A gifted logician, David Berlinski also has a dry sense of humor. This book explores trends in our society that from my perspective are the stuff of news articles and editorials, but not my personal experience in the day-to-day. He makes some conclusions which are below with a few explorations of his thinking
A third of the way through the book, I found myself sufficiently irritated to google David Berlinski. He is a polymath. He has made himself a consultant to those who wish to argue against Evolution as science that precludes the teaching of Intelligent Design in High School Biology classes. When asked specifically about his beliefs re Intelligent Design, he commented something to the effect that he is lukewarm on the subject, but civil, like public discourse with his divorced wives……….sense of humor, check………did not answer the question, check…..
Points of interest:
1). World War One does not get nearly the attention it deserves.Those funny looking uniforms and jerky films of the time detract from the focus they deserve, especially given what we were directed to growing up: the successful close of World War II which had much better uniforms and filmography. World War One reflects a dramatic change in human civilization in that science was applied to war on an industrial scale and killed millions and millions of people. It decimated the male populations of Russia, France, Great Britain, and Germany. Once more, it was started despite the leadership of all these countries being schooled on the state of the art and techniques for providing diplomacy and progress in a world guided by a “scientific framework” —a culture that found Europeans feeling superior to the rest of the world. Poof! Gone! And in its place, the foundations for even worse horrors to come in World War II. (I like thinking of the two wars actually being a “thirty years war” with a break in the middle). Not only more death but deaths meted on an industrial scale by leaders who no longer pretended to follow a culture of any sort. It was about survival and inflicting damage on your enemies if you had the resources to do it. Oh, and accruing more power…. He next addresses the notion that we are more civilized now and the risk of dying from violence is now reduced— better than ever before in human history.
2) He uses WWI as the image and history to provide perspective on the traditional liberal notion (he refers to it as ‘whig history’) that society has slowly and steadily improved itself to the point that we are in a period of peace that is unprecedented on the world scale. He strongly disagrees—He finds articles supporting this idea in one case, comparing murder rates in London England during the Middle Ages and in London now. He points out the obvious: this is a hope and a prayer written up as a scientific analysis. He does not like trendy scientific analysis. Berlinski knows his math and quickly demonstrates how silly such a notion is given the data available. He raises a very important point: we criticize our crime rates in the USA (as do our friends in Europe) which we stereotypically place in the urban or inner city environments. We come up with murder statistics. He asks, if murder is committing extreme violence against strangers or loved ones, what do you call war itself? He calls it murder. He points out the statistics skew badly for Europeans when you consider this definition. Bottom line?
Violence—personal or within a culture at war can gain momentum of its own regardless of intention, education, or intelligence. Our parents were in a mental framework to think fire bombing civilians was simply what one had to do to win. Leaders go to war because they think they can get away with it.
As it was in the beginning….
3) Berlinski loves the battle of ideas as expressed in wokeness. He does not use the word but he declares prejudice against an irrational faith found in the sciences. They (scientists) are as a group, irreligious to a fault and willing to punish you if you don’t share their beliefs (I have never experienced this). He points out that in the Middle Ages, there were people proclaiming a lack of faith in the Middle East, but not so in the Europe of that time (It could easily have been a death sentence). Current scientists from the USA feel right at home in Europe as they share the same scientific “faith.” He believes this a problem with elites who guide the substance of scientific thought as well as those who publish. He suggests a conspiracy of sorts—I have the impression he is angry—-really angry about this. He points out that he did not believe in Intelligent Design until he saw the pig-headed logic and thinking used by evolutionists that conflicted with it. That made him reconsider. This orientation spills over to “speech crimes.” His bottom line which I endorse is this: We can all agree that some people should just shut up and not speak. It is a shame we can’t all agree on who they are exactly. Until we can agree, perhaps we should not threaten freedom of expression and live with the noise of people who believe differently.
4) Affirmative Action: I like his conclusion—two wrongs don’t make a right. He offers a corollary: there are more minorities you can conjure up than there are citizens in the population in question. The allocation of resources to right a wrong begins to look like a racket as one decides to whom they belong. He makes the point that sending an under-qualified student to an Ivy League school, regardless of race or culture can be an exercise in cruelty.
He offers no real solution to inequities of access—to anything.
5) Essentialism: the belief that things have innate qualities. Men are different than women. Dogs are different than cats, etc. He is troubled by the notion that evolutionists will use genetics as a basis for differences as they relate to behavior. And he has not gotten to gender identify yet—-If speech is something that differentiates humans from lower orders, now did it come about? In one person as a mutation? How in the setting of that very primitive world would that confer any benefit? He does not like evolution as a concept in that he does not believe it is supported by evidence but rather is supported by faith. He points out a NYT book review that claims that those who don’t believe in Evolution are children or idiots or both. I don’t like that sentiment or language myself, but that poison does not change the practical thinking about evolution as a guiding theory. There is support for the theory that is more than digging up fossils. I have followed an interview with him on Youtube (I recommend it!) where on this question, he agrees with the Catholic Church ie there is no reason to lose Faith with your belief in God because of any scientific finding. The Catholic Church has reconciled itself to the solar system as we understand it and indeed, evolution……..I agree with Berlinski in that evolution is a theory with lots of things yet to be explained and despite our current fascination with genetics and molecular biology, there is no link — no convincing link—to explain our behaviors or sense of morality or right and wrong, through evolutionary theory. It is not unreasonable to say “God willed it,” or that there is a selective advantage for primates who communicate, work in coordinated social groups, and can have faith to motivate their behavior. My take on evolution, the universe, and the human brain all link together: the human brain is so complicated, it is likely incapable of understanding itself. If that is not the stuff of Faith, I don’t know what is…….
6) He critiques Harari, author of Sapiens and Homo Deus. Berlinski thinks the former “Whig history” which is to say traditional liberal thinking about the assension of man. Homo Deus asserts we on the threshold of “becoming Gods.” The premise that we have achieved a lengthening of the average life span, practically eradicated diseases as a significant cause of death, famine, war…….he laughs all that off as hubris. I agree. The notion of AI and medical technology making us Gods some day is the stuff of science fiction, weird and as powerful as both technologies are. Consciousness is so poorly understood—- to suggest that AI will develop it is pure speculation. I join with Mr. Berlinski with that intellectual tone of skeptic at large.
What I would love is for him to propose some positive things with his formidable brain, if he has any to share.
Bonus Book!
Our Man in Charleston by Christopher Dickey
This is a very readable history as seen through the eyes of a consular official from Great Britain stationed in Charleston South Carolina from 1855 to 1865. It gives an outsider’s view of the politics and culture of the lead secessionist city in the lead secessionist state.
Three quarters of the way through it, I am struck with how some things have not changed!
HIs prime job was to try and get South Carolina to revoke a law that called for the jailing of any negro seaman for the time the associated ship was docked, and for the captain to pay restitution for the room and board in jail. Failure to pay would lead to the sailor being sold as a slave. Great Britain as a power believed strongly in unencumbered freedom for its ships and sailors. It was also in the 1850’s, the “enforcer” in the Atlantic for policing and stopping the transatlantic slave trade.
As the diplomat manages to meet and greet upper society and business society in Charleston, he comes to the conclusion that such people are pleasant, educated, and perfectly reasonable until the topic of slavery is raised at which point, their anger, self righteousness, and inability to hear much less make reasonable argument falls away. They become, “crazy.”
He introduces a group of Southerners labeled, “filibusteros” whose goal was to acquire Cuba (as well as other Caribbean lands) as a US possession and better utilize it as a place to import and develop slaves for the Southern market. Importing slaves from Africa had been in violation of Federal law since 1809.
Great Britain devoted 2% of its annual budget to suppression of the trans Atlantic slave trade; they negotiated strongly with Spain to give up slavery in Cuba. As a lever, a diplomat suggested to a Spanish official that if they got no concessions, the British would not likely intervene “if some crazy Americans annexed the island….”.
The 1619 Project points out the value of slaves as a percent of the US GDP. The price of slaves was inflationary with the restrictions of this trade and the demand very high. There was a “bubble” on the price of slaves in 1857. The economic interests of Britain, the industrial North and its associated banking systems as well as the Southern plantation owners were all tied to this reality. Banks from New York financed slave ships.
The South vs New York City culture was as real then as it is now. Of interest, simply voicing an opinion contrary to the assumptions around the virtues of slavery could get a person thrown in jail, tarred and feathered, sent out of state, or lynched. The diplomat from Britain is clear that there was a reign of terror regarding this and he feared for his wife and children as his dispatches sent to England could be opened and read in the post office. He used codes but the labor found him using short cuts, all very dangerous to him.
He correctly identifies to the English government that the South would secede and that the North would go to war over this—-all of this was in Europe, considered unlikely or unclear. The Southerners felt they had England over a barrel as 80% of the cotton used in the very important textile industry came from the South. What the Southerners did not understand was how deep-seated antislavery sentiment was in the people and the government of Great Britain. It was inconceivable to most of them that England would act against its economic self-interest. Like the Falkland war, nations go to war even when it is counter to their economic interests.
When asked about the likelihood of a Southern confederacy to function or fight effectively his thoughts were, “Why, I do not believe that three Southern States could be found to agree upon any one simple point, except perhaps that every man has an inalienable right to ‘wallop his own nigger.’”
The Civil War starts and he notes that the South Carolinians are hell-bent for war no matter the cost and they believe against all odds that they will win. He sees this as foolish, his country having seen what modern warfare looked like in the Crimean war. He becomes reliably the source the English diplomatic corps can use to sort out a way to avoid being involved in war or supporting the slave holding bottom line the Confederate States were all about.
He is suspected by the US State Department of advocating to Great Britain for recognition of the Confederate States of America when quite the opposite was the case. As I say, some things never change……..
Comentários