On the Bases for Morality

In his speech to the students and faculty of Liberty University, Bernie Sanders continued his education of the American public mind. Bernie sought to find common ground with his audience through a shared concern for morality. If you recall, Jerry Falwell the founder and president of Liberty University , created his following under the rubric of the Moral Majority.

Bernie argued that justice is a fundamental moral concern rooted in the Golden Rule expressed in the Bible (Mathew 7.12) as  “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.”       Issues such as the extreme wealth gap between the rich and the poor and the mass incarceration of young black men, are obvious examples of this moral injunction. Yet they are disregarded in favor of abortion and gay marriage as primary moral concerns.

I suggest that the reason for this is the difference in the foundations for morality. Morality founded on fictions such as those in religions founded on creation stories with their all-knowing and all-powerful god have no anchor in reality and can, therefore, become as fanciful as the human  imagination can make them. When those fancies are believed and motivate humans to behave in accordance with them, all hell can, and sometimes does, break loose. Moral issues founded on the human condition, such as Bernie’s concerns, are by that very fact more amenable to rational resolution than those founded on the arbitrariness of human fancy.

I believe Bernie knew what he was doing in his lecture to the students and faculty of Liberty University, namely, evidencing the difference in moral bases and helping those with a moral sentiment founded on the human condition to realize the difference. That he succeeded in some measure is evidenced by a post in Daily Kos by a student who heard Bernie’s speech and was impressed by it. It is not uncommon for young Americans to become religious as a vehicle for dealing with their moral concerns about the world. When those concerns are brought to religion they are often transfigured into the dogma of the religion. American society offers very little, other than religion, in which the burgeoning moral sentiment of the young can find expression. The sterility of our polical process does not solicit the moral engagement of the young. Bernie is changing some of that.

Once again, in my judgement Bernie was teaching people. A President of Bernie’s caliber would be a rare, if not unique, occurrence in American political leadership.

Bob Newhard 

Overpopulation and the Cheapening of Human Life

The consequences of overpopulation are many, ranging from wars for diminishing resources to environmental depredation. One consequence that is seldom discussed and represents a direct contradiction of the tenants of major religions, which declare their concern for human life, is the cheapening of human life and the consequences of that fact. For example the Christian Bible tells the faithful to be fruitful and multiply. This dictum springs from a tribal concern to maintain and increase its population as a protection against tribal extinction and a tool for tribal domination.

We ooh and ahh over a newborn infant.  We manufacture plastic fetuses for young girls to cherish as a doll. We denounce abortion as murdering a fetus and oppose anti-abortion forces in terms of a woman’s right to govern her own body, but not as a threat to the infant’s future.

Perhaps the most impressive demonstration of overpopulation’s cheapening of human life and its consequences is to be seen in what happens when human populations are suddenly underpopulated.

In the latter part of the 14^th century and the early part of the 15^th century Europe was ravaged by the Black Plague. It lost about an estimated 45 to 50% of Europe’s population. As a result the value of labor rose astronomically. This led to greatly increased job opportunities and labor mobility. In consequence serfdom began to disappear, primogeniture of inheritance diminished and according to Branko Milanovica”s article titled Can Black Death Explain the Industrial Revolution?, it even played a significant role in the development  of the Industrial Revolution In England some 400 years later. In brief, scarcity, as it so frequently does, breeds value.

But how does this play out in the 21^st century?

·      War – Life is cheap, especially that of the young who have accumulated no wealth or status. Notice the prevalence of conflict in Africa. In addition to its current overpopulation it is projected to provide the majority of the population increase in the 21^st century.

A scholarly paper I read a number of years ago found that the U.S. military devoted more recruiting resources to the Southern states because recruitment was more successful. In this country, as in the rest of the world, poverty produces soldiers.

·      Destruction of democracy

Overpopulation by cheapening human life increases poverty. The split between the haves and have nots grows wider and wider thus destroying the equality of power that democracy requires. We have seen this happening in the United States. The cheap labor of Asia destroyed jobs in this country and forced workers to accept considerably more menial jobs at lower wages. This has contributed strongly to the migration of increasing wealth to the economic elite, thus destroying our democracy by turning it into an oligarchy of wealth. The lesson many Americans have to learn here is that democracy is absolutely dependent upon an equality of wealth and to the extent this is not the case democracy is imperiled and begins to lose its hold on the body politic. All the rhetoric about voting is just that- rhetoric. We see the results daily in our national and local politics.

·      Job loss

We hear it from all points of the political spectrum because it is having such a serious impact on so many Americans. As population increases and the cost of labor continues to decline, the loss rate will increase until humanity rethinks the “job.”

The basic function of the job in a democracy is to distribute society’s gross domestic product among the populace. As jobs are imperiled by overpopulation, automation, longer work lives, etc., the job increasingly fails in its role of distributing the gross domestic product to a society’s citizens. Eventually, if the human forebrain continues to devise labor saving devices, we will have to develop a method other than the job to distribute society’s productivity. Some of you may remember the feather-bedding of railroad firemen as diesel engines replaced coal-fired steam engines. For a while firemen remained on diesel-drawn trains where they did nothing. Technology has been a major driver in producing unemployment and its attendant miseries. It has allowed corporations to export jobs and robotize our own manufacturing plants and commercial activity. Some thoughtful investigators, such as Bill Joy, co-founder of Sun Microsystems, fear that computer technology will eventually replace us unless we are very careful in how, or whether, we implement this technology.

In sum, all those anti-abortion, anti-birth control forces have a lot to answer for. Every little girl taught to carry a fetus doll, faces a world of over population and increasingly a distraught life. The emotion of joy at a child’s birth must be  tempered by human reason if our species is to protect and restore planet Earth, our only home. Let us not cheapen human life, let us value it, but understand that said values are totally dependent upon limiting the number of humans on our planet.

Bob Newhard

Learning from Bernie

When Bernie Sanders circulated his petition, I believe it was in 2011, asking people whose opinion he valued whether he should run for President of the United States, he sought the opinion of thinking, concerned people such as David Korten, author of When Corporations Rule the World. David said “Yes, we need you.” Unlike most candidates Bernie was seeking knowledge not money. 

Another lesson Bernie has for Progressives is to seek knowledge of the human condition and of the potential for improving it. Bernie has, for example, declared that he would value Paul Krugman and Joe Stiglitz as members of his administration. For Bernie, thinking and a fundamental concern for human welfare matter. With this kind of focus Bernie invites people to be participants, not merely supporters.

Bernie has shown us how to deal with distractions, important though they may be. After the Black Lives Matter people interrupted and stopped his speech he met with them, presented his proposals for addressing racism, which met with their approval, but did so in the context of his overriding economic message.

After the disruption some pundits voiced their belief the Bernie’s campaign was finished because of this racial issue. However, he has continued to draw large crowds and now has overtaken Clinton in New Hampshire and Iowa. I believe we have seen something of the depth of Bernie’s understanding and commitment in this episode. The lesson Progressives should learn is, when dealing with distraction learn, but keep your focus on the fundamental issues.

One of the largest lessons to be learned from Bernie is his deliberate choice to go South, not just in pursuit of additional voters, but to demonstrate to the Democratic Party and progressives that their practice of writing off the South as a lost cause, of which I have been guilty, is wrong and flies in the face of the unification this country so badly needs. By demonstrating  the economic plight Wall Street has placed so many ordinary Americans in, Bernie has shown that economic issues can surmount racial divisions. That he was able to draw thousands in Louisiana evidences the viability of the 50-state political funding emphasis that Howard Dean and Bernie have both pushed. The 50-state policy says, in effect, that all Democrats count when it comes to the use of party campaign funding.

Dean was promptly removed from head of the DNC when Obama was elected and replaced by Rahm Emanuel who strenuously opposed the 50-state idea. Emanuel  eventually went on to become mayor of Chicago and push privatization of the Chicago public school system.

Underneath all of this Bernie is teaching Americans that politics must focus on people and their wellbeing, not on money and the well-being of the rich, both corporate and personal. Maybe we can stop teaching our children that seeking one’s fortune is not a suitable goal in life for a citizen of democracy and that wealth is the enemy of democracy.

Bob Newhard

Understanding Bernie

Bernie and Noam Chomsky are long time friends. Bernie, in the 1980s and then mayor of Burlington Vermont, invited Noam to give a talk on American intervention in Nicaragua.

Recently Chomsky was asked by the Guardian what he thought Bernie’s chances of winning the election were and what Bernie would face in Washington if elected. The following is a quote from Noam’s response.

"I'm glad that Sanders is running. A good way to bring important ideas and facts to people. His candidacy might also press the Dems a little in a progressive direction. In our system of bought elections he has scarcely a chance of getting beyond the primaries, and even if by some miracle he were elected he wouldn't be able to do anything, lacking any congressional representatives, governors, etc. As far as I can see he's a thorn in the side of the Clinton machine, which is not a bad thing."

When I read this from Bernie’s friend and a thoughtful and knowledgeable political analyst, I tasked myself with trying to further understand Bernie and what he had in mind should he win.

Bernie Sanders is no fly-by- night. He knows America has to radically change its economic system and its social services. He has studied the Scandinavian system. He knows this has to be done with people not money.

Thom Hartmann has expressed his view that Bernie can productively govern through an effective use of the bully pulpit. He has shown a remarkable ability to communicate with Americans from all regions of the country. Hartmann also notes that Bernie would have the Congressional Progressive Caucus to work with. Considering the media onslaught that the “billionaire class” would bring to bear against him, he will need the millions of people he has called for. We should not forget that J. P. Morgan, et. al., sought to stage a coup against FDR.

Thom Hartmann has published an article titled Bernie Sanders could be the Next FDR. This, to me, indicates that Hartmann may be underestimating Bernie, which, parenthetically, Bernie has warned the media not to do. FDR came by much of his progressivism after he became president. Bernie would bring decades of progressive and socialist thought and action to the presidency. That office would reflect a depth of concern and understanding it has never seen before.

Finally, under Bernie, the United States could lead a global change in world government. Bernie’s support for the Greek revolution evidences his concern to rid the planet of financial corporations that make money off of money and contribute nothing to a genuine economy of products and services, then use this massive phantom wealth to control the global economy. This must be done to heal the planet from the ravages of a money-based economy, end massive human misery and death and bring our human numbers and level of consumption to a sustainable level. Bernie, unlike other candidates wants  humanity to succeed and will challenge those self-centered  maniacs who think otherwise.

Sanity must reign. Let us all help Bernie bring it to pass.

Bob Newhard

On Bernie, Foreign Policy and Integrity

I had read several comments by writers about Bernie Sanders’ failure or reluctance to present his foreign policy should he be elected. If true, I could understand such reluctance, especially this early in his campaign.

The functions of foreign policy are so varied, so multipurposed and so remote from the understanding of ordinary people that it can easily become the playground of those who seek to deceive and distract. Bernie is trying to build a common concern and understanding of the major reasons this society has failed and is failing the American people.

That said, I asked myself what might be some of the features of his presumed policy.

One writer who tried to do this decided to review Bernie’s extensive voting record in Congress. He found, for example, that Bernie had voted against every war except one. But these votes were in response to proposals by others and could not be expected to represent Bernie’s own developed thinking.

Knowing that Bernie’s political and social thinking was largely based on the experience of social democrats in Europe, especially in Scandinavia, I decided to look at their foreign policies. One feature stood out, that of peace and the promotion of peace. Indeed, Sweden’s foreign policy expresses that country’s desire to play the role of disinterested facilitator for countries faced with the prospect of war. An especial area of interest is Africa where the world’s major countries are vying for African land and resources.

Sweden has excellent credibility for playing the role of peace facilitator. It has had no war since 1864. All through World War II, in the midst of conflict all around it, it was able to maintain its neutrality. The closest it came to war during that period was when the Nazi regime demanded that Sweden allow them to move troops from Norway to Finland to fight the Russians. The pressure from the Germans became so intense that the Swedes set about arming their nation. The Nazis apparently decided the risk of ocean transport of troops in the Baltic Sea was, after all, preferable to an additional war.

At about this time in my research and in the current election campaign the controversy over the Iran nuclear deal broke out. Obama was trying desperately to find the support he needed in the Senate. Chuck Schumer, the presumed leader of the Democrats once Harry Reid retires in January 2016, declared his opposition to the agreement, whose major opponent was Israel and their immense lobby in Congress.

When Obama contacted Bernie on what his vote would be, Bernie asked some questions and then said he would support the deal the administration had negotiated.

Here were two Jews faced with an issue of war and peace revolving around nuclear warfare. Schumer gave as his primary objection the fact that the agreement would only last for ten years. Even on this basis was not 10 years of peace better than 10 years of almost certain warfare?

If one takes note of the fact that Bernie was raised a devout Jew, going to Hebrew school in the afternoon after public school, and that his father’s family was exterminated in a Nazi concentration camp, whereas I could find no such background for Schumer, Bernie’s integrity and commitment to peace versus the slaughter and suffering of war comes shining through. His commitment to mankind’s wellbeing is greater than that to the special interest of his birth culture. It is this way of thinking and fundamental valuing of humanity as a whole that our times and the future so badly need.

His sterling behavior in this matter reminded me of the behavior of the socialist party in Europe prior to World War I. The socialists sought to prevent the war by calling a general strike that would prevent mobilization and munitions manufacture. It failed because in the end the allegiance to country was greater than that to socialist principle. Not so with Bernie Sanders.

We have a candidate with a long-established concern for humanity’s welfare, an effective politician, a teacher of the populace and a realist who believes we the people can reclaim our democracy. The rarity of this circumstance should prompt all persons concerned for a better world and the survival of our species, to vigorously support him.

Bob Newhard

The Social Value of Diversity

One of the things that has long intrigued me is how unique cities arise when surrounded by a plethora of others opposed to its culture. How, for instance, did a democratic Athens arise when surrounded by arbitrary empires and militaristic city states. This time it was the anomaly of Austin, Texas in a state dominated by Southern values derived ultimately from slavery and racism.

Austin is the home of Jim Hightower, and until she died it was the home of Molly Ivins. James Galbraith teaches at the Austin campus of the University of Texas. In short, it has been home to more progressivism than many Northern cities. Granted, Austin is a university town and the State capital. One might expect a higher level of intellectualism than the rest of Texas. However, the University of Texas has 9 campuses, e.g. Dallas, San Antonio, which do not exhibit the level of progressivism that Austin does.

While Austin is the state capital, the legislature, which Molly called the “lege,” provided a constant target for Molly’s wit with its follies, ignorance and corruption.

In a Texas born of the desire for another slave state, whose legislature still regards a woman’s body as governable by the state, Austin progressivism is indeed an anomaly.

Not to mention Governor Rick Perry brandishing his sixguns in public.

 

I found a website (Google Why did Austin become so different from the rest of Texas?)  where a number of citizens were voicing their views on how Austin liberalism came to be. Prominent among the reasons was the accumulation of diverse human beings gathering over time for a variety   of reasons. This reminded me of philosopher Morris Cohen’s view that the unusual vigor of New York City was due primarily to its ethnic mix.

Reflections of this sort led me to see diversity as more than just the tolerance that is often used to defend it. Diversity creates social conditions that many people find attractive, if not essential to the freedom they require.

Why is it that creative and intellectual vigor have always been associated with cities? Is it not the freedom to be oneself, born of the absence of a stifling monoculture?

Diversity is thus as essential a condition for civilization as it is for ecological survival. Let us stop the dangerous nonsense epitomized by the burgeoning practice of building fences around our nations and deal with the real problems--overpopulation and overconsumption.

Bob NAewhard 

When Corporations Rule Greece

This week had been one denouement or disaster after another for Greece and those like myself who saw in the Greek resistance to the demands of the Troika the beginnings of a renaissance of people-founded governance.

Then came the removal of Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis from the negotiations  by President Alexis Tsipras, but I kept the faith that Alexis was trying very hard to find a way to keep Greece in the EU while getting bailout terms that would give the Greek economy a chance to recover.

Next I read an article by John Pilger, the Australian writer and documentary film maker, in which he declared that Alexis Tsipras and his group were conducting a large scale betrayal of the Greek people. I have a high regard for Pilger and found his article quite disturbing. (The article is titled The problem of Greece is not only a tragedy. It is a lie and can be found at http://johnpilger.com/articles/the-problem-of-greece-is-not-only-a-tragedy-it-is-a-lie.)

 

 While he offered little direct evidence for his assertion he did notice that Alexis and the leadership came from wealthy families and were highly educated. He noted that Alexis kept saying he was trying to get “the best deal” for the people of Greece despite the fact that those people had resoundingly declared in a referendum that they wanted no deal.

Then we began to see some of the details of the deal that Alexis and the Parliament had signed off on. Aside from substantial reduction in previously reduced pensions and other public assistance, which could easily be reversed by later governments, there were the demands to privatize major government facilities such as airports and seaports. Such privatizing is a hallmark of corporate takeover of government.

Finally, came the announced purge of leftists from the Syriza government by President Alexis Tsipras. This confirmed what John Pilger had seen. In short, the takeover of the Greek government by the left was not the beginning of a long overdue change in the global economy that had elicited the support of so many, including the people of Spain, Portugal, Italy and Ireland. It was instead, a large scale kabuki dance led by the major financial institutions of Europe and perhaps America. As ex Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis has said of the deal, “Greece was subject to a programme that will "go down in history as the greatest disaster of macroeconomic management ever".

It is, to my mind, yet unclear how this will all play out. The people of Greece may rise up and throw the betrayers out. Yanis has been very vocal in his criticism of the deal which has such long term pain and suffering for the Greek people written into it as well as a pronounced loss of self-governance to the corporate powers of Europe.

The world needed a resolute rejection of the deal offered by the Troika to give the people heart to continue and intensify the struggle for democracy. Hopefully we can still find it, perhaps in a Bernie Sanders presidency.

Bob Newhard

Identity Politics and the Common Good

In his encyclical declaring the need to get honking on global climate change Pope Francis used a phrase I have seldom heard in political parlance since Nixon traded Southern racism for Republican votes and Reagan turned the people’s government over to the corporations. That phrase is “the common good.”

In my youth this phrase was often used. Social Security was viewed as a common good, as was unemployment benefits and public education. Under the constant barrage of propaganda from the corporate media, people were led to believe that the purpose of these institutions was to make money. This was usually argued under the false premise that the private sector could do the job more cheaply.

Bernie Sanders, in my judgement, is bringing the common good back into political prominence. If he and Hillary Clinton are the main contenders in the Democratic primary in the 2016 election the result could be a very clarifying moment in American political culture.

Suppose Bernie continues to define the basic issue this country faces as radical inequality, not just in wealth, but opportunity, education, and the debilitating effects it has on the nation’s well-being. Also suppose that Hillary, lacking credibility on such issues, plays her strong suit, namely, justice for women for which she is rightly acknowledged.

If such a confrontation were to develop between the rights of women and the need to wrest control of human destiny from the grasp of the corporate cabal and their trade agreements, it is not difficult to see corporations pouring their resources into women’s rights as preferable to corporate ostracism. Once again we would see corporate control of society exhibit its divide and conquer manipulations at work.

We would then have a confrontation between identity politics and the politics of the whole. I have long argued that we desperately need to see humanity as a whole if we are to deal effectively with the huge and multidimensional problems that face our species.

While humanity focuses on its own immediate issues, the corporations focus on organizing human society as a whole and for profit. Identity politics and other divisive movements leave the corporations free to pursue their venal machinations.

Let me be perfectly clear. There is ominous evidence that corporations intend to replace government as the controlling institution of society. Aside from the obvious control their money exercises in our own society, they are using the multiplying trade agreements to transfer priority in governance from the people to themselves. By Constitutional law our treaties have the same authority as our legislatively generated law. When corporate lawyers get together to write their secret trade agreements they do so with no consent of the governed and no due process by the representatives of the governed as they are fast tracked.  As an example, several years ago Venezuela sued because our environmental law required the use of low-sulfur oil for fuel. Venezuelan oil is not low-sulfur. Hence a trade agreement was being used to impose increased pollution on the citizens of this country.

It is only when the intent of corporations to control global society is adequately understood that the immense task  Bernie Sanders has set both for himself and the citizens of the United States becomes clear and hence the importance of what he and his supporters are trying to do. People not profits must be placed at the center of global governance. As we put aside many of our identity issues when faced with threat of global dictatorship in World War II, so we must unite to preserve a very fragile democracy.

As we try to deal with the consequences of global warming and climate change we face the prospect of global dictatorship if the effort is too much for the democratic process. The corporations aim to insure that it is their dictatorship. When Bernie is responding to the thousands that turn out to hear him he makes it clear that it will take millions. We must get beyond black and white, gender, my nation, culture, religion, versus yours and focus on our species and its survival. Anything less will doom us to eventual extinction.

The election of 2008 is an example of what happens when identity politic takes center stage. Our focus was on getting a young black man elected president and thereby dealing a major blow to racism, the most virulent political and social disease in America. We got that, but we also got an eight year extension of war, corporation- friendly response to a major recession (some banks are too big to fail and the culprits do not go to jail), a continuance of torture of detainees and their trial by secret courts, a grave failure to support public education and a continuance of the for-profit student loan program that is crushing the young and making higher education once again the privilege of the wealthy. While we celebrated the election of a black president the corporations continued their efforts to control global society through Obama-supported trade agreements such as Transpacific Partnership (TPP) and the Trading in Services Agreement (TISA).       

We cannot let this happen again. We must keep our eyes solidly on the need to defeat the corporations.

Bob Newhard

Of Revolution, Reason and Humanity’s Future

Chris Hedges’ new book Wages of Rebellion is a profound account of rebellion and revolution, its history, the existing need for this kind of change and the life and challenges of the moral and social rebel.

Hedges brings passion and blunt, articulate and exceptionally well-informed argument to this effort to get people to realize that customary forms of protest from marches to rallies alone will not accomplish the change that is desperately needed. We need the committed rebels of the past, e.g. Emma Goldman, Sacco and Vanzetti and Marin Luther King.

Toward the end of this book Hedges, a former Yale Divinity student, described the depth of commitment of rebels from Socrates to Martin Luther King. He gives King’s speech on “Taking up the Cross” that would require that he give himself to the needs of the poor, to live for and among them. As Socrates chose the hemlock rather than exile, so King chose to serve the interests of the poor rather than his own.

I have long been aware of the religious element in Hedges intellectual makeup, but somewhat befuddled by his (it seemed to me) refusal to say exactly what he means by religion, e.g. does he believe in the existence of a God. In his account of King’s “taking up the cross” commitment to the poor it seems clear to me that Hedges, as so  many religious thinkers have, confuses religion and morality. Religion, at least as far as the Abrahamic religions are concerned, makes a statement of fact about the existence of a god. Morality makes no such claims, but rather assigns moral values to the actions and thoughts of humans.

It is, however, Hedges’ belief that faith, not reason, is what is necessary to get humanity through the deep crises it has created for itself, that I find inadequate. In this book he quotes approvingly from Francesco Guicciardini “To have faith means simply to believe firmly— to deem almost a certainty— things that are not reasonable.”  What, I ask, is to differentiate such belief from that of an ISIS volunteer out to kill the next Shiite he sees?

When I look at humanity’s long history of development, it is clear that most, if not all, of what has made this species so profoundly superior to the other products of evolution, is human thought and the resulting understanding of its world that has made the difference, not the moral efforts of a few during times of crisis.  Granted the products of reason have not always been used wisely, but even then, reason is often the best tool for dealing with the social rubble of misuse and deliberately created human suffering and death by the greed and power-lust of a relative few.

Because morality takes place solely in humans, its perspective is highly distorted and because its prescriptions are didactic in a world of compound variability, it cannot be a reliable guide, or instance, to all those demands and impositions as well as opportunities that the natural world presents to humans. This, I think, Hedges fails to understand.

Let me make it absolutely clear. There is no better guide to the overwhelming problems that face humanity and the revolution needed to wrest control  of the planet from corporate dominance and greed than Chris Hedges. I think, however, the need to better comprehend human potential and the honesty to accept the results are paramount for the species’ survival.

For those who would like to know what Hedges means by revolution I suggest they Google his online essay titled This is What Revolution Looks Like.

Bob Newharrd

Rationality at Bay

Recently I stumbled on an advertisement by Nissan for its Infiniti automobile. In the ad a man hops out of his driverless car ala Google and jumps into the Infiniti and roars off taking curves at high speed. The obvious intent of the ad is to portray the driverless car as boring, while the Infiniti provides the thrill of driving at breakneck speeds, as the auto ads would have it.

In short, a transportation system is presented as a playground for visceral delight.

This may not seem to be that serious a matter to some, but it is. Approximately 40,000 people lose their lives each year because of automobile accidents. Countless others are grievously injured, not infrequently for life. Property damage is immense and the cost of accommodating roadway needs of an ever increasing automobile population is unsustainable, not to mention the immense cost to our environment.

One of the most promising means of addressing this multifaceted unsustainable mess is to pack more vehicles in the same roadway space. The small driverless car with suitable electronic sensors and controls can allow cars to travel safely much closer together and thereby significantly increase the carrying capacity of existing freeways and surface streets, while, at the same time increasing safety. Google and others have been developing the driverless car for a number of years. Reporters have ridden in them on the freeway between San Francisco and San Jose at rush hour, one of the busiest roadways in the nation. They were amazed at the way these cars were able to continuously monitor their traffic environment and to brake much more smoothly than most humans.

As it is, we have in the automobile a mass transit system not infrequently in the hands of an inept, emotionally out of control, angry, deeply disturbed, or panicked driver in control of a vehicle of unknown condition. It should be obvious that this is no way to run a mass transit system. No such system would be tolerated and the only reason it is not so viewed is that corporations have continuously sold it as an individual’s thrill-generating device for getting from point A to point B as fast as one can and in a style that will impress others. This was demonstrated when General Motors manipulated the destruction of the old Red Line light rail system that served much of Sothern California in order to create a larger market for their cars. With the small driverless car we would retain the ability to go where we want when we want, but with an efficiency and safety far beyond what we now have.

The fact that an existing automobile company would attack this development in its infancy on the grounds that it was, in a thrill-seeking sense, boring should tell us volumes about the odds that reason faces in an image-soaked communication system we call the media. The same motivation and its dire consequences lie behind the resistance to red light cameras that photographs drivers and their vehicles that run red lights at traffic signals, even though these are targeted on a major cause of death and injury. This resistance has been so intense that some cities have removed them. This is the kind of idiocy that also fuels the many conflicts between religion and science, e.g. the denial of evolution in favor of religious accounts of human origin and development. Some schools in the South actually use the Bible as the basic text for teaching in this matter. This kind of idiocy must be stopped before it becomes policy in the hands of Far Right conservatives and the corporate wealth that so cynically uses them as its major political constituency.

Real consequences await the illusions of those who deny reason and evidence.

Bob Newhard

Humanity, The Species

We do not often think of humanity as the species it is. With the increasing globalization of our species and its impact upon the planet it calls home, it is high time that our individual and collective consciousness made this human species the center of our attention and the background for all other considerations. We are, after all, the only ones who can assure our continued existence, at least until the next major asteroid hits Earth. We are, and must regard ourselves as, an endangered species.

As a child of evolutionary accidents we must deal with the deep conflicts in our nature that flow from that random complexity. Salient among these is the apposition between our ability to reason and our more ancient inheritance of emotion.  We appeal to both of these when confronted with threats to our well-being and when faced with the unknown.

At the current conjunction of species-threatening impacts such as global warming, overpopulation, dwindling food supplies, weapons capable of destroying civilization if not our species, growing water shortages, etc. we see the conflict between our reason, as exemplified by science, and emotion exemplified by the refusal of many to accept the overwhelming evidence of science and substituting religion and tradition. This cannot go on.

A number of proposals have been made to suggest a way out of this increasingly dangerous dilemma. David Korten argues for a world of small productive enterprises to replace the mammoth corporations that now control our world. As evidence for the validity of this approach he points out that the American people, trying to throw off the control of a massively more powerful England, undertook a plethora of small productive actions, including women manufacturing their own and others’ clothing, in order to survive the British embargo. Gar Alperovitz argues for an economy of cooperation in which employees own their business, thereby eliminating the master-servant model of capitalism.

Both of these proposals, as is so often the case, rests upon historical evidence of the way humans have behaved in certain specific cultural and economic occasions. They are both very worthy proposals and merit our respect and understanding. However, they are both derived from human cultural artifacts such as labor relations and the size of economic units of production.

I think the problems we face require that we go far deeper in our understanding than how some societies have functioned. We must go to nature itself for guidance in trying to cope with our many and massive threats.

Let me take as an example the single threat of overpopulation and all the horrors and species decimation it could be expected to unleash.

In nature we find species that limit their birth rate according to the availability of the resources they need. Indeed, in a report titled Top Predators Limit Their Own Numbers issued in May of this year, evidence is presented that top level predators such as lions and wolves are able to control reproduction without such external controls. If these animals have developed the capacity to control their numbers we, as a top level predator with the greatest ability to reason, should also be able to do this.

So far, except for China, the best that we humans have been able to do is hope that the increasing education of women combined with the technologies for preventing reproduction, will be sufficient to prevent the mass starvation and violence that large scale shortages of food and water would engender. We have already seen what much less dramatic shortages of oil can do. Even China, now that it is more affluent, is relaxing the one child per couple law. Lamentably, this is one more demonstration of our inability to learn as nations and cultures.

Perhaps the most profound book on using our biological and evolutionary knowledge to create a zeitgeist inclusive of all humans regardless of other divisions among them is to be found in Edward. O. Wilson’s The Social Conquest of Earth in which this great evolutionary biologist shows that the most enduring species have been social species. What does that say of a society whose economy is based on competition?

This book is packed with succinct thinking and the prose to go with it. I highly recommend it to those who are struggling to find a way to avoid the obvious catastrophe that faces our species. Let me close with two among countless pregnant observations in Wilson’s book.

History makes no sense without prehistory, and prehistory makes no sense without biology. Humanity is a biological species in a biological world.

The more we learn about our physical existence, the more apparent it becomes that even the most complex forms of human behavior are ultimately biological.

So why not start there in our search for a viable human future?

Bob Newhard

It is imperative that the human species consider itself as one. If we do not do this we will continue to use our brains to kill and maim each other and plunder this planet for the materials and wealth to do so. The purpose of this blog is to understand the implications of this monumental change in our self-perception primarily as members of a species rather than as members of a nation, religion or any other sub-grouping of human. Our increasing numbers, capacity to consume and destroy, demand this. The continued existence of our species demands it.


This blog is still under construction and may change its appearance occasionally until I can come to terms with my expectations and energy. I expect to  post frequently, but not frequently. There is an RSS feed associated with the blog. You will notice it on the front page.  I hope what I have to say will entourage you to become a reader. Thank you.

Bob Newhjard