Making Monkeys of Ourselves

Our either-or mindset and species arrogance has shaped much of our so-called science. The objectivity of science is marred by observations never made, because they don't fit into the reigning dogmas, as enforced by the reigning and usually very defensive dogmatists.

Some assertions are open to question on the basis of definitions that are either too restrictive or too global. Consciousness, for instance, and which live forms have it. How much of consciousness is operational, how much is metaphorical? Hard to say. But science must open up to the questions.

Other assertions can be countered by new observations, even though they are observations of creatures that have been around longer than science, and ostensibly well-observed. But a science based on a gene-centered or individual-centered interpretation of evolution and natural selection tended to discourage observations of subtle relationship behavior, and behavior that tends to benefit the group as a whole. Scientists in the field are now beginning to notice what was in front of them all the time, as well as using new circumstances, approaches and technologies to study animals in more natural circumstances---that is, natural to the animals, not to the lab rat scientists.

So it shouldn't be too surprising that new findings are still being made, such as the recent studies showing altruistic behavior is natural, in human infants and in other primates.

Of course, observing altruism in human infants is something most mothers have done, without benefit of grants or closed-circuit TV. It's just that the theory didn't allow for it, or didn't admit of the possibility that behavior can be selfish sometimes, and sometimes unselfish, without such behavior being taught in either case.

But the primate studies are more consequential because they suggest "altruism may have evolved six million years ago in the common ancestor of chimps and humans." (Even this, I suspect, is too limiting, in terms of species with instincts to share.) They also found that chimps and human infants will cooperate in their unselfish behavior.

It is astonishing that we need bickering scientists to tell us what we observe all the time, and especially in extreme events like natural disasters or ethnic cleansings: some people behave violently and viciously, some merely selfishly, some with heroic altruism, and a lot with a mixture of several of these behaviors, depending on various factors, including leadership. But we are so determined to have our behavior determined by One Thing--be it a god or a gene--that provides us only with an off/on, either/or, us/them switch---that we don't allow ourselves to accept what we already know. We've got it all inside us as well as all around us. We choose, one way or another.

Not recognizing this leads paradoxically to a society that devalues the individual, consciousness and choice. The idea that each of us is dominated by our selfish genes means we are irresponsible and driven, and must be controlled by authority for the good of the state. The idea that we have kindness in us might turn us into bleeding hearts, who want the means of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness available to every individual and family, insofar as we together are able to provide it. Which at this stage of the game, we are. Though thanks to our leaders and controllers of dominant ideas, we don't.

Finally, it's worth remarking that our ethnocentrism likely extends further and farther than we comfortably recognize. What we see as "natural" much of the time is likely shaped by our 10 thousand or so years of Big Agriculture, urbanizing classes and kingdoms---which we euphemistically call civilization--and which we merely assume has always been this way, except in more primitive form (sometimes brutal, sometimes comic, but always simpler.) But it wasn't necessarily so, and there are scholars who believe it decidely was not so.

This unacknowledged context also colors not only the story we tell ourselves about the past, but what we see in the the present. Including in the monarchy of science, which in these centuries has been geared much more to how to do things rather than how to understand. And in science as elsewhere, it is difficult (though not impossible) to see what you are not looking for.

Captain Future's Log

Two Americas and the Heart of Katrina

I'm not turning this into an Al Gore fan site, but you don't want to miss this post at Huffington Post, or rather the comments. The post itself by Jamal Simon is a nice reminder of what Al Gore did, as opposed to what GW Bush didn't do, during Katrina. Simon worked for Gore's 2000 campaign. He praises Gore's efforts to rescue Katrina victims, although he doesn't mention similiar efforts by others, including John Kerry. But the real eye-openers are in the comments.

There are incredibly callous comments by right wingers on how "no one starved" in New Orleans. But the real information is in a detailed description of exactly what Gore did, and all the resistance he encountered. Reading this description it became clear to me once again that there are two Americas, not identical but perhaps related to the two Americas of rich and non-rich: the America that is compassionate, public spirited, that knows we are all in this together. And Bush's America: selfish, self-serving, self-satisfied and self-righteous, ideological to a demonic degree. There was a war within Katrina between those two Americas, just as there is to some extent inside each of us. Which America will win?

. After a series of back and forths on some winger defenses of Bush, there's a long dose of reality: 2questions posted a piece by Greg Simon, President of FasterCures, which begins:

On September 3rd and 4th, FasterCures worked with a small dedicated group of people to airlift approximately 270 medical patients and evacuees from the New Orleans airport to hospitals and shelters in Knoxville and Chattanooga, Tennessee. This is the story of how it happened.

It began with a network of personal associations. A neurosurgeon who had operated on Al Gore's son was at Charity Hospital in New Orleans, in dire straits. Information went back and forth, and Simon learned that there were patients in serious condition who had been evacuated from the hospital but were stranded at an airport. With Gore's help, he found a Memphis hospital ready to take them, and he found planes to charter. Gore immediately said he would pay the $50,000.

The rest of the story is of efforts of Americans to rescue other Americans, and of the resistance and barriers placed to their efforts. They were helped by some people in government, including FEMA, at national and state and local levels. Some individuals in government, particularly in the military, tried very hard to stop them. According to Simon, it was Gore's will to do it--he was on one of the planes--that decided the matter. But it was also many other people who stepped up.

Here are the concluding paragraphs:

Gore said that on the second trip to New Orleans, the doctors at the airport told him that the evacuation of the first 90 ambulatory patients had been the tipping point in their ability to adequately care for the other bedridden patients. They also noted that the military evacuations did not really pick up steam until after we "motivated" them with our private effort.

Of note: Throughout the entire operation in Tennessee, EMS operations in Chicago had stayed prepared to handle patients or evacuees. None ever arrived because the military did not want us to use Chicago. The volunteers in Chicago were amazing in their desire to help. Mayor Daly had been rebuffed earlier when he offered a complete mobile hospital unit for the airport and a tent city as well. Sen. Barack Obama called Gore and asked how had Gore managed to land in New Orleans when the Senator had been refused landing rights to help.

None of the airlines involved required a contract or any written guarantee of payment before sending their planes and volunteer crews - the first time Steve Davison had ever witnessed that in 15 years of chartering planes for political campaigns and other events. One official said if Gore promised to pay, that was good enough for them.

These are the two Americas we saw after 9/11 as well: the America that wants to help, that is ready to do whatever it takes, and do right by each other. And the America that doesn't care, that just looks for enemies and excuses, while it looks for bureaucratic or political advantage;, that uses dire situations to advance its agenda.

It is a matter of which America we will honor, empower and build. It is a matter of which America we will become. We will never banish selfishness and cynicism from our hearts or our political system. But we should not hold these qualities up as ideals. The country's character becomes a matter of emphasis. What will we emphasize? George Bush's America, or Al Gore's?

Today GW Bush held a press conference, again defending every outrage his administration has sponsored and committed, and stating that he expects U.S. troops to still be in Iraq when his term expires.

This is Bush's America, the America we will become if we allow this to continue. If you work for congressional candidates to get Democratic majorities, and work to make sure that investigations and Impeachment will result, then you work to take back America.

But even speaking out, and expressing shame, (in this connection, see Georgia10's eloquent and impassioned post at dkos) and standing for the America we cherish, is important. Because if the next generation accepts Bush's America, all is lost. I know people who are peace activists, working against torture, who when they doubt their effectiveness, simply look at their children, because they know their children are watching them. I'm sure there are others who work against the destruction of free speech, civil liberties, and the natural world, who feel the same way. Yet also be heartened by the stories of people who cared, who rose to the occasion in Katrina and other disasters. Who rise to the occasion every day, as underpaid medical workers, teachers, child care workers, and others who toil in government and nonprofit social services. As well as those with better paying careers who risk some significant portion of their status and wealth when they buck the Bush leaguers and do the right thing.

Talk the talk, walk the walk. It's all we can do. And yes, be ashamed. Be very ashamed of what this country has come to.

The Dreaming Up Daily Quote

"Business!" cried the Ghost, wringing its hands again. "Mankind was my business. The common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence, were, all, my business. The dealings of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!"

Charles Dickens

Perspectives

On Monday, Senator John Kerry gave a major speech at Brown University, one that perhaps will end up being historic. The text can be found here. These are excerpts from the beginning and towards the end.


The incompetence of Katrina's response is not reserved to a hurricane. There's an enormous gap between Americans' daily expectations and government's daily performance. And the gap is growing between the enduring strength of the American people -- their values, their spirit, their imagination, their ingenuity, and their willingness to serve and sacrifice -- and the shocking weakness of the American government in contending with our country's urgent challenges.

On the Gulf Coast during the last two weeks, the depth and breadth of that gap has been exposed for all to see and we have to address it now before it is obscured again by hurricane force spin and deception.Katrina stripped away any image of competence and exposed to all the true heart and nature of this administration.

The truth is that for four and a half years, real life choices have been replaced by ideological agenda, substance replaced by spin, governance second place always to politics. Yes, they can run a good campaign -- I can attest to that -- but America needs more than a campaign. If 12 year-old Boy Scouts can be prepared, Americans have a right to expect the same from their 59 year-old President of the United States.

Katrina reminds us that too often the political contests of our time have been described like football games with color commentary: one team of consultants against another, red states against blue states, Democratic money against Republican money; a contest of height versus hair - sometimes. But the truth is democracy is not a game; we are living precious time each day in a different America than the one we can inhabit if we make different choices.

Today, more than ever, when the path taken last year and four years earlier takes us into a wilderness of missed opportunities -- we need to keep defining the critical choices over and over, offering a direction not taken but still open in the future.


And amazingly -- or perhaps not given who we’re dealing with -- this massive reconstruction project will be overseen not by a team of experienced city planners or developers, but according to the New York Times, by the Chief of Politics in the White House and Republican Party, none other than Karl Rove -- barring of course that he is indicted for "outing" an undercover CIA intelligence officer.

Katrina is a symbol of all this administration does and doesn't do. Michael Brown -- or Brownie as the President so famously thanked him for doing a heck of a job - Brownie is to Katrina what Paul Bremer is to peace in Iraq; what George Tenet is to slam dunk intelligence; what Paul Wolfowitz is to parades paved with flowers in Baghdad; what Dick Cheney is to visionary energy policy; what Donald Rumsfeld is to basic war planning; what Tom Delay is to ethics; and what George Bush is to “Mission Accomplished” and "Wanted Dead or Alive." The bottom line is simple: The "we'll do whatever it takes" administration doesn't have what it takes to get the job done.

This is the Katrina administration.


I still believe America’s destiny is to become a living testament to what free human beings can accomplish by acting in unity. That’s easy to dismiss by those who seem to have forgotten we can do more together than just waging war.

But for those who still believe in the great tradition of Americans doing great things together, it’s time we started acting like it. We can never compete with the go-it- alone crowd in appeals to selfishness. We can’t afford to be pale imitations of the other side in playing the ‘what’s in it for me’ game. Instead, it’s time we put our appeals where our hearts are - asking the American people to make our country as strong, prosperous, and big-hearted as we know we can be - every day. It’s time we framed every question - every issue -- not in terms of what’s in it for ‘me,’ but what’s in it for all of us?

And when you ask that simple question - what’s in it for all of us? - the direction not taken in America could not be more clear or compelling.

Captain Future's Log

Reasserting Civilization

Thousands crowded for anxious day after despairing day in the sealed darkness of a gleaming domed enclosure, confined with little food or water, trapped in an extreme nightmare of violence, death, heat and excrement.

Families marooned on baking slivers of interstate highway, or waving frantically from rooftops at blind helicopters passing by on fathomless missions. All surrounded by roiling waters of spilled oil, toxic chemicals, sewage, and decaying human remains.

Then even as rescue began, two-mile lines of ambulances waited to bring patients into the only working medical facility, in the passenger concourse of the New Orleans airport. There, as Dr. Mehmet Oz reported on a harrowing hour of Oprah, those who were too ill to be helped were moved to the makeshift morgue while still alive.

Bodies rotting in the street for days, dead men, women and children left to decompose in their own homes. This cannot be America, everyone was saying. This cannot even be…civilization.

This was perhaps the most sobering of many shocking realizations. Beyond political responsibilities and human failings, beyond the truth or illusion of national self-image, even beyond the physical suffering and material deprivations, there was the sense that civilization itself had broken down.


If it had, whose fault would it be? The people who were improvising survival under unimaginable duress, some of whom interpreted the absence of rescuers and resources as attempts to ignore or even kill them? Or those who failed in their designated tasks as the representatives of civilization? Or perhaps even those who set the terms of this civilization?

Was it the hardship---no electricity or running water, scant food and water---that meant civilization had broken down? Or was it these horrific hardships, plus the absence of response, of the hand of help from unaffected others?

We aren’t quite sure yet what and who most endangered our sense of civilization by allowing or causing so much degradation and suffering. Was it those who act completely on the belief that only politics is real, and governing is illusion? Was it an unfortunate coincidence of apathy and August vacations? Was it simply a failure of officials we expected to exercise an older sense of decency while we pursue a happiness redefined as acquiring and consuming with blind greed and obsessive selfishness?

There was inadequate preparation for Katrina’s assault on New Orleans on Monday, August 29th, to say the least, and an even greater failure in the days after the winds passed. But by the weekend, civilization reasserted itself. We know now that many people wanted to help earlier and were essentially prevented from doing so. But as the outrage fomented by media reports became an outpouring of aid and understanding, we saw feeling become action, from simple acts of kindness to considerable committment, and skilled, determined people doing what they always do to keep civilization together.

Help came, including search and rescue teams from California, National Guard units from Massachusetts and West Virginia. Survivors were welcomed into cities and towns and homes all over America. Baton Rouge and some Mississippi towns doubled their populations, and Houston and Dallas brought in thousands. But places farther away opened shelters, like Des Moines and Phoenix, Los Angeles, Baltimore and Chicago. Families took in distant relatives, and others hosted complete strangers, with nobody knowing what comes next.

Help, or offers of help, came from Canada, Cuba, Mexico, Venezuela, the European Union, the United Nations. A million dollars came from Bangladesh.

Civilization may be nothing more and nothing less than a society’s commitment to particular values, reflected in its philosophies, institutions and actions, continually renewed and extended. It is finally expressed and confirmed by individual citizens and their associations.

The world saw our civilization break down in the Katrina zone, and we saw that, contrary to recent rhetoric, the failure of government can be catastrophic. But civilization reasserted itself, based on a principal civic value, which can’t be expressed any better than in the phrase, “you’d do the same for me.”

I’ve been thinking about this phrase for more than a decade, since the afternoon when it was uttered to me by a black man in his sixties, working as a custodian in a neighborhood coffee bar. When he retrieved and returned the pen I had just dropped, and I thanked him, all he said was: “You’d do the same for me.” He said it with a casual gravity, as though it was something he said regularly, but it also had the quality and weight of a personal mantra of some importance.

It wasn't the first time I'd heard it of course, but this time it hit me differently, mostly because of who said it to me and the sound of his voice. Gradually I realized what an important statement it is. It sums up entire philosophies and puts many book-length ethical treatises to shame. "You'd do the same for me" is nothing less than the basis of civil behavior, from courtesy to heroism.

By saying it to me, moreover, this man was stating both his own moral standard and his faith that others share it in the delicate informal system of day-to-day civilization. In the direct matter-of-factness of this statement, in its earnest assumptions, he was educating me and challenging me to rise to this standard. It is in some ways an ultimate equality, and a testament of faith in human possibility and the human heart.

It’s been said in much more trying circumstances: by fireman in the aftermath of 9/11, explaining why he was starting a 24-hour shift digging through the rubble of the World Trade Center to search for fellow firefighters buried there. They were his brothers, he said, and “they’d do the same for me.”

But it doesn’t require words: every act, every bottle of water a stranger hands to a survivor, every home opened to dazed and displaced relatives, every dollar donated to relief funds, says these words implicitly.

It’s the basis of hospitality and sharing in time of trouble that characterize traditional cultures all over the world. It is more subtle than the Golden Rule, for it carries expectation as well as personal responsibility. “You’d do the same for me” is a challenge in the form of a statement of faith.

Compassion and altruism often depend on empathy, which in turn depends on imagining ourselves in the circumstance of another. This is easier for some than for others. While “You’d do the same for me” reflects an ethic based on empathy, it doesn’t require it. It combines a feeling of human kinship with a utilitarian deduction: we can’t guarantee we will be helped in time of trouble, but if we support an ethic of helping others by our actions, our chances will be better.

In a complex society, individual freedoms and opportunities depend on a shared sense that in the final analysis, we’re all in this together. “You’d do the same for me” is the basic bargain of civilization, the confirmation of the faith in each other and in our institutions necessary to make it all work.