SUPERINTELLIGENCE?

The “Catch 22” of AGI is the potential for knowledge beyond the comprehension of the brightest human beings. Many will choose to forgo human judgement and action because of the presumed value of knowledge offered by AGI. That is the threat being explained in “The Infinity Machine”.

Books of Interest
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

The Infinity Machine (Demis Hassabis, DeepMind, and the Quest for Superintelligence)

Author: Sebastian Mallaby

Narration by: Vidish Athavale

Sebastian Mallaby (English journalist and author, senior fellow for international economics at the Council on Foreign Relations, two-time Pulitzer Prize finalist.

Mallaby has written a biography of Demis Hassabis, the co-founder and CEO of Google DeepMind. This is a somewhat frightening exploration of AGI (artificial general intelligence). The author argues AGI is being grown at a faster rate than it can be understood or managed by humans. Though science may wish to develop AGI to aid society, it may be creating a system that will end it.

Sir Demis Hassabis (British A.I. researcher, neuroscientist, video game designer, and entrepreneur.)

Mallaby reflects on the early childhood of Demis Hassabis who becomes a chess master at age 13, a video-game designer at 17, and who founded his own company in his early twenties. His life experience leads him to study cognitive neuroscience at University College London. He explores how humans construct mental models to think and act in the world. With that view of the building blocks of human thought, he founds DeepMind with help of Legg and Suleyman. Their thought is that in solving the mystery of the way human intelligence works; they could create a computer program to more rapidly and successfully improve human society.

The two other principals in the creation of Deep Mind, Shane Legg and Mustafa Suleyman, have different roles in the company. Legg is a computer scientist who focuses on a framework for Deep Mind that would make Deep Mind more intelligent with a recognition of human reliance and its potential risk of minimizing the importance of human judgement. Mustafa Suleyman focuses on fundraising for the Deep Mind organization and the operational function of the company. The ultimate acquisition of Deep Mind by Google resolves fundraising concerns of Deep Mind and assures its future development.

Mallaby believes the speed of AGI development exceeds the ability of society to either understand or govern itself without the influence of AGI. The author does not believe most of its developers or the public clearly understand the risks of AGI development and its influence on society. The author argues AGI concentrates power in ways governments cannot fully comprehend and, without that understanding, AGI may lead society beyond the fundamental goal of human survival. The consequences of too much reliance on AGI may escalate conflicts in the world.

Shane Legg is alleged to believe “…human extinction is not necessarily the worst possible outcome…” for the advancement of AGI because of an evolutionary melding of human and machine intelligence.

The question becomes whether human beings can program AGI with a preeminent goal of human life’s value and preservation. Mallaby argues at the heart of the issue is human fallibility. This is a subtle argument because it is saying humans are not capable of encoding human values in A.I. to assure and enforce human preservation. He implies human programmers are too conflicted over how to program A.G.I. to guarantee human preservation. This is the author’s “Catch 22”; i.e. a no-win paradox because of circular logic. Shane Legg argues there is no paradox and that the future may mean the melding of human beings with AGI superintelligence.

As one ponders Legg’s belief, one is reminded of Karl Marx who wrote “History repeats itself first as tragedy, second as farce.”

Malaby compares AGI to the nuclear bomb. Proven by the nuclear bomb E = mc2 has a tremendous upside. It is the proof of Einstein’s energy formula which is the basis for belief in an inexhaustible source of energy. However, Mallaby implies AGI is like Einstein’s discovery of the equivalence of mass and energy. Like nuclear power foretells an inexhaustible source of energy it can be a destroyer of worlds. AGI foretells the possibility of a revolution in human knowledge, but with the accessibility of the internet, AGI carries the danger of human misuse and societal conflagration. Both AGI and nuclear power are only constrained by human judgement. If judgement of AGI seems to exceed human judgement, the path of AGI may mean the end of humanity because human judgement is viewed as inferior. The jury seems out on use of nuclear weapons and the same seems true for AGI.

The second atomic bomb test at Bikini Atoll on July 25, 1946. The Marshall Islands, where Bikini is located, is suing the U.S. for what it calls a violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. There seems a correlation with the advance of AGI. Who is at risk, if judgement is left in the hands of AGI rather than human beings?

When AGI reaches the test of nuclear weapons, the only constraint seems the nature of human beings and their judgement. The “Catch 22” of AGI is the potential for knowledge beyond the comprehension of the brightest human beings. Many will choose to forgo human judgement and action because of the presumed value of knowledge offered by AGI. That is the threat being explained in “The Infinity Machine”.

DEMOCRACY’S STRENGTH

History has shown the greatness of both parties of American government. One takes pride in the fact that American democracy corrects the errors of incompetent Presidents.

Books of Interest
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

The Fourth Turning is Here (What the Seasons of History Tell Us About How and When This Crisis Will End) 

Author: Neil Howe

Narration by: Neil Howe

Neil Howe (American author, historian, economist, and consultant.)

Neil Howe argues the United States is in the middle of a crisis. He views political polarization is as great today as it was during the American Revolution, the Civil War, and the Great Depression. He suggests society has broken into two “mega-identities” that is evident in the news of the day. He sees a red and blue American society with a distinct part of society being rural/suburban, evangelical or traditionalist, nationalist, anti-elite, and distrustful of institutions. The other side is urban/metropolitan, secular and pluralist, cosmopolitan, and pro-institution with a trust in expertise. (In fairness to the author, this reviewer did not listen to Howe’s entire book.)

Generational beliefs.

Howe goes on to suggest there is a generational quality to these two camps. Boomers are those born between 1943 and 1960 (my generation). Generation X born from 1961-1981, Millennials (1982-2004), and Generation Z (2005-to the present). The problem with this broad categorization of Americans is that one can see themselves in each generations view of American government and society. Americans are both Red and Blue, believe strongly in the equality of human beings, are skeptical of absolutes, and believe in common good and the importance of government. Americans are relatively free human beings who will ultimately make the right decision to preserve the health and well-being of democratic society.

Is immigration an American crisis or a discouraged opportunity?

Howe argues today’s America is at a once-in-a-century crisis. He suggests American governance has become too polarized and that institutions of government are decaying in ways that are diminishing the economic prosperity and influence of democracy in the world. Polarization is not new to America. One who has reached a Boomer’s age remembers political polarization from the excesses of America during Vietnam. The mistakes and lies of the Johnson administration are not unlike the lies of Donald Trump. Democrat’s support of Johnson’s Great Society created too many programs like urban renewal and anti-poverty that remind one of Republican’s support of Trump’s overzealous deregulation of environmental protection, finance of projects to aggrandize his reputation, and welfare policies that penalize the poor. Both Johnson and Trump show poor management of their major policy initiatives. The social and political consequence of their mismanagement has damaged America’s economy and influence in the world. Both Johnson and Trump represent what can go wrong in a democracy but is eventually corrected by elections of future leaders founded on the principles of the Constitution.

There are differences and similarities between Johnson and Trump. The obvious difference is the parties to which they belong. Johnson creates bureaucratic sprawl and economic waste by expanding government services while Trump creates bureaucratic ineptitude through fragmentation from arbitrary firing of government employees. Both Presidents believe they are benefiting American society while they made decisions that damaged the economy and diminished the value of democratic governance. The extent of their damage during these two Presidents did and will take time to repair but the structure of America’s government assures democracy’s recovery.

History has shown the greatness of both parties of American government.

Lincoln is elected to take the giant step needed to put America back on the path of human equality and opportunity. Franklin Roosevelt saved America from economic collapse. Just as Lincoln is not survived by a President who reinforces equality of Americans, the same will likely be true for the next President after Trump. But, as Martin Luther King said, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice”. One takes pride in the fact that American democracy corrects the errors of incompetent Presidents.

LEWIS & CLARK’S AMERICA

Robert Frost wrote “In three words I can sum up everything I’ve learned about life: it goes on.” That is the essential truth of “The Vast Enterprise” about the Lewis and Clark Expedition.

Books of Interest
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

The Vast Enterprise (A New History of Lewis & Clark) 

Author: Craig Fehrman

Narration by: Jason Culp & 5 more

Craig Fehrman (Author, journalist, historian of Presidents and American history.)

Craig Fehrman writes an excellent history of the Lewis and Clark expedition. It entertains and informs reader/listeners of the lives of Meriwhether Lewis, William Clark, an enslaved man named York, and a tribal native named Sacagawea. From President Thomas Jefferson’s reasoning and his decision to create an expedition from Kentucky to the Pacific, one learns something new, old, and troubling about America.

Thomas Jeffereson (1743-1826, President of the U.S. 1801-1809.)

Thomas Jefferson is characterized as a shrewd, partisan, and forceful political operator who had a clear vision for the future of continental America. That prescient vision of America by Jefferson hides his blindness to the truth of human equality of Black men and women as inferior to white men. However, Fehrman notes Jefferson believes natives of this continent had the potential to be the equal of white Americans. Jefferson’s shrewdness and forceful opinion is illustrated by his understanding of the importance of trading posts as a way to expand control of land possessed by native inhabitants and held by Spanish and French interests. Lewis and Clark’s western expedition is, in Jefferson’s opinion, critical to America’s future land interests.

Meriwhether Lewis and William Clark (American Explorers.)

Both Meriwhether Lewis and William Clark are characterized as relatively educated colonial citizens suited for an expedition from Kentucky to the Pacific. Though both leaders for the expedition were heroic, their personalities, leadership styles, and temperaments were quite different. Lewis is characterized as brilliant but an inwardly volatile man, while Clark is a steady, self-confident manager of people. Lewis is the visionary who works in the Jefferson’ administration as secretary to the President while Clark is former military officer who gets things done with people who report to him. Lewis clearly understood Jefferson’s objective in exploring the west, its diplomatic purpose, and geopolitical importance. Clark’s frontier experience, military discipline, and surveying skill served Lewis’s understanding of Jefferson’s objectives.

Lewis & Clark Expedition

Both Lewis and Clark understood they were not only entering a wilderness but a continent full of other nations which made them effective negotiators and intermediaries with native tribes. Lewis’s intellectual understanding of Jefferson’s objectives is complimented by Clark’s skill in managing native tribe relationships. With the help of a Black slave owned by Clark and a native Shoshone woman married to a French trader, this former military man manages to gain the aid of the Lakota, Shoshone, and other tribes to save the Lewis and Clark expedition from failure.

Image of York (Slave owned by William Clark.)

The history of York (Clark’s owned slave) in the expedition is interesting. What the author, York, and enlisted members of the expedition show is that Lewis and Clark were dependent on their crew for the success of the mission. Men like York provide the labor and skill needed to complete the journey. As a young adult, York shows the value of all human beings to the success of the expedition while being a slave. The sad fact is that York is never released from his bondage to Clark. Despite York’s alleged inferiority, Clark relies on him for his field abilities and reminds reader/listeners of the importance of other cultures and ethnicities that make America. Fehrman infers York is a symbolic bridge between ethnic worlds; i.e. not just the Black and White world but the native and English American world. York is an example the difference of human beings in America; i.e., from people of color to native tribes in a dominant white culture. Fehrman’s story infers human difference reinforces belief that native tribes (Black, white, or other) could co-exist though not be treated as equal human beings. This is no stretch of a reader/listener’s imagination based on America’s history of Indian/American wars and slavery. There is one native American that travels with Lewis and Clark. She is Sacagawea, the only woman on the expedition. Her story reflects on America’s view of women as property despite their contribution to life and their contribution to social and economic society.

Image of Sacagawea on the Lewis and Clark Expedition.

Fehrman suggests Sacagawea is a full participant in the expedition. To Fehrman she represents a symbol of Native nations. Sacagawea and York became part of the diplomatic fabric of the journey demonstrating the truth of human equality. Sacagawea became pregnant from her husband, Toussaint Charbonneau, a French-Canadian trapper. Her baby is born on the expedition. Charbonneau had two native wives, the first of which did not accompany them on the expedition. Sacagawea had been kidnapped by the Hidatsa tribe in a war with the Shoshone when she is 12. Charbonneau is 20 years older than Sacagawea. Sacagawea is 13 when she is forced to marry Charbonneau by the Hidatsa. The tribe had traded goods with Charbonneau. Sacagawea and Charbonneau are reluctantly hired by Lewis and Clark for the expedition. Both act as interpreters on the expedition but Fehrman argues Sacagawea represents more than being a translator because of her heritage and knowledge of the territory through which they will travel. Sacagawea’s Shoshone tribal heritage had diplomatic value beyond mere language interpretation. On the other hand, Charbonneau seems more a liability than asset to Lewis and Clark.

Shoshone Tribe in western America.

Fehrman shows the expeditionary Americans were not dominant actors in their relationships with native tribes. In the wilderness, they acted more as guests or supplicants in their dealings with various tribes. They recognized they were outsiders that needed political alliances with native tribes because they had meager knowledge of the territory and customs of indigenous tribes who controlled the river lands they explored. Their need for food, horses, guides, and knowledge of the land depends on their relationships with indigenous tribes. Without tribal help and guidance, they would have no protection or chance of safe passage. Native tribes provide horses and information that kept them on their course to the west and saved them from starvation and death. It is a combination of Jefferson’s somewhat arrogant plan for the country’s consolidation for the expeditionary force to be dependent upon indigenous tribes who are repeatedly deprived of their land in America’s growth as a nation. It is the explorer’s humbleness and humility that allows Lewis and Clark to succeed in growing an American continent that historically suppresses indigenous land ownership and use.

Most Shoshone Tribes appear more southwestern than northwestern.

Indigenous tribes were politically naive in their aid to American explorers. Without tribal’ naivete, the early days of America’s influence and growth as a singular nation would have failed. One presumes, the continent would have remained a land of tribal ownership and internecine conflicts over land and natural resources. In the early years of American government, it is humbleness, humility, and the growth of trade between natives and early Americans that transform a land of native tribal presence into a singular nation among nations. In Fehrman’s opinion the prime mover of that accomplishment began with Thomas Jefferson and “The Vast Enterprise” of explorers like Lewis and Clark.

The last chapters of Fehrman’s book leave listener/readers with notes about Lewis, Clark, York, and Sacagawea that are sad to read or hear. Lewis becomes an alcoholic and commits suicide. Clark refuses to give York his freedom. York dies from cholera while Clark lives a life of success and power. Clark becomes governor of -Missouri Territory and Superintendent of Indian Affairs. Sacagawea is leaves her French husband and dies at Fort Manuel in 1812.

Robert Frost (1874-1963.)

Robert Frost wrote “In three words I can sum up everything I’ve learned about life: it goes on.” That is the essential truth of “The Vast Enterprise”.

NON-FICTION BOOKS

Kenneth Davis does more to add than subtract from one’s understanding of what others have written. Davis’s reviews of non-fiction books seem objective, but they are subjectively chosen.

Books of Interest
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

The World in Books (523 Works of Great Short Nonfiction) 

Author: Kenneth C. Davis

Narration by: Adenrele Ojo & 2 more

Kenneth C. Davis (Author, lecturer, contributor to The New York Times, Newsday and other publications.)

A criticism of Kenneth Davis’s “The World in Books” is its spartan overview of nonfiction. On the other hand, these reviews are an important overview of many of the most politically and socially important subjects of life.

Religion, humanism, sexism, and racism are the most eminent of Davis’s subjects. Like all brief summaries of important writers of the past, one’s personal views interfere with fundamentally important subjects. Of course, our personal biases seep into our own writing and understanding of other’s beliefs. What seems missing from Davis’s book is not wide analysis of different political and social beliefs but a perspective on the negative consequences of known forms of government or societal beliefs. Of course, criticism of his choice of works is unreasonable because of the wide number of non-fiction books from which to choose. Fairness is in the eyes, ears, and memory of the beholder.

The aristocracy of government.

On the one hand, one sees Davis’s view of communism, democracy, authoritarianism, and humanism as important constructs of society. On the other, Davis offers little consideration of their societal impact. One may argue societal impact is not Davis’s objective. He alludes to race, gender, and climate consequences but does not explore connections with a broad analysis of government or society. As with all writers of history, his own bias is in his choice of non-fiction books. He writes of Socrates, Plato, Frederick Douglass, W.E.B. Du Bois, James Baldwin, Elie Wiesel, Malcolm X, George Orwell, Virginia Woolf, Alice Toklas, Gertrude Stein, Mary Wollstonecraft, Ernest Hemingway, and others. He recognizes liberal humanists for their ideological and social contribution to human understanding, not for expressed personal opinion but for broad exposure to good or great writers.

General criticism of Davis seems unfair because he offers historical information about a “…World of Books” that are often ignored by reader/listeners of non-fiction writers. How many of us have read ancient texts, or modern writers like Elizabeth Kolbeert, Frankl, Harriet Jacobs, Isabel Wilderson, Simone de Beauvoir, and other less well-known writers about human society. Davis seems to represent a host of lesser-known works to simply offer enlightenment to reader/listeners. He provides excellent summaries of many books this reviewer has never read or listened to.

All reviewers bring their own biases in reviewing another’s book.

Davis does more to add than subtract from one’s understanding of what others have written. Davis’s reviews of non-fiction books are objective, but they are subjectively chosen. The author may have had a curation bias. How could he not; i.e. there are too many non-fiction books for one person to know; let alone review. Davis may or may not have an ideological liberal humanist bias, but it is because of the sheer volume of published non-fiction books. Every person has a point of view. The point is that a reader/listener is benefited by an author like Davis who intends to be objective about what non-fiction authors hope and try to tell reader/listeners.

THE MIDDLE WAY

As every American, particularly white people of conscience know, ethnic minorities are faced with hardship, violence, and social discrimination until ruling majorities realize that all human beings are entitled to equality of opportunity in the society in which they live.

Books of Interest
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Voice for the Voiceless (Over Seven Decades of Struggle with China for My Land and My People.) 

Author: Dalai Lama

Narration by: Edoardo Ballerini

Dalai Lama (Author, born in 1935 is presently 91 years old. He is the spirtual head of Tibetan Buddhism.)

“Voice for the Voiceless” is the wish of every minority in the world. State supremacy over the individual in communism sharply contrasts with democracy in degrees of un-freedom revealed by what a citizen can be and do. Competition and descent, suppression of minority voices, control of information, collective identity, and human rights are insisted upon by communist leadership according to “Voice of the Voiceless” by the Dalai Lama.

American government checks and balances.

In a democratic government, there are multiple societally expressed interests like legal protection for dissent, creation of non-government organizations, guarantee of free speech, and institutional checks and balance on the power of its leaders. It is not that America or any democracy is perfect in its makeup but in the China that the Dalai Lama describes, communism is designed to prevent any form of opposition to its leadership. In the Dalai Lama’s view, no compassion exists in China’s government.

The infamous and unidentified “tank man” who stood in the way of the Tiananmen Square crackdown.

The most prominent historical evidence of a lack of government compassion is shown by the Tiananmen Square massacre during the Deng administration. The Dalai Lama’s opinion is reinforced by a Chinese guide who closes the doors of a private meeting room in which several Americans are informed of China’s reaction to the Tiananmen massacre. Chinese students and citizens who demonstrated at Tiananmen Square were asking for communist party reform, a reasonable level of leadership accountability, and elimination of corrupt Chinese government leaders.

The Dalai Lama writes “Voice for the Voiceless” to challenge China’s political system which denies rule of Tibet by the Dalai Lama as its head of state. His demand reminds one of histories of displacement of native tribal leaders in America in the 17th and 18th centuries. Recognizing the fates of proud native leaders in America, the Dalai Lama (who has been exiled to India since the 1950s) is asking the communist government to allow him to be the leader of his “tribe” in Tibet. In America, more than two hundred years passed before genuine recognition and opportunity were seriously offered America’s natives. It has taken nearly 200 years for America to offer equal opportunity for tribal natives to pursue their interests as recognized ethnic minorities. What the Dali Lama wishes for Tibetan people in China is in many ways the experience of minorities in a democracy, let alone a communist autocracy.

Natives of America grew together as common ancestors that could choose life in a system of government that came to understand the importance of tribal self-determination. Natives of America had land rights, and a concept of cultural difference; accompanied by jurisdictional authority to pursue economic development as a distinct ethnic minority. The Dalai Lama clearly shows Tibetan people have a similar ethnic origin and desire for freedom and self-determination. Only time and ethnic solidarity offer hope for them to realize their goals.

Barbara Demick gives listeners a picture of Tibet with a darkness that rivals the narrative she creates for North Korea in “Nothing to Envy”. 

Communist China is not America. However, the Dalai Lama appears to want a level of independence to protect a Tibetan way of life for Buddhists to preserve their cultural identity and language without violent resistance by the Chinese system of government. This is a reminder of native American’s struggle in democratic America. The Dalai Lama seems only to wish for human and religious freedom, not nation-state hegemonic control. He notes Tibetans have no institutional power, no representation in the Chinese government, and no legal way to challenge state’ government policies.

The Dali Lama’s book surprisingly notes the initial relationship with Chinese communism that proposed a “Seventeen-Point Agreement” which offered a framework for Tibet to have the recognition requested by the Tibetan culture. However, the tenor of the “…Agreement” is violated with Tibet being occupied by Mao’s government. Mao orders his administration to keep the Dalai Lama from fleeing and pressured Tibetan leaders to negotiate subservience to the Chinese Communist Party. Mao’s goal is to unify Tibet with China, not provide Tibetan autonomy within the structure of Chinese suzerainty. There was to be no self-determination of Tibetans, no interest in preserving Tibetan institutions, no role for the Dalai Lama, and no Tibetan’ autonomy. Mao demanded integration, not reconciliation.

As the Dalai Lama grew to understand what Mao and future leaders of the CCP really wanted, he chose to leave Tibet in the late 1950s. He exiled himself to India, the origin of Buddhism’s creation. Buddhism teaches liberation from suffering through compassion, wisdom, and meditation. These were not a part of the Communist ideals of Mao or his successors. The core belief of communism is that truth comes from the party whereas Buddhist believe truth is from inner realization. Every Buddhist is a sentient being that has compassion for individual suffering while a CCP member subordinates their feelings to the needs of the state and national unity. All religions are a potential threat to state control which is the basis and practice of communism and, to a lesser extent, all forms of government.

The Dalai Lama represents a threat to communism because he is a global moral figure, a symbol of Tibetan identity, and a spiritual authority independent of the state. Buddhist belief in inner freedom, compassion, and spiritual autonomy directly conflict with the ideals of communism because of its belief in the collective rather than the individual. An interesting irony in that communism is a form of government that endorses a collective concept. Of course, a communist collective is external to one’s inner self while Buddhism believes a collective is formed through an inner understanding of the self. China insists on centralized government authority, conformity to its edicts, and personal identification with the state’s government. One’s heart goes out to the Tibetan people and the discrimination they are suffering. Only time offers hope for their future.

As every American, particularly white people of conscience know, ethnic minorities are faced with hardship, violence, and social discrimination until ruling majorities realize that all human beings are entitled to equality of opportunity in the society in which they live.

WEALTH IN AMERICA

American democracy is like a giant ship at sea. It takes time to turn a giant ship impeded by brief storms until the return of calmer seas. America is weathering a Trumpian storm today but there is reason to believe there is another Lincolnesque or Rooseveltian leader in America’s future.

Books of Interest
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Country of Lords (Neo-Aristocrats, Social Darwinists, Tech Utopians, and the Long Fight against Equality in America.) 

Author: Kim Phillips-Fein

Narration by: Sarah Welborn

Kim Phillips-Fein (Author, American historian, Professor of History at Columbia University.)

Kim Phillips-Fein argues the widening gap between the ultra-rich and everyone else in America is because of American culture’s anti-egalitarian beliefs and tradition. Beginning with the Founding Fathers of America; i.e., John Adams, Alexander Hamiliton, and Thomas Jefferson, Phillips-Fein’s argues these 3 men set the table for America to become anti-egalitarian. In part, she has a point because these three were elitists with university educations. However, she neglects to mention that George Washington was largely self-educated and seems unlikely to have been anti-egalitarian. However, despite Washington’s limited education and his role as a military leader, he is unlikely to have disagreed with Adams, Hamilton, or Jefferson.

As the author points out Adams, Hamilton, and Jefferson believed in a “natural aristocracy” that would improve society. Of course, this idea comes from white American Founders that gave little weight to non-white races, believed in slavery, and white male superiority. Phillips-Fein explains these foundational beliefs held great influence in American society. The growth of industry labor biases is magnified by intellectual distortions of Darwinian evolution. The author goes on to explain influential Americans like Willam Sumner (an influential American social theorist in the 19th century) opposed welfare because of belief in Darwin’s discovery of natural selection and the concept of “survival of the fittest”. American economic growth and the rise of personal white male wealth diminish the status of laborers, women, and non-white Americans.

Andrew Carnegie (Scottish American, industrialist, and philanthropist 1835-1919.)

Andrew Carnegie (a steel magnate who created America’s first billion-dollar corporation) writes an essay titled “The Gospel of Wealth” in 1889 which argues the rich should rule because their wealth came from their natural superiority. Henry Ford creates his fortune in the automobile industry with a rigid hierarchy based on paternalistic control of workers’ labor and domestic lives. The outgrowth of industrial success in America leads authors like Madison Grant to racialize society with a belief that the white race is biologically superior. People like Charles Davenport (an American biologist who died in 1944) espoused a eugenics movement with a belief that poverty and crime are based on heredity which reinforces illogical beliefs of leaders like Adolph Hitler.

The author explains distortions of science and the advance of IQ testing have led to the rise of technocrats and corporate hierarchies based on preferential promotion and ascension of mostly white American men. Corporations grew to become quasi-governments that reinforced anti-egalitarianism. A meritocracy grows with sociologically biased IQ testing as a way to reinforce inequality based on cognitive difference rather than experience, proven, and/or innate ability.

Consequence of inequality of opportunity. Octavia Butler (a highly regarded American writer who died in 2006) shows an evolution of cities into silos of cultural difference rather than communities of common interest.

The irony of Phillips-Fein’s history of American thinkers and elites is that because people are not equal, they should not have equal opportunities. She notes people like John Adams believed too much egalitarianism is dangerous because it would empower the wrong people; i.e. presumably poorly educated Americans (ironically people like George Washington). The growth of racism and belief in eugenics by people like Lothrop Stoddard (a Harvard educated historian who died in 1950) argue that equal opportunity is foolish because laborers and particularly non-whites are less educated and equal to people who have acquired great wealth. The effects of that belief reinforce the false belief that wealth is a measure of human worth. That false belief becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy that creates a perennial underclass that is denied an equal opportunity to improve their lives.

Charles Darwin (1809-1882) FOUNDER OF THE THEORY OF THE ORIGIN OF SPECIES.

After this depressing history, Phillips-Fein suggests anti-egalitarianism in not a permanent, unchangeable characteristic of American democracy. Social Darwinism is collapsing as its distortions of evolution are better understood. The proof of Jewish contribution to society will never offset the horror of Adolph Hitler’s holocaust but few rational human beings can fail to see how important Jewish culture has been to science and the advance of civilization. The movements of abolitionists, labor, civil rights, feminists, immigrant and disability rights in the 20th and 21st centuries encourage egalitarian beliefs.

American democracy is like a giant ship at sea. It takes time to turn a giant ship impeded by brief storms until the return of calmer seas. America is weathering a Trumpian storm today but there is reason to believe there is another Lincolnesque or Rooseveltian leader in America’s future.

POWER

As Oscar Wilde’s dialogue between two people said in “The Picture of Dorian Gray”–“Young people, nowadays, imagine that money is everything.” The response is “Yes, and when they grow older they know it.” That was written in 1891. Baker infers not much has changed in the 21st century.

Books of Interest
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

How to Rule the World (An Education in Power at Stanford University.) 

Author: Theo Baker

Narration by: Theo Baker

Theo Baker – Next Level Talent

Theo Baker (Author, former student journalist for “The Stanford Daily”.)

Theo Baker wrote for “The Stanford Daily” newspaper at Stanford University and received the George Polk Award for his reporting. His writing contributed to the resignation of the Stanford University President, Marc Tessier-Lavigne. Theo Baker, as the son of two journalist (Peter Baker and Susan Glasser) appears to have learned something about research and newspaper reporting from his parents. Theo Baker enrolled at Stanford at the age of 17 in 2022 and graduated in 2026 with a degree in history. To have joined Stanford at 17 years of age says something about his intellect, and pre-college academic achievement.

The value of education.

Personally, as a graduate of no-name universities in America, the picture Baker creates of Stanford makes one envious of the opportunities offered by a highly regarded University. On the one hand, most young students interested in college cannot afford the tuitions of Ivy-plus schools and many may not have either the education, or privileges of wealth that good preparatory schools provide. The added benefit of being a Stanford student is its being located in Silicon Valley, the best area of the country for those who pursue programming skills. Though Baker is more tech savvy about programming than past generations, his chosen field of study is history.

Influence.

What Baker interestingly points out is that classroom learning is less important than networking and raising entrepreneurial capital at Stanford. What is a little off-putting in Baker’s story is it implies Stanford’s culture of entrepreneurship is more important than scholarship. The focus of students seems not on education but in the goal of becoming gob-smacking rich. Having recently read a book about the Founding Father’s of America, one wonders what would have become of America if the Founders had focused more on personal wealth than the future of the country. This is, of course, sour grapes of a book-reviewer because the reality is Ivy-plus Universities have trained many students who have become great contributors to American government and America’s way of life, without becoming gazillionaires.

Technology research.

Baker refers to student’ millionaires while at Stanford because of their inordinate wealth and early success in tech-fund raising and creative computer programing. He implies the student culture of Stanford measures achievement on entrepreneurial networking more than academic achievement. A startup founder who raises the most money is elevated above high academic achievement in Stanford’s student culture. Getting good academic grades is important but it takes a back seat to a student’s ability to raise start-up capital, sell their programming, and/or create stock market start-ups. Those who are good at raising capital become among the institutionally privileged at Stanford. Academic success is primarily important as it relates to an entrepreneurial end rather than an educational achievement. Baker is not saying Stanford academic success is not real, but it is overshadowed by social networking, entrepreneurship, and financial reward. It reminds one of a book about the history of Reddit’s early recruits and a skilled programmer who commits suicide. Aaron Schwatz went to Stanford in 2004. Ironically, he like Baker is only 17. However, he left after a year. He joined Reddit and became a millionaire, but his wealth seems to have meant little to him in regard to what he believed or what he hoped to achieve in life.

American universities.

In any case, the Stanford President resignation is only a part of Theo Baker’s book. Ivy-League and Ivy-plus schools in America are inferred to be networks of inherited privilege and social connection with Stanford student’s primary goal of becoming filthy rich more than broadly educated. Though no mention is made of Aaron Schwartz’s death, wealth seems a weakness rather than goal for either students or faculty at Stanford.

For a person to say they graduated from Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Columbia, Cornell, or the University of Chicago is highly regarded by the public. When an Ivy-plus University like Stanford makes networking and making money more important than public service or academic achievement, one becomes somewhat disillusioned.

Silicon Valley,

Stanford definitely has advantage over other Ivy League and Ivy-plus schools because of Silicon Valley. One suspects the power of networking is generally much greater in Ivy League universities because of the average wealth of families who live in well-funded school districts, can pay expensive tuitions, and have either funded or been educated themselves in Ivy League or Ivy-plus universities. Becoming wealthy is a genuine achievement in life but real value should (but does not) come from equal opportunity. Without equal opportunity, society becomes less civil and inclined to believe human value is based on wealth, not character. The power of wealth creates a land of the “haves” and “have nots”.

Marc Trevor Tessier-Lavigne (Canadian-American neuroscientist. President of Stanford 2016-2023.)

Baker’s reporting is central to Tessier-Lavigne’s resignation from Stanford. Discovered irregularities of Tessier-Lavigne’s research on an Alzheimer’s cure reported by Baker in the Stanford paper led the Stanford Board of Trustees to launch an investigation into their President. The Board concluded Tessier-Lavigne’s research papers were flawed by manipulated data that induced Genetech to recruit him in 2003 when he was then President of Rockefeller University and later Stanford. In the end, the President of Stanford is not found guilty of any crime because the research manipulations were considered oversight failures that were retracted before any harm to the public. After his resignation, Tessier-Lavigne went on to become co-founder and chair of Xaira Therapeutics, an AI-biotech company.

Past and present generations.

Putting aside Baker’s good fortune in entering Stanford and working for the Stanford paper, he reveals the motivation of many young Americans today. The fate of Stanford’s President, Tessier-Lavigne, introduces a part of the theme of Baker’s book. Tessier-Lavigne is compelled to resign, in part, because of research and writing by this 17-year-old student in Stanford’s local paper. It is a story of the power of truth and the deleterious effects of seeing position or wealth as a measure of one’s value in society. Whether President of the United States, a newspaper journalist, or President of an Ivy-plus university, real power is ultimately in the truth.

As Oscar Wilde’s dialogue between two people said in “The Picture of Dorian Gray”–“Young people, nowadays, imagine that money is everything.” The response is “Yes, and when they grow older they know it.” That was written in 1891. Baker infers not much has changed in the 21st century.

AMERICA

Despite President Trump’s words and deeds, America is and always will be a haven for those who seek freedom and equality of opportunity.

Books of Interest
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

First Principles (What America’s Founders Learned from the Greeks and Romans and How That Shaped Our Country.) 

Author: Thomas E Ricks

Narration by: James Lurie

Thomas Edwin Ricks (Author, American journalist. Pulitzer Prize winner for National Reporting for the WSJ and Washington Post.)

Thomas Ricks has written an enlightening view of the founders of America’s government. In his opinion, the founders established a republic ruled by an American government based on ancient Greek and Roman political ideas. He argues the self-taught education of George Washington, and college educations of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were steeped in knowledge of Greek and Roman beliefs reinforced by Scottish intellects who studied the classical ideas of Greek and Roman society. Ricks notes Roman and Greek writings about virtue, law, deliberation, political structure, and social restraint are important sources of America’s government organization.

Ricks argues Greece’s Aristotle, Plato, Epicurus, Xenophon, and Homer were read by important framers of the American Constitution. Particularly, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and James Madison were influenced by Greek writers and famous Romans like Cicero, Plutarch, Polybius, Cato the younger, Cataline, and Caesar. Even the unschooled George Washington read the works of Cicero, Cato the Younger, and Plutarch. Ricks writes that the Greek and Roman authors were the curriculum basis of the Scottish enlightenment of the 17th century.

Jefferson absorbed the beliefs of Scottish writers like Francis Hutcheson, Thomas Reid, and Adam Smith to form a moral philosophy and belief in the natural rights of humanity. Adams adopted the civic virtues propagated by Scottish intellectuals like Hutcheson, Hume, and Smith. He admired the moral vocabulary of virtue and grasped a realistic view of human nature with a belief in mixed government that required checks and balances; i.e., not a pure unconstrained democracy. Madison relies on the Scottish Hume, and Smith to understand how human nature requires administrative regulation to mitigate factionalism in a government based on separation of powers. Madison became the synthesizer of enlightenment beliefs promulgated by Scottish intellectuals.

George Washington (1732-1799.)

George Washington is not characterized as a deep thinker about philosophy, but Ricks suggests he had read Plutarch’s Lives and revered the lives of Cato and Cincinnatus who were known for civic virtue, sacrifice, and public duty. Cato the Younger is noted for stoic discipline and moral seriousness while Cincinnatus voluntarily relinquishes his power after successfully defending and saving the Roman Republic from the Aequi (a militant mountain tribe living near Rome). Cincinnatus defeated the Aequi in a 16-day defensive war for the Roman Republic. He could have crowned himself as King as a result of his success.

Cato the Younger, as a Roman statesman became famous for his emotional restraint, moral rigor, personal austerity, and commitment to virtue. Washington emulated Cincinnatus’s actions after America’s revolutionary war when he could have used his fame to take command of a fractured continental congress. He exhibited Cato the Younger’s statesmanship throughout his career as leader of the American miliary and later as the first popularly elected President of the United States. The soon to be summoned military commander returned to his farm in Virginia after the end of America’s war with Great Britain.

George Washington’s Farm near Fredericksburg, Virginia.

Washington had no college education and limited formal education. He had learned to read and write but relied on self-education through practical experience. He joined the Virginia militia at age 21 as a major. He entered the military service during the French and Indian War with orders to convince the French to leave the Ohio valley. However, he failed. He is defeated by the French in 1754. What he learned is that overconfidence, poor preparation, and logistic mistakes could only be overcome with discipline and clarity.

British General Baraddock.

Washinghton went on to serve under British General Braddock in 1755 and learned the importance of discipline, and military organization while fulfilling his duties in battle. Washington found the British underestimated Indian tribes that parlayed and fought together against America’s colonists taking of Tribal lands. Washington shows his personal courage in a battle in which two horses are shot from under him while a bullet passes through his coat. His commander, General Braddock, is killed. Washington learns discipline, order, and humility while in the military. He matures to recognize the importance of reputation in leading others.

Thomas Jefferson.

Jefferson is in someways shown to be a bon-vivant who seduces other men’s wives. However, Ricks shows Jefferson to be a brilliant omnivorous consumer of political philosophy. His beliefs are shaped by a blend of Greek, Roman, and Scottish Enlightenment ideas. His studies of the Greek philosophy of Epicurus and Aristotle fed his belief in agrarian republicanism reinforced by reading Cicero and Virgil. His reading of Scottish writers like Hutcheson, Reid, and Smith make him a philosopher-statesman who understood the principles required for government organization. He owned slaves and held a tortured, contradictory, and harmful view of slavery. He knew slavery was morally wrong and noted it in writing. However, he viewed slavery as an indispensable practice, believing Black people were inferior. He feared emancipation more than slavery. In regard to slavery, Ricks writes Jefferson is a moral philosopher who fails morally. Slavery is recognized by Washington, Jefferson, Adams, and Madison as a societal fault that would lead to civil unrest and probable war.

John Adams (Second President of the United States.)

Ricks argues John Adams’ government beliefs revealed solid connections between American government creation and Roman and Greek thought. Adams spent much of his time reading Greek and Roman classics. However, Ricks characterizes Adams as thin-skinned, irritable, self-righteous, and prone to hurt or hostile feelings. Despite these character flaws, Ricks shows Adams to be the intellectual heavyweight of the Founding fathers of the Constitution. His reading of Plato and Aristotle gave him a clear understanding of the importance of virtue, education, and the inherent instability of pure democracy. In reading Polybius, he recognized the importance of mixed government. With Cicero, he understood the importance of rule of law. His research in Roman history gave him an appreciation of the risk of corruption, factionalism and its potential for government harm. Ricks notes Adams’ character could lead to excessive moralizing and hectoring of his subordinates which often made him temperamentally unsuitable for the give and take of politics. Adams’ pessimism is noted to have come from Plato’s warnings about demagoguery that led to the collapse of Rome. On balance, Ricks seems to find Adams to be a tragic intellectual unsuited for the Presidency despite his contribution to the founding of America’s government.

James Madison (the 4th President of the United States is considered the “Father of the Constitution”, author of the Bill of Rights, and co-author of the Federalist Papers.)

Ricks assessment of James Madison is the most positive of the Founding fathers of American government. Madison coalesced the many elements of classical and Scottish thinkers of the past to create the American Constitution. He seems the least charismatic but most effective of the Founding fathers of the Constitution. His introversion made him highly intellectual but not a natural leader. He neither had Washington’s gravitas, Jeffeson’s elegance, or Adams’ fire but he had the mind for institutional design. Madison understood power and a Republic’s risks of corruption, factionalism, and its potential for failure and collapse. His realistic grasp of human nature turned classical theories of the ancients into a flexible and durable democratic government. America has survived despite John Adams Alien and Sedition Acts, Andrew Jackson’s defiance of the Supreme Court, Abraham Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus, Woodrow Wilson’s 1918 Sedition Act, Nixon’s Watergate, George W. Bush’s use of torture and warrantless surveillance, and the first 4 years of the Trump administration.

Thomas Ricks reminds Americans of how far we have come and how imperfect American Democracy has been. Many Presidents have challenged America’s Constitution without fundamentally changing the republic’s self-government. America’s rule of law, government checks and balances, freedom of Speech and Press, its peaceful transfers of power, and citizens’ drive for civic equality, are part of America’s past, present, and foreseeable future. Despite President Trump’s words and deeds, America is and always will be a haven for those who seek freedom and equality of opportunity. America owes a great deal to its Founders of the Constitution and their study of the ancients and Scottish teachings in the 17th century.

GENERATIONAL DYSFUNCTION

“Yesteryear” is a hard book to complete because it reveals the many mistakes’ human beings make in their lives that repeat themselves in future generations

Books of Interest
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Yesteryear (A Novel) 

Author: Caro Claire Burke

Narration by: Rebecca Lowman

Caro Claire Burke (Author, social media influencer, co-host of politics and culture podcast.)

“Yesteryear” is a book about human society. One may see Caro Burke’s story as a picture of society from a woman’s perspective. She shows how life can fall off the rails in America or any culture. In identifying the prejudices of gender, Burke shows how an educated, intelligent woman can become psychologically unhinged by memories of her life experiences.

Gender inequality is a worldwide phenomenon.

Gender inequality is highly destructive in all societies. Burke is not suggesting all people are equal. Every human being is equal in the sense of being human. A person may be born rich, poor, and become formally educated, or remain uneducated. Some are highly intelligent; others not, but as a living person we are all human. Human beings have potential to bare hardship and grow to challenge, succumb, or overcome bad experiences and memories. Of course, hardship is greater for some because of their gender and/or color of their skin. Burke addresses the first form of a harder life rather than the second.

A story of a family.

“Yesteryear” is the story of an Idaho family and a young woman named Natalie Mills. Natalie is described as an attractive young woman of modest means who is doing well in college. She meets a handsome fellow student who comes from a rich family. They “fall in love” and marry. Her husband to be is Caleb Mills whose father is running for President while a member of the United States Senate. Burke’s story is of the relationship of Caleb and Natalie and how it changes from being two college students who become a married couple to what seems an irreconcilable marriage.

Wealth.

The Mill’s families’ wealth, political status, and family structure influence their son to believe marriage is a way of perpetuating his family’s future. Caleb’s father instills that belief in his son and makes a bargain with Natalie to ensure her role as a bearer of babies to perpetuate the family name. The bargain she and Caleb’s father strike is in funding the purchase of a farm in return for having more children. The name of the farm becomes “Yesteryear” and is meant to give Caleb an opportunity to thrive as an independent farmer.

Caleb and Natalie are two young college students who learn more about each other after they become married.

Natalie’s family background is different. Her mother has a quiet coldness that is non-protective toward her two daughters with no fear of loss of the family name. Natalie is blessed with intelligence and a desire to become better educated. Natalie’s sister is married and has children from an abusive husband whom she plans to divorce without a means of financial support once she divorces. Their mother seems oblivious to the consequences of her daughter’s divorce. Natalie sees her sister’s life as an imminent financial disaster. As the story progresses, one sees Natalie exhibit the same coldness and non-protectiveness toward her own children from memories of the way her mother raised her family.

The inheritance patterns of life; some of which are genetic while others are learned experiences that become our memories.

What Caleb and Natalie learn about their relationship comes from memories of experiences they have had in their respective families. Caleb is a young man trying to find his way in life. Natalie is a young woman who chooses to marry someone who offers a way of life much grander than her own. Caleb is characterized as a poor lover with no particular goal in life. As Natalie realizes Caleb’s directionlessness, she searches for a way to instill ambition in her husband and stability to their marriage. Natalie convinces Caleb’s father to invest $5,000,000 into a farm that could be made prosperous by the hard work of the newly married couple. For Natalie to convince her father-in-law to make the investment, she agrees to Caleb’s father’s demand for more children in her marriage to his son. Intimacy becomes a means to an end of having children to meet the demands of Caleb’s father’s bargain with Natalie.

Twenty first century farming is not for the faint of heart or uneducated.

The trouble with this arrangement is that Caleb seems unsuitable for a life of farming and Natalie is a failure as a nurturing mother of her children. The farming experience magnifies Caleb’s and Natalie’s weaknesses. Caleb cheats on his wife with a farm employee and becomes abusive toward his wife. Natalie injures herself, fails to nurture her children, receives little support from her family or Caleb’s father, and falls into a life of despair. Caleb compounds negative aspects of their marriage by becoming physically and mentally abusive toward Natalie. Their match made in college becomes a horror story of memories that diminish the joys of marriage, having children, or living life with either purpose or joy.

“Yesteryear” is a hard book to complete because it reveals the many mistakes’ human beings make in their lives that repeat themselves in future generations.

ALIENS AMONG US

Tyson’s “Take Me to Your Leader” is an interesting exploration of alien beings but there seems little solace for we who are not blessed with his scientific, insightful but flawed political view of history and human life.

Books of Interest
 Website: chetyarbrough.blog

Take Me to Your Leader (Perspectives on Your First Alien Encounter)

Author: Neil deGrasse Tyson

Narration by: Neil deGrasse Tyson

Neil deGrasse Tyson (Author, astrophysicist.)

Neil deGrasse Tyson’s scientific knowledge and experience is well represented in his book about extraterrestrial life. Interestingly, he suggests it is likely that there is life in the universe beyond our own understanding. The sheer number of galaxies, their stars and planets, make it likely that sentient life exists somewhere beyond earth. He argues it is unlikely to be humanoid because of the radical differences in the environment in which an extraterrestrial might evolve. If an extraterrestrial were to arrive on earth before humans are able to physically explore other universes, they are likely to be more intelligent and scientifically advanced. Tyson suggests they are more likely to understand us than we would be able or inclined to understand them.

The reason Tyson believes there is alien life is because Earth is not the only place that elements of life, whether different or the same, might evolve. Life may evolve differently depending on raw materials and chemical combinations in a different world of sentient beings. Science history suggests the serendipitous creation of life on earth is not unique. The science proven phenomenon of evolution is likely to occur in other environments whether the elements of creation are different or alike. Water, organic molecules, amino acids and other potential elements of combinatory life exist throughout the universe. Tyson implies the vastness of the universe is beyond imagining and likely will create some form of alien life. Our own knowledge of human evolution shows intelligent life is a process that can take place in other parts of this universe or universes beyond our observation. Tyson reminds listener/readers that humans have only existed in the last 300,000 years on a planet that is 13.8 billion years old.

Nothing keeps another form of life from coming into existence in a process either similar or different from our own.

Tyson does not believe aliens have visited Earth. However, when and if it happens, human history suggests people will likely feel threatened but not surprised. The many claims of aliens on earth, though found to be false, have set the table for most human’s belief in alien life. The points Tyson makes are that the universe we know is immense and that chemistry is universal. It is as likely for an alien culture to grow and evolve as a sentient life form as it was for human beings from the combination of water, amino acids, and various elements of life on earth.

A surprise in Tyson’s reasoning is that aliens will be no threat to humanity because of their superior intelligence and technology.

Tyson believes the difference between us and an alien will be like the difference between a chimp and a human on earth. This argument is not comforting. Chimp’s bite humans when they feel threatened. How many human beings will shoot an alien because of fear and ignorance? How would an alien respond to unwarranted violence? Intellect and superiority are no assurance for considered response by a more intelligent life form. A table might be set for elimination of our ignorant life forms because of our fear and instinctive reactions. The danger will always be misinterpretation whether by a superior life form or dumber humans.

Tyson’s “Take Me to Your Leader” is an interesting exploration of alien beings but there seems little solace for we who are not blessed with his scientific, insightful but flawed political view of history and human life.