The Future, According to Science (Fiction?) and Sociology

 Human beings have always been fascinated with what the future holds, and I'll be the first to admit I'm particularly curious about where this big experiment called civilization will eventually take us. I've been a science fiction fan since I was a kid, one of a generation that was raised on Star Trek and Star Wars, and have read most of the works of the great sci-fi authors like Isaac Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke and Robert A. Heinlein. Here I could launch into a glowing endorsement of all the fantastic science fiction authors you should try if you're even mildly interested in cracking into this genre, but I'll just settle for giving you the Wikipedia link. Although as a Canadian, I can't help but mention Robert J. Sawyer, since he is probably one of the best new authors on the scene, and bases more than one of his books in his native Canada.

 What really fascinates me about science fiction is that it is often eerily predictive of how society actually evolves. For example, it wasn't a scientist that brought us the concepts for portable communicators, diagnostic beds, or telepresence – that was Star Trek. What began as science fiction fifty years ago eventually became reality, as scientists began tackling real world problems using the ready-made solutions that science fiction writers conveniently suggested. I would hazard a guess that many of these scientists were sci-fi fans themselves as children, and recognized that the possible futures envisioned in science fiction were in many cases better and more desirable than the present in which we find ourselves. To write fiction that people want to read, a writer has to have some understanding of human nature and basic psychology, and as such, they seem to be uniquely gifted at predicting what technologies that we will tend to embrace, and how societies will adapt as a result.

 Having read a lot (and I mean a LOT) of science fiction, and as someone who keeps on top of the latest science news, I'd like to take a stab at a few predictions of my own. Having seen certain technologies that I read about as a child emerge and become commonplace during my lifetime, it's hard to ignore the fact that these technologies are changing our lives, and even harder not to wonder where we will be in fifty years, given how far we have already come in such a short time. I believe that technology stands to vastly improve the human condition and provide us with exciting new opportunities (if we don't destroy ourselves in the interim, of course), and here's a few ways that I think this will happen:

1. Genetic engineering, regenerative medicine, cloning, and nanotechnology stand to vastly improve human health in the coming decades. Already, after only about a decade or two apiece as serious fields of study, each have provided huge advances in our understanding of our own bodies, and enabled incredible new therapies to be pioneered. In the coming decades, we will likely see therapies that are being tested today come to a hospital near you, allowing us to beat many forms of cancer, cure previously untreatable genetic diseases, enhance our immune systems to fight increasingly more drug-resistant pathogens, restore lost limbs, hearing, or eyesight - the list goes on and on. What has been and will no doubt continue to be a controversial issue however, is our increasing ability to alter our own genome. Nonetheless, I believe that as the technology becomes increasingly available, we will increasingly embrace it. Given the choice to cheaply and safely do so, I believe many potential parents will, sooner or later, begin medically manipulating the genes of their unborn children. Within my lifetime, I foresee an increasing percentage of parents requesting detrimental genes, like the ones for cystic fibrosis, haemophilia or for certain types of cancer be removed from their children before birth. Eventually, this will extend to non life-threatening maladies such as nearsightedness, and finally to cosmetic but generally undesirable traits, such as baldness. Eventually, as the technology becomes more proven, we will begin adding traits to our genome in much the same way we do with produce today, most likely beginning with enhancing the immune system, adding resistance to certain toxins, or perhaps even increasing our (occasionally limited) mental capacity. Inevitably, we will also use these technologies to combat ageing and death, as a generation of Baby Boomers enters retirement and provides the economic incentive to do so. Already, research is being done that will allow us to remain healthier and more robust for much longer, and this trend will only increase sharply over the coming decades. One theory put forward by Aubrey de Grey, a pioneer in gerontology and regenerative medicine, states that year by year, as we increasingly get better at extending the human lifespan, eventually we will reach a point where it is extended by more than one year per year. This effectively would be the tipping point, after which we could, as a species, become more or less immortal...barring accidents of course. Without getting too technical, he has identified seven factors that underlie the detrimental effects of ageing, and believes it well within the reach of science to eventually eliminate them all. The sociological implications of this would of course be immense, but given the inevitability of this in the next hundred years at most, it is a topic that we should certainly begin considering. Further off, but still on the horizon, is the potential for nano-machines, otherwise known as nanites, that could actually enter our bodies and safeguard our health. Within a fifty year time-frame, we will likely see this emerge as one more way in which we enhance our bodies and quality of life. While some may see this as one step closer to turning us into the Borg Collective, we in fact already incorporate a great deal of technology into our bodies. Pacemakers, joint and limb replacements, artificial organs – these allow many people who would otherwise have difficulty functioning to live productive lives, and they do not make us any less human. It is similarly easy to argue for the benefits of nanites - they could clear plaque from our arteries, destroy bacteria and viruses, and even help to repair damaged tissue. With such immense potential, it seems highly unlikely that we will overlook nanotechnology for long, just because some of us find it "spooky".                                                                                                       
2. Materials science, propulsion technology, and robotics will likely open up the solar system to us in exciting new ways over the coming decades. We are explorers by nature, and having conquered most of our own planet, we need new frontiers. Luckily, new technologies are being developed today that will provide us with the ability to much more cheaply launch both human beings and increasingly advanced robots into space, as well as to both travel and work in space much more effectively. One of the most promising new developments is the SKYLON space plane concept, a single stage to orbit (SSTO) aircraft that can take off and land like a plane, but also propel itself into orbit. This sort of design eliminates the wasteful use of rockets and the need to carry massive amounts of fuel, thus vastly cutting the costs of space development and truly opening space up to us. In combination with the recent entry of private companies into the race for space, this will mean that the commercial development of our solar system is just around the corner. The reason that this is inevitable is simple economics – there is more wealth in our own cosmic back yard than most of us can imagine, even if you can imagine an awful lot. Scientists estimate that the asteroids and extinct comets that litter the inner solar system and even occasionally cross Earth's orbit are laden with many of the materials vital to modern industry here on Earth, such as gold, zinc, platinum, cobalt and rare earths, as well as water ice that can easily be processed into fuel. There are already companies proposing to capture one of these into a stable Earth orbit and mine it – imagine, if you will, a chunk of iron, gold and platinum the size of Mount Everest, and then imagine the wealth that mining it could inject into the world economy. Moreover, the asteroid belt that sits between to orbits of Mars and Jupiter is teeming with such objects, providing enough raw material to keep humanity busy for hundreds or even thousdands of years. The key to global prosperity is up there, if we're willing to just go up and get it. As the new space-race heats up (and it will, as more and more nations enter it), there is a general consensus within the scientific community about how this will progress. Asteroids first, then onto the moon and the inner planets – Mars, Venus and Mercury. A base on the moon is a logical step after the space station, as it has its own deposits of minerals and ice to mine, meaning that it could be self-sufficient. Eventually, it could potentially serve as an excellent place to build space-craft (low gravity = low launch costs), and the dark side has been looked at as a good place for telescopes, since there would be very little light pollution. The next stop on the list would be Mars, which gets a lot of attention of course, as it is the one planet in our solar system most like the Earth, and therefore is the best candidate for colonization. Already there are organizations looking at a permanent base there, because the technology to create one (or perhaps a few) already exists. Once the wealth from asteroid mining hits the world economy, this will become a much more appealing and politically popular option than it is today. Instead of being seen as a pie-in-the-sky dream, it will become the next logical step outwards, and a home away from home for those involved in mining the asteroid field just beyond its orbit. There are many ways that Mars could be made more hospitable, such as introducing soil bacteria and algae to begin making real soil out of the dust that coats its surface, as well as intentionally crashing a few hundred water-laden asteroids into it, adding instant oceans and atmosphere. These are options that we can begin to implement very soon, paving the way for a green Mars in the not-too-distant future. Venus, our other solar neighbour, would be a bit more of a challenge given its runaway greenhouse effect and toxic atmosphere, but science actually has a few ideas about how to tackle those sticky issues. Because that's a bit beyond the time-frame I'm trying to look at I won't go into too much detail, but if you're interested, feel free to take a look at this handy Wikipedia article.                                                                                                                                                
3. The internet and advanced communications technologies will change global society, making it...well, more global. This one is a bit of a no-brainer, because we can easily see the beginnings of it all around us. We are better connected now than we have ever been, and although what you see in the news may cause you to sometimes think otherwise, we are actually living in the most peaceful era that humanity has ever enjoyed as a direct result. Being able to access news from around the world and talk to people anywhere in the world creates a much deeper understanding of and empathy for our fellow human beings, and this is having a definite political effect. Populations are much more hesitant to support wars now, and governments recognize this. Add to this our increasingly interconnected trade networks, and of course, the nuclear arsenals many nations now possess, and governments have greater incentive than ever to negotiate before resorting to force. We are lucky enough to be witnessing the birth-pangs of a truly global civilization. While there are concerns now about communications technology being used for spying, the quantum encryption and transmission technologies that scientists are working on today will eventually help to ensure an essentially “spy-proof” internet, where it is physically impossible for governments to intercept private data. This will change the dynamics of how government works, giving more power to the people, and making governments more accountable. The high levels of transparency that using technology in government will allow will make it easier to root out corruption and waste in real time. The days of rule-by-decree and the tin-pot dictator are numbered, because the people will be able to organize too effectively for this to be possible. Furthermore, we are, as a result of communications technology, becoming increasingly intelligent as a species. No, really. General intelligence has shot up over the past few decades, as education improved and as information became readily and cheaply available, and this is driving policy in new and positive directions. An informed population is an excellent safeguard for democracy, and allows emerging democracies to develop without many of the growing pains that would otherwise occur. Viva la communicacion!                                                                                                                                
4. Advances in 3-D printing, artificial intelligence and automation will revolutionize the economy. It may not happen overnight, but it's already underway. 3-D printing is an amazing technology, and it is already on the verge of triggering a new industrial revolution. Creating ready-made products in one's own home, without the need for a large manufacturing plant, shipping, or any of the other costs associated with traditional goods could streamline our economy and eliminate immense amounts of waste. Goods can be made not only more environmentally friendly, but more cheaply, at a time when both the environment and the working class could use a break. The ability to easily and rapidly produce goods that are tailor made to precise specifications has some pretty massive advantages. Applications range from food to industrial design to medical implants, and already there is talk of using this technology in space exploration - picture robots using massive 3-D printers to create bases on other planets. Coupled with automation, what 3-D printing means for the workforce is that there will be very few manufacturing jobs. On the surface this may sound bad, but when you think about it, most people don't actually like manufacturing jobs, and there will be lots of other more highly skilled and interesting jobs created to replace them. Of course, this will require that education be much more readily available, and to do this, charging tuition for a higher education will likely have to be abolished entirely. In an information-based economy, this is really the only rational choice. Educational institutions will simply have to be regulated, and although they might initially protest, I'm sure they will come to realize that they will always have a pivotal role to play in society, whether they are funded by tuition or by tax dollars. At least if they are funded by and overseen by the government, there will be legal incentives for them to be as efficient as possible, and not overcharge, as they are currently known to do...frequently. On the subject of artificial intelligence, it should be said that we are already using machines to do a great deal of our thinking for us, and that this has been (generally) a good thing, as it tends to make us a great deal more productive overall. There is of course the problem of over-relying on computers to manage our lives, to the point that we lose our self-sufficiency, but by and large, computers simply help us to do the things we already do, only better. As computers increasingly become able to perform higher-level tasks at parity with their human counterparts, this will increasingly be the case. Humans will simply have more leisure to become better at doing those things that are difficult for computers – jobs involving creativity and complex social interaction, for example. Also, as computers shrink in size, they will eventually be completely ubiquitous, and integrated into not just our homes and cars, but also our clothes, and even our bodies. Within fifty years, we will surely have artificial intelligences able to either think for themselves, or do such a convincing job imitating our thought processes as to be indistinguishable from the real thing. The implications of this are fairly enormous, but foremost I imagine most people will have at least one companion AI, either built into their home, in humanoid form, or integrated into their personal devices like SIRI, that will be a constant companion. Featured in several science fiction novels that I've read, I believe that the human need for companionship will make this a reality, and that we will integrate artificial intelligences into our families. After all, we assign human traits so easily to animals that it seems hard to believe we would not easily do so with a robotic intelligence, and in doing so, help them to share our values and goals. For this reason I'm very skeptical of movies that depict apocalyptic wars with machines of our own creation. While certainly fun to watch, I don't believe they offer any sort of realistic view of the future.

 So, I hope I blew your mind a little here today. If so, you have a taste of why I keep coming back to both science fiction and science in general – they're just frickin' awesome. There is a lot more that could be said, and certainly any number of alternate predictions that could be made here, but this is merely an extrapolation of the technologies that are either on the drawing board or emerging into the real world today. In my lifetime alone, we have made huge leaps forward, and as new technologies interact, there is no doubt that such leaps will continued to be made, and at an increasing rate. I hope I'm around long enough to see whether or not these predictions come true, but even if I'm wrong, I'm sure the reality will be as mind-boggling as any fiction.  

The Sociology of Inequality

 As I mentioned in my original post, I am a student of Psychology and Sociology. I believe them to be very broadly relevant subjects, as do many universities, clearly, since they are considered mandatory courses for most first-year students. As I look back, I'm glad I chose to study these subjects in depth, even if they are somewhat under-appreciated in the marketplace. This is because I believe they are incredibly useful in building a working understanding of the complex motivations of individuals, the grand social dynamics that shape the world, and the intricate web of cause and effect that links the two together. More and more of us are coming to the realization that we live in a world where everything is connected, and if any of us are to ever have a hope of understanding the world in any real and meaningful way, it is important to have a grasp of just how these intricate connections interact.

 Many of us enjoy playing armchair psychologist for our friends, or bandying about pet social theories over a beer at the pub, and so we think of these topics as intuitive, but the more research is done, the more this proves not to be the case. While some of the key factors that contribute to healthier individuals and societies may be fairly easy to understand, there are also a great many factors that we have, historically, gotten wrong over and over, and continue to do so today. This is why I consider Psychology and Sociology sciences like any other, where it is important to acquire empirical evidence, and use it to refine our knowledge in a systematic way. Sometimes it is hard to maintain the necessary objectivity because of how personal our views of individuality and politics are to us, but it is precisely because these subjects are so relevant to improving our lives that we must struggle to remain objective, and respect what the research tells us, even if it conflicts with a preconceived belief. I don't think it at all hyperbolic to argue that the future of our global society depends on our ability to do this.

 When I was in school, there was a particular theory that resonated with me, because it seemed to explain much about our needs as human beings with fairly elegant simplicity. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs was an attempt by Abraham Maslow to understand the motivations of the individual, however, I believe it can be extrapolated to explain a great deal about the potential benefits of poverty reduction and education, the existence of social classes, why inequality exists at all in society, and why it is ultimately self-defeating for any society that tolerates it. More information is available here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs

 In a nutshell however, Maslow was a believer in the potential of human beings to achieve great things, if only given the opportunity. He postulated that there are sets of needs that we as human beings are driven to meet, beginning with the most physiological such as food, water, air and shelter, and rising to more social and intellectual needs – in order: safety, love, esteem, and ultimately self-actualization. He maintained that while more basic needs remain unfulfilled, we cannot effectively address higher needs, and spend very little time considering them. While it is fashionable in conservative circles to believe the poor lazy when they don't “pull themselves out of poverty”, this simplistic view fails to consider how the poor often do just that when given sufficient opportunity, and the basic resources they need to think about more than living hand-to-mouth. Depriving people of basic necessities in order to create “incentive” has proven to be a cruel and futile effort, tantamount to class warfare.

 For most of us, it is possible to imagine that a young mind with the potential to be another Albert Einstein could very well exist in the slums of an impoverished city, but might never graduate from high school, being constantly preoccupied with the admittedly more pressing question of where his (or her) next meal is coming from. This, I fear, is exactly the scenario being played out in many parts of the world, and when one thinks about this being played out hundreds of millions of times over, one can start to get a true sense of the amount of human potential being lost. The fact that this can happen at all in a society is, to me at least, representative of a failure on the part of that society. After all, at the core of the social contract is an understanding that by working collectively, we can ensure that more of our common needs are met. At this point in history, with our technology and experience, we should in any part of the world be able to guarantee every citizen their most fundamental rights, and to not do this is to admit either incompetence or corruption. Furthermore, by failing to ensure the security of basic needs for citizens, governments are by extension failing to provide even the possibility to pursue other needs. This robs individuals of not only their material needs in the present, but of any real possibility of a meaningful future.

 Compounding this is the fact that poverty and its concomitant problem of poor education are often self-perpetuating across generations, particularly so without state assistance. Poverty simply breeds poverty, and while there are admirable exceptions - people who have beaten the odds and escaped poverty – this does not change the fact that the system, as it is, has essentially stacked the odds against them. In this case, where the system does not serve the majority, it is the system that needs to change, not the people. What makes this difficult is the prejudice against the poor that gradually becomes entrenched in a society. Classes evolve as this sort of state failure becomes systemic, and what may begin as a economic downturn may, over time, turn into what we are seeing in the United States today. While the wealthy once struck a balance with the rest of society, it is now considered morally acceptable to eliminate subsidies for the poor and create further breaks for the super–wealthy, a situation that only fifty years ago would have been considered morally contemptible. What has made it particularly easy in this case is that the media has colluded in convincing the lower classes that they too can “make it” some day as well, thus dulling their sympathies for their average fellow citizens. The reality, however, is that most of this generation will see their economic prospects decline, and the majority have mortgaged their future and their children's future on a long shot, rather than fighting for their rights.

 Time after time, social studies have demonstrated that inequality is toxic to societies, and although I typically let my readers do their own homework in regards to points that I make, this is critically important enough for me to make an exception and share the following:

http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2012/01/24/income-inequality-is-bad-for-society/

 If we are concerned at all about creating more just and prosperous societies as we move into the future, it is imperative that we start to clearly understand these facts, and act upon them in measured and appropriate ways. There are some fundamental fallacies and a few outright lies that underpin our current system, such as the myth of perpetual growth in a closed system, or the myth of trickle-down economics. No system based on a falsehood can survive for very long when tested against reality, and we are already watching as our current economic model creaks and groans, a sputtering testimony to what happens when greed is put before humanity and common sense.  

Mind the Politeness Gap

 Living in Japan, it's highlighted for me every day that there is a large gap between the Western standard for politeness and the Japanese. A gaping chasm, really. Japanese society, having evolved over hundreds of years towards a very structured and hierarchical state of organization, takes politeness and formality very seriously. This is most likely a remnant of the time, not so long ago, when hurt feelings could result in a samurai sword through the midriff. Understandable, but difficult to adapt to sometimes, especially for those of us who tend toward bluntness, and who generally don't like to sugar-coat anything. This typically describes Westerners, but I've known my share of Japanese who find this aspect of their own culture a bit grating. 

 As someone who came from a Catholic school, where the standards were wearing uniforms, attending masses, and a “kill-them-with-kindness” approach, I came to rebel against this, and to detest excessive formality. To me, it rang of a certain...insincerity, and I came to appreciate and admire people who simply spoke their minds. If we're talking role models, think George Carlin, or more recently, Christopher Hitchens. Whether people like them or not, most of us find contrarians simply more interesting, and for good reason. They articulate the things that many of us think, but censor ourselves from saying out of concern for how others might perceive us. In this way, they keep public dialogue from becoming too stilted and one-sided, and because open dialogue is the backbone of any democracy, they are critical to ensuring democracies thrive. Sometimes feelings may be bruised, but this is the price we pay for our freedoms. 

 I should clarify at this point that I am indeed aware that consideration of others is a fundamental building block upon which successful societies are built; I'm not advocating rudeness. However, where I draw the line is in taking this too far, in the vain and even counter-productive hope that you may always avoid hurting anyone's feelings. A very apt term that I've heard describe this is the “disease to please”. While it's generally a good idea to be a decent human being, spending an inordinate amount of time thinking about what others think of you is not only tiring, but ultimately futile, as there is really very little you can do about it. Despite whatever precautions you may take, there will always be someone who insists on taking offence, and so I generally find it best for my own personal sanity to save my energy for more productive pursuits than handling everyone with kid gloves. It's not that I don't care, it's that I care too much about people to humor them when they're wrong. It's this aspect of my personality that often causes me to bite my tongue until it bleeds in Japan. 

 I'm certainly willing to admit that often Western civilization could stand to learn a lot from the Japanese. It can be, at times, a little too blunt, bordering on crudity or thoughtlessness, and this is the other extreme to be avoided. Once, Ghandi was asked what he thought of Western civilization, and he replied “I think it would be a very good idea.” He had a point – sometimes calling the West civilized does seem a bit of a stretch. I believe that there is a happy middle ground to be reached, and perhaps this is why I've worked so hard to help build bridges between our respective cultures. The most important thing, I think, is to get to the truth, and to attempt to honestly answer whatever questions we collectively face. Western countries are (usually) quite good at this, but in the public sphere (especially lately) we would do well to remember that we are all in this together, and this notion is one that the Japanese truly understand. I am a staunch admirer of the mutually supportive nature of every Japanese community, and I believe that Western culture can learn a lot from this example. 

 Politeness and formality do have their place, but they must not prevent important questions from being asked, even if these questions are sometimes uncomfortable. I hope that as the world becomes increasingly inter-connected, as it has continued to become at an ever-increasing pace, we can also learn from one another, and find a middle road that draws from the best of every culture.

An Open Letter to My Students

 Working at Junior High Schools in rural Japan, I have come to grudgingly accept the fact that for now, at least, very little of what I say to you in English classes will get through. Some of you, of course, are like English All-Stars, and shine like bright beacons of hope in, let's be honest, an otherwise English-poor country. The rest of you I see struggle, and I can only hope that you persevere. Your education system is what it is, and although I could fill this letter with suggestions to improve both it and your English comprehension, I will save that tirade for another time. I will say, however, that it is improving, and after recently meeting with the director of the JET Programme at CLAIR, I am convinced that there is a genuine desire to make your English education more effective. My goal in this letter is simply to communicate to you why English is important to your future and the future of your country, because I genuinely do care about both. I also realize that a letter in English may not be the ideal way to communicate, but I'm working on a translation that will hopefully be soon to follow. In the meantime, I can only hope that the message may percolate down to you through your teachers or other English speakers. 

 Foremost, I would like you to be acutely aware that Japan is not only an island nation, but a language island as well. The fact that very few people outside Japan speak Japanese tends to isolate you from the outside world, by making it difficult for Japanese people to function when they travel outside of Japan, and also by making it difficult for outsiders to function when living in Japan. This is an unfortunate characteristic in an age when the world is increasingly more connected and interdependent, and this cultural isolation can do damage to Japan on several levels in the long run.

 One aspect of this isolation is that it effectively prevents the positive aspects of other cultures from reaching Japan, and prevents other cultures from gaining any deep understanding of Japan's culture. I find this particularly sad, as I believe we all have much to learn from each other. In the Meiji era, Japan was considered adept at adopting the best practices used in other countries, and this strategy could be just as effective at revitalizing an ageing Japan today, but language remains a barrier to making this process as smooth as it could be. I also believe that the rest of the world could learn a great deal from Japan about cooperation, community spirit, and determination in the face of adversity. I hope that in the future, a much more English-fluent population will help to facilitate this exchange between Japan and the rest of the world. On a more personal level, speaking an international language will also offer Japanese people the opportunity to make new friends around the world, an experience that I have always valued very highly in my own life.

 Another factor to consider is that the language of international business is English, and Japanese people, facing a slowing economy at home, would see vastly more opportunity both at home and abroad if they speak English more proficiently. The simple truth is, when conducting international business, companies are reluctant to do business in a country where language barriers will be a problem, and they typically desire employees that can converse with other employees and business partners from around the globe. This ability is becoming an increasingly standard requirement in the world today, and I would hate to see Japan or any of my students be left behind because they lack it. Especially in a rural community like Miyakojima, English can be a passport to a larger world and a more comfortable life. Even in a local context, English opens doors into the tourism industry, which is not only lucrative, but by many accounts very rewarding.

 Finally, it has been shown that having more than one language has a way of changing one's thinking, and broadening one's mind. It allows you to think in new ways that may not be as obvious in your native tongue, to see novel solutions to old problems, and to retain a mental flexibility that tends to last into old age. There is also, of course, a sense of pride that comes when understanding begins to dawn; when a language that was previously opaque to you suddenly starts to become clear. I hope, after studying English for years, you will eventually experience this moment, and that you will find it as rewarding as I did when I started to grasp basic Japanese. I hope that you will make the most of our time together, and I promise that I will do whatever I can to not only help you, but to make English as interesting and engaging an experience as possible. 

Hypocrisy and Democracy

 As you may have gathered if you've read some of my previous writing, I have a deep interest in what makes the gears of societies turn. Lately, in light of the political situation in the US, I've been focusing more intently on what factors make for competent, effective leadership, and although the factors may be many, I believe they can be distilled down to a few key points. These are qualities that should not be partisan, but that have somehow become politicized. If I could accomplish one goal in writing anything for public consumption, it would be to raise the standards by which our leadership is judged, through increasing public awareness of the social and psychological factors at play in politics. An informed public, particularly one that is aware of the biases that we all commonly fall prey to, is the single most powerful tool we have in maintaining a vital, thriving democracy. Informed citizens push leaders to perform better, who in turn craft wiser social policies, which in turn enriches society, allowing citizens the luxury to become more educated and informed. It is this cycle, when functioning properly, that guarantees a society can grow and evolve, and when this cycle breaks down, societies stagnate and decay. This cycle is clearly breaking down in the U.S., and it is a tragedy to witness, like a once vital person slowly dying of cancer.

 The title may have tipped you off, but the first and worst cardinal sin for leaders to avoid, and from which it may be argued that all others spring, is that of hypocrisy. “Do as I say, not as I do” tends to grate on us as children when we hear it from our parents, and never sits well with us as adults either. Yet the political class seems completely helpless to avoid falling into this trap. Whether it be those who claim to be socially conservative only to become embroiled in sex scandals, or those who claim to be fiscally conservative but who recklessly rack up debt while in office, this is a tedious routine that the public has grown incredibly tired of. Few things offend our innate sense of justice and fairness more than rampant hypocrisy; this is cross-cultural, and we have very good sociological reasons to react this way. Furthermore, with the number of cameras out there, and the ease with which information can be accessed, politicians must realize that secrets do not keep as well as they used to. There may have been a time, a decade ago, when one could spin an image for public consumption and then become an entirely different animal at sundown, but those days are over. Leaders would do well to remember that the public is watching, and that they will be held accountable for abusing our trust.

 Political correctness has always smacked of farce, so perhaps it's simply time to drop it and be honest when in office. I for one don't particularly care if a political candidate smoked pot in school (or last weekend, for that matter), and polls show that a large and increasing proportion of the public doesn't either. What they do care about is whether a politician lies about it or other aspects of their personal lives, because this says more about their character than what one chooses to do on one's own free time, within reason. So long as a politician has sound policies based on science and reason, what they do on their own time is really no one one's business but their own. I imagine a great deal of the voter apathy that we see in democracies today emerges from this culture of boring, cookie-cutter politicians, where voting for one or another doesn't seem to make any difference. After all, they say essentially the same things, in order to placate both the public and special interests. What they perhaps underestimate is the public's capacity to respect someone with an opinion of their own, along with the public's capacity to know when they are being placated.

 Another subject in which many politicians would get a failing grade would be, of course, science. Carl Sagan once said that we live in a society that is exquisitely dependent on science and technology, but where remarkably few people know anything about science and technology, and this has becoming alarmingly more common among our politicians. When politicians can openly state that the Earth is 6000 years old, that climate change is a hoax, or that evolution is anything less than a demonstrable fact, there is something terribly, terribly wrong. Such rampant and willful stupidity should be inexcusable at the ballot box, and yet somehow, people like this are actually making policy decisions with broad and far-reaching ramifications. The only way they could do this, of course, is by presiding over constituencies that are too scientifically illiterate to realize that they are being lied to on the campaign trail or to realize the scope of the damage being done when these people get into office. While the general public may, for the most part, have been disinterested in science whey they were forced to study it in school, we have a responsibility as adults to overcome this. Only by actively attempting to gain an understanding of these issues can we hope to ensure that our leaders are not allowing our children to be taught nonsense in school, or allowing policies to be put in place that will irreparably damage our natural resources. In many places politicians are typically groomed from the public service or business sectors, but perhaps it would be wiser to start grooming the scientific community for leadership, as they would surely be less prone to making such tragically ignorant errors in judgement. Surely the business community has proven, given the economic disasters it has perpetrated on the public in the past decade, that its leadership abilities are highly overrated. Societies are inseparable from and dependent on the natural world, and any leader or potential leader who does not demonstrate an understanding of this simple fact deserves ridicule.

 Finally, I would like to point out that the middle class has been eroded over the past ten years at a rather alarming rate, largely as a result of leaders that favour corporations over actual people. There seems to be some collective delusion that business is the only driver of economic success and societal well-being, but let me be blunt: this is a lie. While the market may play a significant and important role in how societies run, it is but one component in a large and complicated machine. For some reason, we have in the past hundred years or so fetishized money and the capitalist system to the point that we have stopped maintaining the other gears in the machine, and now, as a result, we see these gears starting to grind to a halt. Let us be clear - the market, and corporations in particular, are good at essentially one thing: making money. When asked to perform any other essential function, profit will inevitably come first, often to the detriment of whatever other role they are asked to perform. Health services, emergency services, education, infrastructure – all of these areas should have nothing to do with the market, and should not be left to their own devices in order to better serve business interests. Even people who work in business do, for the most part, recognize this. However, due to the increasing role that money plays in elections, the number of businesses that contribute to political parties, and the increased lobbying that politicians must endure on their behalf, leaders have increasingly been forfeiting their integrity to the highest bidder. To maintain any hope of a fair and just democracy, this trend must not be allowed to continue.

 What businesses often forget when putting their interests ahead of the interests of the middle class is that the very people they would lay off in order to give executives bigger bonuses are the very customers that they eventually hope to win. An impoverished middle class cannot afford to spend freely, and as we have seen over the past decade, this typically leads to a choked and sputtering economy, where the very businesses whose greed caused the mess in the first place frequently rely on taxpayer bailouts to stay afloat. This is not a “free market” - this is a rigged system, rife with corruption, and like a house of cards could easily collapse upon itself without major reform. Business and politicians alike must realize that any economy must rest firmly upon the people and infrastructure from which it arises, and that trying to build an economy upon impoverished people and neglected, outdated infrastructure is like building a castle on pillars of sand. The strength of any society comes from the bottom up, not the top down, and the utter failure of “trickle-down” economics demonstrates this very well. It's predictions simply do not bear out in reality, create only increasing stratification of wealth, and make it obvious that the politicians who advocate it are not servants of the public trust, but shills for the rich. It is time to let this idea die, rather than drag its bloated corpse about, like a grotesque political “Weekend at Bernie's”.

 So, a modicum of integrity and honesty, a responsibility to the truth, and a responsibility to the majority of one's constituents – is this too much to ask? It really shouldn't be. If this is too difficult for any political party in any country to manage, then they are probably in the wrong line of work. When did our standards fall so low that we stopped demanding these things? It's hard to say, perhaps because our standards have been eroded over such a long period that we barely noticed. Now, however, it is getting so bad that we are noticing, and it's time to start demanding these things again.  

Overcoming Bias

 Having looked at the question of rationality and belief in my last post, I wanted to further explore our often quirky psychology and how it is we understand the world around us, taking a look at the issue of bias.

 Human history can be viewed in many ways, but almost inevitably it is the eye of the beholder that ends up colouring the picture. Sometimes consciously, sometimes not, we subtly push events into focus that support pre-existing beliefs or desires, while glossing over events that do not. The interpretation of events, such as in the study of history, provides ample opportunity for bias to display itself most clearly, but it can show up in even the most rigorous sciences, as it is simply an unfortunate part of our psychological makeup. Bias is, and has always been, a huge factor in how we build our general understanding of the world, but paradoxically, when allowed to run unchecked, it inevitably prevents us from attaining any refined and objective understanding of the world. In such cases, we do not see the world as it is; we see it as we want it to be. This extends beyond the individual level, all the way up throughout human institutions, affecting the policies of governments, corporations and every form of social organization. It could fairly be said that many social groups coalesce in large part because of their shared biases and prejudices, the Klu Klux Klan being a glaring example of how this aspect of our psychology can lead us down some very ugly paths. The good news is that we can at least take steps to minimalize this, but the bad news is that we can only do so once we first acknowledge it within ourselves, a step that many people are unwilling to take.

 Bias is ingrained on our consciousness for the same reason that many of our other psychological traits are – it either served a useful purpose at some point in our evolutionary development, or perhaps still does in certain circumstances. It has been observed that bias, or prejudice as it is called when applied to people, is a way of simplifying our world, and I tend to agree with this view. We do, after all, live in a very complex world, and especially for the young it is difficult to interpret all the subtle nuances, and the exceptions that inevitably crop up the moment any rule is formulated. Seeing the world in black and white is much easier than seeing it in infinite and interconnected shades of grey, but there is, of course, a trade-off in taking a simplified view. Much information slips through the cracks when utilizing a simplified framework through which to view the world, and as such, one sits at a great disadvantage when doing so. A nuanced world-view, taking in a variety of perspectives, allows for much more balanced and far-seeing decision making, which demonstrably leads to more desirable outcomes whenever it is tried. Thus bias is perhaps useful for us to a point, but it is a trade-off that we cannot afford to indulge in as adults, or as a society in general.

 Our species currently sits at a delicate crossroads in our evolution. We have, over the past few thousand years, emerged from a largely barbaric past into a present that is marked by knowledge and enlightenment unheard of in any other era. We have done this because we have painstakingly worked to increase our understanding of the universe, and to overcome our animal instincts - the lowly aggression and lack of rationality that constantly threaten to erode what little progress we have made. Having come this far, we have also learned much about ourselves. We now understand ourselves better than ever, and more importantly, our own weaknesses. The choice we face now is whether to use this knowledge to our advantage, or to remain stagnant, forever at the mercy of our primate brains. We can combat our more base instincts - there are those, like Buddhist monks, who do it all the time - and like any skill, it does become easier with time and practice. The rewards are already tangible in the first world – better education, better healthcare, better technological solutions to previously intractable problems, a more peaceful society, and a greater quality of life with every generation. The developing world can see the same benefits, and the developed world can see them to a greater degree, but we must be willing to honestly admit and genuinely strive to overcome our human foibles, bias featuring very prominently among them.

 On a fundamental level, human institutions and societies are simply our individual tendencies writ large, and how we think as individuals impacts how we act, how we vote, and how we go about the process of increasing human well-being. Education has done much to improve the quality of life in many countries over the past few centuries, as a more knowledgeable population tends to craft wiser policies, which in turn strengthens institutions. As we go further and learn to overcome our prejudices and the weaknesses in our reasoning, our institutions and society in general can only stand to benefit – rational traditions have, after all, been the hallmark of the greatest civilizations on Earth so far, from the Classical Greeks to the flowering of the Renaissance. Cultivating this widespread “grassroots rationalism”, although beneficial, has traditionally been a difficult task in human societies, but I believe that we have reached a turning point in this struggle. The availability of information and the ease with which we can communicate it are eroding our biases and superstitions, but by understanding our own cognitive processes and using the right logical tools in approaching everyday problems, we can further facilitate this process.

 In the end, overcoming bias is not a problem that can be solved by legislation or any “top-down” means, although this can be effective in addressing its symptoms. It is a problem of perception, one that can be solved most effectively by shifting attitudes through education and conversation. In making ourselves aware of our own biases, we can, for the most part, filter them out. Further, by becoming more aware of how bias can influence the viewpoints of those around us, we can begin to call people out on them more effectively. Our basic psychological toolkit is what it is, and won't change drastically anytime soon, but we owe it to ourselves to sharpen these tools at every opportunity if we want to improve ourselves, and the world around us.  

Rationalism and Belief

 In my previous post, I talked about the value of education, for a number of reasons. I hope I managed to get across its importance in creating not just a profitable but a stable and sustainable global society. This time I'd like to talk about a related issue, one which our species is very much overdue to address – the struggle that plainly exists between our ability to think rationally and our predisposition to believe what we want to believe. If the study of Psychology has taught me anything, is that this is one of the greatest obstacles that we have to recognize and overcome in order to become effective learners.

 We all want to believe that we're rational beings. In our day to day lives, we require evidence before committing to believing an argument, and typically, once we hear convincing evidence, we are either compelled to believe it, or to seek additional information so that we can make a more fully informed decision about which side of the fence to come down on. This is true in almost every area of our lives, but there are times where rationality, the very standard by which we interpret the universe, breaks down. At times, when we have an entrenched belief, one which has been with us for a long time or which we are heavily invested in, we have a tendency to relax the rational standard for evidence. Indeed, in these cases, it is possible to maintain a belief not only when rational evidence is lacking, but when evidence exists that contradicts a belief entirely. This is the Achilles heel in the human mind, a back-door in our consciousness through which reason can be “hacked”, and through which we can be manipulated into believing some very irrational things indeed.

 This wish-thinking, or believing something simply because we want it to be true, is still shockingly common, even in our modern and heavily science-dependent world. However, since there is no conclusive evidence, or indeed any evidence at all to support the idea that the universe cares what we wish, or even knows that we're here, the only course remaining, if you're interested in the truth, is to simply ask: “What are the facts?” There are, of course, some people who have no interest in facts, truth or rationality. This argument isn't directed at them, however, because using a rational argument to convince someone who doesn't value rationality is an exercise in futility. I'm more interested in convincing those who still do value rationality, because in the long term it will be those people, who live in the real world, who will ultimately have the most impact on human history. Those who reject logic and reason can reasonably be dismissed from any important debates, as they arguably suffer from a form of mental illness, and as such, their influence on our collective history will most likely become more and more marginalized in the coming century.

 To understand our consciousness and what drives the way we think, it is important to understand the human animal in evolutionary terms. This concept may be difficult for some, but the results are in, utilizing multiple streams of archaeological and genetic evidence, and they are, at this point, flatly undeniable – we evolved from primates. We are driven, like any other animal on the face of this planet, by our biology, and the genes which ultimately form the building blocks for who we are. Some might argue that this is a reductionist position, and there is certainly much to be said about social influences, but even social structures are molded and shaped by our innate behaviour patterns, which in turn are driven by our genes. To put it another way, in determining who we are and how we behave, our life experience does indeed play a non-trivial role, but much of this is social experience, and a great deal of how we behave in social contexts results from the structure and activity in our brains, which of course were shaped by millions of years of biological evolution. We evolved as social animals, and evolution shaped certain norms of social behaviour by hard-wiring behavioural tendencies into our brains, much in the way that many spiders are hard-wired to build webs, even though they are never taught to do so. They simply know what to do, just as most of us have the innate ability to interpret complex social cues; even babies can interpret facial expressions, and have basic concepts of what constitute acceptable and unacceptable social behaviours. As we grow, and as our brains grow, more complex social behaviours emerge, but these are still largely predicated upon innate and ingrained social tendencies. As people interact, these innate tendencies can be seen to express themselves in similar ways across many divergent societies. The differences we see are trivial when one imagines how different things could be, as most of our societies emerged in relative isolation from one another. We ultimately have far more in common with each other than we tend to recognize, and this is rooted in the remarkable uniformity of the human genome.

 One tendency that seems so ingrained in our consciousness as to suggest a strong biological link is our tendency toward credulity – that is, simply believing what we are told. The examples of this are innumerable, and this is no doubt a tendency that you can recognize in yourself when you recall how many times you've been won over by an argument without bothering to check the facts put forth within it. This tendency is actually readily explicable in evolutionary terms, and Richard Dawkins illustrates it very well when he points out that any child who did not believe what its parents told it (for example, that snakes or lions are dangerous) would have reduced odds of surviving very long, and therefore credulity would have been selected for over time. This is where all arguments from authority come from, and while they can occasionally be useful, this says nothing at all about whether or not they are actually true.

 Not everyone falls prey to this tendency, however. While credulity exerts a strong influence on our psyche, so too does curiosity, as there have been strong reasons for the selection of this trait in our past as well. Curious hunters and gatherers would have had greater opportunities to find more food, for example, and therefore would have been better able to produce and support more children, who would of course pass on this trait. It is our curiosity about the world in which we live that surely plays a large role in driving rational enquiry, as only by relentlessly asking questions and challenging mere assertions can one be assured that one is not simply being lied to or misguided. This certainly has survival benefits. If we lived in a world in which no one ever lied, or abused positions of authority in order to gain advantages over others, then credulity might be the more admirable or desirable trait, but sadly we do not live in such a world, and therefore if one is interested in the truth at all, one must be critical of mere assertions, and insist on evidence at all times. This is even more important today, as we live in a world that is driven by information, and false information can (and does) destroy lives.

 An insistence on the facts is, after all, what has gotten us this far. Our species has managed to climb out from the caves in which our ancestors evolved, and shape ourselves into a modern technological society, and this has not happened by accident. It was only through rational enquiry, and by insisting on making sure that we got the facts about the natural world correct, via science, that any of our progress has been possible. Science works, in fact, simply because it insists on this principle, pursuing it relentlessly - asking the questions necessary to expand our knowledge, even when the questions may be uncomfortable to hear, or impossible to answer right away. The greatest advances in our knowledge have come when we have accepted the sobering realization that the universe does not exist to console or comfort us, nor to provide us with easy answers, and that we may only learn its secrets if we are willing to do the work, and apply ourselves honestly to this pursuit. What we believe is irrelevant, in other words – if what we believe doesn't line up with the facts, we will be forced to adapt our beliefs when they inevitably run up against the facts, just as scientists do every day, or accept that we will look very foolish to others if we don't. This is best illustrated by the Catholic church's insistence on a flat Earth, sitting at the centre of the universe, for much of its history. We now know, unequivocally, that this is utter nonsense, and the church looks both foolish and rather wicked for having burnt people at the stake in order to prevent people from believing otherwise.

 This, I believe, is the fundamental reason that faith, for a great part of our history, has been insistent on its immunity to criticism. It simply can't stand up to rational enquiry, and history demonstrates this abundantly well – every time belief is placed before reason, it is ultimately proven to have been misguided, no matter how hard some may fight (or who they may kill) to maintain such beliefs. The truth will always win, and any skirmishes that belief may appear to come ahead in can only be a temporary reprieve. Think of the physical laws of reality as an island in a storm, unmovable. They simply are what they are. Belief, in its rigidity, is much like a boat, that can only smash itself to bits against reality when the two conflict. Science, on the other hand, is more comparable to the waves, that feel out the shape of the land, in order to conform to it. While both the boat and the water can have a relationship with the land, the water can have a much more precise and intimate relationship with the shore, as it allows itself to flow and adapt as the shore dictates. The ship of belief may moor itself to reality briefly from time to time, taking what suits it, but then it tends to quickly cast off again, often far from reality, in whatever direction its wishes dictate. I'll end the metaphor here though, as metaphor is far too often abused in the defence of belief, as though making comparisons were a form of evidence, instead of merely a descriptive tool. Let it not be said that I am attempting the same.

 Ultimately, I hope that our species can move beyond our preoccupation with Bronze-Age belief systems, and move the conversation about our collective future forward into the 21^st century. Rational enquiry, or science as it is otherwise known, having improved the quality of our lives in countless ways over the past few centuries, has proven that it works, because every single technology that we enjoy serves to validate the claims about reality that science has made. Science simply describes reality more accurately than any other method we have ever developed. Furthermore, as it has progressed and pushed at the boundaries of our knowledge, it has made the universe a much less frightening and much more fascinating place. It has broadened our minds and our perspective, and unlocked fantastic and exciting possibilities for our species. As always, we face the choice of courageously following our curiosity further, or falling back on beliefs that insist we already know all we need to.