If a Tree Falls in the Forest - Part Three

In an earlier post on the subject I gave my answer to the Zen riddle: “If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one to hear it, is there a sound? My answer was that sound needs both an originator (the vibrating air created by a falling tree) and a sensor (our ear) along with the ability to process the sensation (the chemistry of our brain). In the post I expanded the answer saying that without someone there, not only is there no sound, there is no forest nor tree, only empty space with tiny bits of matter and energy swirling around.” Now I need to modify this, The other day I listened to a TED talk by Donald Hoffman on consciousness, https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oYp5XuGYqqY, where he takes my understanding of reality as a bunch of tiny pieces of matter and energy in a vast area of emptiness, a step further, he proposes that even these are false images created by our senses and brain chemistry. Donald Hoffman is a cognitive scientist with a PhD from MIT in Computational Psychology, and author of 90 scientific papers and three books. In the talk he quotes Galileo: “I think that tastes, odors, colors, and so on…… reside in the consciousness. Hence if the living creature were removed, all these qualities would be…. Annihilated.” Hoffman cites some ancient examples of dogma based on our sensors and ability to reason which, upon better information, were disproven. The world was thought to be flat, now we think it is round. The world is the center of the universe, here again we were wrong and the idea of matter and energy is also most likely wrong. He likens that our perceived reality to an icon on a computer screen. We interacts with the icon unaware of what happens in the hardware and software. His argument supports (at least in my mind) the notion that if there is an “absolute truth”, we don’t have the sensors or brain to understand it. Hoffman disagrees, believing we have the basic ability to get to the truth. I now need to modify my answer to “if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, is there a sound?” Without someone there, not only is there no sound, there is no forest nor tree, NO empty space with tiny bits of matter and energy, only emptiness.

Income Inequality, another Perspective

The other day I was in Walmart and saw a young, deformed worker and it made me think about what would happen to him when Walmart raises its wages. I, along with most people, think that a higher minimum wage is a good thing. Unfortunately good intentions are too often accompanied by unintended consequences. For one thing, higher wages will bring individuals who can get higher wages now into competition with this young man. There will be more people vying for these jobs and employers, having a bigger pool to choose from, may hire fewer handicapped or otherwise less desirable (couldn’t think of a better word) individuals. Jobs currently held by the bottom rung of the work force will be taken by individuals a step further up on the ladder. Whatever the scenario of outcomes from higher minimum wages, unless we have full employment, I think more “less desirable” workers will not be able to find jobs. Though in principle I favor a higher minimum wage, I worry about what it will do to people like this young man. So what can we do about income inequality while minimizing unintended negative consequences? The gap in income is in part driven by the faster growth rate of income at the higher end of the wage scale and stagnation of wages at the lower end. The more rapid growth of wages at the higher end is in part the result of the overabundance (evidenced by very low interest rates) and thus lower value of capital. This, along with the increased value of talent, has given talent an edge over capital in the market place. The glut of capital though, also pushes higher low end wages, but is offset by global competition and technological innovation. Currently wages of whatever size are considered a corporate expense and as such reduce corporate taxes. A mechanism that would set a ceiling on (I imagine some sort of a sliding scale keyed off of the number of employees and maybe the nature of the business.) wages that can be considered an expense may be enough to offset the advantage of talent over capital in the market place. However, in this scenario, the market would still determine both the relative and absolute values of various skills. A way to increase the value of lower end wages is to increase the demand or reduce the supply of it. The increased revenue from the reduction of corporate tax deductions could be used to fund infrastructure projects thus increasing the demand for labor. There are other policy changes that would also contribute to increased demand, such as redefining the standard work day as consisting of say, 35 instead of 40 hours. After all 40 hours is pretty arbitrary. These types of initiatives would then allow for a rise in minimum wages, putting more buying power into people’s hands, would further increase the demand for labor. The increase in demand, by its nature would then reduce the supply. A further reduction of supply could be accomplished by reducing the number of two earner households. Rising costs without commensurate increases in wages has forced many women into the workforce. Policies like tax deductions for a stay at home parent during the early years of a child’s development would not only decrease the supply of labor, raising its value, but solve a number of social ills. The above initiatives, along with somehow allocating more of the economies gained through technological innovation to the lower end of the wage scale may move us toward full employment without increasing the competition for the handicapped man at Walmart. This will obviously need some government intervention though I don’t think an overwhelming amount. Market forces, if unimpeded by either government or special interests, drive for lower costs of inputs, a significant portion of which are wages, and higher prices of outputs and any adjustments to these forces need to somehow come from a source outside of the market. A key part of a government’s responsibility is to provide these adjustments for not only the benefit of the society as a whole, but to keep the market from self distructing.

What Should We Call ISIS

President Obama in recent appearances has tried to downgrade the term Islamic or islamist routinely used when talking about terrorism. I have sympathy with his quest, being of Muslim heritage, I have a “dog in this fight” or a “horse in the race” (depending of what part of the country one is from. However, I would approach it differently. I don’t have a problem with the name Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. The fact of the matter is that ISIS, in its very name, by using the term State, announces that it is not a religious group but a geo-political entity and even goes so far as to identify the territory over which it intends to rule. The Islamic part of its name indicates the basic beliefs of its followers (though I would have liked a little more specificity). An approach I would use to separate Islam from terrorism, is to emphasize this fact. This is easier said than done. There are groups interested in the opposite, trying to tie terrorism to the religion practiced by over a billion people across the world. Israel is one such. It feels the decades long unprecedented and unprecedented brutal occupation of the West Bank, which allows it to continue to expand settlements, and drive out Palestinians needs to be perpetuated until they have enough land and there are few enough Arabs to have a truly Jewish State. This position, strongly opposed by most Muslims and only halfheartedly supported by the US, has an interest in having all Muslims painted with the “terrorist “brush. The more evil Muslims appear, the less evil does the occupation. The Republican Party, though for different reasons, has the same interest. In a quest to expand its base, since economic conservatism doesn’t give them enough headcount to gain power, they have a multipronged strategy to expand their electorate to include individuals whose financial interests are not in alignment with Republican economic policies (Lower Middle Class). To that end it uses the so called “Southern Strategy”, values politics, xenophobia and fear. The various conflicts in the middle-east gives them a tool whereby they stoke the fires of fear and xenophobia by painting Muslims as dangerous people. It is not enough to rile people against the actual terrorists. The notion of a bunch of Arabs with guns is in itself not too scary, but a billion Muslims with their Sharia overrunning this country certainly is. So how do you separate terrorism from Islam, or for that matter any religion. As mentioned above, stress the economic and geo-political goals of these groups pointing out that throughout history, kings, emperors and leaders of all stripes have used religion as a means of rallying the masses. Point out that Joseph Kony’s Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda originally known as Uganda Peoples Democratic Christian Army, designated as a terrorist organization, hasn’t turned the World against Christianity. It is recognized as a revolutionary group with an agenda whose leader proclaims them as fighters for their God. The Jewish Defense League, committed to do” whatever” is necessary to defend Jews, also designated a terrorist group, has committed atrocities including burnings and vandalizing Mosques, not only in Israel and Palestine but also here in the US. Certainly Jews here and elsewhere are not expected to explain that the JDL does not represent their views. But then, the two don’t have a media, a country and a political group interested in painting them as representing Christianity or Judaism. Another way is to clarify the difference in terms I discussed in a previous post “Confluence of Terms Adds to Confusion About the Middle East”. Educate people on the differences within Islam, in particular Wahhabism and within it the history of the Salafi movement and its subsequent splintering into groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, a political party (Osama Bin Laden’s Al-Qaida was such a splinter). Teach the history of the Middle-east. Maybe then, people will come to look at revolutions and conflicts within Islam through the same lens as the conflict during the Reformation, not as a Christian thing, but speak of a war between Catholics and Lutherans.

“`Detachment from the Self” in the Workplace

About ten years ago I read a Hindu text, the Bagavad Gita, and recently decided to read it again. It tells a story of a young prince, Arjuna, readying to engage in a battle against his relatives and former associates. With the battle soon to begin,, he has reservations about fighting and killing his kith and kin. As he hesitates, his charioteer reveals himself to be the Lord Krishna who lecture him and goes on to argue that he should fight. Krishna tells Arjuna that he is incapable of taking any lives and that only he, Krishna, can create or destroy life. Krishna then goes on to advise that going into this battle, Arjuna should set aside the effect of the outcome, good or bad, on him personally. He further points out that not only in battle but in any enterprise one should be totally committed and focused and not be distracted by the self, concentrating all the energy on the outcome Reading this I thought back to my working days and my experience supported Krishna’s advice. I was fortunate in that the majority of my associates intuitively practiced the personal detachment from results. A few however, were primarily motivated by personal gain. Some were driven by greed or success while others by the need to prove their worth to themselves or others. They made decisions, not for benefit of the outcome, the team or the organization but to further their own agendas and careers. In general, with a few exceptions, I found people who were driven primarily by a quest for personal success, be it career or ego, to be less wise and less successful in the long run (I guess one could debate what constitutes success) than those who naively put the endeavor first. The problem is that whenever one undertakes a task, plays a game or goes into battle and is focused on themselves, they are not giving their full attention on the enterprise and the results will be sub-optimal. I remember playing football as a kid, and whenever instead of charging ahead, totally involved in the play, I worried about myself, invariably I would not make the play and worse, get injured. Having said that, the degree to which one benefits from putting personal ambitions aside, in the workplace it depends on the nature of the organization and the integrity and experience of the leadership. There needs to exist a sense that one will be evaluated fairly and on the results of the actions and not on other factors. Also there needs to be enough skill within the organization to recognize the quality of the outcome. I remember years ago, I along with a half dozen of my colleagues were interviewing a young scientist. He had recently earned his PHD and was working for a small company. He lamented that within the organization there was no one who could recognize his achievements. I assured him that here there would be at least a dozen people who, not only, would recognize his accomplishments but also any blunders. He took the job.

Is it Really Small vs. Large Government?

The recent outbreak of the measles has quickly moved into the political arena with two of the Republican presidential contenders, Chris Christie and Rand Paul, essentially saying that vaccines are very good but people should not be forced to vaccinate their children. Rand Paul goes further to say that vaccination has on occasion brought on severe mental problems. This argument that its good but should not be imposed on all and should be strictly voluntary gets to the heart of one of the differences between the Right and Left, the individual vs. society. Neither politician claimed that the vaccines are not good for society. They stand for minimizing restrictions on an individual’s rights. Or so it seems. Why then at the height of the Ebola outbreak, the right was quite vocal about restricting movement of individuals who potentially contracted Ebola? Governor Christie forced a nurse returning from West Africa to live in a tent in isolation for several weeks. Imposing on an individual’s freedom did not enter the discussion. Both the isolation and the vaccination were taking away freedoms for the benefit of society as a whole. Maybe it’s because in the case of Ebola, a few were disrupted for potentially the benefit of many while the vaccine was all giving something up for potentially a few. Following 9/11, after the deaths of 3,000 innocent civilians, the Right had no difficulty in abrogating some rights of individuals, spending a trillion dollars and sacrificing the lives of thousands of our soldiers and hundreds of thousands of foreign civilians, to prevent a reoccurrence. At the same time refusing to even bend a little, allowing minor firearm controls or spending a fraction of the moneys spent on the “War on Terror” on social improvements to reduce the gang violence in the inner cities saving an even greater number of lives. So again, why the difference? One possibility is that Ebola was scary and fear motivates the Right whereas the Measles not so much; or that gang violence effects the “other” and isn’t a threat to middle class whites. Maybe it’s because in the case of Ebola and terrorism the threat is from the outside and our machismo demands we fight it. Whatever it is I don’t think it’s a big/small government or an individual liberties issue.

Confluence of Terms Adds to Confusion About the Middle East

A number of years ago, on one of the cable networks I watched a series on Islam filmed by a South Korean crew. Among the presentations were programs on Muslim food and Muslim dress. Then they showed programs on Islam in Africa and China. In the Muslim food and dress programs they featured Arab food and dress while in the Islam in Africa they showed Muslim women celebrating regional festivals topless. The contradictions were innumerable. It is very difficult to interpret news reports relating to the Middle East. Religions are mixed with ethnicities, nationalities with religion, ideologies with ethnicities and culture with race. This, though predominant in discussions of the Middle East, is not unique to it. The nation of India is often confused with the Hindu religion and a non-existent Indian ethnicity. In the case of India, confusion stems from ignorance whereas confusion regarding the Middle East often is part of a strategy. All the cultural traditions in the Arabian Peninsula are portrayed as Muslim in the Western press though Arabs represent only a minor part of the billion plus Muslims In the press one often sees and hears about long beards worn by men in robes as Muslim beards. The mutilation of girls through female circumcision, again a tradition in parts of Africa and Asia practiced by both Muslims and non-Muslims is presented as a requirement in Islam as are“ honor killings” and other regional traditions. Not all Muslim women wear hijabs. Teenage girls in Chechnya dress like any European teenagers and as mentioned above in Sub Saharan Africa sometimes tribal women wear no tops. One hears a lot about the head covering of some Muslim women but not Orthodox Jews nor Mennonites (in Medieval Times Christian women wore something that strongly resembles a hijab). And by the Way Amish men and the Duck Dynasty also sport long beards. Islam is a religion with adherents of all ethnicities and cultures whereas there are Christian Arabs in the West Bank and Egypt and a Jew(ethnic and religious) sits in Parliament in Iran. When it comes to discussing Israel it becomes even more convoluted because of the concentration of religion, ethnicity and culture. Criticism of Israel is often condemned as anti-Semitism or an attack on the Jewish religion. Judaism, the basis for both Christianity and later Islam, is an ancient religion predominantly practiced by one ethnic group though there are Ethiopians and a small number of converts from other ethnic groups that practice the religion. There are Jews throughout the world, who for the most part are atheists and do not practice any religion. The term Semite refers to a race and, though it includes Arabs, is most commonly used to refer to Jews especially when used as anti-Semitism. Zionism is an ideology attributed to ethnic Jews but also endorsed by a large number of Fundamentalist Christians. Israel is a nation, though aspiring to be a Jewish theocracy, has within its population, Muslims (about 20%), Christians of various denominations, agnostics and atheists. As a result, a statement made by an Iranian or a member of Hamas saying they want to destroy Israel, though they may mean the elimination of a form of government, in the press it is often interpreted as eliminating a religion, Judaism; an ethnic group, Jews; or a race, Semites. Even in the minds of bigots who rail against “Jews” I suspect it isn’t clear whether their rage is aimed at adherents of a religion, members or an ethnic group, proponents of an ideology or citizens of a nation. Though often it is politically advantageous to lump them all into one, they are not the same and to really understand what is going on in the world, it is necessary to understand the difference. In Israel there is much debate relating to the occupation of Palestinian lands and the quest for a theocracy. There and within the predominantly Muslim countries the difference between the terms is clear and a discussion can be had without confusion. Unfortunately in this country it is almost impossible to have a meaningful debate. A critic of Israel is too often accused of being anti-Semitic or if an ethnic Jew, a self-loathing one and an offense committed by someone proclaiming to be Muslim is an offence by Islam, while a critic of Muslims automatically is tagged an Islamaphobe.

Post Racial?

There is much focus on race in the news lately; the shooting deaths of unarmed black men; the militarization of the Ferguson police in response to racial demonstration; lack of awards to black actors and directors and the Kanye West rant against a white musician winning over a black. Have we indeed progressed? I remember, following the Civil Rights movement there was an attempt in the media to downplay racial differences. Commercials would show blacks and whites in the same scenes pushing the same products. Children were being taught that all people are the same and differences in skin color are no different than the color of one’s hair. But that quickly changed. Advertising changed. Adds targeting a white demographic now no longer included black actors while other adds could be directed at exclusively black audiences. It’s not clear to me why or how, but within a decade political movements (Black Panthers, Black Muslims) emphasizing the racial difference while fighting for black power, gained strength. No more was the focus on “everyone is the same” but now the battle cry became “different but equal”. Of course the racists loved this preaching fostering a further separation of the races. They realized that wherever there is a declared difference, there cannot be equality. The more powerful segment, whether by virtue of numbers or resources, will always have the upper hand. Back in the early sixties I remember walking down a street in Washington DC. Strolling in front of me was a young, interracial couple obviously on a date. Over the course of a few blocks, several cars slowed down, rolled down their windows and yelled racial slurs at the white man. During the same period, fulfilling my military obligation, I was stationed in a small compound in Baltimore. Just outside the front gate was a bar. One night, returning to the base after a night out I stopped at the front desk to check in. Behind the desk was a black sargent who was speaking to a shaken light skinned young man who looked like he might have a bit of African blood. He was explaining to the sargent that he wanted to stop at the corner bar for a drink. The bouncer asked for his ID. He was 21 but the card indicated his race as Negro so he was refused entry. He was a well-educated northerner and was perplexed. He had never faced such overt discrimination and didn’t know how to respond. The sargent told him that this still happens down here and suggested he go to black neighborhood for a night out. So where are we now? Today I can go to an upscale restaurant even further south, in Charleston and as often as not see an interracial couple. In the same area we frequent a more modest restaurant and it is not uncommon to see small gathering of friends that include both black and white. There has been great progress. In part, it is due to our increased mobility, better education and the fading of the slave era propaganda claiming the racial inferiority of Negros to justify their enslavement. So when I hear complaints about the absence of black representation at entertainment awards or in the academies I have mixed emotions. On the one hand I think it is driven by discrimination whereas on the other I think we may have made more progress than I think and the reason there are not more blacks may be just that, on this occasion, there were not as many good performers and we were not pursuing the “different but equal” but the “everyone is the same” philosophy and seeing race no greater a differentiator than the color of hair. Or maybe I’m just blindly optimistic.