Time-Locked Into the Human Condition

I wrote this for a class recently. The prompt was along the lines of discussing time through stories.

The human condition is marked by deficiencies. We have a psychological need for understanding our place within the context of how we naturally perceive time as flowing. That is: the past once was but is no longer, the present is, the future is not yet but will be. We live with the decisions we have made and anticipate future decisions which have not been made. Thus both the past and the future are treated as pseudo-existing in some way which is less real than the present.

The true nature of time may not be this way. There is a movement among physicists that time is more properly perceived as part of a “block universe”. This view suggests that the past is just as real as the present is just as real as the future – there is no “flow” of time. This is the “eternalism” view of time (Dowden pp. 150). But whatever the true nature of time, humans are doomed to experience it as a flow. That experience leaves us with needs.

There are two facets to our needs in this regard. The first is the social aspect addressing the issue from the perspective of society, and the second is the psychological aspect addressing the issue from the perspective of an individual person. We can glean insight from analyzing humanity through how we act as a group as well as how we act as distinct persons within a group.

In the social aspect, stories largely satisfy this need by providing role models for individuals to emulate. Stories have served this function since ancient times through examples like “the perfect husband” in the Bhagavad Gita, a Hindu holy text. Ancient mythology is often still used as a source of role models for many people in contemporary society. When one speaks of Job, the listener is probably already aware of the story of suffering. When one wears a “What Would Jesus Do” bracelet, there is no confusion about the distinction meant between a Hispanic person named Jesus and Jesus of Nazareth as depicted in Christian mythology. Humans have formed groups and created stories for the individuals throughout all of human history.

There is no need to limit the focus to ancient mythology; stories are still being created which provide role models to emulate. For example: the rate of people wanting to join the Navy as Naval Aviators rose 500 percent after the film Top Gun was released. Top Gun provided the role model of Maverick as an ideal of bravery, courage and confidence. Because people were presented with those ideals they changed their course of action in an effort to live up to those ideals.

The second way of looking at the need is from the psychological standpoint, from the perspective of an individual person. We need to learn how to attain meaning in a life which has an end. Because this need is part of the human condition we have many stories to show us comfort and wisdom.

Sometimes they tell us that our life doesn’t end – these are largely religious stories. The need can also be satisfied through stories which show us characters which face the end of time and work to prevent that end, symbolizing our own secret desire to beat death. Or stories which show us characters which have somehow lost the meaningfulness of time and the experience serves to show us just how valuable time is.

There is a common thread throughout these sorts of stories. They generally take what’s first perceived as a weakness – life is futile, fleeting and meaningless – and turn it on it’s head to produce a story which tells us that it’s very fleeting nature of time which makes it so incredibly valuable.

In the television show Angel, the main character says it thus:

If there is no great glorious end to all this, if - nothing we do matters, - then all that matters is what we do. 'cause that's all there is. What we do, now, today. I fought for so long. For redemption, for a reward - finally just to beat the other guy, but... I never got it.

The theme in this excerpt, and in the stories we are examining generally, is that by accepting the frailty of life we are able to truly value life.

To get a better understanding of precisely how stories do this, and how it relates to the role of stories in our culture, the role of time, and the role of humanity coping with the human condition, we’re going to be examining 4 stories. First, it is important to understand that when stories are referred to as mythological it is not a pejorative term. A mythological story is one which is spiritually or psychologically meaningful, the term does not pass judgment on the truth value of the story. The stories are:

• The mythological stories in the Christian Bible as understood by the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod (LCMS)
• The mythological stories in the Christian Bible as understood by the Jehovah's Witnesses (JW)
• The fictional story explained in the film Groundhog Day.
• The fictional story explained in the television show Doctor Who, specifically the two-part episode “The End of Time”

The first is a religious story. It’s the understanding of the LCMS based on the Christian Bible. It’s an amillennialist position, meaning that the portions of the Christian Bible which refer to Christ having a literal 1,000 year reign on Earth is properly interpreted as symbolic. The reign is introduced in the Christian Bible in Revelations 20 (NIV)

They [martyrs] came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.

They believe that the reign is a spiritual reign rather than a physical reign. Thus they embrace the idea of eternal existence in a form similar to this existence but also different from this existence. They also do not believe that how we spend our time on Earth (when it comes to behaving morally) is enough to guarantee an eternal life of bliss. They teach that while everyone has an eternal existence, not every eternal existence is desirable.

The LCMS does adopt the basics of general Christian eschatological (“a belief concerning death, the end of the world, or the ultimate destiny of humankind”) beliefs. This is to say that the Christian God (properly conceived as part of the Trinity) will bring all true Christian believers into Heaven where they will live in bliss for eternity. And an adverse fate awaits people who are not true believers: they will suffer an eternity of conscious torment in Hell.

LCMS has formed their beliefs on the state of persons after biological death based closely on the Christian Bible. One of the key verses is Mark 16:16 (NIV): “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned”. The word “saved” in this context refers to God saving a person from Hell. As Romans 6:23 (NIV) says: “the wages of sin is death”. Death in this context does not refer to biological death, rather it refers to death meaning Hell. This is clarified in Revelation 21:8 (NIV):

“But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and the liars – they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.

This idea that the default destination is Hell is reinforced in Revelation 20:15 (ESV): “And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire”. So the LCMS believe that persons are inherently deserving of leaving this reality and entering into one where, according to Revelation 20:10 (NIV), “They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever”.

The other side of this belief is that those who follow the necessary steps are destined for Heaven. The idea is clarified in Psalm 16:10-11 (NIV):

because you will not abandon me to the realm of the dead, nor will you let your faithful one see decay. You make known to me the path of life; you will fill me with joy in your presence, with eternal pleasures at your right hand.

Keeping in mind that death in the following context refers to a second death (i.e., existing in Hell), the idea is further clarified in 1 Corinthians 15:26 (NIV): “The last enemy to be destroyed is death”.

Interpreting the Christian Bible in this way leads to an overarching story that the best way for humans to cope with experiencing time is to realize that this existence is only temporary. That the moral rules of nature, given to us by the moral law-maker (the Christian God), are set up in such a way that persons deserve eternal punishment without the law-maker intervening on their behalf. This means that the common notion that biological death means an end to experiencing time is false. We can escape the second death (Hell) but only through following the proper steps. This leads to an interpretation of John 3:16 (NIV) that when it says “whoever believes in [God] shall not perish but have eternal life” that while not everyone will have eternal life (i.e., not everyone will experience time in Heaven for eternity) that everyone will have eternal life (i.e., continue to experience time for all of eternity).

By contrast, the Jehovah’s Witnesses (JW) consider themselves to be millennialists. They base their beliefs on the Christian Bible, but they interpret it very differently from how the LCMS interprets it. JW believes that Christ returned in October 1914, but that Christ returned invisibly. They chose that date based on Christian Biblical chronology, specifically Daniel 4.

Because JW and LCMS are based on the same book they’ll share many characteristics. For example, both believe in the Christian God. They have different perceptions of God, however. LCMS theology teaches that God is properly understood as part of the Trinity (that is: God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) while JW theology teaches that God is properly understood as one being. LCMS teaches that God is omnipresent (present everywhere) and omniscient (all-knowing) while JW theology teaches that God is one being who is not omnipresent and not omniscient.

They also differ in their eschatological beliefs. JW theology teaches that 144,000 people will ascend to Heaven to live in bliss for eternity, that practicing JW believers who aren’t chosen to be among those 144,000 will spend eternity on a Paradise Earth, while people who haven’t been chosen to ascend to Heaven or experience a Paradise Earth will simply cease to exist. By contrast, LCMS teaches that all who have accepted Christ will be saved. They clarify by saying in the Doctrinal Issues – Salvation portion of their website:

Paul is not contradicting his continual emphasis in all his writings, including Romans, that a person is saved not by what he does, but by faith in what Christ does for him. Rather, he is discussing the principle of judgment according to deeds. Judgment will be rendered according to one's deeds in the sense that the good works of thebeliever give evidence that he has faith. Good works, which are seen, give evidence of faith, which isunseen.

So religious stories, at least the ones this paper will be addressing, tend to meet the psychological need by believing that the end of time – whether viewed through the perspective of an individual as a coherent biological being or through the perspective of ongoing human experience – is not necessarily the genuine end of an individual experiencing time. The individual suffers biological death and yet the soul persists. Ongoing human experience now takes place in a place of bliss rather than strife, but it still continues in a different sort of way.

The idea that we as persons persist after our biological death stands in sharp contrast with a materialist perspective. The materialist perspective is that “Everything that actually exists is material, or physical” which means that souls do not exist, God does not exist, the phrase “life after death” is self-contradictory, and so on. While the term religion can be notoriously difficult to precisely define, most religions reject a materialist worldview. They usually accept that material physical objects exist, but also that the spiritual exists. As an extension of this, they treat a materialist conception of time, and understanding time, as being being a less-than-full accounting of the nature of time in relation to persons experiencing time.

Religious stories about vary in their details but they overwhelmingly have a theme of accepting that our biological bodies and their existence are real but that something like a soul exists in addition. By inserting the concept of something in addition to the physical body they are opening the door to an individual experiencing biological death without experiencing true death of the self. They introduce a new twist: time doesn’t end; whether that’s desirable for you as an individual depends on how closely you’re following the rules.

They also help people learn how to behave. By codifying a set of laws and adding an addendum that the reward for following the rules is eternal life, and that the punishment for not following the rules is eternal punishment, they become very powerful tools when shaping people's behavior.

Interestingly, they can shape people's behavior even if the person is not a believer but merely has been exposed to these stories. For example, one study suggests that when voters are near churches that they are more likely to profess a belief in God and more likely to give conservative opinions (ABC News). The link between stories and human psychology appears to be a fundamental link that significantly affects us. More importantly, these stories change the concept of time in order to change how people view time and consequently how to use time.

The third story is the film Groundhog Day. This story is different in that rather than a divine intervention warning of a future event, the key revelation in our comprehension of time comes without warning and without any description. Humanity doesn’t ascend to another level of reality, nor does time reach an end. The story describes the protagonist as a shallow person who isn’t appreciative of the gift of time. Perhaps the best way to illustrate this quickly is to say that the protagonist holds the opposite of the perspective advocated by the character Jean Luc Picard in Star Trek: Generations:

Someone once told me that time was a predator that stalked us all our lives, but I rather believe that time is a companion who goes with us on the journey and reminds us to cherish every moment because they'll never come again. What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived. After all, Number One, we're only mortal.

The protagonist of Groundhog Day rather views time as a background in which one operates egotistically.

Groundhog Day eliminates the invisible privilege that we, and the protagonist, experience. The film forces the character to relive the same day constantly, some estimates have put the time experienced as long as 10,000 years! So it takes away the meaningfulness of time for the main character.

Instead of presenting time in the traditional linear fashion, it presents time in a very cyclical fashion. It highlights the mundane uses of time which we take for granted and makes it so that the very mundaneness becomes the most significant thing in the world. It is a way of demonstrating meaningfulness in life by changing how we perceive time.

This is different from the religious stories in that they essentially say “this life is meaningless

The End of Time is a two part episode from the television show Doctor Who. It is epic and expansive, but I want to focus on one episode. In the Doctor Who universe there are alien races. One of those races are called the Time Lords. They are very similar to humans (i.e., they are persons, they appear in a human body, they eat and drink, etc) but also different (i.e., they are near immortal, they have two hearts, etc). The show exploits those differences to shine new light on human experiences. For example, the Time Lords can regenerate under most circumstances. This is an incredibly helpful device for the mechanics of producing a show about one person which first aired in 1963. More than that, it is helpful because it presents death in a similar light as many of the religious stories. Which is to say that death occurs but that the common notion of death as ending life is incorrect.

When a Time Lord is set on the course of events that would traditionally result in death (i.e., fatal but with the clarification that it is not necessarily going to be fatal) they engage in a process of rebirth or regeneration. Their physical body is transformed into a new adult physical body and yet the Time Lord retains his or her essence. The Time Lord, for example, retains memories and yet adopts a new personality. One of the recurring lines in the show demonstrates that they have no control about choosing their new body when the Doctor announces “I'm still not ginger!”.

This is similar to the religious stories because the person (not human, but person) experiences the end of his or her biological death – what traditionally means the end of experiencing time – and yet his or her essence exists after biological death. It is different in that the religious stories rest on the idea of humans moving to a new reality, while the Time Lords stay in their reality. There are small comparisons to changing reality since one's reality is largely determined by how one perceives reality (i.e., a person with a happy personality will perceive reality in a more positive light, a tall person will perceive reality from a slightly higher position, and so on) but the essential notion of transitioning to a new reality is lost.

There is also a comparison between Ecclesiastes 1 and one of the general themes of Doctor Who. The exact age of The Doctor is unclear but he has said that he has lived several thousands years and on another occasion 953 years. His experiences during those years – specifically his losses – have given him a wise and often tragic perspective. This is mirrored in Ecclesiastes 1:16-18 (NIV):

I said to myself, “Look, I have increased in wisdom more than anyone who has ruled over Jerusalem before me; I have experienced much of wisdom and knowledge.” Then I applied myself to the understanding of wisdom, and also of madness and folly, but I learned that this, too, is a chasing after the wind. For with much wisdom comes much sorrow; the more knowledge, the more grief

There is a parallel between the two stories in that they both include figures who have experienced time – and not merely passively experienced it, but rather fully lived it – and accordingly have wise perspectives on the meaningfulness or meaningless of this existence. The religious stories conclude that the wise perspective is that this life is without meaning, or at least that this life derives meaning from another life. Doctor Who concludes that while life can be tragic, and existence absurd, that striving to make life better for others is the most meaningful way of using one's time.

In the episode we are focusing on, almost the entire Time Lord race is trapped inside a “time bubble”. They are unable to come out of it and into the world except through ending time. They exist, but in a different dimension where they are unable to interact with the rest of reality outside their bubble. They are “time-locked” into their own existence.

They find a loophole and find that they are able to interact with the outside reality through a subconscious message with one of the only two Time Lords who are not trapped in the time bubble. The problem is that by breaking out of the time bubble they will be destroying Earth and its inhabitants thereby ending time from the perspective of humanity.

The protagonist of the show, known simply as “The Doctor”, is faced with the choice of bringing his race back into existence from the time bubble and ending the ability of humans to experience time, or allowing his race to be sentenced to an eternity of being trapped. One of the common themes throughout the show is the loneliness of The Doctor so the idea of having his race back is very attractive. But, in the end, he chooses to send his race back into the time bubble and thus preserving the ability of humans to experience time.

All of the stories take different approaches to highlighting the necessity of humans spending their time wisely. The religious stories call attention to the fleeting nature of time (as experienced by an individual) by contrasting it with the idea of eternity. Groundhog Day accomplishes the same thing by taking away what is significant about time: our ignorance of future events and ability to make choices changing the future. The End of Time does it by presenting The Doctor with something he deeply needs but can only achieve at the expense of the ability of humans to experience time.

The stories have a recurring theme of demonstrating some sort of impending doom: being sentenced on Judgment Day, brought about by biological death; being forced to relive the same day eternally; the end of humanity brought about by inaction on behalf of The Doctor. And then they demonstrate how this doom can be averted: following the proper steps; becoming a better person; sending the Time Lords back into their time bubble. It is a combination of first demonstrating some need and then providing a way for individuals to meet that need.

What allows an individual to use a story to meet that need is the ability to draw a correlation from the story into a need that is already present. This requires a slight qualification in that the religious stories present themselves as literally true while the other two stories present themselves as fiction. But what gives meaning to a mythological story is that it is meaningful to humans sharing this existence not whether its claims are ultimately true. So in one sense mythological stories are meaningful because they provide instructions relevant for the next life, but in the sense I am using the word they are meaningful because they give meaning to humans in this life.

Religious stories provide insight into the nature of the cosmos, ethics, the meaning of the concept death and generally providing guidance and comfort – or fear, but that is just as consequential – to humans. We have an innate need to understand what causes things to happen. This specific need manifests itself both in the how and the why. For example: how do tornadoes work (i.e., what is the description of the natural process) as well as why a tornado struck one house and not the other (i.e., why did the natural process behave that way instead of another?). So while humans do not have an innate need for, say, the name of God, they do have an innate need which is satisfied by religious stories which include details like the name of God. They create a need to satisfy in the sense that they create the proper steps one needs to take to avoid Hell. But in the course of satisfying the need they have created, they satisfy other needs inherent in the human condition.

The same applies to the fictional stories. In Groundhog Day they create the need for the protagonist to break out of the cycle of repeating the same day, and they satisfy that need by having the protagonist become a better person. This is meaningful because humans already have an inherent need to deal with repeating days (that is: existence) and an innate need to understand how one should behave towards others. The film makes a comparison between the need created and the need inherent, and then provides the solution to both needs: existence isn't futile, and we should treat people with kindness.

In Doctor Who they create the need of saving humanity at great cost to The Doctor. It presents the choice of fulfilling the ultimate desire at great cost to other persons, or to act selflessly and deny one's own desires in order to benefit other persons. This ties into the human need to understand selfishness and whether time is best spent helping others or fulfilling our own selfish desires. In addition to the general theme of the episode, a portion of dialogue between The Doctor and a human named Wilfred. Wilfred chose to enter into a small radiation chamber which is about to be filled with radiation. The only way out is if The Doctor enters the adjoining radiation chamber and locks himself inside. The Doctor has a choice of allowing Wilfred to be killed by the imminent flood of radiation or absorb it himself, but if he absorbs it himself then he will have to regenerate. While he won't lose his essence, he will lose his personality which is a large part of his identity.

WILFRED: Look, just leave me.DOCTOR: Okay, right then, I will. Because you had to go in there, didn't you? You had to go and get stuck, oh yes. Because that's who you are, Wilfred. You were always this. Waiting for me all this time.WILFRED: No really, just leave me. I'm an old man, Doctor. I've had my time.DOCTOR: Well, exactly. Look at you. Not remotely important. But me? I could do so much more. So much more! But this is what I get. My reward. And it's not fair! Oh. Oh. I've lived too long.WILFRED: No. No, no, please, please don't. No, don't! Please don't! Please!DOCTOR: Wilfred, it's my honour. Better be quick. Three, two, one.

The Doctor has faced the larger issue of sacrifice and now is presented with a smaller scale reward. Wilfred is old, he chose to enter the chamber, he is a human. The Doctor just saved the human race; he deserves a reward not death.

So while Doctor Who has created a need in the sense of impending doom of humanity and then the death of Wilfred, that need is mirrored in the pre-existing human need of learning about selflessness. In both instances The Doctor freely chooses to sacrifice – both the return of his race and then his identity – on behalf of others. The ultimate desire is shown not to be fulfilling a selfish desire, rather the ultimate desire is to freely sacrifice on behalf of others. It is only through sacrifice that we can achieve meaning in life. This satisfies the inherent need of humans to learn how to achieve meaning in life.

There is also a more general need innate in humanity: the need for life having significance. Religious stories tell us that this life is significant because how behavior and beliefs will influence ourselves after we undergo biological death. The details vary, to be sure, but that is the gist. This is particularly present in the theology of the JW. They emphasize evangelizing based on Matthew 28:19-20, when Jesus of Nazareth said:

“Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

They emphasize that using time meaningfully means, to a large degree, spreading their religion.

Groundhog Day satisfies this need pointing out that being able to experience time is a privilege. By taking away that privilege it uses contrast to demonstrate the significance of experiencing time. We see the transformation of the character from egotistical and unable to appreciate life, to egotistical and still unable to appreciate life (once he is in the loop), to selfless and finally able to appreciate the gift of time's apparent flow. It directly addresses the difficulty of finding meaning in a finite life by showing how undesirable an infinite life is.

The End of Time illustrates the same need by setting up a scenario in which a powerful moral person is forced to choose between humans experiencing time and something he needs. It is a bit different in that the protagonist is not strictly speaking human, but it is fairly obvious that The Doctor is meant to represent humans. By making his choice and sacrificing so much he is able to help others appreciate the gift of time.

The other common thread is that these stories generally rely on privileged information. This takes the form of privileged experiences. In the religious stories the privileged experiences are caused by the divine, and the authors of the Bible are privy to the information. By sharing that information with people who lacked the experience, they are able to help them learn what is important about life and how we spend it.

The fictional stories also rely on privileged information. In The End of Time, The Doctor is the one who has access to special information. The sort of privileged experience is a bit different in form, however. Rather than being told something from an outside source the privileged experience comes from a combination of his wisdom from living for such a long time as well as his capability. He is not told some sort of information per se, he is able to form an informed judgment based on his uniqueness as compared to humans. In Groundhog day the main character clearly has access to information that the other characters lack. Specifically, he is able to know what will happen during the day that he is reliving as a loop.

The stories differ in their methodology and intention. But they all highlight something intrinsic to humanity – we experience time as flowing, filtered through our ignorant mammalian brains – and use it as a way question how we should view time in the context of experiencing time. Although we only examined this phenomenon through 4 stories, it is present in many stories. It is a unique way in which humans produce material to help ourselves deal with the absurdity of the human condition: deficiencies and the need to address those deficiencies. To quote Christopher Hitchens:

"I know what's coming, I know no one beats these odds. It's a matter of getting used to that, growing up and realising that you're expelled from your mother's uterus as if shot from a cannon, towards a barn door studded with old nail files and rusty hooks. It's a matter of how you use up the intervening time in an intelligent and ironic way. And try not to do anything dastardly to your fellow creatures."

Even though everyone can not be right simultaneously on precisely how we should appreciate the gift of experiencing time – or if the “barn door studded with old nail files and rusty hooks” even exists! - it appears to be a timeless fact that every thinking person will spend time struggling to find an answer if not The Answer.

Orwellian Freedom Tower. Or: there is a tale that the island people tell...

I turned CNN on the other morning. The people who tend to adopt the viewpoint that "MSNBC is left-wing, FOX is right-wing, therefore objectively reporting means listening to both sides and declaring it a tie". And the other morning they had extensive reporting on "Octomom". I'll save you some time:

1) Her mortgage is in trouble. But that's OK, because "a lot of people are in [this sort of] trouble now". So don't let the latest update on the status of her mortgage bother you.

2) Some people criticize her for having so many children.

3) She "defends herself" against such accusations. She does not appreciate them one bit because they don't know her!

4) There was spilled paint. This paint was spilled by one of her sons, and is not indicative of disrepair which is contrary to what some people said. People need to get off her back because they don't know her!

So, you know, important stuff.

Then they talked to great length about the fact that some people were offended by a speech in a high school. It's all very important and not transitory drama at all. Journalism is alive and well.

Anyway:

They also mentioned the "Freedom Tower". It's the tower that was erected in response to the 9/11 attacks, the wikipedia page tells me that its real name is "One World Trade Center" and that Freedom Tower was its previous name. That's all just background detail, I want to focus on the rationale behind naming it and referring to it as the Freedom Tower even if its official name has been changed.

It bothered me. It took me awhile to figure out exactly why. Then it hit me: they're implying that the 9/11 attacks were attacks on the concept of freedom. Put another way: the 9/11 attacks were motivated by a hatred of freedom. Well, OK, I knew that realization still bothered me but I couldn't figure out exactly why.

What's wrong with characterizing the terror attacks that way? Doesn't Al-Qaeda want to restrict freedom? Aren't they opposed to many of the things that the United States enjoys? Democracy, a secular government (contrary to a wonderfully ignorant poster I saw the other idea which used the ceremonials deist phrase "One Nation Under God" as an argument that *of course* America is a Christian nation designed to be governed according my denomination's interpretation of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament of the Christian Bible except for the bits I don't like, but definitely include the bits we do, and let's add some more and pretend it has some passages about the relations of particular clumps of cells to the concept of personhood - *it's so self evident that our money says so!* But, sigh, I digress), free speech (including both words and actions), and so on. Clearly Al-Qaeda is against all these things, and hates freedom!

Well, if you pay attention to my off-topic rants then you can see where I'm going with this. Al-Qaeda hates freedom, sure. But that isn't what drives religious (using that term instead of the more specific Islamic or Fundamental Islamic helps highlight what I'm trying to say) terrorism is righteousness. A love for righteousness and a desire to please God. Their search for righteousness leads them to believe that the best way to show your devotion to God is to use the government to force everyone adheres to the rules God has given us.

That understanding is somewhat unsettling. But, like so many things, it's the only conclusion I can reach which doesn't leave me with unbearable cognitive dissonance.

That's why it bothered me to hear CNN refer to the Freedom Tower more than it bothered me to hear them report on inane drama-inducing pop culture trivia. I can hear the latter all day long and let it go in one ear and out the other. But when I heard the former something struck in my head, like a mental reflex. I didn't know the precise cause but I knew there was one.

By naming it the Freedom Tower we're using Orwellian language to misrepresent reality. We're framing the issue as something which is easy to swallow: foreign garbed people following a bizarre religion with bizarre customs (AKA outsiders) hate our freedom! In reality, the problem is much closer to our culture. People are willing to hurt others in their search for righteousness. They're willing to do this in ways that seem bizarre to outside observers. It can take the form of blowing up a building. It can take the general form of misrepresentation and ignorance and dogmatic belief concerning abortion or contraception. It can take the specific form of the Catholic Church lying to ignorant Africans and instructing them that condom use increases AIDS transmission. It can take the specific form of a recent Arizona law declaring that every woman who is potentially pregnant (that is: not menstruating or what normal people call "pregnant") will be retroactively declared pregnant.

It takes all sorts of forms. But whether we like it or not, whether we hear all of this and think "well, yeah, because their theology is wrong - that's the problem!" the same thing that motivated the 9/11 attacks is alive and prosperous in our own society. As I said, that can be a bit unsettling. It's certainly more difficult than thinking "9/11 happened because The Outsiders hate freedom!", but I think it's true. And unless we acknowledge this fundamental fact then we'll never be able to have a constructive discussion on how to move on from 9/11.

It's easy to be right in hindsight, but I think this misunderstanding was one of the many factors leading to invading and occupying two predominantly Muslim countries. We as a nation were forced to hold two beliefs: Muslims were responsible for 9/11 because the Quran advocates it, and also Muslims were not responsible for 9/11 because the Quran doesn't advocate it. Many people took the former belief because it's easier. But the truth is neither of those things; the truth is more complicated.

I think it deserves an honest discussion which we can't have as long as we do things like have Freedom Towers. Using that Orwellian language obfuscates (Yes Franklin and Bash, it is a real word) the issue and renders honest conversation impossible. That bothers me.

Europe, Austerity, Interest Rates.

I think it's oversimplified to say that Europe has instituted austerity measures and they've failed. I don't think they've been successful but it's complicated. Also, all of the numbers I'm using I'm completely making up without regard to scale. That being said:

A government can raise money through taxes or by borrowing ("debt-financing"). There are (IMO) legitimate reasons to borrow money to pay for things, and there are (IMO) illegitimate reasons for a government to borrow money. But the bottom line is that governments in Europe often borrowed a lot of money.

A note about interest rates: they could borrow the money cheaply. Which means low interest rates. A low interest rate: borrowing $1,000 for a year and at the end of the year paying back $1,001. A high interest rate: borrowing $1,000 for a year and at the end of the year paying back $1,500. Low-risk borrowers get low interest rates. High-risk borrowers get high interest rate.

Think about loaning to someone you trust versus someone you don't trust. You're willing to loan money to someone you know will pay you back, it's a very safe investment. You're very unwilling to loan money to someone you think will never pay you back. As a way of compensating for this, people charge a lot of money when they're worried they might not get it back, and people charge very little money when they know they'll be paid back.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Example of high-risk borrowers versus low-risk borrowers in real life, using real numbers:

A source for the numbers if you wantto see themyourself, an article on paydayloans and a payday loancalculator

An extremely safe loan is loaning to the US federal government. You can loan them money for a year and earn about .18% interest. Meaning:

• Loan them $100
• In a year you get paid back $100.18

Or from the point of view of the borrower (the US federal government):

• Borrow $100
• In a year pay back $100.18
• Pay an annual interest rate of .18%

A slightly riskier, but still very safe, loan is loaning to a city or county in the US. You can loan them money for a year and earn about .208% interest. Meaning:

• Loan them $100
• In a year you get paid back $100.208

Or from the point of view of the borrower (a city or county in the US)

• Borrow $100
• In a year pay back $100.208
• Pay an annual interest rate of .208%

An extremely risky loan is loaning to someone as a payday loan. Interest rates vary, but let's assume a common interest rate of 15.5%, a loan of $100, and *instead of a year* the loan is only for 2 weeks. Meaning:

• Loan them $100
• In two weeks you get paid back $115.50

Or from the point of view of the borrower (the person getting a payday loan)

• Borrow $100
• In two weeks pay back $115.50
• Pay an annual interest rate of 403% (yes: four hundred and 3; it's not a typo)

So you can see how some people can borrow money easily, only having to pay a little for it. And how some people have difficulty borrowing money, and have to pay out the ass for it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

A government is usually seen as really stable. Meaning you can lend them money without worrying that they'll go bankrupt, and you know they can always pay you back by raising taxes. So the governments in Europe borrowed a lot of money and they borrowed it cheaply and easily.

So a simplified hypothetical budget:

Revenue

$5,000 through taxation

$3,000 through borrowing

Expenses

$7,500 spending

$500 paying loans

Total

Balanced ($0)

Then the financial crisis hit. Suddenly 1) they have to pay more for the money they've borrowed 2) they have to pay more to borrow additional money 3) citizens have less money to pay in taxes 4) more citizens need more support (unemployment, welfare, food stamps, etc)

Now their budget looks like:

Revenue

$4,000 through taxation

$2,000 through borrowing

Expenses

$8,000 spending

$1,000 paying loans

Total

Non-balanced: $3,000 gap

They're taking in $6,000 and spending $9,000. You can't do that!

Which leaves 3 options:

1) Raise taxes. That's unpopular, and it takes money out of the economy at the precise time your economy needs more money. So that's not a good call.

2) Austerity measures. This means spending less. Which means that at the precise time your citizens need help and your economy needs increased spending, you're spending less. So that's not a good call.

3) Borrow more. This will put you farther in debt. The more you borrow, the riskier you become, and the more it costs to borrow. So that's not a good call.

So a lot of governments chose austerity measures. Remember when I mentioned the whole "your economy needs increased spending, you're spending less" problem? Yeah, it's a serious problem.

People spending money is what keeps the economy going. Think of it as lube in an engine that keeps the whole thing running smoothly. You spending money one place gives that person money to spend another place which gives that person money to give you, and so on. It's a giant circle, a smoothly running machine, a well lubed engine.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Simplified example:

Imagine a household composed of two people: Mother Mary and Daughter Diane. The mother owns a lumber yard and the daughter goes to school. Now imagine a business, an ice cream shop owned by Ian.

Mary earns money, she gives $5 to Diane every week. Diane spends $5 at the ice cream shop. That $5 is now Ian's $5. Ian turns it into $6. Ian then spends $6 at the lumber yard. Now Mary has $6.

• Mary has $5
• She "spends" it by giving $5 it to Diane
• Diane spends it by giving $5 it to Ian
• Ian spends it by giving $6 it to Mary

AKA it's all good. $5 has become $6. Rinse, repeat, keep churning out the dough.

Because of some CDO swap gone bad by a banker in London who complains about his annual $5,000,000 bonus turning into a mere $4,500,000, lumber becomes more expensive. Mary can only afford to give Diane $3. Diane spends $3 at the ice cream shop. That $3 is now Ian's $3. Ian turns it into $3.50. Ian then spends $3.50 at the lumber yard. Now Mary has $3.50.

• Mary has $3
• She "spends" it by giving $3 to Diane
• Diane spends it by giving $3 to Ian
• Ian spends it by giving $3.50 to Mary

Well, that's still good. $3 has become $3.50

But now Mary has less money to spend. So she stops giving Diane anything. (OK, her love, but no allowance.)

• Mary has $0
• She doesn't give anything to Diane
• Diane doesn't give anything Ian
• Ian doesn't give anything to Mary

And now we have a serious problem. No one is earning money because no one is spending money.

Keep in mind this situation wasn't brought about a cabal in Geneva. No one bribed a politician to manipulate the economy in such a way that non-rich people get the short end of the stick.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

When people stop spending money the engine stops running well. So you know the problem that governments faced by the financial crisis? That gap of $3,000? When people stop spending money it places further pressure on that gap. It exacerbates the problem. Revenue goes down (no money, how can someone pay taxes when they don't have money?) and the need for spending goes up (more unemployed people, more need for assistance, etc).

So how do we fix this?

Austrian economics says that it's better to let the system sort itself out. Yes, there's short term pain. But that pain is necessary. Like ripping off a bandage: it's better to do it quickly and painfully and move on. This means austerity measures. Not surprisingly, advocates of this view are often wealthy or motivated by resentment (i.e., LOOK AT THE DEBT, IT'S TRIPLED BECAUSE THE MEXICANS GET WELFARE AND ABORTIONS).

Keynesian economics says that it's better for the government to intervene. So you have things like stimulus packages (even though about 40% of that was tax cuts...) and TARP. Intervening by borrowing money which increases the debt in the short term. Wait a minute, you might say, doesn't borrowing money make it more expensive and turn into a spiral?

Remember those incredibly low interest rates for the US federal government? They're an incredible blessing! The US federal government can borrow money for a year at 0.18% while, for example, Greece can do the same thing at 14%. US treasury bonds are about the safest investment, while Greek bonds are incredibly risky. The economy of the United States is growing at 2.2%, Greece is shrinking at -5%. That's the fundamental difference between the general case and the specific case.

But back to the austerity. When the government cuts back on spending it takes more money out of the economy. Remember the above example with the Mary to Diane to Ian to Mary loop? It's broken in a bad economy. You have to remember that it's not just her link with Ian, it's her link with many people and their subsequent link. As an aside, President Bush wasn't wrong when he told people to go shopping after 9/11. Anyway, given austerity measures we might see things like:

• The police force has been scaled back, Mary's business is now in a more dangerous neighborhood requiring more money for insurance
• The roads aren't maintained as well leading to a higher cost for auto maintenance
• Her child's school stops offering subsidized lunches, leading to a higher cost for Mary
• The post office closed, now Mary has to drive across town daily. Leading to increased transportation costs

And so on.

I wasn't being entirely accurate when I said Mary's link with everyone was broken. It was damaged. And all of these things caused by austerity measures damages it further, leading to a feedback loop of economic failure. As fewer people participate in the economy, it then necessarily causes fewer people to participate which then necessarily causes fewer people to participate, and so on.

So when the governments in Europe instituted austerity measures they helped increase the intensity of that loop. And by doing so they found themselves in the exact same budget gap problem they had before, only now it's worse. They have to figure a way out of it and there's no easy answer.

So when someone says:

Look at how the debt has gone up recently! Gosh darn high debt is bad therefore Obama is mismanaging our money by wasting it on welfare queens and illegals. I'm not bigoted or resentful, that's just the only frame of reference I have for thinking about the government or taxes.

 Don't be misled.

Mocking Don McLeroy: an examination of ignorance

http://www.colbertnation.com/full-episodes/mon-april-23-2012-don-mcleroy

The whole episode was amazing, as usual. But I particularly enjoyed Colbert interviewing of Don McLeroy. He's the former head of the Texas State Board of Education which was responsible for using the government to teach children all sorts of inaccuracies and misrepresentation. It's not particularly surprising that he shows unforgivable ignorance and stupidity. It's kind of scary. A few take aways:

1) Scientific truths aren't unearthed by the hunches of poorly educated dentists. Believe it or not, some people actually make their living by what the layman might refer to as "doing science". It consists of a lot more than getting a puzzled look and concluding magic is a better explanation.

2) Scientific truths aren't voted on. We're free people who are free to believe anything we like. Perhaps someone thinks that flipping a light switch is casting a magical spell which happens to turn lights on. That's fine, but don't teach children that. You're intellectually crippling them when you act as if truth is dependent on a vote.

3) Evolution is not "random". The barest and most simple Internet search dispels this myth. If someone claims the right to teach children that evolution (AKA "So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words") is false... It's extremely disappointing to see them so completely and unforgivably ignorant.

4) A university is not a left-wing seminary. I suppose if one considered reality to be left-wing then it might be, but I doubt if Dr. McLeroy would accept that definition. It's entirely disingenuous, misleading, and false to claim that because educated people largely hold different opinions than uneducated people that both beliefs require an equivalency and both were brought about by indoctrination. Learning how the world works isn't something that should be feared.

5) The so-called experts are so called because they are experts. I'm not sure how pointing out how widespread acceptance evolution is - how all real scientists accept it as fact - is evidence that it's untrue. But I suppose I'm using so-called reasoning to reach that conclusion.

6) "Somebodies got to stand up to experts". Well, yeah. Like other scientists. That's how a self-correcting processing works. We don't gain better understandings of the world by asking the uninformed and purposely dense for their input under the guise that's "standing up to experts". And we certainly don't then claim "well, some people say this, some people say that, who can know?"

There's a reason I don't march into the astronomy lab of my university and announce that I'm standing up to them by teaching their children that the theory of heliocentrism is false. There's nothing particularly admirable about being ignorant and attempting to ensure the schools keep children ignorant.

7) "Evolutionists". Again, he's trying to create a false equivalence of evolution and creationism. Hey, both are called theories and grammar allows us to identify those who advocate them by adding "ists", so who can know which is more likely to be real? Evolution is a fact and a theory (there's literally an entire Wikipedia article on it). Calling someone an evolutionist is akin to calling someone a gravityist or a bacteriaist or a germist. It's misleading and dishonest.

8) Homo sapiens didn't walk with dinosaurs. One doesn't get to call it a "personal scientific view", any more than I have a "personal scientific view" that France is fictional place or a "personal scientific view" that instead of the Sun it's actually an illusion brought about by vampires on the Andromeda Galaxy. We don't get respect for "personal scientific views" that are incorrect by placing the word person (i.e., a preface announcing that courtesy demands respect of whatever idea follows) at the beginning of the sentence.

9) "Jonathan Edwards said that nothing is what a sleeping rock dreams of". The quote is originally attributed to Aristotle, and the quote is "nothing is what rocks dream about". It muddles the metaphor to refer to the rock as sleeping, since that's the entire point: rocks don't sleep neither do they dream.

Of course, I'm trusting the so-called experts to have translated that correctly, so Aristotle may have really said "about rocks? Nothing dreams of that!". The point is, we can't trust the experts except when we can. What can we trust? That ignorant hunches are a better source of scientific truth than so-called science conducted over hundreds of years by so-called scientists who have made so-called paradigm theories for their so-called scientific fields, like the so-called biology.

That's all I am: just a fellow traveler looking to reconfirm what I was taught as a child. Reality sometimes gets in the way - :( - that's why I'm a skeptic!

Spiders are scary... or are they?

I read this today: "people tend to develop phobias for evolutionarily relevant threats (like snakes and spiders) rather than for things that are far more likely to kill them (like automobiles and electrical sockets)". So I got these 4 pictures and if you're anything like me you'll find that 2 of the objects appear benign, while two appear sinister to the point of causing discomfort.

Then it struck me that, once one understands evolution, this should have been incredibly obvious. One shouldn't find out something so simple and experience a feeling of enlightenment. Especially someone like me who considers themselves relatively intelligent and (accounting for age) relatively well-educated. This apparent paradox frustrated me, so naturally its been on my mind since I first read the original sentence.

The more I thought about it, the more I realized how utterly fantastic it is that we're able to experience such frustrations. There are 2 main reasons: we exist in a time where we can have the knowledge of something like that, and what the actual knowledge means.

We can compare time from the earliest life to 2012 by using a calendar. I calculated the calendar by scratch using a yellow pad and Wikipedia, so feel free to verify. There are of course some limitations to any such representation, but the underlying theme is well established fact. I set the start date of the calendar to January 1 at midnight, and the end date is December 31 at 11:59:59, and I'm using the calendar of the year 2012:

January 1st: Primordial ooze beings to exist

May 16, 9:00 pm: The great oxygenation event

September 12, noon: Sexual reproduction arises

November 6, 6:00 am: The first multi-cellular creatures arrive

November 10, 7:30 pm: The earliest brain appears via a flatworm. And these are still around! So consider that before defining *Homo sapiens* as the pinnacle of evolution.

November 14, 10:03 pm: The first vertebrate appears

November 27, 4:39 pm: The first recognizable limbs begin to appear

November 30, 10:12 pm: The first mammals appear

December 21, 9:00 pm: At this point there's a common ancestor of mice and men

December 27, 8:24 am: Primates diverge into subgroups

December 28, 5:15 pm: Old World Monkeys diverge from apes

December 29, 7:13 pm: The common ancestor of humans and great apes is alive

December 30, 2:08:44 pm: Very early hominin genus, they had brains 1/5 the size of modern humans

December 30, 5:25:48 pm: Loss of body hair, full bipedalism

December 30, 8:01:09 pm: Homo erectus is thrust into the world

December 30, 8:42:54 pm: We learn to control fire

December 30, 11:13:11 pm: The earliest anatomically modern humans

December 30, 11:50:19: pm: Behavioral modernity (e.g. using tools, symbolic thought, cooking food)

December 30, 11:52:02 pm: We leave Africa and interbreed with Neanderthals

December 30, 11:58:25 pm: Europeans develop light skin, Homo sapiens become the last living species of the genus Homo

This isn't comparing, say, from the Big Bang or even from the Earth's creation. This is just our ancestry! For the "first 364.99" days every living creature was incapable of anything much more complicated than fishing or drawing crude pictures. Even once Homo sapiens emerged, our first ~100,000 years we lived to around 25 and if we were lucky enough to avoid a brutal violent death our teeth would kill us. For emphasis from Jared Diamond: "the actual percentage of the population that died violently was on the average higher in traditional pre-state societies than it was even in Poland during the Second World War or Cambodia under Pol Pot."

And yet here we sit! The beneficiaries of a previously inconceivable explosion of safety and progress. We can reliably bet that we won't be murdered, we won't be robbed, and we can freaking download Wikipedia on a handheld device. We're so powerful our contraptions will render the Earth largely uninhabitable unless we purposely change our behavior. We're capable of walking on the moon, or investigating quantum mechanics. We're capable of studying human brains and behavior and the Universe in general and learning so much more than has ever even been conceived by previous generations! We're capable of recognizing the common link between spiders and ourselves, recognizing why we behave a certain way when we see one, and easily disseminating that information to anyone with access to books, the Internet or other people who know. Just think about that for a moment. Throughout almost all of time there has never been a creature capable of anything even remotely comparable to what we can do. Unless of course one wanted to define "greatness" as longevity in which case I think we'll have to hand that trophy to trees and flatworms.

Which brings me to the second reason my frustration, once reflected upon, became utterly fantastic. Think about everything that happened that led to the feeling of discomfort when looking at a spider. Untold generations of our ancestors had to get hurt by spiders - entire lineages dying out because of one interaction with one small spider - before we learned to instinctively recognize that a spider is dangerous. That feeling of discomfort are the genes of your ancestors crying out to you! The states of your brain today are being influenced by the interactions your ancestors had in the Pleistocene era. The lessons they learned by watching their neighbors die were learned so well that we can sit in our AC, drink tea imported from Japan, watch a video from Syria, eat fruit imported from South America, discuss the finer points of philosophy, and yet just the sight of an insect is enough for our ancestors to cry out so strongly it changes our brains. Like Neil deGrasse Tyson's stardust quote, that's a whole new level of connectivity we share with the world.

I think it's pretty cool.

Corporations are people my friend!

http://prometheefeu.wordpress.com/2012/01/26/mankiw-is-right-buffet-is-wrong/

I read the above article this morning and its been bothering me since. It's a well-written informed opinion piece with a conclusion I disagree with. God knows it's a pleasant diversion from "Newt Gingrich's adultery is *actually* an indication he should be president" style drivel. I couldn't help but feel something was off about the argument but until just now I couldn't translate my gut feeling into words.

A corporation is more than a group of people (eg shareholders) who have pooled their money. I'm not up on my financial lingo but entities exist to fulfill that role: partnerships, limited partnerships, limited liability corporations and the like. The U.S. tax code has provisions for people who want to pool their money and have the resulting entity basically be "a group of individuals".

(My understanding of) the reason people form corporations is precisely because they want to form an entity separate from the people involved. They want an entity that can go bankrupt, for example, without the shareholders as individuals go bankrupt. They want an entity that the Supreme Court can rule - ಠ_ಠ - as having freedom of speech. Again, my knowledge limits me, but I hope the point is accepted: people form corporations precisely to create an entity apart from the shareholders.

Which is why, once we keep that in mind, it's bizarre to argue that corporations should be independent entities in every way except when it comes to calculating tax burdens. I don't want to blame someone for arguing for something that benefits them (although that sentence alone speaks volume about society) but it's transparent that the argument only holds water if one is a shareholder themselves. I can't see any justification for arguing that corporations are people when it comes to tax burdens but very much aren't people when it comes to everything else.

A quick thought on those who demonize SNAP

I was having a conversation with some friends, and it just hit me what I dislike about the attitude that leads to demonizing people who receive food stamps. I'm on my lunch break, so I'll be brief. Although I do officially recommend trying Seitan, I just had it for the first time and it's pretty great. It's the resentful attitude of "us vs them" that attacks those who often can't defend themselves.

Obviously when it comes to SNAP recipients this resentment is often drawn along racial lines, but I think it's entirely possible to draw lines using some other method. But it's the attitude that while every government service we use is justified, a black person receiving money from the government for groceries is over the line. Proponents have to admit that everything they use: clean air, clean water, education, knowledge that the ER has to take them (absent freaking universal healthcare), education of workers, police, fire, safe products, the justice system, everything they use is a normal and accepted government function. They have to argue that there's something unique about SNAP, and I think that argument is always fueled by A) racism or B) an "us vs them" mentality.

It's really clear when you pay attention to some of the language. The theme is always something like "they're spending our money" or "I, as a taxpayer, shouldn't have to give them money". It's unique in that this attitude is never applied to, for example, the mortgage interest deduction or occupying two countries. There's criticism of those things - and a lot more! - but this "us vs them" attitude seems to only rear its head when talking about welfare or SNAP. It's not acceptable in society to demand that someone claiming the mortgage interest deduction has to humble themselves before you, there are no chain emails discussing how Social Security recipients should "get rid of their flatscreen and 20's if they want our money".

It's used to A) serve as a scapegoat for real problems, which means it's also a false solution (AKA the country's budget would be in shape if it weren't for lazy unemployed black welfare recipients) and B) it serves the *really important* function of defining groups. It's our money; they're taking it. We work hard; they don't. We're employed; they aren't. We don't waste money on flatscreen TVs and 20's; they do. I don't think this is a good function! But in the context of the conservative "every man for himself, let the chips land where they will" demonizing SNAP is extremely effective. It's divisive, its claims are untrue, it's resentful, it's irrational, but it's really freaking effective.