinals.
- Caitlyn Jenner helps but we are NOT at a transgender tipping point. Recommended.
- The LGBT movement has lagged in taking the “T” seriously.
- Conservative POV:
- Gender dysphoria is a psychiatric disorder and should be so treated.
- More on this POV from – weirdly – the Federalist Society.
- [Update: Those were kind of nasty and sneering. Sorry. Here is a rebuttal to their claim that many trans people regret their surgeries; only about 2%-5% do, apparently.]
Next Week: Why are so many people on govt disability programs?
Monday’s Mtg: Which Natural or Human-Made Catastrophes Should Most Worry Us?
This one is a fun albeit a bit dark topic idea from Bruce. Our meeting Monday is three days after 9/11, and a mass casualty terrorist attack is a real possibility. (ISIS is using chemical weapons as we speak.). Preventing another 9/11 or worse has been a necessary obsession of the national establishment every hour of every day for many years now.
But, what about other natural or human-caused catastrophes, Bruce asks? Which one(s) of them should also concern us a lot and which ones really just belong on overwrought History Network episodes or in Zombie Apocalypse movies? Obviously, climate change should be high up on the list. Many people think it IS the list. Others are long-standing fears, like nuclear war, pandemics, and mega-earthquakes. Still others are more cutting edge and speculative, like a disaster stemming from nanotechnology or out-of-control artificial intelligence. We could all end up being Sarah Connor.
For Monday, I would like us to do better than a History channel episode by focusing on something more tangible than scary speculation: Disaster risk assessment and planning. Disaster preparation is a vast field, and was high priority long before 9/11. (Visit FEMA’s website to get a hint of the scale and scope of it.) The first article I link to below summarizes a study that, I think, analyzes the risks of different big cats in a systematic way. I will read it and other basic stuff on disaster planning and try to open our meeting with some information on how the pros worry about these things.
We are discussing climate change on October 5, but the focus will be on ongoing international negotiations, not projected impacts. So, the links on climate this week are brief and concern the risks of not acting (which are often ignored, BTW).
Discussion Questions –
- Which ones: What are the worst natural or human-made catastrophes that experts fear could occur? What is the conventional wisdom on their probability and impacts?
- Assessing Risk: Whose job (in govt and the private and non-profit sectors) is it to assess these risks? How do they do it?
- Prevention I: Who is doing what? How do we know it’s enough?
- Prevention II: How willing are Americans to pay for disaster prevention and have their lives inconvenienced to prepare for them?
- Responses: How do you think Americans would react if a big catastrophe struck us? How would it change our politics?
SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –
- The 12 things most likely to destroy the world. #1 recommended. Note: Excludes Donald Trump.
- The disasters emergency planning pros most worry about. Recommended.
- The ones people in other countries worry most about. Note regional patterns.
- Climate risks –
- FYI, predicted impacts are simply terrifying.
- The high cost of doing nothing. Recommended.
- Europe’s refugee problem? Just you wait.
- Other specific catastrophes:
- Mega-quake could destroy the Pacific Northwest. Wow.
- Pandemic is the event most likely to kill 20+ million people.
- New Orleans faces multiple terrible threats.
- Over-rated threats – maybe.
- You should make a household disaster preparedness plan, says the Red Cross.
Next Week: Natural rights’ existence and implications.
Monday’s Mtg: Anti-Science Views of the U.S. Right and Left
Ali’s idea finally arrives! I imagine our immigrant from Iraq member suggested this topic because he has been shocked to learn how ignorant Americans are about science and how often those beliefs influence public policy.
Me, too. Public ignorance of basic scientific principles and facts is kind of legendary in this country. We have touched on it tangentially before, but not really since 2011 meetings on anti-intellectualism and the politicizing of science. We’re going to debate my pet peeve, political ignorance, on September 28. So, our summer of ignorance will be a long one.
As for science, we all can name a few big areas of illiteracy that make it into the news on a regular basis because it they impact politics and public affairs.
- Climate change denialism.
- Anti-evolution/creationism.
- Vaccines.
- Genetically-modified organism (GMO) food.
There are others. I’ve met people in recent years that believe the government and/or corporations are dispersing harmful chemicals nationwide in a deliberate effort to increase the rate of disease. Pro-life advocates believe abortions cause breast cancer and the pill is an abortifacient (the AMA and American Cancer Society disagree). Bruce, our neurologist, has mentioned before that a lot of his patients want only “natural” treatments, rather than those icky pharmaceuticals with their industry-bought scientific studies. Abstinence only education. Fluoridated water.
Anyway, I think we should start off on Monday by getting some facts of our own. I’m going to do some research on how many Americans actually believe the major scientific fallacies I listed above. Then, we can debate what to me are the really important questions, like who encourages people to believe this stuff, and why do some anti-science views end up influencing public policy while others do not? Do “both sides really do it” equally?
Discussion Questions –
- How many Americans hold flat-earthly wrong views on the major scientific questions of our day? Has it gotten worse or better in recent decades?
- How do these opinions break down by Right and Left, politically? When is ideology/partisanship a driver of ignorance and when is it just coincidence?
- Who in positions of influence is abetting this scientific illiteracy? Politicians? Religious authorities? News Media? Bogus think tanks? People making money off the ignorance?
- Who cares? Which anti-sci views are hurting us all by influencing public policy (e.g., climate) or third parties (e.g., anti-vaccine)
- What can be done? Better science education? Better news media? Less craven politicians?
SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –
- WHO:
- It’s not just science [link fixed]: Many Americans believe in all kinds of conspiracy theories and wild claims, from vaccines cause autism (20%), Roswell UFO (21%), to Obama is the Antichrist (13%).
- Science denial is bipartisan, at least for individuals. Either recommended.
- WHY: Must-reads.
- The science of why we don’t believe science.
- Politics: Climate change views are highly partisan, but opinion on other big science issues is split more by age, education, and other factors.
- WHEN IT MATTERS:
- Anti-science views become “political” when they becomes an agenda item for the party in question. Recommended.
- Anti-science beliefs threaten American democracy! (Recommended but long, Scientific American,).
- WHICH SIDE IS WORSE?
- Conservatives say the Left is more anti-science than the Right but the media won’t report it.
Hooey. Modern conservatism is fundamentally anti-science.[Update: Read this one instead.]Recommended- Anti-science views dominate the GOP Congress and they have BIG plans. Recommended.
- IDEA: Wouldn’t you love to see this?
Next Week: Wrongful Criminal Convictions.
Monday’s Mtg: Can Science Explain the Mind?
We have another, excellent learn-from-Bruce meeting this week. Our resident neurologist will lecture on what science knows about the human consciousness. How close is science to knowing whether our self-awareness/sentience is an epiphenomenon of the physical structures and functioning of our brains? Is there any room left for an incorporeal, human consciousness, either divinely-created or in some other way non-physical?
To most of us secular types, the answer is clear: Anything we don’t know about the human mind we someday will know. Everything that exists in our consciousness has a physical analog, evolving naturally. Evolution invented us and then we invented “us.” Many religious people seethe at this POV, considering it arrogant and, at most, unprovable. Hopefully, Bruce can help us seculars better understand what it is we’re so damned sure about.
I – whoever and whatever that is – am really looking forward to this one. Below are a few inks of general interest googled by me. I will add in any readings Bruce suggests later this weekend.
There is a small chance I won’t be there again. But, again, not for lack of interest.
SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –
Via Bruce:
- Theories of how the brain works.
- The “hard problem” of consciousness.
- Higher order theories of consciousness.
- Optogenetics: Controlling the brain with light (5- minute video).
- A problem: Are the results of neuroscientific studies unreliable?
- Behavioral neuroscience (Wiki explains what it is).
From me (they just seemed a little easier)
- The riddle of consciousness.
- Different theories of consciousness.
Next Week: Nuclear Negotiating with Iran.
Monday’s Mtg: What Is Intelligence?
Bruce will moderate this meeting. I think it is a good topic for integrating science with our personal experiences. So many libraries have been filled with books on what intelligence is that I wasn’t sure where t start. So, some of the links below are via Bruce and others are ones I found. My impression is that Bruce is particularly interested in some theories of concerning intelligence that some of us might find controversial. Politics is everywhere.
I’ll see you all Monday night
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
- What are the major theories of intelligence? Are there different kinds of intelligence? Or, is there just one intelligence (a G factor) and we see different aspects of it?
- How do they measure intelligence? How accurate are the tests? What are they really measuring?
- Variability: How does intelligence vary between people and across cultures? Why do IQ levels in a society tend to rise over time (the Flynn effect)?
- How does intelligence change as we age?
SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –
- Major theories of what intelligence is. Shorter description here. Recommended overviews.
- Latest research findings, via Bruce. Just read the italicized summary of key findings in the first few paragraphs.
- More on Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences, via Bruce
- More on the “G factor” in a 20-min. video, by coiner of the term, Arthur Jensen.
- The Flynn effect: Recommended
- Explained by Wiki.
- Don’t over-state what IQ scores mean.
- Does intelligence determine success in life? The Terman study.
- Bell Curve: The IQ theories of Charles Murray (Bruce likes him, links are mine)
- A partial defense of it. At least some of it hold up 20 years later.
- No, Murray was sloppy and wrong from the beginning.
- POST-MTG UPDATE: John M. wanted me to add these perspectives on Murray:
- How the Media gave undeserved credibility to Murray’s “racist and pseudo-scientific book.”
- John’s own investigation that aired on ABC News of shady sources behind the evidence that Murray used in his book.
- A Slate Magazine critique of The Bell Curve.
- Does intelligence peak around age 50? Me not like.
Next Week: Bill Clinton: How good a president was he?
Monday’s Mtg: Why Did the West “Beat the Rest?” Was It Culturally Superior?
I think this will be the first topic we’ve done suggested by Ali. It’s a good one. Already I’m learning that how Europe came to dominate the globe in the last 200 (as opposed to another region of the world, like Asia or Africa or Latin America) is a hugely controversial topic. You may, like me, know a bit about the “how the West beat the rest” issue from reading one of the popular history books on the subject that have been written in the last 20 years. Maybe you read Guns, Germs, and Steel (Jared Diamond), or Civilization: The West and the Rest (Niall Ferguson), or maybe you’re old-school and prefer Max Weber’s Protestant work ethic theory. There are many other theorists and theories, it seems.
Even if you’ve never pondered the reasons for the West’s century+ of dominance, you’ve got to admit it’s an intriguing question. Why did Cortes and Pizarro sail west and conquer the Aztecs and Incas and not the other way around? Why didn’t India colonize Great Britain? What lurched Europe forward and held the rest back? And, what do the answers tell us about the 21st century, with China and India and others becoming major powers in their own right while other countries still lag or go backwards?
There are many theories. Ali asks us to consider one that has been debated for a century, albeit sometimes with discomfort: Was the key reason for its success simply that the West had a superior culture – or at least a culture that led much more quickly to industrial and military development? Other theories discount culture. They say the reason for Western dominance had more to do with geography, resource endowments, financial organization, or just plain luck or path dependency (I’ll explain what that is).
Anyway, I’m looking forward to another good meeting that integrates history, sociology, and politics. Ali: If you want to open the meeting just let me know. Otherwise, I’ll do a brief summary of the main schools of thought to the extent I’m familiar with them.
SUGGESTED BACKGROUND READING –
The West got there first because it had…
- Favorable geography and natural resources: The Guns, Germs, and Steel thesis. Recommended.
- Two specific resources: Coal to fuel their machines, and access to the vast resources of the New World. If not for these, Europe would not have surged ahead and conquered.
- No (Niall Ferguson). It was six big cultural and technical advantages: Competition among its many small nations, rule of law and property rights, science, medicine, consumerism, and a better work ethic. Recommended.
- More detail on Protestant work ethic.
- These six other/same factors (Jack Goldstone).
- Colonialism. Colonization destroyed indigenous scientific revolutions and infrastructure. Recommended.
Next Week: Why are so many rhetorically–valued jobs so low-paying? (Zelekha’s idea)
Recent Comments