Protesting in this day and age

In spring we went to a protest. We gathered in the Copley Square in Boston, shouted slogans, waved placards and listened to politicians. We were protesting against the Muslim Ban, something we felt deeply about as being unjust. After protesting for a couple of hours, we went to a neighboring restaurant for lunch with a friend we had bumped into. Then we went home and posted on the social media about our noble deed.

We felt good. We basked in the glow of having done our share to defend our nation against the onslaught of idiotic moves by a moron that we have elected as our president.  And, thanks to the social media, we burnished our image as patriots who stand up against injustice.   Some of us even claimed that we were following in the footsteps of our forefathers who participated in successful movements of their times.

All very positive for us, but did we produce any results? The Muslim Ban got snared in the judicial system as being unconstitutional, which probably would have happened even if we did not protest.

In a fine article in The New Yorker titled “Do Protests Work?” (August 21, 2017), Nathan Heller cites a number of recent situations where it did not. Two of the examples are Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter. No US policies have changed because of the former, and only three police officers have been found guilty because of latter, with just one receiving a prison sentence. The largest single day demonstration in the US history, The Women’s March, was impressive, but did not do much to change the course of the new administration headed by a misogynistic president.

In finding the reasons why the protests have lately failed to produce results, Heller cites the Civil Rights Movement of the past as one where success was achieved. “It happened piece by piece under politically entrenched and physically threatening conditions.” “The keys to success were the structure and communication patterns that appear when a fixed group works together over time.” “Once, just getting people to show up required top-down coordination, but today anyone can gather crowds through tweets, and update, in seconds, thousands of strangers on the move.”

In other words, it required an organization and a leader to create a movement in the past. Neither is needed in today’s digital age. That seeming strength is also a weakness in terms of results achieved.

Another factor is the motivation in joining a protest. In the old days, success was defined as achieving the objectives of the movement. The participants in the Civil Rights movement, or India’s Freedom Struggle, would have felt like failures if the minorities were not given equal rights in US or, in the second instance, India did not become independent.

That is not the case today. One objective of protest, as per Heller, is to “make ourselves feel virtuous, useful, and in the right.” If we solidify our brand on the social media as a result of our action, we have achieved something. I admit this is a bit cynical, but I do believe that on a personal level our loyalty to the cause has become less important than it did in the past. As long as we get good FaceBook posts out of it, our efforts are not totally in vain, even if the objectives of the movement are not achieved. That lowering of the “commitment-bar” to enter a movement leads to a poor success rate.

So, the social media strikes again. Just as it has encouraged the dividing of our society into tribes, this modern way of communication has forever reduced the effectiveness of a popular way to bring about change.

What a Faustian bargain!

NRA's response

We are grieving the loss of life in Nevada. Some of the folks who lost their lives were NRA members, who will be missed (as the end of the year approaches and we don’t get their dues).

This tragedy would not have happened if people listen to us. As we said, “The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” The folks (idiots) attending the concert were not carrying guns. Perhaps they were even prevented from carrying guns.

So, we propose that the government pass several legislations to prevent such events from happening again (and making our supporters, the gun manufacturers, wealthier).

First, we will insert an important question that every gun purchaser will have to answer. “Are you a good guy or a bad guy?” If he says, “bad guy”---bam, no gun for him. This is our way of ensuring responsible gun ownership. (We are so clever.)

Second, every concertgoer should be made to carry a gun. If they don’t have a gun, the management will have to loan them one ($). They need to be high caliber automatic weapons ($$$$). Only then can a shooter with a powerful of weapon be stopped.

Just imagine if such legislation were in effect, all the concertgoers in Las Vegas would have opened fire at the hotel where the shooter was located. At least one of them would have stopped him (if that means bystanders and other guests in hotel getting shot, too bad--- just collateral damage).

Third, we are proposing that bazookas be made legal. Just imagine all these bazookas pointing toward the hotel and firing. The shooter would have definitely been hit (the bazooka manufacturers need to diversify their market from just supplying to the military).

Fourth, in these days and age, we have modern technology. A drone can be pretty effective at stopping a shooter. Our military has proven their effectiveness in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Just imagine a drone circling with hellfire missiles above the concert. The shooter would have been vaporized when a hellfire hits him (Yes, probably the hotel would have vaporized too, but that is collateral damage. The drone and hellfire missile manufacturers are also looking for diversification).

We are going to appeal to your congressmen to make these legislative changes (should be easy, most are in our pockets. If not we can buy a few more. We have money).

Don’t forget, we are the protector of the second amendment. Without us, you would not have the right to carry assault weapons, which you richly deserve (and our gun manufacturers would have been poorer).

Note: For those not familiar with NRA, it is the National Rifle Association, a powerful gun lobby that believes in not giving an inch on regulating purchase and ownership of guns in USA. Thanks to them and their stranglehold on the lawmakers, US has a higher incidence of guns violence per capita than any other developed country…by far.

Science vs. miracle

A vast majority of people in this world believes that god created universe and everything in it. A small minority of us are of the opinion that everything can be explained by science, which has already has made tremendous stride in uncovering nature’s deep secrets, and will continue to do so in the foreseeable future. Then there are those in the middle who believe that we need to go beyond science to explain many aspects of our universe and our experience of living in it. Here are some examples of items they put forth in support of their belief.

1.     There is a soul that resides in the body and leaves when a person dies. If you believe that to be true, many things can be explained. For example, soul can be the entity that makes a collection of chemicals “alive.” Soul is also the “thinker of the thought” or what gives us self-awareness. If you believe in rebirth, soul provides the way a person can be reborn, by going from a person who has died to the one who is about to be born. However, people like me would say that there is no evidence that a soul exists* and there is high likelihood that emergence of “life” from self-replicating chemicals would be explained by science someday not far in the future. Self-awareness, or consciousness, could be just a function of brain that has not yet been explored or explained, but that does not mean it will not be. According to a well-known author Yuval Harari (Sapiens, Homo Deus), conscious brains is probably a byproduct of nature making intelligence that can reason about itself and its environment. Finally, the concept of rebirth serves to provide a soothing message to those bereaved by the passing of a loved one, that he/she has not gone forever, but born elsewhere. However, as far as science is concerned, it just does not make any sense.

2.     There has to be purpose in life, some deep meaning why we exist. There could be, but what if there isn’t? What if nature just does its own things, following the rules of physics, with no plan, no “meaning”? Why isn’t that an acceptable way of looking at things? Why do we need everything to have a meaning? Indeed, there is a school of philosophy behind this assertion…existential nihilism.

3.     There is a mysterious energy or force that directs what goes on. There are mysterious entities such as dark matter and dark energy in universe that science is investigating. However, I don’t think this is what the folks who believe in the mysterious force/energy refer to. They believe in a mysterious force that is directing how and where life should exists and that remains an active participant in our lives. On the surface, this sound very much like the concept of “Intelligence Designer,” often mentioned in place of god by folks who are of scientific bent but do not think science can explain everything. True, we don’t know for sure what is reality. However, if there is an Intelligent Designer, then who created him/her/it? A super Intelligent Designer? Who created him/her/it? Wouldn’t we get into an endless loop trying to reason out of that one?

4.     “It can’t be a coincidence that I got help exactly when I needed it.” My response would be---why can’t it be?

5.     Wouldn’t the creation of an organism violate the second law of thermodynamics---by reducing entropy? If you are not a student of science, this refers to the fact that universe goes from order to disorder; low entropy to high entropy, and an organism represents order and so low entropy. However, a deeper dive illustrates that entropy can reduce if the system is not isolated. An increase in entropy somewhere else more than compensates for that reduction, thereby keeping the second law intact. So, this argument does not apply.

6.     Can universe emerge from nothing? Yes, it can. As explained by a theory called Quantum gravity, universe can and always will appear from nothing. Such universe can have matter and energy as long as the total energy, including the negative energy associated with gravity, is zero (from “A Universe from Nothing” by Lawrence Krauss). Could this universe include an Intelligent Designer? I believe that it does include a designer, in the form of laws of physics. To make it intelligent would need an intelligence maker and we will be back in the conundrum expressed under point 3.

7.     How can such complexity in life be created without some intervention? Given enough time---billions of years in this case--- and a process that incorporates variations in living organisms, coupled with natural selection (Darwin’s Theory), living things of enormous complexity, including humans, can evolve. The key here is “given enough time.” A very readable book in this area is “Your Inner Fish” by Neil Shubin.

In summary, as Steven Weinberg, a physicist, says (ref. the above book by by Lawrence Krauss), “Science does not make it impossible to believe in God, but rather makes it possible not to believe in God. Without science, everything is a miracle. With science, there remains the possibility that nothing is.”

I agree with him.

-----------------------------

 *  Note: When I say this, I am presented with “scientific” evidence that shows that soul exists. Much like climate change, there are people who work on alternate science. So, once you are convinced of any of the items above, including the existence of soul, to be true, it is always possible to find someone to back you up. This is a clear manifestation of confirmation bias, in that you selectively look for evidence that confirms what you believe in and discard the rest.

Leaky bucket

Many people have a “bucket list” of places they want to visit and things they want to do before they die---or “kick the bucket.” I too have created and maintained such a list, if not on paper, in my mind. However, as I age, and times change, my bucket list has sprung a leak. Items that used to be in the bucket aren’t there any longer. Moreover, I question what remains, and indeed the very reason to have such a list.

The first items to leak out are activities that I am not sure I have the strength or stamina to undertake. I was thinking about climbing Mt. Kilimanjaro once upon a time. It is a dream of many folks interested in mountains, and my daughter did it many years ago. However, I have taken it off the list, as I am not just strong enough anymore. Same is the case with my ambition to climb Mount Rainier. One of the guys I used to do winter hikes with climbed it when he was 60 and found it challenging. I am way beyond that age.

Another group no longer in my bucket list is of places that have become out of bounds due to political unrest. That group includes Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, North Korea and Venezuela. I am also a bit unsure of Turkey and Iran. Both are generally considered safe, but I would rather wait before taking risk.

However, a much larger number of items that have leaked out of the bucket are places and activities I no longer find worthwhile. There are many reasons for that, but basically I believe that the cost benefit analysis has turned against undertaking such trips or activities.

The “cost” does have a monetary component, but it is more a function of hassle involved. The idea of sitting many hours in an airplane (I do suffer from fear of flying) turns me off from many endeavors. There is also some risk involved, especially in travelling to places that are targeted by terrorists. However, I don’t worry too much about that, given the low odds of getting in harms way. On the other hand, I do include the challenges posed by ever increasing hoards of tourists in the cost side of my equation.

Even more than the increased cost, it is the reduced benefit that bothers me. I have now been to so many places and experienced so many activities that it would take something extraordinary to make me say “wow.”  A prime example is visiting a city---a European one, for example. In the old days, I would have found the idea of going to a large European city exciting, but that has now long gone. I just don’t care for the cathedrals, museums, cute cafes, or big palaces as I used to. They all have started looking the same.

That is also true for landscapes. Some of them I still find interesting (as was the case with our recent visit to Iceland), but a run-of-a-mill glacier is not as exciting as it used to be before my visits to Patagonia, Alaska, Iceland, Antarctica and the Arctic. Along those lines, we are no longer that interested in going to New Zealand, even though it has become a hot destination. How would those mountains be different from the ones we have already seen, say, in Patagonia?

Another benefit that has gone away, and I admit, is the bragging rights that come with visiting a new place. Now with everyone going everywhere, no one can brag anymore.

The final reason for the benefit of a visit going down is the tremendous increase in tourism, now that China has joined this in a big way. Nothing spoils an experience more than being surrounded by buses disgorging tourists who quickly take selfies and then embark again for the next destination. Iceland has become like that, so have Banff and Jasper. Yosemite is a gone case.

Last year, I could not believe what a madhouse the beautiful city of Prague has become from the first time I visited in 1991. Today, one cannot even walk at a normal pace on the famous Charles Bridge. So packed it has become. Given that, I cannot even think of going back to Venice or Florence. Even the distant Svalbard is on the brink of becoming a routine stop of mammoth cruise ships.

The final point I want to make is whether it is even worthwhile having a bucket list. So what if you don’t visit a “must see” place or partake in a “once in a lifetime” adventure?

Along this line, in an earlier Blog Post (September 2016) --- titled “Old age and Epicurus”--- I mentioned what the author, Daniel Klein thinks of bucket lists. Here I repeat:

Klein coins a term “forever young” to describe elderly who are trying to remain young forever, by making bucket lists and trying to run around with as much vigor as when they were young. According to him, “Many forever youngsters are driven by the frustration of not having fully achieved the goals they dreamed of attaining when they were younger; they see their final years as a last chance to grab some elusive brass ring.”

He elaborates on his disdain for a bucket list, “New experiences and new things couldn’t possibly be boring, could they? Well apparently they often could. Newness itself gets old. At the twelfth place to see before dying, viewing exotic terrain gets to be old hat---you’ve already done exotic eleven times.”

Talking about “exotic”, I have often fancied going to the “Silk Route”. However, after seeing the photographs of a couple of friends who have been there, I am not too sure. They all have Stalinist buildings, smiley tour guides---appropriately dressed---and a few monuments of the past. Same is the case with a safari in Kenya and Tanzania. OK, it will be fun seeing the wildlife, but how different it would be from thousands of pictures we have already seen, and how “wild” it would really be with a large number of Land Rovers containing tourists with fancy cameras surrounding a poor isolated beast?

Perhaps I am in a cynical funk.

When I get out of it, I will go back to my shrunken bucket list and preserve what remains from leaking out. We may still go to Central Asia and even undertake a safari. Iran and Turkey will remain high on our list. Oh yes, we still haven’t been to a big chunk of Asia. That needs to be fixed. We are still “young” and need to do something with the remaining days of our lives. ;-)

Theory of Relatives

I have been reading up on Einstein’s Theory of Relativity lately. It is in response to my overall love for science and especially physics. As I was going through a course on “Theory of Everything” I had a question that I could not answer---something to do with what is called Twin Paradox---and so I decided to revisit this topic.

In a nutshell, a crucial fact discovered by Einstein was that light has the same speed in the vacuum of space, irrespective of frame of reference of the observer. That leads to several weird consequences. For example if a person is travelling close to the speed of light, his time goes slower than that of a person observing him from earth. His space is also compressed, so he travels a shorter distance to reach a destination than what the observer on earth would expect. Space and time are thus dependent on your frame of reference.

That means that everyone experiences reality differently.

“Aha,” I said. That explains why my (fictitious) uncle Joe has a different version of reality than I do. While I think Trump is a liar and a cheat, he thinks of him as a great leader hounded by evil media.

I call this my Theory of Relatives: Your relatives (and for that matter anyone else) experiences reality differently than you do. I am sure you find it hard to imagine that given the evidence in front of you, someone can come to such a different conclusion. What world is uncle Joe living in, you may wonder. If you do, just consider the poor slobs in the example I mentioned above to explain Theory of Relativity. They cannot agree even on a simple fact of what time it is!

Einstein discovered something else. In his General Theory of Relativity he outlines the role that gravity plays on time and space. It distorts space so that the travelling fellow going through a gravity field has even more disagreement with his earthbound companion on what time it is, because gravity slows down time.

Translate that into Theory of Relatives. If uncle Joe goes though an experience related to his beliefs, he will disagree with you even more. May be he goes to a Trump rally or shake his hands. This will have a major impact on uncle Joe, just like the traveller passing through a gravitational field.

Now, according to Einstein: “While measurements of space and time may be independently differ for different observers, the spacetime is same for everyone.” Yes, there is something called spacetime, and it gets into fourth dimension and such. The point I am making is that even if our space traveller and his earthbound friend don’t agree even on the most fundamental facts, such as time, there is something absolute out there. It is just that there is no way to experience it.

Same it is in Theory of Relatives. There is absolute truth out there but we experience everything based on our frame of reference. There is no escape. Theory of Relativity and Theory of Relatives bind us all.