Dregs of 2006

In the last few days, perhaps as a result of watching the news, I've had a lot of dour thoughts. The Bandit, for example, continues to insist on U.S. troops staying in Iraq until "the mission is completed," whatever "the mission" is. (Does anyone know?) We just had an election which removed many elected officials associated with that outlook. An increasing number of high officials, including the Baker Commission on Iraq Policy, are telling the Bandit Administration that Iraq policy must be changed. But does it change?

It seems not to matter what anyone says, certainly not what I say, and not just about Iraq. We are onboard a train charging down a track to wherever, whenever; its destiny, its fate. What is at the end of the track? I don't know. I don't think anyone knows. In the long run, History is chaotic and without purpose, so it is impossible to guess the outcome.

We are easily fooled by seeming patterned sequences. For example, it is still widely believed that there is some sort of path of human development from agriculture to the H-Bomb. That is, supposedly one thing inexorably leads to the next. This belief about ourselves comes about because, retrospectively, it is clear that nuclear physics rests on chemistry and mathematics, which rest on reading and writing, which rest on making and using tools, etc. That is, the provenance of the thing in hand can be found or guessed by dissecting its components and principles.

The arch is an important architectural device, but why was it so late in coming? Why did the Romans invent the arch, whereas the Greeks did not? This and other examples show that there is nothing necessary about development. Elsewhere I discussed Heron's invention of the Steam Turbine, which shows that innovation can be ignored. What actually happens is involved in a complex interplay of individuals, society and the natural world.

I am convinced the vast majority of human beings go about their personal business everyday with  little or no thought to questions larger than today's breakfast, lunch and dinner. To the extent that thinking goes on past those humble needs, it is mostly about gratification of other bodily needs. Even in upscale America, the largest investment most people make is their house and car. Here, "investment" means an effort made to obtain a goal; i.e., an intention. Other than the house and car, most human intentions occur on time scales less than a month or so, certainly less than a year or so.

The atomization of individuals - the lack of binding into larger structures than the immediate family - makes the operation of general laws of human behavior possible. In analogy, it is as if all of chemistry were confined to just two or three simple atoms, such as the first row of the periodic table, and nothing else existed. While the analogy may seem inexact, as there are millions of carbon (organic) compounds, it is also true that almost all of those compounds only exists in a  world that contains trace elements and catalysts not in the first row. What can be done in simple environments is demonstrated by the astrochemistry of interstellar dust and clouds, which contains relatively few organic species. My claim is that most human beings live out their lives in a world similar to interstellar dust. This leaves them at the mercy of forces operating on larger scales than their local horizon.

It is only by breaking out of the local, by entering society on a larger scale, that anything changes. The rich and powerful know this and operate on that larger scale. As long as most people just lead small lives, it doesn't matter what they think: they will be directed by the forces exerted on them. If individuals, families or tribes are leaves and branches floating on a strong current, they will go where the current takes them. If enough of the leaves and branches combine, they can dam the flow.

I think the power of social combinations, such as movements and Unions, is obvious. Thus, the important question is why ordinary people remain disunited?