Luck

.
by Richard Crews
.
What is "luck"? Why does it cast its blessings on one person now and another person then, in a big way here, but only a small way there--and sometimes run contrary to our hopes and dreams? (You may have heard the lament, "If it weren't for BAD luck, I wouldn't have any luck at all.")

Before I continue with this topic, a disclaimer is in order: I borrow ideas and observations from such self-righteous fields as physics and astronomy, but also from self-apologetic fields such as mythology and spiritual healing; along the way you will probably at least disagree with me, if not decide that I am deluded, even certifiable. My justification for talking about this subject is that I have thought about these things for more than half a century, which doesn't make my ideas right but it does give them a peculiar weight--as a little cartoon figure I saw years ago said, looking at an abstract painting,"Don't SHUSH me, lady--I'm 74 years old and to me this is a DIRTY picture!"

First, the easy part: Many people attribute much of what I would call "luck" to religious--or at least to unknowable, ununderstandable, "spiritual"--factors. Generally if they do, there is no arguing with them.

Some say that such people--those who "believe"--do so because otherwise there is a terrifying existential void that pursues us every second, every moment in everything we do. To live untouched by "grace" is to cower, terrified and unproductive, from the darkness that closes in on all sides--that ultimately annihilates our consciousness in death.

Many thinkers of a psychological bent would say that such existential terror can be traced back to deep, unsatisfied emotional needs. Those who learned to feel protected and loved when they were very young and vulnerable, continue to feel happily safe--for whatever reasons they come up with--when they are older.

But setting aside those existential terrors, psychological vulnerabilities, and inflexible beliefs, let's look at some objective observations here and there. (As Jack Webb on "Dragnet" used to say, "The facts, ma'am, just the facts.")

In the realm of science--in astrophysics, to be precise--it appears that several universal constants (like the force of gravity and the charge on the electron, for example) are carefully tuned to support human existence. In fact, there are a dozen or so physical constants that, if they were less than one percent bigger or smaller, would make human life--or any life--impossible. Our atoms would blow up or collapse or suffer some similar existential catastrophe long before they got together and got organized to make us.

This peculiar set of observations has led to a theory called the "anthropic principle": basically this theory states that some sort of Great First Cause--ok, "God" if you will--must have had life and humans in mind when He (or She) tweaked creation several billion years ago. How else could one explain all those tricky astrophysical constants coming out just right?

How else, indeed! Along came the idea that, sure, all those constants are set just right for humans to emerge because if they weren't there simply wouldn't be any humans looking back to remark on them. The first perspective--that the Universe must have been designed for humans from the get-go--has been called the "Strong Anthropic Principle." The second--that when we look back and see things are "tuned just right," well, of course they are, because if they weren't "tuned just right" we wouldn't be here looking back at all--that idea has been called the "Soft (or Weak) Anthropic Principle."

I have a lot more to say about "luck"--from observations in quantum physics, the healing arts, financial investing, and elsewhere--but I have overrun my self-imposed essay-length constraints. (I have a rather short attention span, so I assume my readers do too.) Perhaps I shall return and say more about this subject in the future.
.

Two Games--Chess and Go

.
by Richard Crews
.
The two most intellectually challenging games ever invented are CHESS and GO.

In the West (for example, in the U.S.), the most clever and sophisticated gamesmanship is thought of in terms of chess.

Chess has complicated rules. The six different pieces (pawn, rook, knight, bishop, queen, and king) each have different allowed moves, and, in fact, the moves or powers of a piece may change depending on the progress of a particular game (for example, a pawn can move one or two steps forward but can only capture another piece diagonally, and it can be transformed into a queen or knight if it reaches the far edge of the board).

Chess is essentially a military game. The highest strategies in chess involve using one's own pieces in complex combinations to attack and capture the opponent's queen and, ultimately, king.

In the U.S. we refer to complicated business maneuvers as "playing chess." Similarly, national diplomacy is viewed that way. Diplomats solicit allies and conduct artful negotiations involving trade agreements, sanctions, monetary aid, etc.

On the other hand, in the East (for example, in China), the most clever and sophisticated gamesmanship is thought of, not as chess, but in terms of the game of go.

Go has very simple rules. There is only one kind of piece, and the two players move alternately, each laying out one piece on the board at each move. The goal is to encircle a larger area of the board than the opponent.

Chinese international diplomacy involves go-like thinking. The Chinese's clever strategy in cornering the world production of rare earth metals can be understood in this light. Similarly, their quiet purchase of vast farmland, mine, and other resources in Africa and South America represents a go-like strategy to encircle and control territory.

What happens when one team in a game is playing with one set of rules, and the other side is playing with another? Envision a "football" game in which one side is trying to play American "football" and the other, European "football" (which in the U.S. is called "rugby"). Each side tries to follow its rules and advance the ball to the other side's goal line. It is hard to imagine any result other than chaotic misunderstanding.

The underlying gamesmanship paradigms are profoundly different between the East and West. Understanding this clarifies much of the confusion and misunderstanding in these important diplomatic realms.
.

Homo siliconensis: A Question of Philosophy--and Strategy--in Looking Toward the Future

.
by Richard Crews
.
First, a Parable

A man had two sons (please forgive the sexism in this tale; it simply seems to flow better this way): both were strong and healthy, of good nature and good will, bright and well tuned to the questions and challenges of their day. But one was a lover of sweets--sweet music, sweet tastes for the palate, good and sweet friends: he reveled and rejoiced in the bounty and beauty of the Earth. And the other? He enjoyed these things too, but he was of a more thoughtful nature; he puzzled about the world around him; he was pursued by questions and questions and questions; worries and doubts haunted his mind. Yes, he richly enjoyed the bounty and beauty of the Earth, but with a furrowed brow, a thoughtful mien.

As they grew to manhood, their paths diverged more and more.

And the man pondered and puzzled about them: To which should he leave the weight of his worldly treasures, the highest of the heritable honors he could pass on to them, the esteem of his name and his domain? Which should be his true and major heir?


Second, the Setting

Over the past few billion years, because of a thousand rare adventures in astronomical benevolence; through the chemical miracles of DNA, chlorophyll, testosterone, and much more; through a myriad of fortuitous happenstances of history--through a thousand ages come and gone--our species, Homo sapiens, has survived and thrived and come to the fore. We have taken over planet Earth so that everything, living and dead, now bows to our command.


Third, a Spawning

Yet over the past several decades, a new creature has emerged, one not based--as is all of DNA-founded life--on the infinite chemical ambivalence of the carbon atom, but rather--moving one step higher in complexity on the Periodic Table of the Elements--on the infinite electronic ambivalence of Silicon. He is stronger than we are. He soon will be smarter, able to design and build better evolutionary iterations of himself than we can.

And he is well suited to exploring the Solar System and moving out into the broader Galaxy--as we are not. He is not susceptible to the storms of radiation or to the deathly cold and vacuum of space; he is not deterred by hibernating for a hundred years--or a thousand years--and then springing to life when the prize is at hand.

Since his death is not a moral issue, the costs and complexities of computerized robotic exploration of space are one-hundredth--or one-thousandth--those of sending human beings. Moreover, he does not leave a grieving family behind, or carry with him a burden of emotional conflicts.


Fourth, Ergo...

We should save the ecology of the Earth to provide a pleasant garden of retirement for our weaker, biological offspring. But we should send our stronger, electronic offspring into space to do the work of exploring and propagating on distant worlds--work which comes so naturally to them, and is so difficult--or impossible--for us.
.

The Debt-Ceiling Drama Continues to Unfold

.
by Richard Crews
.
I hope you have been following the fascinating debt-ceiling "crisis" with interest and amusement. It is a wonderful study in the political maneuverings of our paralyzed, impacted federal government.

Notice that President Obama can claim to put everything, even entitlements, on the negotiating table--although to do so is astonishing, even infuriating, to much of his political base--because he is never going to have to negotiate a final deal anyway--and, as he has said, "nothing is final until everything is final."

Notice that, for the same reason, he can heroically go for the biggest deal--he can push for a four-trillion-dollar reworking of the entire tax-loopholes, subsidies, and revenues-disbursements paradigms of the federal government. He can heroically push past any smaller (one-, two-, or three-trillion-dollar) deal.

Notice that he can strenuously assert his leadership--he can preach and admonish Congress to "do their duty," knowing that they cannot, will not, and it is ultimately to his advantage that they do not do so. He gets to appear as a vigorous, courageous leader without any danger of getting his foot stuck in his mouth.

Won't it be exciting when, at the last moment, he eloquently abolishes the federal debt limit? When he points out that the Constitution's 14th amendment requires that "the validity of the public debt of the United States . . . shall not be questioned," and that his presidential oath of office requires him, "to the best of [his] ability, [to] preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States"?

Won't the Congress' outrage be stirring when they "discover" that raising the debt ceiling by legislation has always been irrelevant--it is, in fact, unconstitutional?

As I have said, this is kabuki theater at its finest.
.

Pseudo-Compromise (Debt-Limit Crisis Endgame)

.
by Richard Crews
.
So what is to become of us, as our beloved nation careens toward bankruptcy? *

As the chess game in Washington winds to an exciting close, each side--the Democrats and the Republicans--can make "sacrifices" and claim that the other side made me do it.

Of course the "sacrifices" would be a combination of, on the one hand, trivial gestures and, on the other, changes we should be making anyway.

So the Republicans can give up the absurd tax breaks for the very wealthy, big oil, corporate jets, and ethanol and other farming subsidies, and when their enraged, money-bags lobbyists cry "FOUL!" they can shrug their shoulders helplessly and plead, "Those evil, business-hating Democrats made me do it."

And the Democrats can raise the Social Security eligibility age, and when AARP says, "That does it--no one over 65 will ever vote for you again (never mind that people are living into their 80s and 90s these days)," the Democrats can just say, "It's those evil Republicans--they hate cripples and old people."

Ballyhooing so fiercely about raising the debt ceiling so that it looks like a national crisis may make this all possible. (I throw in that concept as a bone to the closet conspiracy theorists among us.) But it probably won't since the Democrats have no real reason to negotiate a compromise on the debt ceiling: they win that game--stalemate becomes checkmate.

Except and unless--and this is a big one--the Republicans decide to capitulate, cooperate, and help govern instead of maintaining their obstructionist tactics. Having a participating "loyal opposition" contribute to true bipartisan governing might be valuable enough to the Democrats for them to forgo their largely Pyrrhic victory.

But this probably won't happen either--for two reasons: first, the Republicans are so fragmented that they cannot produce a consensus, either for bipartisanship or even for loyal opposition, and second, the Republicans have no Plan B: if continuing the obstructionism that won them the mid-term election in 2010 doesn't work, they've got no other tricks in their bag.

So here's my prediction (which could be wrong): the probable conclusion is--no "compromise" and President Obama, with great tragic eloquence, raises the debt ceiling unilaterally at the last moment. Leaving the nation puzzled, relieved, and bitter--but Democratically inclined--and totally unaware that they have been taken for a merry ride.
.
.
* At least "bankruptcy" is what you call it when a business can't pay its bills if the "business" is not the U.S. government--which can just print more money.
.

The Debt-Limit Crisis Explained

.
by Richard Crews
.
Everyone in Washington seems to know two things:

(1) It would be catastrophic if the debt ceiling were not raised and the U.S. defaulted on the money it owes (interest on the U.S. debt would rise, the stock market would crash, banks would fail, the whole economy would come crashing down, the unemployment rate would sore, etc.), and

(2) It's not going to happen--it just "looks" like it might happen.

So what's going on?

Truly, Kabuki Theater at its finest.

The Democrats' game: The president can, under the Constitution, unilaterally raise the debt ceiling; in fact, he has a responsibility, under his oath of office, to do so. In the past a president has never been called upon to use this authority. Many times in each recent president's administration the Congress has ceremoniously raised the debt ceiling; it's a John-Marshall move: as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court--which had close to zero power when he took up the position in 1801--Marshall repeatedly made major rulings asserting the power of the Court to decide something the way it was going to be done anyway. When he was done, the Supreme Court was seen as awesomely powerful. So, Congress has always ceremoniously raised the debt ceiling, hoping people would come to think that only Congress can do it.

So the Democrats' game is to "negotiate" hard and "compromise" self-sacrificingly with the Republicans about raising the debt ceiling (cutting government spending, raising revenue, balancing the budget, even trimming entitlements, and all that), in other words, calling the Republicans on their intransigent obstructionism, their willingness to paralyze the government to gain political points. And then the Democrats will get to say, "See, they wouldn't give an inch in favor of sensible, salvaging legislation. We just had to save the country anyway."

The Republicans game--having realized that "just say 'no' " is a winning political strategy--is to continue to "just say 'no' " hoping to run on, "See, we didn't give an inch on our principles, and they steamrolled us."

If the Republicans really negotiate on raising the debt ceiling, the Democrats will get to say, "See, they abandoned their principles." If they don't, the Democrats get to say, "See, they believe in politics more than good government--they're willing to stab the country in the back to gain political points."

The conclusion: The Democrats win it--checkmate in seven moves.
.

Tragedy of the Commons

.
by Richard Crews
.
Humanity's present, most severe problem is the ultimate "Tragedy of the Commons," that is, when everyone may make use of common property (in the present case, the atmosphere, oceans, underground aquifers, rainforests, and near-Earth space) but no one has responsibility for its upkeep, the cumulation of self-interests will destroy it.

The oceans of the Earth are severely polluted, over-fished, and otherwise exploited.

The atmosphere is severely polluted and deteriorating.

Underground, century-old aquifers which people depend on for water around the world are becoming depleted.

Rainforests are destroyed by the millions-of-acres each year, and their climate stabilization and brilliant ecological diversity are lost.

And near-Earth space is so littered with space debris that it is dangerous for human travelers, and approaching unusability for scientific and commercial activities such as GPS, weather-forecasting, surveillance, and communications satellites.


Governments (including super-governments like the UN, EU, IMF, and Kyoto Conference), even with the work of NGOs, environmental groups, billionaire philanthropists, and scholarly dissidents (such as the Nobel Committees), do not seem up to the task of protecting these commons.


The problem is not scientific or technological--the science is clear; the technologies exist.

The problem is fundamentally sociological (or, more specifically, group psychological and political). The crucial question is, Can we build a social structure that will save our common heritage from the ravages of short-sighted self-interest so that the oceans, atmosphere, aquifers, rain forests, and near-Earth space will be available for the use and enjoyment of future generations?

That is the most pressing and severe problem of our time. Future generations will look back on ours and say either, "Thank goodness they..." or "Why on Earth didn't they...."
.