As a stoic, there is a philosophical conflict between what may be a stoic’s public duty and their belief in inner retreat. The sad truth is that inner retreat is easier for most human beings.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
The Book of Stoicism (Essential Writings on Stoic Philosophy)
Author: Manly P. Hall
Narration by: Gordon Rothman & 2 more
Manly P. Hall (1901-1990, Canadian writer, lecturer, astrologer, and mystic.)
What exactly is stoicism? The most important Stoic philosophers identified by Manly P. Hall in “The Book of Stoicism” are identified in reverse order of their deaths. Marcus Aurelieus, Epictetus, and Seneca formed the foundational tenants of Stoicism.
Marcus Aurelius (Roman Emperor, the last Emperor of the Pax Romana which is an age of relative peace, calm, and stability, Stoic Philosopher, 161-180 AD.)
Aurelius, a Roman emperor from 161 to 180 AD wrote “Meditations”. He notes that focus on the present moment, acceptance of fate, duty to the common good, and resistance to anger and corruption are hallmarks of Stoic belief. The most difficult of these characteristics is “resistance to anger”. The other noted characteristics are easier because emotions one has as they mature are difficult and varied based on familial and personal experiences.
Epictetus (Greek Stoic philosopher, born into slavery, lived in Rome until banished, and spent the remainder of his life in northwestern Greece, 50 to 135 AD.)
Epictetus lived from 55-135 preceded Aurelieus and is noted for being a Greek teacher who systematizes the ethics of stoicism. He had lived as a slave in the Roman era. He recognizes personal judgment, choice, and desire, regardless of our human circumstance, are the most important needs for personal health, wealth, and reputation. It is up to the individual to organize their thoughts and actions to become the best version of themselves.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca the Younger (Roman Stoic philosopher, statesman, dramatist, and satirist, 4 BC to AD65.)
Seneca lived from 4 BCE to 65 AD, as the earliest of the three, and is identified as a statesman who spoke and wrote about anger, the benefits of stoicism, dealing with hardship, and being happy with yourself. To accomplish that happiness, one must manage their emotions, be friendly to others, manage time for interpersonal relations while pursuing a simple contemplative life. Seneca faced death as just another fact of life with the belief that every human being has a moral responsibility for living life with the intent of benefiting society. This is an ironic belief because Seneca lived amid the corruption of Nero’s court. One wonder how he manages to live in Rome until his death at age 61.
Stoicism is supposed to be a unified philosophical system of beliefs.
Stoic belief has conflicts with rhetoric and ethics. Rhetoric is the art of persuasion through language. Ethics is the study of right and wrong. A stoic believes the universe has a rational, and deterministic order that unfolds as fate. If that is accepted as truth, it means everything unfolds in life according to fate. One asks oneself, how can humans be responsible for anything, if life is a matter of fate? The stoic’s response is that external events are fated, but human inner-responses are free. Why would one act ethically if outcomes are predetermined? Epictetus argues we only control what is up to us like Marcus Aurelius is noted to have struggled to reconcile his duty as a leader to what may be a cosmic inevitability. The tension between fate and ethical response is not entirely answered by a Stoic who says inner responses are free when the end result remains fated. The only psychological consolation seems to be feeling one did what was right despite what inevitably happens.
Then, there is the conflict between stoic emotional discipline and rhetorical passion.
A stoic is expected to be emotionally restrained but may use emotional rhetoric to give urgency to persuade another person to act differently. Appeal to one’s emotions by using emotional rhetoric is a betrayal of stoic idealism. Words matter. Finally, the stoic writes of universal social responsibility but encourages personal detachment from society. As a stoic, there is a philosophical conflict between what may be a stoic’s public duty and their belief in inner retreat. The sad truth is that inner retreat is easier for most human beings.
Public input to AI policy needs to be solicited and incorporated in the direction of AI research.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
Empire of AI (Dreams and Nightmares in Sam Altman’s OpenAI)
Author: Karen Hao
Narration by: Karen Hao
Karen Hao (Author, American journalist, former engineer and specialist in AI and its societal impacts.)
Karen Hao knows what she is writing about. As a senior member of MIT Technology Review and the Wall Street Journal she has the skill of a first-rate journalist to profile AI. She is an independent academic with a journalist eye view of what is happening in AI research and development.
Artificial intelligence offers reward and peril for society. On the one hand, AI can aid the world in preventing and curing disease, mitigating global warming, discovering solutions for interstellar travel, and improving the welfare of diverse cultures. However, AI opens the door to Ray Bradbury’s surveillance society, Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World” and Philip Dick’s “…Man in the High Castle”.
AI can lead to behavior monitors that detail every person’s life and predict whether a person will benefit or harm society. Artificial Intelligence has potential for centralizing control by a minority of human beings to influence and potentially control human behavior. Human discretion and actions become probabilistically predictable by AI monitoring. Aside from the fear of centralized control by AI, Hao recounts the harm being done TODAY in developing a product that no one clearly understands.
AI labor exploitation.
Hao writes of the exploitation of Kenyan data workers who are working on Elon Musk’s OpenAI for grossly unfair low wages. AI data centers are being developed in fragile natural environments that divert the use of freshwater in poorly provisioned nations like Chile. The environmental costs of AI labs on use of energy and natural resources compete with the fundamental needs of local people. The consolidation of corporate power and use of AI is disproportionately consuming global resources like labor, land, and water at the expense of basic needs of local populations.
The theories of the utopian value of AI are, in Hao’s opinion, hiding the real harms being done to society today. AI development by a minority of businesses like Musk’s Open AI and Google’s DeepMind are changing human society today. Hao is not just predicting a future. She is reporting on present-day empire building by two companies that will impact the future of society. Hao argues massive models of AI being developed by two companies need to be modified to focus on singular societal issues rather than unfocused broad Artificial General Intelligence.
Broad international agreement needs to be created to make AI research accountable for today’s environmental impacts and tomorrows use, ownership, and influence on human behavior.
Sam Altman (American entrepreneur, investor and CEO of Open AI.)
Public input needs to be solicited and incorporated in the direction of AI research and development. The billions of dollars being spent on AI should not be limited to two or three companies without oversight. Communities and workers that are affected by AI need to have public oversight, labor, and environmental protections incorporated in the research and development of AI engaged corporations.
The answer to “Has China Won” seems a “no” for the present but Mahbubani makes a credible argument for its continuing growth, prosperity, and success.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
Has China Won? (The Chinese Challenge to American Primacy)
Author: Kishore Mahbubani
Narration by: Aaron Abano. P.J Ochlan
Kishore Mahbubani (Author, Singaporean diplomat, and academic who is a permanent representative to the UN.)
“Has China Won” is a controversial political opinion that suggests America is grossly underestimating the growing strength of China that will continue to grow in influence and power in the world. Some may argue Mahbubani overstates China’s strengths and understates its weaknesses. Mahbubani does not deny America’s strengths, its resilience, and peaceful world strategy. However, his underlying inference is that peaceful socialist doctrine will replace democratic capitalism as the “sine quo non” of the future.
There are three general categories of governance in the world. One is communist socialism, two is democratic capitalism, and three is authoritarian despotism. By the end of “Has China Won?”, one is inclined to believe China will grow to be a competitor to America as a socialist communist success just as America has become a democratic capitalist success. Authoritarian despotism will disappear as a system of governance as human education improves. China may surpass America as a superpower in the sense of population but not necessarily as a world influencer. Both systems have discriminatory flaws. China is neither better nor worse as a political entity than America; i.e. both are destined to compete for socio/political influence in the world. Socialist communism will likely grow to be equally influential as democratic capitalism for nation-state governments. Socialist communism is an ideological competitor; i.e., it is as likely to be adopted or rejected as democratic capitalism. In my personal opinion, socialist communism and democratic capitalist governance will survive in some form until their equal or superior is discovered.
American democratic capitalism has made its mistakes.
America cannot deny its international intervention mistakes. Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan are overreaches of America’s belief in democratic capitalism. America fails to understand deep-rooted cultural beliefs, the nationalism of other countries, and the appeal of socialist communist or authoritarian doctrine. In an effort to support national dissidents; America has invaded several countries and chose to abandon their citizens which allowed authoritarians to retake control of their countries. Vietnam remains a socialist communist country. Afghanistan returns to rule by the Taliban. Iraq is a weakened economic nation led by a fragile, technocratic, non-aligned political novice named Aliall-Zaldi.
America’s latest mistake is the bombing of Iran. (A water plant destruction.)
President Trump chooses to bomb Iran and expects Iranians to rally around American democratic capitalism when all that is accomplished is a hardening of authoritarian Iranian Leadership’ beliefs. Many Americans believe Iranian authoritarian leadership will fail. Whether socialist communism or democratic capitalism will replace authoritarianism may only be a matter of time. President Trump’s ham-fisted actions are unlikely to endear democratic capitalism to Iranian citizens. Iran’s future cannot be predicted in the short term, but Iranian authoritarianism seems likely to fail.
The answer to “Has China Won” seems a “no” for the present but Mahbubani makes a credible argument for its continuing growth, prosperity, and success. It depends on China’s history of long-term domestic stability and growing prosperity. Will Xi and his successors continue to improve the economic well-being of the millions of Chinese poor? Can China avoid military conflict with the U.S.? No one knows but many speculate. Will the U.S. finally understand China’s government and what it means to its people. Xi is not America’s enemy; neither is he an ally.
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.
Shane Legg, born in New Zealand, a machine learning researcher.Mustafa Suleyman (British AI entrepreneur, CEO of Microsoft AI.
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”.
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.
George WashingtonJohn Adams
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.
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.
Epicurus (341-270 BC Greek humanist.)Socrates (470 BC-399BC, Greek founder of Western philosophy.)Xenophon (430 BC-354 BC, follower of Socrates.)Aristotle (384BC-322BC, Greek follower of Socrates and contemporary of Xenophon.)Homer (8th century BC Roman historian.)
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.
Cato the Younger (95 BC-46BC, Roman senator.)Cataline (108 BC-62BC, Roman politician and soldier.)Polybius (200 BC-118 BC, Greek historian.)Cicero (106 BC-43 BC, Roman statesman and philosopher.)Plutarch (50 AD-120AD, Roman philosopher and historian.)
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.
Ahamad suggests the public needs to oppose policies based on economic and political leaders’ singular judgements. Public input to government decision-making is an essential strength of democracy and the great weakness of autocracy.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
1873 (The Rothschilds, the First Great Depression, and the Making of the Modern World)
Author: Liaquat Ahamed
Narration by: George Newbern
Liaquat Ahamed (Author, American financial historian.)
Liaquat Ahamed’s book, “1873”, has been somewhat anxiously awaited for by the public because of his previous book “Lords of Finance” which reported central bankers’ roles in the Great Depression. Talk of depression swirls around the public today. What parallels are there between “1873” and the current world financial market? Liaquat Ahamed explains the impact of railroad expansion and world trade that exploded in the 19th century. He suggests that explosion seems parallel to today’s impact of transformative technology like A.I. which has shown potential for productivity increase around the world. That expectation magnifies the amount of capital being invested in a changing paradigm in society that Ahamad argues is similar while different from railroad introduction in the 19th century.
Globalization of information technology.
Globalization makes change more impactful today because of the world wide web and a potential for spreading useful and harmful information. Ahamed suggests the vast investment in railroads has parallels to communication technology’s introduction in today’s economy. The rush to create datacenters requires large capital investments with the creation of data centers that challenge today’s energy availability. Corruption became common in the 19th century with schemes designed to lure nations and investors into impractical investments. Ahamed recounts grifter’ pitches in the 19th century similar to crypto bubble makers of the 21st century. In the 19th century, mostly banks, governments, and wealthy risk takers were making foolish investment risks for hoped-for wealth. Today, crypto bubble makers reach into the pockets of the poor and middleclass.
Crypto investment.
As the public today becomes skeptical about tech investments, the banks of the 19th century belatedly turned skeptical about transportation system expansion. The growing malaise of recession turned into a depression in the 19th century. Ahamed argues today is similar to what caused the 19th century economy to slip into recession and depression. Ahamed suggests the political polarization occurring in the 19th century is evident in today’s political climate. The split between Trump supporters and detractors is widespread in America. Trump’s attacks on global cooperation seem similar to what occurred in the 19th century. Like the farmers of 1873, factions of America resent their loss of jobs and manufacturing income to other countries. The geopolitical shocks of the Ukraine war, America’s bombing of Iran, Russia’s Ukraine war, and growing tensions with China magnify inflation and create capital reallocations that harm respective economies and increase potential for world-wide financial collapse.
Ahamed’s book outlines similarities and differences between the past and present, foretelling a possible future.
Ahamed suggests that America needs to avoid a rigid monetary policy based on “who’s ox is gored”. Further, investment in technology needs to be reined in by reducing the hype about loss of jobs with a realistic judgement of employment impact and technologies’ benefits. Political and business leadership need more transparency and public oversight to improve societal decisions on technological investment. Investment opportunities need to be reasonably evaluated to avoid bubbles that distort capital flows. Ahamed suggests power brokers, whether private or public, need to avoid over reaction to inflation by being wary, but not overly punitive, toward investment in new technology.
Breadlines in the 1929 economic crash.
Ahamed offers several individual examples of con men who created hype-driven market manipulation that fueled 19th century fraud with over-optimism, and self-promotion based on new railroad building schemes. One listens to the methodology of these con men and will recall news articles today about technology fraudsters. Though only 3 to 4 percent of SpaceX shares are owned publicly, it reminds one of the over-optimism and self-promotion of Elon Musk. This is not to say Musk is a con man, but it reflects how over confidence in technology is similar to the over confidence in railway expansion in the 19th century. Additionally, search of the news of crypto scammers in the 21st century show there are three Thai suspects, 22 accused scammers in Palau, 82 accused scammers in Eswatini, and an astounding 15,260 suspects worldwide.
Liaquat Ahamed suggests the U.S. presidential elections are directly distorted by the financial crisis surrounding 1873. Ulysses Grant’s administration is undermined by the loss of public confidence in the federal government. The civil rights movement is stalled because northern voters were less willing to support federal intervention in the South. The Republican Party lost the political will to continue Reconstruction policies. Voters punished incumbents because of the economic crisis of the 1870s. Ahamed argues the economic collapse destabilized all governments and empowered reactionary forces that weakened government reforms. Conspiracy theories blossomed with scapegoating of all who had been elected to govern in the western world.
People are being arrested based on the color of their skin with the presumption that they are not citizens of America and are deported without legal recourse.
Today’s American government has stalled support of fundamental rights written in the Constitution. People are being arrested based on the color of their skin with the presumption that they are not citizens of America and should be deported. A majority of American voters elected a President who empowers the government to destabilize its relationship with former allies of democracy. Conspiracy theories abound on causes of global warming to support beliefs that it is a natural event that cannot be mitigated by reducing fossil fuel use and accelerating wind, water, and solar energy uses. Belief in a “deep state” conspiracy has created government and political distrust. QAnon like cabals have grown to spew allegations of secret wars being waged by special interests. Distrust of the United Nations is increasingly viewed as a body plotting to replace nation-state government. That view grows and feeds America’s “go it alone” belief as the only way to sustain democracy.
Where unemployment is created by new technology, America needs to support those who are displaced.
Despite Liaquat Ahamed’s argument that today’s America has similarities to America’s 19th century circumstances, he suggests there are reasons to believe 19th century mistakes can be avoided. Where unemployment is created by new technology, America needs to support those who are displaced. When faced with inflation and economic threat, rather than depending on singular leadership decisions, government should support flexible polices by the central banks of America. Public input to government decision-making is an essential strength of democracy. When public expertise is ignored, judgement is degraded and America becomes less democratic and more likely to fail.
Rothschild Family Tree
As one nears the end of Ahamed’s book, one wonders why the Rothchild’s are prominently noted in its subtitle. His point is that the Rothschilds were the only global financial institution that successfully survived the ups and downs of the banking industry in the 19th century. Their success influenced unjust anti-Semitic growth in the world. The Rothschilds embodied the tension between stability and speculation with their long-term stability as a lending institution. The Rothchild’s stability became a symbol of global finance that influenced political actions around the world. The price paid by the Rothchild families’ success fed the worst in human nature exemplified by the Holocaust of WWII.
Americans need to come to grips with their history, mend its fences, and use its cultural diversity as a means for acceptance of difference and rebirth of its founder’s principles. Empathy is a relatively minor part of America’s institutional, economic, and moral decline.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
Suicidal Empathy (Dying to Be Kind)
Author: Gad Saad
Narration by: Gad Saad
Gad Saad (Author, Canadian professor of marketing and evolutionary behavioral scientist.)
Gad Saad has written an interesting book about human empathy. He describes empathy as a biological, socially beneficial, and important characteristic of human cooperation. However, he notes empathy has the potential for societal harm that can be destructive with long-term negative consequences. He suggests empathy can distort the harm done by criminals against victims and compound ethnic differences that are a detriment to society. He argues empathy is an emotion that can lead to harmful decisions, and poor social policies that create moral distortion and confusion. His examples carry some weight.
A definition of empathy.
Criminal defenders sometimes frame an argument that violent offenders are products of their life circumstances and should be empathized with, rather than punished, for their actions. However, with empathy as a treatment, victims of personal crimes become victimized twice. Once by the actions of the criminal and a second time by leniency toward a criminals’ actions. An argument is made by a criminal defender that poverty and systemic faults of a legal system or society are the fault of others, including the victims of the perpetrators’ crime. Empathy for the defender gets in the way of justice for society and the individual is victimized twice in the guise of empathy. Violent offenders are released or given reduced sentences that offer opportunity for a repeat of violent crimes. Saad extends this argument to society that empathizes with terrorists, radicalized individuals, and ideologically driven attackers.
Saad suggests too much empathy creates an atmosphere of moral relativism, and identity-based hate groups that reinforces an “us-them” mentality that diminishes social difference. One can easily agree with Saad’s observation, but history shows difference of one’s group identity is both good and bad. The contributions of Jewish group identity have been a great boon to society. Jewish identity is a prime example of the value of group difference. The educational and identity-based tenants of Judaism have made immense contributions to science and industry. Of course, at the other extreme, moral relativism and identity-based hate led to the holocaust by the Nazis.
The troubling part of Saad’s argument is his selective focus on empathy as a cause of cultural decline. Corruption, politicization, self-dealing elitism, and societies’ failure to deliver justice, safety, and education to the public are the fundamental causes of cultural decline. Whether Jew, Gentile, or other, it is not empathy that has caused the widening wealth gap, loss of group identity, labor displacement, collapse of local industries, and/or the erosion of intergenerational opportunity.
Cultural decline cannot be reduced to a single cause as inferred by Gad Saad.
Cultural decline cannot be reduced to a single cause as inferred by Gad Saad. It is cultural destruction of group differences beginning with the diminishment of native Americans, through America’s history of slavery, and today’s loss of civic trust in government that is harming America. Americans need to come to grips with their history, mend its fences, and use its cultural diversity as a means for acceptance of difference and rebirth of its founder’s principles. Empathy is a relatively minor part of America’s institutional, economic, and moral decline.
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.
Belief in God is a work in progress for every human being. The proof of God will be peace on earth, a human accomplishment that may only be possible with a belief in something greater than us.
Books of Interest Website: chetyarbrough.blog
The God Delusion
Author: Richard Dawkins
Narration by: Richard Dawkins & Sara Jill “Lalla” Ward
Richard Dawkins on the left is a British author, evolutionary biologist, ethologist, and science communicator. Sarah Jill “Lalla” Ward is an English actress, voice author, and actor on the former TV series “Doctor Who”. (A woman’s narration seems solely to represent a non-gender based argument for God as a “…Delusion.”)
Richard Dawkins is a formally educated Zoology and Philosophy graduate from the University of Oxford. He became the first Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. “The God Delusion” is a daunting book that argues God is a fiction created by authoritarian faiths. In light of the history of human violence in the name of different God’ beliefs, Dawkins offers a compelling argument for God as a delusion.
Religion and Science.
Religious belief has rarely, if ever, been the primary cause of war in history but millions of deaths from The Crusades to the Holocaust to the present day have fueled wars in the name of different concepts of God. Judaism preaches that there is one, indivisible God. Christianity believes one God exists in three forms; i.e. God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit”. Islam believes in the oneness of God with no partners, no intermediaries, no incarnation, and no images. Hinduism believes in many gods, one God, or God beyond form, depending on respective sects of the Hindu faith. Buddhism is non-theistic and believes there is no creator, or divine judge. Buddhists believe understanding reality is the source of enlightenment. Sikhism believes in one God that is formless, without gender, and beyond religion. Sikhs blend belief in one God with emphasis on equality. The Chinese traditions of Taoism, Confucianism believe in a natural order of the universe based on ethical behavior and social harmony.
The point is God means something “other” in different cultures. That difference in belief has caused an uncountable number of deaths. To a believer and non-believer in God, those deaths are an appalling loss to humanity. Is a different belief in God, worth a human’s death? Dawkins argues God is a delusion because He or It cannot be proven. The weakness of that argument is there are many discoveries that have been found to be wrong with further scientific exploration. Science progress cuts both ways; i.e. it proves and disproves what seems right but turns out to be wrong as further experiments prove.
The patent differences in religious beliefs in God shows that dogmatism replaces further exploration for God’s existence. There are religious scholars who have challenged dogmatic arguments for God’s existence. At the very least, Dawkins makes one think about the horrible consequence of authoritarian beliefs in God and the slaughter of innocents from those beliefs. We are seeing that slaughter today in Iran and Lebanon from attacks by America and Israel. Of course, there are reasons beyond religion for those attacks but is murder of innocents an answer or just collateral death and destruction for desired results?
Belief in God is a work in progress for every human being. The proof of God will be peace on earth, a human accomplishment that may only be possible with a belief in something greater than us.
REVIEWS AND VIEWS OF LIFE 