Saturday, January 21, 2017

First Contact? Perhaps not


“The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”

Spock, in Star Trek II “The Wrath of Khan”

As we keep searching for signs of life in the vastness of the universe, we may want to ask ourselves: “What would a highly advanced alien civilization think of us Earthlings?” I had a bit of fun imagining such a scenario, based on the universe created by the great Gene Roddenberry.  

Stardate 70520.7. Aboard the Vulcan survey ship Vaankara, captain’s ready room.

Captain Daath to science officer T’moth: Please report.

T’moth: We have concluded our survey of Earth-based humans, sir, and a full report for the High Council has been uploaded to the ship’s database.

Daath: Are humans making significant progress towards first contact readiness?

T’moth: No, sir. They exhibit a number of problematic characteristics that make them remarkably illogical, despite their apparently promising level of intelligence.

Daath: Elaborate.

T’moth: Their capacity for logical thinking is quite uneven. While some individuals of this species exhibit advanced logical abilities and adequate scientific talent, large numbers of them remain at a pre-scientific stage, and have done so for thousands of their years without apparent sign of progress.

Daath: How is this possible?

T’moth: We are not certain, sir. DNA samples taken by our covert operatives do not support a genetic origin for this uneven level of civilization. However, human genomes are quite peculiar. They contain gene combinations that enable this species to display remarkable intelligence and cooperativity, co-existing with gene combinations that enable them to display a highly aggressive, selfishly emotional attitude similar to our ancient Vulcan ancestors.

Daath: That is quite worrisome.

T’moth: Indeed, sir. And the coexistence of adequately civilized and completely barbaric groups among humans suggests that without extensive training, their species remains prone to extremely uncivilized behavior.

Daath: Examples, if you please.

T’moth: Yes, sir. At this time, the species has been unable to reach planetary decisional unity, even as they realize that they are facing significant degradation of their environment, caused in large part by their primitive industrial technology. They have no planet-wide organization, except for a loose assembly of different “countries” which has little or no decisional powers.

Daath: That is illogical.

T’moth: It is, sir, and a minority of humans appear to realize this. Yet, a majority of them remain quite shortsighted, preferring to devote energies to tribalism and the short-term accumulation of resources rather than uniting to secure the future survival of their planet. Humans seem to be largely unable to envision their whole planet as a common habitat, and insist on drawing imaginary borders between tribes characterized by different customs and cultures.

Daath: How are these cultures different?

T’moth: Human are highly creative and have overactive imaginations, sir. Their creativity has helped them develop reasonably effective technology, and they are now in the early digital era. Yet, their overactive imagination is overly prone to wishful thinking. Different tribes of humans have created imaginary “gods” that they unquestioningly believe in, despite the complete absence of evidence.

Daath: “Gods”?

T’moth: Yes, sir. These are imaginary supernatural beings, to whom humans attribute extraordinary powers, including violating the laws of physics and even being responsible for the origin of the observable universe. These beings are supposedly invisible and undetectable by any instruments, yet many humans firmly believe in their existence. They participate in elaborate group rituals to communicate with these beings, request favors from them, and promise them token gestures of subservience.

Daath: Fascinating.

T’moth: Indeed, sir. But the picture is even more complex. Different tribes strongly identify with the different “gods” they created, and maintain that these beings give them rights to territory, resources and authority over other tribes. One of the longest lasting tribal disputes is centered on a small land area between the subcontinents of Eurasia and Africa. Different tribes have fought over this unremarkable area and the ancient ruins it contains for thousands of their years. One tribe maintains that the only acceptable “god”, who created the universe, granted them sole ownership of this area. Another tribe maintains that this is false, and claims that the same “god” subsequently changed his mind, and sent a human emissary to the planet to preach broader altruism. Yet, the same tribe does not practice altruism, and has repeatedly used their version of “god” as a justification to prey upon other tribes. This tribe controlled the area in question for some time, and relinquished it to the first tribe after finding it of limited practical value. Yet another tribe, which claims to worship the same “god” as the other two, maintains the he changed his mind not once but twice, and sent another emissary to the planet with a slightly different message than the other. This emissary apparently authorized the third tribe to convert the other two to their system of beliefs using violence if necessary, and gave ownership of this area to the third tribe. At this time, sir, these tribes appear completely unable to share the area in question without fighting.

Daath: This is completely illogical.

T’moth: Indeed, sir. Our theory is that these tribes create “gods” as symbols of tribal identity, and then create complex rituals to distinguish themselves from other tribes they compete with.

Daath: What do these rituals consist of?

T’moth: Generally, group efforts to curry favor from their gods through chanting and making magical gestures. Some rituals are most bizarre. Some tribes maintain that these all-powerful “gods” wish the males to wear facial hair and the females to cover their faces with cloth. Others maintain that the gods don’t allow the consumption of certain foods or certain sexual practices. Several practice ritual mutilation of the genital organs of juvenile males and females. A group of tribes appear to worship an ancient execution device consisting of two perpendicular arms to which victims were nailed and left to die of respiratory failure.

Daath: Barbaric.

T’moth: Yes, sir. The overactive imagination of this species presents peculiar challenges. An even more serious drawback we discovered is an apparent inability to distinguish wishful thinking from data.

Daath: How so?

T’moth: Just as they firmly believe in the existence of mythical, undetectable and all-powerful beings, humans are prone to believing whatever produces a pleasant emotional response in them. In other words, sir, they believe not what they can observe but what they wish to believe. And they are using their primitive mastery of digital technology not to disseminate accurate information but to spread unscientific beliefs and even complete fabrications, which are promptly believed by large groups of individuals for exclusively emotional reasons.

Daath: Most illogical. Apparently this species has not yet mastered control of their emotions.

T’moth: No, sir. In fact, a majority of them make their decisions largely based on emotions, and use defective logic only to fabricate justifications for their emotional choices. As a result, they are unable to form a consensus on even the most urgent problems. They have a remarkable tendency to squabble amongst themselves. At this time, there are numerous armed conflicts on the planet, which involve the killing of uninvolved civilians. This has been a constant throughout Earth history, sir. We believe the main reason is that this species evolved from primitive lifeforms that lived in groups conflicting with one another.

Daath: That is a serious weakness. How can they manage their planet in such an inefficient fashion?

T’moth: Rather poorly, sir. Humans have not yet fully accepted the concept that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. They are in constant conflict amongst themselves for control of valuable resources, using deception and violence. Some individuals control resources that would support hundreds of millions of humans, without apparent need for them. Once these individuals die, their possessions are transferred to their progeny, irrespective of merit. Humans call this practice “inheritance”. As a result, families and groups of individuals concentrate valuable resources in a completely illogical fashion, whilst millions of other do not have access to basic necessities.

Daath: How do they assign leadership responsibilities?

T’moth: Customs vary in different areas of the planet, sir. Some areas are ruled by powerful individuals who use deception or violence to gain the support of their populations, and maintain such support by attacking other tribes. Others hold periodic surveys of the population, which they call “elections”, to select temporary leaders. Adults express their votes and leadership responsibilities are assigned to those who receive a majority of these votes.

Daath: This seems to be a logical process.

T’moth: Only in appearance, sir. The individuals who compete for these leadership positions are not necessarily the most talented, the most knowledgeable or the most suitable for specific duties. Some are simply most adept at manipulating the emotions of voters using deception and false promises.

Daath: Emotions again…A remarkably primitive species. How could they possibly have developed sufficient scientific knowledge to warrant a survey?

T’moth: Fascinatingly, sir, educated individuals from all the human tribes we have studied are capable of grasping complex scientific concepts, including quantum mechanics and space-time continuum theory.

Daath: Are you implying that these barbarians might discover warp drive technology?

T’moth: Yes, sir. Primitive experiments exploring transporter technology have been successfully carried out, and the discovery of a warp-field generator in the relatively near future cannot be ruled out. We have computed the probability of Earth reaching warp drive technology within the next 200 of their years at 0.48, sir. Over 400 years, the probability increases to 0.63, provided the current pace of scientific progress remains unaltered.

Daath: But not 1?

T’moth: No, sir. The probability of scientific progress is balanced by a significant probability of environmental collapse from overpopulation and excessive use of primitive combustion-based power sources. Humans appear to be unwilling or unable to adapt to their changing environment with sufficient speed. They do not wish to abandon ancient technologies they are used to, even though they have developed more efficient ones. We have computed the probability of environmental collapse at 0.55 over the next 100 years, sir. In other words, humans will only discover warp drive technology if they don’t destroy their own habitat first, which would bring this species back to pre-industrial times. That may be a desirable outcome, given the utter unpreparedness of the species to join other spacefaring civilizations. The two probabilities are not independent, because adoption of a more logical mindset by a larger fraction of humans would increase the probability of environmental salvage and warp drive discovery. At the moment, however, there is significant uncertainty as to whether humans are capable of consistently adopting logic over emotionalism as a species. Additional biological experiments are required to determine why, sir.

Daath: Understood. Please prepare your recommendation for advanced genomic investigation on the cellular specimens we collected from unwitting human subjects. We must determine whether this species is capable of achieving an adequate level of civilization before acquiring warp drive technology. A warp-capable barbarian species would pose a significant danger to the Federation, and we may be forced to take extreme measures against them, such as blockading their star system. These studies will be carried out on Vulcan, by scientists chosen by the High Council. If we remain too long in this system, there is a non-negligible risk we’ll be detected, in violation of the Prime Directive. We must depart at once.

T’moth: A wise precaution, sir. I should point out that humans show a peculiar fascination with space, and have built reasonably powerful observation devices that explore the universe through many physical measurements. They are also using primitive robotic spaceships to explore their star system. They may soon be able to detect Federation activity, even accidentally. With their overactive imagination, they fantasize about alien species. Some suspect they are being monitored, but most discount the possibility. I recommend that their detection efforts be thwarted by confounding the signals received by their detection devices, until the species reaches a sufficient level of civilization. At this time, it is uncertain whether they will ever do so. This recommendation is included in my report, sir.

Daath: I concur. It is imperative that humans remain isolated and that their development or lack thereof be carefully monitored. They are clearly unprepared for first contact. Helm: Bring us about and set a course for Vulcan, warp 6

Helm: Aye, sir. Setting a course for Vulcan, Warp 6.

Daath: A commendable summary, T’moth. I shall examine your full report en route to Vulcan, and I believe the High Council will find it adequate. Live long and prosper (making a Vulcan greeting sign).
T’moth: Live long and prosper, sir (exits captain's ready room).
Posted by at No comments:

Monday, January 2, 2017

A Tale of Many Elitisms - Conclusion: A Game of Thrones


“Power resides where men believe it resides. It’s a trick, a shadow on the wall. And a very small man can cast a very large shadow.” —

 Lord Varys, in George R. R. Martin’s “A Song of Fire and Ice”

In the 3 previous posts of this series on elitism, we have explored 3 different elite groups in American society: a self-righteous religious elite, a self-serving plutocratic elite, and a self-sabotaging intellectual elite. The direction the future history of this country will take will depend on how these groups interact with one another.

Throughout most of recorded history, complex human societies have been ruled largely by monarchs or dictators, who rose to power through military prowess and/or intrigue and passed power down to their descendants or to hand-picked successors. These aristocracies formed military/plutocratic elites which held both the power of arms and that of money. The only notable exceptions were Athenian Democracy and the Roman Republic. Both eventually were replaced by tyrannies.

In the classical world, rulers were often also intellectuals. Scions of powerful Greek and Roman families were sent to be instructed by the greatest teachers, and were in fact much better educated than most of their subjects. Alexander the Great was not just a great military leader. He was a pupil of Aristotle, one of the greatest minds of all time. Julius Caesar wasn’t just a general and a dictator. He was one of the finest writers in all Roman history, and his diaries describing his military campaigns are early examples of anthropology. Instead of mocking or reviling the populations he conquered, Caesar meticulously described their societies, traditions, languages and lifestyles in a concise, scientific, dispassionate style.

Roman elites were sent to Greece for instruction, and it became standard for them to be bilingual. As Horace put it “Graecia capta ferum victorem coepit” (Greece, once it was conquered, conquered its savage victors). Philosophers were commonly employed as imperial advisors. The enduring power of classical civilization comes from a blend of Roman pragmatism and engineering and Greek intellectualism. The ruling class in the classical world was very much an intellectual elite.

Why does this ancient history still matter today? Every modern democracy is built upon a blueprint of Greek and Roman institutions with various adaptations. The American Revolution, which started the modern republican movement, was led by intellectuals who were very familiar with the classical world, and who consciously attempted to construct a hybrid between Athenian Democracy and the Roman Republic. The popular vote was an Athenian invention. Rome had a Senate and two Consuls (“President and Vice-President), as well as a court system (tribunals) and a code of jurisprudence. The very word “Republic” is Latin (Res Publica, or “that which belongs to the public”). Both Athens and Republican Rome were led by educated elites at the height of their powers. The public had more say in Athens than they had in Rome, but they were also keenly informed on current events. In fact, the word “idiot”, used today as an insult, is Greek. It means “self-absorbed person who only knows about his own life (and is uninformed about politics)”.

In the Hellenistic world, religious elites existed but had a rather limited role in power politics. Conversely, in ancient Egypt and Israel the priestly class held significant political power, and organized religion was an important ally of political power.

 This trend intensified with the diffusion of Christianity and Islam. Religious justification for monarchies of all sorts, from French and British kings to Russian czars and Islamic Caliphs served to keep the populace under control and provided supernatural support for earthly rulers. Constantine adopted Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire after claiming that his defeat of Maxentius in 312 AD was divinely ordained[i]. Christian apologists promoted a story according to which an angel had visited Constantine in a dream, telling him to decorate his soldiers’ shields with a cross, and promising “In Hoc Signo Vinces” (In this sign, you shall win). Elaborate crowning ceremonies whereby a priestly authority conferred divine approval upon the anointment of a monarch became standard in Christian Europe, beginning with Charlemagne’s coronation as Holy Roman Emperor by Pope Leo III on Christmas Day, 800 AD[ii]. In the Muslim world, the Caliph (Khalifa) was revered as the ultimate religious authority and a direct successor of the Prophet, a hybrid between a king and a Pope[iii].

The “alliance between the throne and altar” was highly successful for centuries. It essentially consisted in a military/plutocratic elite ruling with the support of a religious elite.

The American and French Revolutions signed a turning point in history, with the rebellion of intellectual elites to aristocratic elites to re-establish the republic as a viable form of government for the first time since Julius Caesar. The rebirth of the republic was not painless. The American republic descended into a savage civil war few decades after its inception. The divisions that caused that war have not yet completely healed. The French republic had to endure multiple bouts with dictatorship and monarchy before its eventual success[iv],[v].  After the two World Wars, most Western nations adopted democratic republican forms of governments, though some, such as Britain and the Netherlands, retained ceremonial monarchs. In the post-World War 2 era, republics arose throughout the world, although in many cases such republics were and remain today de facto dictatorships with perfunctory elections and rubberstamp legislatures.

Nominally, democratic republics are ruled by the citizens through a process of popular vote similar to that of ancient Athens. Details vary from country to country, but the basic principle is that of government “of the people, by the people and for the people”.

This most inclusive form of government, whereby citizens are not subjects and government is accountable to citizens, is the product of French and British Enlightenment philosophical theories which promoted reason over belief and introduced the radical idea that all humans have equal rights[vi]. The Enlightenment was at the root of the scientific revolution that produced the modern Western world. In fact, the American and French Republics represented attempts to replace tradition and religion with reason in to justify the existence of a government. They also placed, for the first time, the military under the collective control of the citizens.

The establishment of republics did not mean the end of elitism, nor did it achieve complete egalitarianism. It did mean that a political/intellectual elite, in many cases supported by a financial/plutocratic elite, replaced hereditary aristocratic elites supported by religious elites. At least temporarily, religious elites lost some of their power to secular financial and intellectual elites.

However, in capitalist societies political power exercised on behalf of voting citizens is not the only kind of power. Financial power wielded by plutocratic elites is a strong contender. Elections offer opportunities to increase the share of power wielded by a particular elite. In a sense, the constant struggle between conservatives and progressives in Western democracies can be boiled down to a power struggle between a plutocratic elite, which tends to concentrate financial resources into its own hands, and an intellectual elite, which claims greater control of these resources on behalf of a majority of citizens.

In a democratic system, this poses an interesting challenge. Both the plutocratic elite and the intellectual elite are minorities. In order to gain and retain political power, they need the continued support of the majority of voters, who are neither wealthy nor highly educated.

Superficially, the intellectual elite would appear to have a natural advantage. They are committed to broadening access to financial and educational resources, and inasmuch as they promote progressive policies, they are driven by more altruistic motives than the plutocratic elite. The plutocratic elite, which is primarily motivated by self-interest, would never win an election if elections were simply competitions between clearly laid out platforms for progress.

How the plutocratic elite has solved this dilemma, at least in the United States, is apparent by looking at the history of the past few decades.

 In 1961, in his farewell speech, President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned against the growing influence of a military-industrial complex, adding that only an “alert and knowledgeable” citizenry could control this influence [vii]. Today, approximately two thirds of the U.S. Federal budget is spent on maintaining an enormous military complex, which supports a myriad of contractors, companies and jobs. The old military elites have joined forces with the plutocratic elite, and provide jobs for many working class Americans. These Americans have an interest in maintaining the military-industrial complex.

Additionally, the plutocratic elite has made masterful use of emotional manipulation, following the old Roman motto “Divide et impera” (which correctly translates as “divide and rule”, not “conquer” as often reported). After the Democratic Party broadened the popular base of American democracy by passing the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Right Act of 1965, the plutocratic elite saw a major opportunity to gain power and took full advantage of it. After the Civil War, the Republican Party had become increasingly controlled by the plutocratic elite that had enriched itself from the war and the subsequent reconstruction. As a result, it was largely a Northern, pro-business party. While initially in favor of government spending on infrastructure, it has developed an anti-government position to limit the impact of regulations meant to protect the public on commercial activities [viii]. Southern whites were hostile to Republicans, the party of the Union, and had embraced Democrats, until they “betrayed” them by sponsoring civil rights and voting rights for African Americans. President Richard Nixon and especially his advisor Lee Atwater saw an opening to reverse the South’s political loyalties. With his Southern Strategy, Nixon exploited white racism and hostility to a government that was forcing whites to accept civil rights policies they loathed. This strategy worked brilliantly. Southern and rural whites who had nothing to gain from enriching big businesses in the North became unwaveringly loyal to the Republican party, the party of the plutocratic elite, and remain so to this date. In essence, plutocrats exploited tribalism under the form of racism to gain political power (see my post “Why Does Racism Persist?”). This strategy was continued with minor variations by Presidents Reagan, G. H. W. Bush and G. W. Bush, consolidating Republican loyalty among whites [ix]. Donald Trump further reinvigorated this strategy with a particularly divisive campaign that garnered the support of white supremacists and neo-fascists [x]. Conservatives also took full advantage of mass media, creating an empire of right wing TV and radio stations, and eventually websites, that spread manipulative messages meant to turn working class whites against the government and to keep the flame of racism alive. Another Machiavellian move was dusting off the old religious elite, and retooling it for the 20th and 21st century. “The God Strategy”, a book by David Domke and Kevin Coe, argues that Republicans starting with the Reagan presidency began using conservative Christianity as a political tool to consolidate support among white working class voters. Conservative churches obliged, and retooled their own message to heavily support Republican causes. The “Religious Right” was born to protect racially segregated private schools, which had become major cash cows in the post-desegregation South [xi].  A 1970 lawsuit originating in Holmes County, Mississippi, had led to a ruling denying charitable, tax-exempt status to segregated religious schools. As a result, Evangelical churches started adopting an anti-government stance. They seized upon the highly emotional issue of abortion (although Evangelicals had not originally opposed Roe V. Wade), and gained control over millions of “single issue” voters. Republicans coupled their own anti-government, anti-regulation stance with a pro-Evangelical Christianity, anti-abortion stance, and the deal was sealed. Some Christian pastors went as far as to reinterpret scripture, preaching that material wealth is a divine blessing, and therefore the wealthy are deemed by God to deserve their financial advantage [xii]. This so-called Prosperity Gospel is in blatant contradiction with the teachings of Jesus as reported in the Bible, but it has met considerable success. A right-wing Christianity has been created that conflates anti-abortion, anti-birth control positions with anti-taxes, anti-government, pro-wealth, pro-war, pro-weapons, pro-death penalty views and racism in an improbable but successful ideological concoction. The alliance between throne and altar has been reborn under a new shape. The alliance between altar and ballot, seasoned with a good dose of racism and Southern resentment, is a very powerful force in American politics today.

The final prong of the plutocratic strategy is possibly the most effective one. Although the plutocratic elite is a numeric minority, it does control a disproportionate amount of wealth (see “A Tale of Many Elitisms, Part 2: Plutocratic Elitism”). It can use this wealth to buy off politicians and to fund political movements, provided that this use of wealth remains permissible under law. Securing a conservative majority in the Supreme Court has always been a key strategic objective of conservatives, because Justices serve for life. This objective has been sold to the religious elitists as a means to overturn the legalization of abortion. But a conservative Supreme Court, through the “Citizens United” ruling, has essentially legalized unlimited political bribing in the United States, thereby allowing the plutocratic elite to wield its most powerful weapon without hindrance.

And here we are today, in the aftermath of Donald Trump’s election. The plutocratic/military elite is firmly in control, with the support of the religious elite. Through emotional manipulation revolving around racism, xenophobia, resentment of change and religion, it has managed to condition large masses of people to consistently vote against their own interest and buttress its power. The Enlightenment and the values on which modern republics are founded are a distant memory. The intellectual elite has a sounder strategy for the future, enjoys the support of a majority of voters and remains responsible for the vast majority of the economic productivity in this country and elsewhere. However, for the time being in the US it remains confined to urban, Northern and coastal areas. The tribalism-based divide between slave-holding economies and anti-slavery forces that existed at the beginning of the American republic remains in place. It has morphed into different shapes but continues to plague the republic as its original sin.

How long will this round of the game of thrones last? What will the future elites and their relationships look like? No one can tell for certain. However, demographic trends and the historical tendency of plutocratic elites to overplay their hand and cause intolerable inequalities suggest that momentum for a new phase is building. How long this will take and what the new phase will be remains to be seen. In the interest of the planet, I hope that reason prevails and that the worst consequences of unrestrained, shortsighted greed are avoided. We desperately need a new Enlightenment to preserve not only modern democracy but the very planetary habitat humanity depends upon.


Posted by at No comments:

A Tale of Many Elitisms - Part 3: The Intellectual Elite


“Consider your origin: you were not made to live like brutes, but to follow virtue and knowledge”

 Ulysses in Dante Alighieri’s “La Divina Commedia”, Book 27[i]

“Until philosophers are kings, or the kings and princes of this world have the spirit and power of philosophy, and political greatness and wisdom meet in one, and those commoner natures who pursue either to the exclusion of the other are compelled to stand aside, cities will never have rest from their evils, – nor the human race, as I believe,– and then only will this our State have a possibility of life and behold the light of day.”

Plato, “Republic”[ii]

Knowledge is power. This has always been true, since our pre-human ancestors first learned how fashion crude tools. In modern society, this is truer than ever. As the Economist points out in a brilliant 2006 article, “the success of advanced economies is increasingly dependent not on their physical capital but on their capacity to mobilise their citizens' brainpower[iii]”. Leadership in science and technology leads to economic and even military strength. Large scale data analytics provide unprecedented insights in every field, from economics to health care to biology.

There are only two kinds of knowledge: 1) Knowledge we possess and 2) Knowledge we don’t possess yet. The first kind is a readily available source of invaluable insights that can be gathered using data mining and pattern-seeking algorithms. This requires mathematicians, statisticians and computer scientists. The second kind can only be gathered through the scientific method. This requires scientific research and experimental scientists. Applying new knowledge and insights from existing knowledge requires creative inventors in every field, from engineers to physicians. Describing new knowledge to the public and thinking through its possible consequences requires talented writers, journalists, philosophers, ethicists as well as film-makers and visual artists. All these professions, which are increasingly interconnected in large cooperative networks, are the engine of progress. Their practitioners are intellectuals, and they are as unpopular as they are indispensable, particularly in the United States. These people make up the “intellectual elite”, which for reasons we’ll explore below is also a “meritocratic elite”. Before we dwell on the reasons why large segments of the public revile intellectuals, let’s take a deeper look at the two quotes that open this post.

Dante’s Divina Commedia places Ulysses is placed in the Inferno (Hell) because of his treachery that led to victory in the Trojan war, and because of his inquisitiveness that left no stones unturned. Yet, Dante shows sympathy for this character, and describes his unquenchable thirst for knowledge. To encourage his companions to sail beyond familiar waters into the unknown, he reminds of their “origins”, and tells them that humans were made to pursue virtue and knowledge. The implication here is that without knowledge, virtue is not enough. In the late Middle Ages, this was an absolutely revolutionary statement. It is one of the first expressions of the movement that became the Renaissance, spurring people to explore the unknown and not to be content with recycled old wisdom. I don’t have Dante’s literary talent, but with the benefit of living in the era of evolutionary biology, I would paraphrase his memorable verse as follows: “Consider your evolutionary origin. You evolved as a social species that depends on gathering knowledge. Go forth and explore, so that you can learn more about life and how to make the world better”.

Plato’s quote, from the 4th century BC and thus far more ancient than Dante’s, is even more revolutionary. It specifically states that kings and princes must be philosophers. In other words, no one should be allowed to handle political power without being trained in philosophy. Just how groundbreaking a statement this was becomes clear when we understand what Plato meant by philosophy. He didn’t mean “soft” science. He considered it a foregone conclusion that rulers must have knowledge in military theory, economics, law and politics. By “philosophy”, he meant higher mathematics. In ancient Greece, there was no distinction between philosophers and scientists. Pythagoras, Thales, Euclid and Plato himself were superb mathematicians. Euclid almost single-handedly created all the geometry that modern high school students learn in the 21st century, which is all the geometry most humans ever learn. Archimedes of Syracuse laid the foundations of fluid dynamics and differential calculus, centuries before Newton and Leibniz. Democritus formulated the first atomic theory of matter. These people were all considered “philosophers”. Plato wanted political leaders to be trained in the mathematical sciences, because only through such training he believed it’s possible to access ultimate realities. He was explicitly calling for intellectual elites to be in charge.

Making allowances for historical differences between modern and Greek science, I agree with his point in the sense that scientific illiteracy is a major weakness in any elected official, unless they rely on expert advisors. Especially today, when momentous decisions on topics like conservation, alternative energies, health care and disease prevention must be made, such decisions should not be made by people who do not understand the scientific method and have no subject matter expertise. Statistics, for example, is essential to understand aggregate data from climate science as well as population sciences. As President Obama aptly put it, “Ignorance is not a virtue”[iv].

Today more than ever, humanity faces complex problems that don’t have simpleminded, easy solutions. Intelligence and education is what we desperately need to solve them.

And yet, over two thirds of Americans don’t complete college degrees. Only 32.5% of Americans complete a bachelor’s degree, compared to 38.7% of Western Europeans and a whopping 54% of Russians. An even smaller fraction of Americans (12%) hold an advanced degree (M.A., M.S., Ph.D., M.D., Pharm.D. etc.). Of these, more than half are foreign-born [v]. In 2014, the U.S. ranked 19th out of 28 OECD countries in educational attainment. In 1995, it ranked first. Educational attainment correlates with health, engagement in society, trust in the institutions and economic mobility[vi]. Add to this the fact that the quality of a high school education is very uneven countrywide, and the picture that emerges is that of a society in which vast swaths of the population are insufficiently educated to think critically about key issues. This may explain the wide diffusion of implausible conspiracy theories and urban myths, which influence the judgment of voters[vii].

 What this means in practice is that some 68.5% of Americans are nearly completely cut off from opportunities for economic mobility. Understandably, this segment of the population is growing increasingly resentful, particularly because populist propaganda fans the flames of this resentment without offering realistic solutions. One might argue that a few exceptionally talented college dropouts go on to become billionaires. Or one might cite the example of Abraham Lincoln, who was self-taught, but exceptionally well educated. That these people were probably so exceptionally intelligent and/or driven that they didn’t even need formal instruction. But these individuals are the exceptions, not the rule. Today, the vast majority of people who don’t hold advanced degrees have very little hope of achieving “the American Dream”. This is dramatically different from the reality of the 1950s.

The 32.5% of Americans who are college-educated, and especially the 12% who hold higher degrees, make up the “intellectual elite” in the eyes of the vast majority of Americans who didn’t complete advanced degrees. Although it’s impossible to generalize and there are exceptions, these people tend to be: 1) highly mobile and based in urban areas, because they generally work for high-tech companies, biotech and pharmaceutical companies, academic centers, health science centers, major law firms etc.; 2) cosmopolitan, since over half of those holding a terminal degree are foreign-born, and a significant fraction are first-generation. Moreover, frequent international travel is part of their professional experience; 3) either not religious or not intolerant of other cultures and religions, as their work environments are multinational and multicultural; 4) open-minded and not very sensitive to populist propaganda, since their professions require critical thinking skills. As a group, the “intellectual elite” are not nearly as wealthy as the plutocratic elite, but they are certainly better off than average middle class Americans. This makes them a “meritocratic elite”, which is sought after by companies and higher learning institutions[viii].

Because of their education and their work experiences, these individuals are less likely to embrace bigotry, racism or religious intolerance, and they tend to be politically progressive. Yet, they are regarded with suspicion, mistrust or downright hostility by many working class, traditionalist Americans. I am not aware of a scientific study of the attitudes of intellectuals towards working class Americans, but decades of life experience in this group tell me that most highly educated Americans, whether native-born or foreign-born, do not look down upon their less educated compatriots. On the contrary, they tend to embrace progressive, inclusive politics and to favor a broadening of higher education opportunities. This famous quote by Harvard evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould summarizes the attitude I have observed to be most common among American intellectuals: “I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.”[ix] As a group, intellectuals are not nearly as elitist as they are accused of being, and they are certainly less elitists than plutocrats in their political attitudes.

And yet, a vast communication chasm exists between urban and coastal intellectuals and heartland-dwelling working class America. There are several reasons for this. Religion is one of them. Someone like Stephen Jay Gould would have been looked upon with mistrust by many Americans simply because he was an evolutionary biologist. Until very recently, over 40% of Americans still believed that God created the world and humans in their present form less than 10,000 years ago. This is in sharp contrast with the rest of the developed world. Only in 2015 did the fraction of Americans believing in creationism finally drop below the fraction who accept evolution[x], but this means that there remain over 120 million people in this country who believe the biblical creation myths to be literally true. Most of these people live in the heartland and don’t hold higher education degrees (see “A Tale of Many Elitisms, Part 1”). Bigotry and xenophobia are additional, related reasons for resentment against intellectuals. As we have seen above, over half of highly educated Americans are foreign-born (Asian, European and African). Many more are first-generation.  A personal acquaintance will serve as a representative example of what is a fairly typical story. This person came to the US as a junior scientist, and eventually became a citizen. Through hard work and talent, this individual became one of the top scientists in the world in his field. His sons are a highly successful physician and a deputy Attorney General respectively, both in East Coast states. All are Democrats. On the face of it, this sounds like a good old American success story. Hard work and risk-taking paid off. Except, the protagonist is neither white nor Christian, and his life experience is completely different from that of typical, native-born, God-fearing Americans living in the heartland.

These "elite" immigrants don’t come into this country to pick vegetables or work in sweatshops like so many previous immigrant groups who had to work their way up the ladder of American society. They are invited to come into Ivy League universities or high-tech companies, where they bring highly valuable skills. While very few are truly wealthy, they do generally earn better wages than millions of working class Americans who grew up thinking of themselves as the number 1 people on Earth. Is it so surprising that these success stories inspire resentment among white working class Americans, rather than admiration and respect?

           Meritocracy sounds good in theory, and most Americans like to believe that hard work and talent pay off. In reality, the intellectual professions are perhaps the last bastion of meritocracy in American society, since there exist reasonably reliable measures of intellectual productivity. For everyone else, upward mobility through hard work is much less likely than they think[xi],[xii]. Intellectual meritocracy is unpopular both on the extreme right and the extreme left of the political spectrum. Conservatives fear intellectuals because of their independence and progressive leanings. Liberals dislike an emphasis on talent and competitiveness in favor of complete egalitarianism. However, to quote the Economist: “The rise of a global meritocracy offers all sorts of benefits, from higher growth in productivity to faster scientific progress. It can boost social mobility and allow all sorts of weird and wonderful talents to bloom. The talent wars may be a source of trepidation for companies and countries. But they should also be a cause for celebration” [xiii]. The same article argues correctly that for these benefits to materialize without an anti-intellectual backlash, progressive political measures must be implemented, including progressive taxation and a broadening of educational opportunities, so that more of the population can gain access to a level meritocratic playing field. Most intellectuals understand this, and that this is one reason for their progressive political leanings. However, intellectuals must learn to communicate effectively with anti-intellectuals in order to make their case.

Anti-intellectualism has always been a feature of American culture, and it’s worsening as the knowledge gap between the highly educated and the rest of the country widens. Over the past few decades, scientific and technological progress has accelerated dramatically, but the knowledge of the average high school graduate has not kept pace with it. As Alex Berezow wrote in June 2016 “As a society, we never grew up beyond high school. Not being smart continues to be cool. Rejecting the collective wisdom of scientists, economists, academics, and journalists is applauded. Spurning the "establishment" (defined, it seems, as anybody with expertise on any subject) has become the new national pastime…[xiv]. Berezow lists among possible reasons for rising anti-intellectualism the “democratization of information” through the internet and the politicization of debates, which tends to cause facts to be overshadowed by opinions and personal attacks. In fact, the wide availability of internet memes, factoids, distorted facts and intentional lies can give someone the impression that an internet connection can replace a formal education, and that with a little research online everyone can become an expert in their chosen fields. Unfortunately, just as they grossly underestimate the extent of economic inequality, many Americans also seriously underestimate the extent of educational inequality. To put it bluntly, they don’t know just how much they don’t know. This can have grave consequences when health care decisions are made without the benefit of medical expertise or when the over 12,000 peer-reviewed papers showing evidence of climate change published to date can be ignored based on biased, blatant disinformation put forth by special interests.  

Intellectuals are caricatured by populists as ivory tower eggheads whose “book knowledge” is useless, and who are out of touch with “the real world”. While a few ivory tower academicians still exist, “book knowledge”, that is actual subject matter expertise, is not only useful but indispensable to solve the complex global problems we face. Even more importantly, the scientific method and critical thinking habits are indispensable to analyze the knowledge that we gather and make decisions based on it. Far from being isolated in an ivory tower, as a group, highly educated people are more likely than average to be engaged in public discourse [xv] and be informed about world problems with a global, long-term perspective.

The cultural differences between intellectuals and anti-intellectuals are real. These two tribes do need to get to know each other better, and they need to communicate more effectively rather than viewing each other through the prism of stereotypes. However, a complete cultural integration of modern intellectuals within an old-fashioned, traditionalist American society model would be difficult. A Chinese-born computer scientist or a German-born molecular biologist are not likely to turn into creationist Bible thumpers, and they would find it difficult to adapt to life outside of the urban and coastal enclaves they inhabit. Rural American rituals like Wednesday evening worship, Friday night high school football, deer hunting camps etc. are not likely to hold any interest for them. On the other hand, the only way to dispel stereotypes about intellectual elitism is to learn how to communicate effectively with people who are not inclined to listen. It isn’t easy, but it’s necessary.

Above all, intellectuals must be able to demonstrate their humanity and articulate the fact that they pursue knowledge in order to leave a better world for their children, not simply to satisfy idle curiosities.

In order to solve the real problems facing us, collective decision making must be based on accurate data. Representative democracies work well only when voters are sufficiently well informed, have access to accurate information and have the ability to process this information rationally. This includes learning and using critical thinking and listening to subject matter experts, particularly when there is a broad consensus among them.

Intellectuals are not the enemy of working class Americans, nor are they an irrelevant elite. Their work is the best hope we have for a better future for humanity and the planet. However, how much good they are allowed to do will critically depend on how effectively they interact with other constituencies in society. The final post in this series will explore the political interplay between “elites” and the possible outcomes of these interactions.




Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)