Original Post

OK, maybe it's time for something a little more serious. A little more personal.

Do you love yourself? You should. You're the only with your exact pattern of DNA that has interacted with your environment in exactly the way that you have. Sure, being unique isn't necessarily a reason to love yourself. But having unique DNA with limitless possibilities...now that's a good reason to be bullish on your personal stock. Of course, if you're going to make anything of your life, you'll have to overcome whatever unncessary hurdles your genes are throwing into your path.

One area where our genes are seriously working against us is in how we view ourselves. In caveman days, the status heirarchy in the tribe was everything. Those at the top had food, shelter, and mates. Those who were not suffered and died a childless death. That was the harsh reality of our ancestors' environment. Natural selection navigated that environmental pitfall by installing in humans the tendency to pay attention to status and to do what it took to get it. If you're here to read this today, we can be sure of one thing - your ancestors were good at this. But now, this same mechanism that kept our ancestors alive is crippling us when it comes to feeling good about ourselves.

The fact is that there are far too many people in this world who hate themselves, and I would venture to say that the percentages in the US dwarf the percentages anywhere else on the planet. This is very simply because of the quest for status. Humans, in looking for a way to the top of the totem pole, continuously assess their environment (and in America, there are more ways to the top and more definitions of being at the top than anywhere). We determine who has status by seeing who gets the most attention, who has the most of whatever happens to be valuable, and, of course, by which guys have the best girls, and which girls have the best guys. We then naturally compare whatever attributes we think contribute most to the success of these high-status inividuals to whatever we have going on. If we don't measure up, we feel bad about ourselves. This was a good thing in caveman days. It's anything but good today.

Back when our ancestors were angling for position in a tribe with limited slots, being attuned to status made all the difference. Today, however, status means nothing. Those who are the top of the ranks in our society are there for reasons that do not matter at all to us personally. For example, though so many focus on the super-rich, being wealthy in itself is no indication of anything but money. There are as many jerks among the rich as there are among any other demographic. And they are no more happy than any other group - trust me, they are consuming more Prozac than anyone. So, why should we care if we don't stack up with them? The same is true for the beautiful people.

The current trend these days is toward being beautiful at all costs. The question I always want to ask these folks on the make-over shows is this: why do you want to be beautiful? Of course, I know the answer - to get people to notice me/like me/love me, and so on. This is silly. Even if it works, you'll have people who care about you for your looks. That's a pretty flimsy foundation for a relationship. Sure, some people believe that being attractive will give them to chance to show off that wonderful personality to people who have previously not been willing to give them a look. But again, why cater to these kinds of people? They're obviously shallow and lacking in the kind of character we should be in search of. Alas, however, this is the caveman mind at work.

We clamor for status - unconsciously, in most cases. But there's a fix. The first thing to do is to reject what society deems important. Society at large is one big market. We can't forget that that which sells isn't necessarily valuable. So while society is raving about fake boobs, the ladies with flat chests and low self-esteem are hating themselves as they figure out how to finance the operation that they believe will solve all of their problems. Suppose being flat-chested comes into style, then the situation will reverse. Can you imaging the silicon queens rushing to get their boobs removed? How could one's self-esteem be tied to something as fickle as the social acceptability? No, self-esteem has to be tied to something deeper.

We need a common denominator here, one that will stay intact regardless of what society prefers. And we have one - it's called character. That's step two - work on who you really are as a person. Learn to be kind, honest, fair, trustworthy, knowledgeable, disciplined, forward-thinking, and open-minded. These are attributes that can endure anything. More importantly, these are the kinds of things to love about yourself.

The sad and ironic fact is that I know scores of people who have most or all of these characteristics (even if they're sometimes hard to spot), yet they hate themselves. Their caveman genes have such a grip on them that they focus entirely on the yardstick (or sticks, as it were) of social acceptability and ignore the things that really matter. You know how I know? Because they are the ones who are constantly putting other people down. They are constantly trying to shatter anyone's good news. They are constantly looking for evidence of weakness or inferiority in their acquaintences and friends. Anything to take the focus off of themselves and how much they loathe what they see when they look in the mirror. It's sad but I see it all the time.

The bottom line is that it doesn't matter if you're rich or beautiful or have sought-after talents. Sure, these attributes can be helpful in living a fun life, and there's nothing wrong with pursuing them. You just have to make sure that they are, in no way, tied to your self-esteem. In this respect, they simply do not matter. What matters is relationships. And you only get good relationships by loving yourself for being a good person and then demanding that others love you for the same reason. If you're not the good person you want to be, get to work, and love yourself for being a work in progress, and for having the commitment to become who you want to be. And don't be afraid to be yourself. It doesn't matter what you're into. You can be a cross-dressing, ping-pong champion and I guarantee that there are folks with whom you'll click and form deep meaningful relationships. You just have to let go of what your genes tell you and decide to love yourself, no matter who you are.

This world is not deterministic. There is no fate. There is no "things happen for a reason." There is action and reaction. Period. And if there ever was a "grand plan," we humans would have ruined it long ago. At every moment in time, an infinite number of circumstances, some in whose creation we are accomplices and some that occur randomly, are triggering human emotions that define the nature of the moments to come. Those emotions are the motivators for our actions. When we take action, we influence the outcome of events that are still to pass - else we would not act, right? The thing is that our emotions can be very quirky. In only slightly differing circumstances, the same piece of news can elicit drastically differing responses. The only way you could ever say that the world is deterministic, that there is fate, would be if you could say that the emotional responses of humans can be predicted reliably. Like weather, we can predict that certain things will happen (like rain and temper tantrums), but we have a hard time saying when or where (OK, maybe it's not hard when it comes to some people.). The point is that we humans and our collective, emotionally-driven actions guarantee against determinism. This is good news.

To say that the world is not deterministic is not to say that there are no laws of nature. There are, and if we isolate enough of the variables, we can see them in action whenever we want. The fact is that there is such a thing as absolute truth; we just can't observe and/or grasp all of it. So we do the best we can, knowing that the quest to understand our world will serve us well as we navigate it. We call a spade a spade, and we rely upon reason and logic to get us as close to absolute truth as possible. They have worked spectacularly for centuries. Nothing else has ever come close. We can, therefore, anchor our minds with the idea that the best way to discover the truth of any situation is by considering it in a critically rational way, by maintaining a scientific sort of skepticism. And we're most skeptical of the notion of certainty. There are far too many things for which our explanations are sorely lacking to be strutting around proclaiming that we are certain. The key is that by seeking truth and relying on logic and reason to get us as close as possible, we have a firm foundation from which to pursue our interests in life.

The world's indetermism is perhaps most profound when it is invoked in pondering what to do with our time here. Many people are hung up about status and background. These people, whether they know it or not, are determinists. They believe rich people lead rich people lives and poor people lead poor people lives. They believe where you come from determines where you'll end up. They believe that the way things have been is the way they'll continue to be. For some of them, to struggle against this fate is an act of futility, one that diverts limited resources from the practical responsibilities of life. For others, their ambition is defeated, for whatever reason, and they cling to determinism to justify their failure to achieve. In both cases, these people have missed the boat. Recognizing that the world is not deterministic causes us to reject this line of thinking and replace it with an action, consequence, desire, competence, and opportunity mentality.

If we think of time as unfolding from this moment forward, we can think of every choice we make as having consequences. Most are insignificant, but some reverberate for a while. If we take an interest in truth, we get a serious leg up in accurately predicting events further and further into the future. The fact is that for just about anything you'd ever want to do, there's information available on how to go about a doing it. And before anyone gets the idea that only sooome people do certain things, there's information available about real people who routinely disprove this hairball idea. Now, it is true that some information is easily obtained, while some requires considerable investment. We might have to study or pay our dues by doing things we don't like to get to the information we seek. That's where desire comes in.

The indeterminist idea implores us to explore our interests to determine how best to take action. We recognize that our actions can impact future proceedings, and our quest for truth has us seeing farther and farther into the future. In short, we are aware of the real power of our actions if we choose wisely and commit to our decisions. All that remains is to figure out what we like. This requires a preference for experience, and an open mind with no tendencies toward judgements. We know right away when we find something we like, so we simply explore the consequences of pursuing it and weigh them against those of our other options. Eventually, hopefully, a dream life appears in our imaginations.

This is where things get good. I would say that a life that allows us to pursue our interests and spend our time with the people we care about is a pretty good template for a dream life. This is a life filled with "want to dos" versus "have to dos." Visualizing something like this, for the indeterminist, is a substantial motivator. Desire is now properly tuned. All that stand between the desire and the realization of the dream are competence and opportunity. Competence is the practical side of the action/consequence concept. This is where we put our understanding of our world into use. We use the things we know to get to things we don't know. Sounds a lot like logic, right? This is the investment in information component of the success strategy. Here, we are focused on the deterministic aspects of our indeterministic world. We are students of cause and effect. We are pattern detectors. We are generalizers, and we are sythesizers of random information. Most importantly, we're goal oriented and we accept the realities that confront us.

If one's desire is to make a living as a musician, he or she must accept the hours of practice that will be required. If one's desire is to be a physician, he or she must accept the years of schooling that stand in the way. And, just to be clear, we recognize these hindrances as hurdles, not roadblocks. Every goal can be achieved. It's all a matter of desire. How much are we willing to pay, and how confident are we in our ability to make the key decisions along the way? Thinking of these as hurdles keeps us optimistic. We need only decide which we will attempt to overcome. Opportunity can play a major role in these considerations.

With goals and the competence to achieve them in hand, we pursue opportunity. We do not await opportunity for we cannot expect it to come to us. We pursue it by understanding it. This is very simple - we study those who have achieved what we desire. Our fluency with the principles of cause and effect will alert us as to the actions that lay ahead. Once again, we weigh them against how much we want what we want. If the desire is strong enough, we do what it takes, create our opportunities, and realize our dreams.

All along the way, we have held tightly to the notion that every moment could go in an infinite number of directions. We have held tightly to the notion that the world is not deterministic. This has emboldened us to consider our actions as supremely meaningful in the unfolding of our lives. Stepping back in awe at our power, we have committed to the judicious use of it. We become knowledgeable and experienced so that we can make the most of our decisions. In a larger sense, we just want to make the most of the time we have. Seeing the indeterminacy of the world is the key to doing just that.

No, I'm not trying to be one of the Williams of obscure words (that's Buckley and Safire). Don't bother with your dictionary; I made it up. Docilization is the process of making people docile. That, it appears, is what some of our social engineers are after, and it may surprise you to learn that they are primarily Republicans. I am referring to Bush's New Freedom Commission on Mental Health, which came about in 2002, and is now recommending comprehensive mental health screening for "consumers of all ages," including pre-school students. Schools, so they say, are in a perfect position to screen 52 million students and 6 million adults who work in the schools. As I read about this, I could feel a chill going up my spine.

The rationale for this program is well-meaning (as are all social engineering plans). They say that mental health problems, though they are very prevalent, are often missed or misdiagnosed. I'd buy that. They also say that, each year, many young children are expelled from schools for unruly behavior and for emotional problems. I'd buy that, too. The solution is to screen for mental problems and recommend treatment, which happens to center on anti-depressant and anti-psychotic drugs. This I cannot buy. It's a load of crap.

There's no question that medication is sometimes required to deal with mental problems. However, we are on the verge of eerily playing out the vision of Aldous Huxley in his classic, Brave New World. Huxley wrote the book in 1932 to be a piece of satirical fiction. In it, he describes a futuristic society where individuals are genetically engineered to be stratified into several levels. Those at the top live the best lives and make all the key decisions. Those at the bottom are designed to be workers, workers who are content to only be workers and to have no say in the direction of their lives. To keep this utopia humming, among other things, every person takes a pill daily that keeps him or her happy and comfortable with life. When criminals commit crimes, which is rare, they are not incarcerated, they are given a heaping dose of this "soma" drug. So, I guess what is happening is that our little people are the equivalent of Huxley's criminals - instead of dealing with their actions, they are going to be drugged. I have problems with this on multiple levels.

For one thing, we're talking about a government administered plan. That, alone, should scare the bejeezus out of just about anyone. To think that 52 million kids are going to be screened, with the results being a thumbs up or thumbs down on anti-psychotic and/or anti-depressant medication, is truly frightening. Even if they have only a 1% error rate in their diagnosis, that's 52,000 kids who will either be put on drugs unnecessarily or who will do without when they really need them. But there's a bigger issue - whether a drug actually solves a problem or masks it.

In many cases, there is no doubt that chemicals in the brain are off, which is causing the child to behave in a rambunctious or otherwise undesirable way. Personally, I say suck it up and learn to live with it. That's how character is developed. But putting that aside, what about the tons of kids who exhibit bad behavior for reasons other than brain chemicals? What about the kids who act out because mom and dad regularly engage in violent disagreements? What about the kids who act out because mom and dad could care less about them? What about the kids who act out because they're bored with the curriculum that is geared for the lowest common denumbinator (that's my word, too)? If Bush's gem of a little program is enacted, these kids will be put on drugs like Ritalin, which will most likely curb their deviations from teacher and parent expectations. But will the problem will be solved? Not even close. It will be masked. It will remain hidden in the background until something comes along that even Ritalin can't control. Then what? Admission to an institution? Prison? Come on.

The bottom line is that the behavior of children is all that should be evaluated. If Jimmy can't control himself, discipline him. If it doesn't work, get his parents involved. If that doesn't work, get him out of the classroom and send him for mental health screening. That'll keep the numbers of kids being screened manageable enough for us to expect good results. It'll also make drugging our kids a last resort, which is exactly what it should be. Even if something like Ritalin can improve Jimmy's behavior, isn't everyone better off if he learns to control it himself? Will he not take the lessons learned along the way into the rest of his life? Will he not use the ability to overcome personal hardships to overcome the inevitable barriers that will stand between what he wants and what he can attain?

So, once again, Bush and pals prove themselves to be unable to see the ramifications of their principle-driven actions. I think everyone applauds when politicians vote their conscience. We all appreciate it when our public servants commit to what they believe in, even when it could cost them politically. But sometimes, their altruistic ideals do not translate into policy without undue harm to some group of people. In this case, that group of people is all of us. If we have a bunch of docile kids who've used pharmaceuticals to help themselves and their parents avoid facing reality, we'll eventually have a bunch of docile adults who don't know what to do when reality gets tough. And with a war on terror going on, this is bad news for everyone.

When are they and the well-meaning social engineers going to learn that anomalies in the populations of humans are far too complex to "fix" with broad, sweeping government solutions? The one thing that works every time is simple - hold people accountable for their actions and their actions alone. That goes for kids, too. Docilization is not the answer.

There's a little thing I call emotional coercion, and it is going on all the place. It's wrong and it needs to be talked about. Because it doesn't get much attention, I'll admit that I find it a bit awkward to describe. But hey, my intentions are good, so here goes.

To coerce is to bring about by force or threat. To emotionally coerce is to bend the actions of others by threatening emotional turmoil. It takes place most prevalently between people in close romantic relationships. It exists because many people choose to appease the desires of hotheads and manipulators because it simply isn't worth it to do otherwise. For example, a husband with a quick temper emotionally coerces his wife by asserting his wishes upon her, even though he knows that he is making her do what she doesn't want to do. In some cases, the threat of real force underlies the emotional coercion. In other cases, the outbursts are enough to bend her will. Husbands will often complain about wives who give them so much grief that they avoid behaviors rather than running the risk. Who hasn't been held hostage by a loved one in tears?

Now, don't get me wrong. I understand that people need to be allowed to express their emotions. However, some people, the emotionally coercive, are aware of the power they have, and they use it to get what they want. This is no way to interact with people we care about. To those for whom this notion of emotional coercion hits home, I'd say you need to think about how it feels to be forced to do something you don't want to do. Then think about how dispicable it is to do this to a loved one. And to those who find themselves emotionally coerced, I say stand up for yourself. It is never acceptable for someone to wield emotional power over you to get you to behave as they want, not as you want. Yes, there is compromise, but this is beyond compromise, and there is never any chance of confusing the two. Relationships must be built on mutual respect and admiration. Anything less is settling.

I am convinced that good romantic relationships are available to everyone who's willing to do what it takes to be desirable. Unfortunately, too many people get into relationships that are fraught with emotional coercion. Instead of seeing this as a deal breaker, they suffer on. In doing so, they miss out on the opportunities for real relationships with solid foundations. If the idea that emotional coercion is wrong were articulated alongside the idea that honesty is the best policy, we might end up with a generally more content population. But nothing will ever happen until people realize that this is a human phenomenon that has no place in our modern world of reason.

Though the nature of consciousness is still very much an open question, it seems clear that the notion of self is a central feature. In other words, our consciousness is at least partly defined by our awareness of ourselves. And if we are aware of ourselves, it's reasonable to suppose that we can know ourselves. But a question arises. How exactly do we go about getting to know ourselves?

I suppose we do it like we go about getting to know others. In fact, it probably happens in that order. I would bet that infants know their parents before they recognize that they are people, too. So how do we get to know others? We watch what they do and listen to what they say. Over time, we get a feel for their history, for how their mind works, with whether they mean what they say, and with what they care about. It's pretty much the same with getting to know ourselves. But, in that endeavor, we have access to a fortuitous additional bit of information.

We have the benefit of knowing our thoughts. So, we know what we think, which means we really know what matters to us. Coupled with the knowledge of our actions, we have all that we need to know ourselves very well. Or do we?

Knowing what crosses our minds only gives us a truer glimpse into how our motivations translate into actions. To be sure, that understanding is key to knowing ourselves. But we still don't know what we really need to know, which is why what crosses our minds crosses our minds. For this, we cannot rely solely upon introspection. We need science, specifically evolutionary psychology.

The science of evolutionary psychology deals with the human mind by exploring its origins from an evolutionary standpoint. At the heart of it is the notion that the human mind was designed by natural selection to facilitate the survival of humans on earth anywhere from 20,000 to 100,000 years ago. Understanding what life was like back then, so they say, tells us a great deal about why our minds work the way they do. With the help of evolutionary psychology, we can now understand why we think many of the thoughts we think.

We now know that social status for our cave-dwelling ancestors was of paramount importance. We know that being a part of the in-group was essential to survival. With those kinds of requirements, and the easy separation of those who could get along and those who could not, natural selection easily and permanently installed in the human mind the tendencies to pursue status and interpersonal acceptability. This has serious implications on our quest to know ourselves.

We have to wonder how much of what we think is somehow driven by our genetic need to fit in and be recognized as worthy among our peers. We have to wonder how it is we go about figuring out what groups to fit into. After all, in our modern world, there are lots to choose from. And we also have to wonder how it is we go about picking the people we admire and the people we despise. If the evolutionary psychologists are right, then, from a mental perspective, we are far more at the mercy of genes that any of us would like to believe. But this is not a bad news story.

Quite the opposite. The beautiful thing about being conscious is that we are not only aware of ourselves and our thoughts, we have the power to change what we think about. Given what we know about our caveman origins, it is clear to me that there's work to be done. We have to rationally consider what matters to us, and, just as importantly, who matters. Now, don't get me wrong, this is not a trivial matter. It takes a lot of courage to look inward with the intent to accept what we find. But once we do, we have a baseline from which to evaluate our thoughts.

If I rationally conclude that being a nice and genuine person is of the highest ethical value, then, in evaluating my contemporaries, I have no choice but to put a consideration of that above a consideration of something less ethically important, such as what someone does for a living. Then, when status-oriented thoughts, such as, "Ooh, he's a television star." cross my mind, I know that I must put them aside and ask, "Yes, but is he a nice person? Does he seem genuine or fake?" Believe it or not, these kinds of personal thought control exercises are actually quite easy, especially when you can count on the legitimacy of the rationale behind them. In fact, everyone is skilled at doing this. The problem is that too many people push out the right thoughts as they simultaneously nurture the wrong ones.

For them, just as for all of us, the solution is simply to learn to tell the difference between the thoughts that matter and the thoughts that are remnants of our ancient heritage, of a time that has long since passed. So, to the question in the title of this, Who Am I?

I am a modern human with the mind of a caveman. I am aware of the needs of my ancestors with regards to the social group, and I am aware that many of those needs no longer exist. I have assessed what it means to live the good life, and I have rationally set a course to obtain it. In doing so, I have committed to extricate my mind of the thoughts that weigh it down. I have committed my mind to truth and all its consequences. I have learned to spot wayward anachronistic emotions and to compensate for them. I cannot say that I have arrived. But I can say that I am not lost.

Original Post (including comments)

Imagine that you're driving up to a parking garage. It has two entrance lanes, each with an automated ticket machine. There are four cars in the first lane and none in the second. You notice that the first lane has an attendant pulling the tickets from the machine and handing them to the drivers. What do you do? Do you get into line or pull into the second lane?

I experienced this very situation at the airport today. By the time I was up to the lanes, I just pulled into the line. I was, like everyone else, I presume, assuming that the second line was not operational. After all, why would there be an attendant working the first lane? When I got up to her, as she handed me the ticket I could easily have reached myself, I asked if the other lane was broken. She paused for a moment and then said no. I instantly smiled because, all along (for the 30 seconds or so that I sat in line), I suspected that there was absolutely no reason for her to be standing there doing what she was doing, and that I was an idiot for waiting in a line for no reason. The funny thing is that it seemed like she made the same connection at the same time. She laughed as I was pulling away.

Today's situation reminded me of two things. For one thing, I am always inclined to examine the ways by which a situation can be optimized for time. Sometimes, I come up with ways to save myself all sorts of time. Other times, I see ways to save time, but I conclude that the payoff isn't worth it. The thing is that the vast majority of instances where I see ways to optimize my time, the procedure required entails going around a bunch of people who are masquerading as sheep, which brings me to the second thing.

I am amazed again and again at how willing people are to simply fall in line. It is almost as if folks subconsciously perceive a line as indicative of something that is to be desired, and rather than consider the matter themselves, they are content to take the word of those who are already there. The only thing left to do is queue up. I've actually tested this at festivals.

A few friends and I will look for a stand that has no one in line. We'll line up single file at the table and wait. It never fails. Within a very short time, people will start lining up behind us. It's eery. Really. Try it. The interesting thing is that I often wonder if there isn't a genetic component to this, something related to the herd mentality.

In our caveman days, there was absolutely safety in numbers. Loners didn't get far in life. So, it isn't unreasonable to suppose that genes emerged that influenced individuals to pay attention to the group and to go along with the crowd. Status in the group was also of paramount importance, which means that the high-status individuals would set the agenda, so to speak. As it would also be advantageous, reproductively speaking, for individuals to be aware of their status, those without status wouldn't have much to do but to figure out what the plan is and get on board. Independent thinking, for the lowly, would be pointless. By the way, this is the kind of wild speculation that you do when you're considering the effects of evolution on the human mind, and it's really hard to find useful evidence that tilts the scales one way or another. Nevertheless, just for fun, let's consider what this scenario (assuming for the moment that is correct) has to tell us about modern humanity.

Right away, we're confronted with the idea that humans who fall into line without weighing the situation for themselves may be, whether they know it or not, pessimistic about their status in the group. In other words, they don't feel like they have the decision-making responsibility in those situations. If this is true, then it means that these people are following their genes inappropiately. If there is a point to this site, it is that our most pressing task as modern humans is to push aside the genetic influences that no longer make sense in life. If this tendency to not think that comes from the internal perception of low status is real, it is a stark example of an opportunity for enlightenment.

The fact is that status in this world is largely irrelevant. More importantly, now, as opposed to tens of thousands of years ago, there are vastly more ways to obtain status - you can be good at millions of different things, which means you can always obtain status with people who share your avocations. But the things that matter these days are driven by those who have the most visible status. Relatively speaking, nobody knows about the world badminton champion, at least not compared to an NBA player. So, the basketball player's status is more widely known, which means he has more influence on the social agenda than the badminton champion. Those for whom status is important pay more attention to what the basketball player says and does. This is silly.

Today, how we stack up against our peers is a lot less important than most of us would believe. Our genes have pushed us to place more importance on measuring high on the yardstick of popular public opinion than on simply enjoying life. Thankfully, this is easily undone. We have only to recalibrate our assessments of what matters in life.

Knowing that we will naturally pay attention to status, we must endeavor to be vigilantly aware of our wayward emotions, and to have a plan for keeping them in check. When the wrong thoughts creep in, we simply usher them out. It's nothing more than a matter of willpower. You just have to believe that the rationale behind your effort is sound and that it will yield benefits. I can vouch for both, but don't take my word for it. Empirical evidence makes a great foundation for strong belief. So, try it. See if you don't feel a burden lift from your shoulders. Or maybe you've already done this. If so, I'll see you in the short line.

Original Post (with comments)

Every few weeks, we see some crackpot story about how mankind is working feverishly to destroy the earth. Last week, Tony Blair, who has heretofore come off as a fairly sensible guy, made an "urgent" appeal to the international community to tackle the problem of global warming. Blair's rationale, it seems, is based upon the same so-called science that is behind the Kyoto Treaty. The problem is that the research is worthless. It is based upon long-term projections of the weather. Somehow, a very large population of intelligent people have fallen prey to a con of gigantic proportions, a con that, like the 60 Minutes con of late, is obvious with even the most cursory of examinations. Meteorologists can't accurately predict the weather from week to week, so it is truly astonishing that so many buy the climate projections that supposedly demonstate the effects of human industrialization on the weather 100 years into the future. This is absurd, to say the least.

The fact is that this preoccupation with global warming is a symptom of man's natural inability to grasp time on the scales that really matter. If we look at the average temperatures of the earth over the last 20 years, we might conclude that the our planet is indeed warming. However, 20 years is nothing. If we back out to 100 years, we see that the average temperatures have been fluctuating considerably. There was a time in the 70's where the concern was global cooling. The sky is falling crowd was predicting that the earth would freeze over by the year 2000. Oops.

I'm not going to say that the activities of our species haven't had an impact on the weather. I will, however, say that our impact is negligible when it is placed against nature's own predilections. As George Carlin says, "The earth's not going anywhere...WE ARE! Pack your shit, folks." This is his conclusion after rattling off an exhaustive list of predicaments that have faced planet earth over the eons. The idea is that it is supremely self-important to suppose that humans will do the earth in before the earth does the humans in. I would think that the recent spate of hurricanes would drive this point home. Alas, there is another explanation for the insistence upon human-driven global warming.

This is, quite simply, guilt. Far too many of the haves on this planet feel very bad about the disparity between their lives and the lives of the have nots. They have found a very handy tool to assuage their guilty consciences. This tool is anti-capitalism. Capitalism, in their minds, gives rise to the chasm in prosperity, and it also happens to give rise to the industrialism that they believe is the direct cause of the destruction of the earth's environment. By battling capitalism, they kill two birds with one stone. To be an environmental extremist is to be an anti-capitalist, plain and simple. Unfortunately, the racked with guilt fail to recognize that it is capitalism that has led to the spread of prosperity for common people on this planet. Were it not for capitalism, there would be no such thing as a middle class. There would be no life-saving medicines, at least not medicines available to regular folks like us. Agriculture would still be dependent upon beasts of burden. However, despite these realities, the environmentalists proceed undaunted. Theirs is a cause that has no use for facts.

I have done a good bit of research on global warming and the conclusion I have come to is that no reputable meteorologists seriously believe that humans are responsible for any significant changes in temperature. Furthermore, they do not believe that the earth is any imminent danger from global warming. In fact, the global warming crowd has been around long enough to have made predictions that can now be evaluated. The results are in - they've been wrong...every time. But don't take my word for it.

Here's a link to a great article written in 92' (amidst Gore's environmental "genius" days) that pretty much makes it clear that global warming is "the mother of all environmental scares". The author is a distinguished climatologist from MIT.

Here are a few factoids from it:
1. The amount of carbon dioxide in the air (the main reported cause of global warming) has been increasing since 1800.

Hmm, and I thought it was all of our industrialized pollution that was causing the increase.

2. The total source of carbon dioxide reportedly increased exponentially until 1973. Since 1800, it has increased 50%. But...from 1973 to 1990, the rate of increase has been much slower.

Considering the fact that our industrialized byproducts certainly did not slow down in the 70's and 80's, this would seem to refute the idea that industrialization is causing the increase and thus global warming.

3. If we removed all carbon dioxide and methane from the atmosphere, we'd still have 98% of the greenhouse gasses.

This means that the relative impact of carbon dioxide is far too small to correlate it with any major change in climate.

4. The global average temperature record shows an average increase in temperature of about .45 degree centigrade plus or minus .15 degree centigrade since 1800, with most of the increase occurring before 1940, followed by some cooling through the 50's, 60's, and early 1970s and a rapid (but modest) temperature increase in the late 1970s.

This is the nail in the coffin for the global warming wackos. They have predicted a 4 degree temperature change with a 100% increase in carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide has increased 50% but the temperature has only increased by less than half a percent. More importantly - the temperature has been fluctuating (regardless of carbon dioxide levels) - as a thinking person might expect of a freaking PLANET!!! This clearly indicates that it is impossible to correlate carbon dioxide increases with temperature change. That is the common opinion among objective climatologists - one that Gore, Hollywood, and the media managed to surpress. See the part about how Gore intentionally misquoted this guy and published lies in his book - infuriating!

5. The global cooling trend of the 1950s and 1960s led to a minor global cooling hysteria in the 1970s!

Check out books like, The Genesis Strategy by Stephen Schneider, Climate Change and World Affairs by Crispin Tickell, and The Cooling by Lowell Ponte. These all call for immediate action to avoid the catastrophe of global cooling. Ironically - these so-called experts are now global warming advocates. You never hear anything about that, do you?

All in all, this whole thing is nothing but a politically driven sham. Note a quote from a guy named Aaron Wildavsky, professor of political science at Berkeley: "Warming (and warming alone), through its primary antidote of withdrawing carbon from production and consumption, is capable of realizing the environmentalist's dream of an egalitarian society based on rejection of economic growth in favor of a smaller population's eating lower on the food chain, consuming a lot less, and sharing a much lower level of resources much more equally." That thought must be delicious to the guilt-ridden anti-capitalists that are really behind the global warming scare.

To Blair and pals, I say, get a therapist and leave the rest of us alone.

I continue to contemplate the importance of status in our caveman days. I think about the earliest days of man's history, when humans lived nomadic lives, in small groups with close kin. In those days, there couldn't have been much to build status heirarchies on but talents and skills related to survival. Being a good hunter would matter. Being good at making fancy clothes would not. Now fast forward several millenia.

Survival is no longer the struggle it was. Humans have learned to cooperate, which has led a more efficient use of resources and more insulation from environmental threats. But some things have not changed. It is still the case that those at the top of the heirarchy have access to the best food, shelter, and mates. Status still matters, a lot. However, one may ask, in those days, upon what would a heirarchy be based?

This is an interesting question. Being a good hunter would not necessarily be of interest in a community where the big shots have their food delivered to them. In other words, once a heirarchy was established whereby those at the top could coerce others into providing for their survival, the skills associated with procuring and preparing the necessities of survival would have instantly been commoditized. So what could a status heirarchy in those days be based upon?

Obviously, it could (and most likely would) be based upon warrior skills. One who does well in battle carries the threat of force, which easily translates into status. The heirarchy could also be based upon the possession of desired goods, such as money or land. Rich folks could trade their possessions for food, mates, and protection. What else?

It's reasonable to suppose that religion could have emerged in these conditions as a new heirarchy. At a time when man's understanding of his world was continuously daunted by the inexplicable, it isn't a stretch to suppose that individuals who claimed access to a higher power would have been able to weild it for status. And the bigger and more elaborate the story, the better. The more ornate the ceremony, the better. As long as these individuals could offer some evidence of their connection to something larger than the physical world, the masses would defer. Once again, the bigger and more elaborate the story, the better. This would have been a virtual vacuum for the skilled grifters and con artists of yesteryear. Over time, as more and more of the people bought into their story, these religious figures would have attained more and more status, more and more power.

So, now we have a society with three central heirarchies - the warriors, the rich, and the religious leaders. Fast forward now to the 18th century in France, in the decades prior to the French Revolution. There are three groups who hold all the power - the Royalty, the Nobility, and the Clergy. The Royalty has taken the place of the warrior. In truth, however, the Royalty controls the military, so this heirarchy has merely become more discriminating - there is room for far fewer at the top. The point is that we can see a progression of heirarchies from our earliest days to not so long ago, and that they didn't change a whole lot for of tens of thousands of years. This points to persistent influence on human behavior, which, of course, is our genes. We can also see that humans eventually came to realize that basing the concentration of power over all people upon these three heirarchies was barbaric and wholly unacceptable.

The philosophers of the Enlightenment codified the perniciousness of this practice, and from their words flowed both the American and French revolutions. So, it is clear that humans are willing and able to extricate the deleterious aspects of genetically-driven human discourse from society. They only need to be made aware of the fact that things can and should be better. And here we are, 200 plus years later, and we still have work to do.

Too many of us are still basing our opinions of ourselves and others upon notions of status, upon notions of in-groups versus out-groups (that is, preferring those we deem like us over those we deem unlike us). These assessments of our social world are largely genetically-driven - after all, we are still working off the mental blueprints of our cave-dwelling ancestors. We have constructed versions of reality that are littered with heirarchies that we deem important. Alas, in most cases, we have not done this rationally.

We have taken as truth what we have been taught from our youngest days. On questionable matters, we have given preference to explanations offered by those we know versus those we do not. We have emulated the beautiful people in our midst. We place emphasis on popularity over ethics, upon wealth over disposition, and upon looks over personality. This has ensured the persistence of erroneous ideas and the resistance to intellectual progress. In short, our genes are still having their way with us, big time. But this is not a bad news story. Some have shaken free of these genetic influences, and it is to these people that we should look for encouragement.

Some have learned to consider everything rationally, and to be aware of, and compensate for, known biases. These people have come to their own conclusions about life and how to live it. They have asserted their individuality upon reality, which has inevitably put them at odds with those who cling to their allegiances. But they stand upright, for they know that truth will never fail them. And some, some are even able to change minds en masse. They are agents of change. They are able to impose their conclusions upon the status quo, thus retiring it, and moving it forward at the same time. This is free thinking, and the possibilities are endless. We should all be so lucky.