Joe Rogan Discusses the Protests/Rioting with Bret Weinstein

Good food for thought when Bret Weinstein sits down with Joe Rogan to discuss the protests and the civil unrest. I haven't been buying the standard line that these sustained protests are driven completely by the homicide of George Floyd. That horrific incident is certainly what triggered the demonstrations. However, the duration and intensity of the unrest , the organic "leaderless" groundswell, the unfocused attacks on virtually every American institution (including universities and STEM) and the unhinged demands (e.g., where "defund the police" doesn't actually mean defund the police) have convinced me this unrest is about far more than police abuses. Weinstein believes that many Occupy Wall Street demonstrators (he supported this movement) turned to anarchy and have now combined with the many demonstrators who fall under the Black Lives Matter umbrella, as well as other participants.

Weinstein is an evolutionary biologist living in exile from Evergreen State with his wife, Heather Heying, also an evolutionary biologist. These two biologists somehow survived intact the abysmal failure of Evergreen to deal with its own unrest in 2016, an incident that gives Weinstein a unique perspective on the ongoing crisis. In the first 30 minutes of this podcast, Weinstein and Rogan focus on the failures of BOTH political parties to represent the interests of the American working class. Ever since Bill Clinton, both parties have catered almost exclusively to the needs of their "clients," large corporations, which have rigged the game to screw small business and working people. This trend of catering to big corporations and screwing workers has continued under the current administration. One result of this: Widespread joblessness and hopelessness in both big cities and small that is now exploding on the streets.   This economic misery has hurt minorities living in urban areas especially hard, exacerbating their many concerns about institutional racism. Weinstein sees no short term or long term solution to this mess given the complete lack of political leadership, especially from the White House.

Continue ReadingJoe Rogan Discusses the Protests/Rioting with Bret Weinstein

Axiomatic Civic Responsibility

I’m looking at the “protesters” in Michigan and ruminating on the nature of civil disobedience versus civic aphasia. By that latter term I mean a condition wherein a blank space exists within the psyché where one would expect an appropriate recognition of responsible behavior ought to live.  A condition which seems to allow certain people to feel empowered to simply ignore—or fail to recognize—the point at which a reflexive rejection of authority should yield to a recognition of community responsibility.  That moment when the impulse to challenge, dismiss, or simply ignore what one is being told enlarges to the point of defiance and what ordinarily would be a responsible acceptance of correct behavior in the face of a public duty. It could be about anything from recycling to voting regularly to paying taxes to obeying directives meant to protect entire populations.

Fairly basic exercises in logic should suffice to define the difference between legitimate civil disobedience and civic aphasia. Questions like: “Who does this serve?” And if the answer is anything other than the community at large, discussion should occur to determine the next step.  The protesters in Michigan probably asked, if they asked at all, a related question that falls short of useful answer:  “How does this serve me?”  Depending on how much information they have in the first place, the answer to that question will be of limited utility, especially in cases of public health.

Another way to look at the difference is this:  is the action taken to defend privilege or to extend it? And to whom?

One factor involved in the current expression of misplaced disobedience has to do with weighing consequences. The governor of the state issues a lockdown in order to stem the rate of infection, person to person. It will last a limited time. When the emergency is over (and it will be over), what rights have been lost except a presumed right to be free of any restraint on personal whim?

There is no right to be free of inconvenience.  At best, we have a right to try to avoid it, diminish it, work around it.  Certainly be angry at it.  But there is no law, no agency, no institution that can enforce a freedom from inconvenience.  For one, it could never be made universal.  For another, “inconvenience” is a rather vague definition which is dependent on context.

And then there is the fact that some inconveniences simply have to be accepted and managed.

Continue ReadingAxiomatic Civic Responsibility

You Can Live Without Toilet Paper — And Be Cleaner for It

As I watched stories of people hoarding toilet paper during the pandemic, wiping out entire stores, I felt secure that the meagre five rolls that I have in my own house would last me quite a while, even indefinitely.

Two years ago, I gave up most toilet paper use. I found something cleaner, cheaper, and more comfortable. It’s also more convenient, as I don’t have to keep buying it – at least not very often. I use a homemade bidet and I love it! I especially appreciate my bidet when I am stuck in bathrooms where toilet paper is my only option.

The bidet (pronounced bid-day) is a bathroom fixture that washes your crotch after you use the toilet.

In some countries, a bidet is a separate fixture that sits right next to the toilet. There are also many types of bidets that can be retrofitted to any toilet seat. Some are simple and other bidets are super fancy models with heated seats, warm water, adjustable jet sprayers and air dryer – all powered with a remote control. A bidet is like a car wash for your bottom.

I considered installing a simple bidet on my toilet, but then it occurred to me that bidets essentially squirt water. That’s not plumbing science. Lots of things can squirt water. I did a little research and found some squeezable plastic lab bottles with bent squirt nozzles. They were $4 each. Perfect. Then I went to a thrift store and found some cheap but luxuriously soft washcloths. Now before you get grossed out – bear with me. What I’m doing is way more hygienic than what you’re doing with toilet paper!

After peeing, instead of wiping with dry toilet paper, I rinse off with water from my squeeze bottle bidet and pat dry with a soft dry washcloth. The first time I tried my system, I was amazed at how much better and cleaner it felt than toilet paper. It was like walking out of a shower and toweling off. It’s kind of luxurious.

Ok . . . so what about pooping? I do use toilet paper for that, but just a fraction of the amount I used to use. When cleaning with a stream of water first, I only need a very small amount of toilet paper to finish the job. I have considered a system that uses dry washcloths for that too, and probably will. Having washed cloth diapers when my kids were little, I know that this system is doable and not anywhere near as gross as you’d imagine. I’ll get to that in a moment.

I use my squirt bottle bidet in my master bathroom and it was an easy experiment because I’m the only who uses that bathroom. The only thing keeping me from putting it my guest bathroom is that it’s a little awkward to tell guests how to wipe.

But change is initially changing a mindset and then changing habits.

Continue ReadingYou Can Live Without Toilet Paper — And Be Cleaner for It

The Immorality of Fully Embracing Homo Economicus

Nick Hanauer gave a speech on the lies on which neoliberalism is built. He characterizes neoliberalism as "dependably orthogonal to the last 50,000 years of moral norms and traditions." Hanauer then turns the focus toward the foundation for neoliberalism, "homo economicus," the belief that human beings are "perfectly selfish, perfectly rational, and relentlessly self-maximizing." This unbecoming portrait of human animals dovetails with other unsubstantiated ideologies. For instance, you will often read that natural selection created a horrific dog-eat-dog world and that we are nothing more than these sorts of insatiable philistine dogs, which is nonsense, as discussed by primatologist Frans De Waal. De Waal’s main message is that we are NOT condemned by nature to treat each other badly. Though competition is part of the picture, we have evolved to be predominantly groupish and peace-loving beings who are well-tuned to look out for each other.

Now back to homo economicus. Here is an excerpt from Nick Hanauer's speech:

And how did we get to a so-called “ethics” of business that insists that the only affirmative responsibility of a corporate executive is to maximize value for shareholders?

I believe that these corrosive moral claims derive from a fundamentally flawed understanding of how market capitalism works, grounded in the dubious assumption that human beings are “homo economicus”: perfectly selfish, perfectly rational, and relentlessly self-maximizing. It is this behavioral model upon which all the other models of orthodox economics are built. And it is nonsense.

The last 40 years of research across multiple scientific disciplines has proven, with certainty, that homo economicus does not exist. Outside of economic models, this is simply not how real humans behave. Rather, Homo sapiens have evolved to be other-regarding, reciprocal, heuristic, and intuitive moral creatures. We can be selfish, yes—even cruel. But it is our highly evolved prosocial nature—our innate facility for cooperation, not competition—that has enabled our species to dominate the planet, and to build such an extraordinary—and extraordinarily complex—quality of life. Pro-sociality is our economic super power.

Hanauer sees homo economicus as a salve we invented to give ourselves permission to do terrible things;  "It is also a story we tell ourselves about ourselves that gives both permission and encouragement to some of the worst excesses of modern capitalism, and of contemporary moral and social life."

But what about capitalism? Isn't that would puts our food on our shelves. Isn't capitalism the explanation for why we strut around with our miraculous smart phones? Hanauer explains:

Capitalism is the greatest problem-solving social technology ever invented. But knowing that capitalism works is different than knowing why it works. And contrary to economic orthodoxy, it is reciprocity, not selfishness that guides it—indeed—as if by an invisible hand. It is social reciprocity that builds the high levels of trust necessary for large networks of people to cooperate at scale. And it is only through these networks of highly-cooperative specialists that the complexity that defines our modern economy can emerge.
Capitalism is good and useful, but only to an extent. More is needed for a just and prosperous society. Hanauer offers these four rules:

  • Capitalism is self-organizing, but not self-regulating. Government regulation is necessary.
  • True capitalism is not shareholder capitalism.
  • Capitalism is effective, but not efficient. Capitalism can raise our "aggregate standard of living, but it can also be extraordinarily wasteful, cruel, and unequal."
  • True capitalists are moral capitalists. "Being rapacious doesn’t make you a capitalist. It makes you an asshole and a sociopath."

For now, I'll close on this topic, but I've written often on the purported virtues of the unfettered free market, which is an ideology that I have sometimes termed the "Fourth Person in the Holy Quartet."  No doubt I'll return to this topic as homo economicus continues to destroy most of the institutions that had made the U.S. an exemplary place to live.

Continue ReadingThe Immorality of Fully Embracing Homo Economicus

The Goldman Sachs Version of the Hippocratic oath

Check out this CNBC article, "Goldman Sachs asks in biotech research report: ‘Is curing patients a sustainable business model?’ Excerpt:

“The potential to deliver ‘one shot cures’ is one of the most attractive aspects of gene therapy, genetically-engineered cell therapy and gene editing. However, such treatments offer a very different outlook with regard to recurring revenue versus chronic therapies,” analyst Salveen Richter wrote in the note to clients Tuesday.

What Richter wrote is both true and shocking. Her analysis lays bare one of the many blatant conflicts of interest in the health care industry.

Continue ReadingThe Goldman Sachs Version of the Hippocratic oath