In spite of, in spite of ...

History

Some natural courses are not so cyclical, but they are just as implacable. However, we can learn how things work, and thereby avoid, sometimes even change the course of events. Right away, in thinking about whether we can learn and avoid, or 'go with the flow,' a few questions that come to mind:

I have tried to address these questions, piecemeal, in these pages many times. I don't have a complete analysis and conclusion for all the questions - "Walter's Theory of History" - but I do have some partial answers. I have come down on the side of a "chaotic theory;" that is, history "crystallizes" from time to time. During those definable historical eras, things work according to a rule set. There are causes and effects determined by the rules of that meta-stable state. Eventually, everything is destabilized, or just dissipates. Then history becomes like a gas: random particles bumping about in Brownian motions. We have no assurance whatever that the rules of the next meta-stable state will be the same as those of the previous one. For that reason, I deny any "universal" principles of causation. There are only descriptions of the interactions in particular states, which we call "causes."

In human affairs, I deny that there is any universal "human nature." What people are, and what they do, is largely culturally determined from time to time. I explain heroes as people who happened to be in the right place at the right time, and not as exceptional individuals who created their role in history. Thus, heroes are exemplars of their time; not necessarily models for behavior. Who Achilles was cannot be explained in terms of modern people; you have to be an ancient Greek or 'think' like an ancient to grasp Achilles' "who." Even someone like Hitler or Stalin would be incomprehensible to a resident of the Medieval period. Persona is an artifact of culture.

Consequently, as I see it, there is a very limited role for human "free will." People are driven to make love, because, proximally, their chemistry demands it. Most of our behavior is like that: seen as "voluntary" when up close and personal, but quite determined from farther away. Mating behavior is like the Brownian motion. Explanations can be offered about particles that bump and stick together for varying lengths of time. Some particles stick for this reason, others for that. Eventually, they all get unstuck. But, the same patterns would occur without the explanations. Whether we prefer to call an event a matter of choice, or an accident, or the effect of a cause, is entirely implicit in the language we use to talk about it. All of the alternate descriptions are certainly possible, and one or more may be "true." Which one "makes sense" to us (is taken to be true) depends on our purposes.

Screech: "But, I love my mate!" That is very true; that is indeed your subjective experience of it. It is our way to prefer to see ourselves as autonomous, not robots. But, there is not an either-or here. The subjective choice explanation of mating is fully compatible with the Brownian-motion mating model (and other models). It is simply a matter of perspective, which set of descriptions you prefer to adopt. Lots of people say, 'I don't see what X sees in Y,' meaning Y certainly would not be my choice. But, the statement also means the declarer's chemistry doesn't "interlock" with Y's perceived chemistry; no glue, no stick. The feelings of love - bonding - are an experience people have as a result of their reflective (self-monitoring) capabilities, but those functions are built-in. The "choice" explanation is parallel to the "cause" explanation. Since both explain observed behavior, we cannot deny either or them. We just use whichever form is suitable to the context.

This is exactly the same sort of conflict supposed to exist in Quantum Mechanics: are photons particles, or waves? How are we to consider electromagnetic phenomena? What about the diffraction of photons? How come nuclear particles (quarks) behave like blobs of liquid? These descriptions are truly puzzling, and seemingly at odds. But, I think, the puzzlement arises because we still do not have a single, unifying concept that encompasses all the behaviors. Everyone is familiar with water, and waves on the beach. We are not puzzled about waves, or that they are formed in water, or about the water, because we say, 'that's what water does, it's a liquid!' The "liquid" concept takes in particulate H₂O and waves at once, without that queasiness that happens when we think about "free will" or "determinism," waves or particles.

What seems to be lacking is the notion that history is liquid; sometimes particulate, sometimes wavy. Sometimes it even boils away as a gas, other times it freezes rock solid. It is all these things.

That is why parents "forget" their own necessities, and think their offspring do it "in spite of." What seems to be the history depends on the moment, and one's perspective. Parents think their offspring can forego, but they cannot. But, if they do, history will boil and transform.

What does all this philosophizing have to with anything?

For one thing, it leads to the next question: How would we ever know that we changed the course of events? My answer is, we don't know it; probably, we never know. What we do know is that things are going our way, or they aren't, or it doesn't matter. Each of the cases suggests a different future course of action on our part. If you like what's happening, maybe you are the sticky sort of particle in this collision. If not, you just bounced off. Otherwise, maybe you just whizzed by.

Whichever category describes each of us, I brought up this theorizing about history to get around to a few cases. There are cases where we could learn from experience; not just repeat ourselves 'in spite of ...' One of those is global warming.

Global Warming

Yesterday's presentation of "global climate change" to Sen. McCain's Science Committee should raise the temperature to boiling in the national discussion of energy, the environment, and foreign policy, but it probably won't. That's because people will act 'in spite of ..' rather than do what is reasonable and indicated.

For example, despite truckloads of evidence that burning carbon-based fuels causes global warming which is destabilizing the Alaskan climate, Sen. Stevens (R-AK) wants drilling to proceed in ANWR. He reasons thusly:

1. Rapid warming is occurring in Alaska, causing destruction of coastline and native villages;
2. It costs $100 million or more to move one of those villages, retrain people to new jobs, and do the other things required by climate change;
3. There are over 100 of those native Alaskan villages, so the cumulative costs are huge;
4. Therefore, the proceeds of taxes on ANWR oil should be earmarked to pay for those changes.

Sen. Stevens, having sat there and listened to the testimony, did not mention in his comments that burning oil is a cause of the global warming which is changing the Alaskan environment. So, oblivious to the direction of things, he only responds to what is happening.

I was taken aback to learn a new fact or two. For one thing, even if the CO₂ buildup were stopped today, the Greenhouse warming would continue for another century or more. (I thought an immediate halt in carbon burning would stop the warming in 2-5 decades.) So, it looks like we have already foregone the possibility of preventing some disasters, such as:

Those readers who play the commodities markets understand just how critical weather is to one's fortunes. Climate change will be reflected in changed local weather patterns. Global warming will make the weather more unpredictable.

I think the number presented to the Science Committee which most impressed me is the 1,000 - ONE THOUSAND - years it is likely to take for things to revert to status quo ante. That is, assuming things can even return to the way they were, and assuming all the damaging activities were stopped today. We don't know whether we've knocked the global climate system into another, completely different meta-stable state. The last time there was this much global warming going on, so the scientists say, was about 40 million years ago. In those distant times, Antarctica was populated with forests and animals, not miles-thick glaciers. (If all that ice melts, the sea level will rise above most of the world's present-day cities. A lot of California's Central Valley will be under water.)

All of this, and more, is what we have in our futures, on account of our past profligacy. Despite that, most of George W Bush's buddies are convinced it's all a lie. Last spring, the Bushies tried to slow down and stop the Iceland meeting and the International report. That is also what they did to Christie Todd Whitman's EPA, when it tried to issue a similar report two years ago. There, Bush was more successful: the report was altered, stripped of its dynamite conclusions. A few months later, Whitman resigned and was replaced by a more conforming Director. (This pattern is now being repeated in Bush's cabinet changes.)

I don't know whether the climate change story is of Biblical proportions, or a latter day Greek Tragedy. But, it has all the makings of one of those.