What does it all mean?

The random readings and the resulting ramblings here are not merely therapeutic.  It is not to merely ease my anxieties about the world and the panic attacks that result.  There is a great deal of practical use too, though they are not always immediate.  It might be years before I find "use" for my rant.

I might as well be channeling a pedestrian and secular interpretation of the famous line from The Bhagavad Gita, in which the god Krishna advises Arjuna to keep doing his duty.  

Krishna tells Arjuna:

कर्मण्येवाधिकारस्ते मा फलेषु कदाचन।

मा कर्मफलहेतुर्भूर्मा ते सङ्गोऽस्त्वकर्मणि॥

(Karmanyevadhikaraste Ma Phaleshu Kadachana,

Ma Karmaphalaheturbhurma Te Sangostvakarmani)

Through that couplet, Krishna says that we need to carry on with our duties without thinking about the rewards.  He goes one step more by cautioning that we shouldn't be motivated because of the potential fruits of the action, nor be tempted to inaction.

This is absolutely contrary to the incentive-driven world in which we operate, right? 

Over the years, researchers and policymakers have come up with various incentive schemes in order to nudge people towards action.  They even reward elementary school kids if they read books!  At home, parents reward kids for doing household chores.

"Do your damn duty" apparently doesn't work in this modern world in which kids and adults alike ask "what's in it for ME?"

I read, rant, blog, because ... that's is it.  There is no because!

But, yes, the rewards always arrive.  (And so will the layoff notice, I fear!)

In November 2014, in those peaceful and joyous days before the twin pandemic of tRump and Covid, my post began with these lines:

All of man's troubles have arisen from the fact that we do not know what we are and do not agree on what we want to be.

I had completely forgotten about those wonderful lines from E.O. Wilson.  Until a couple of days ago.

In an email conversation, I wrote to a colleague:

[You] will also appreciate this from E.O. Wilson, from The Meaning of Human Existence:

All of man's troubles have arisen from the fact that we do not know what we are and do not agree on what we want to be.

I continued that email with this:

It is unfortunate that an undergrad education is no longer about helping students understand the bigger picture: Who we are as individuals, as societies; how we came to be who we are; and where we might end up.  That is what a traditional liberal education was about, whatever the major was.  Now, undergrad education is nothing but a transaction: Students pay $$$ and the university issues a piece of paper :(

If students were given an opportunity to inquire into the big picture questions, then they might also think a lot about another observation of Wilson's:

We have created a Star Wars civilization, with Stone Age emotions, medieval institutions, and godlike technology. We thrash about. We are terribly confused by the mere fact of our existence, and a danger to ourselves and to the rest of life.

Competition, altruism, and social darwinism, in biology and US politics

Slowly catching up with issues of the New Yorker that I had missed reading, thanks to the sabbatical--I had to wait until now to read the articles that are paywalled at the magazine's site. 

Jonah Lehrer's essay on the genetics of altruism is one of those inaccessible behind the paywall.  The essay is very much a story of the scientific method, as much as it is about altruism and selfishness.  From Charles Darwin, who regarded altruism "as a potentially fatal challenge to his theory of natural selection" to William Hamilton, in 1964, explaining that as a cost/benefit equation, rB > C, where "genes for altruism could evolve if the benefit (B) of an action exceeded the cost (C) to the individual once relatedness (r) was taken into account."  This was born the "inclusive fitness theory."

Lehrer writes that E.O. Wilson was the biggest champion of this neat little equation, though it was not an idea that was easy to sell.  But then, Wilson himself begins to question the validity of this equation--a classic example of the scientific method to forever question any explanatory framework, even if it is your own favorite one.  Wilson came up with a dramatically different framework about relatedness that it is "a consequence of eusociality, not the cause."

But, what about the evidence for this? In 2010, Wilson co-authors a paper in Nature that presents a lot more complicated mathematical model on the evolution of eusociality, which apparently has ignited one hell of a firestorm amongst biologists.  "Wilson is the only one who seems to be enjoying the controversy.  His appetite for scientific brawls seems, if anything, to be increasing with age." 

Wilson continues with an essay in The Daily Beast, on what drives humans to form tribes and then make wars of many types with other tribes. 

The drive to join is deeply ingrained, a result of a complicated evolution that has led our species to a condition that biologists call eusociality. “Eu-,” of course, is a prefix meaning pleasant or good: euphony is something that sounds wonderful; eugenics is the attempt to improve the gene pool. And the eusocial group contains multiple generations whose members perform altruistic acts, sometimes against their own personal interests, to benefit their group. Eusociality is an outgrowth of a new way of understanding evolution, which blends traditionally popular individual selection (based on individuals competing against each other) with group selection (based on competition among groups). Individual selection tends to favor selfish behavior. Group selection favors altruistic behavior and is responsible for the origin of the most advanced level of social behavior, that attained by ants, bees, termites—and humans.

He concludes with this:

Civilization appears to be the ultimate redeeming product of competition between groups. Because of it, we struggle on behalf of good and against evil, and reward generosity, compassion, and altruism while punishing or downplaying selfishness. But if group conflict created the best in us, it also created the deadliest. As humans, this is our greatest, and worst, genetic inheritance.

Now, compare such complex analyses of how humans behave, and how we might have evolved, with the President casually tossing out highly flammable rhetoric when criticizing the GOP budget plan:

 Reigniting his clash with Republicans over how to tame the debt and deficits, President Obama delivered a blistering attack on the House Republican budget Tuesday, calling it “thinly veiled social Darwinism” and a “prescription for decline.”

To some extent, this is a kind of war between two tribes, right?  And such a war is also an example of how our greatest genetic inheritance is also our worst inheritance :(

Robert Reich runs fast with the President's comments:

We are likely to hear a lot more about social Darwinism in the months ahead. It was the conservative creed during the late 19^th century – legitimizing a politics in which the lackeys of robber barons deposited sacks of money on legislators’ desks, and justifying an economy in which sweat shops were common, urban slums festered, and a significant portion of America was impoverished.

Seriously?  Come on; Social Darwinism?  Even if the President uses it as battle rhetoric, for Reich the academic to re-use that?

Professor Linda Hirshman's column is a lot more substantive than is Reich's.  I agree with her bottom line about the election: "Let the wild rumpus begin."