Archive for the ‘ Science ’ Category

Were There Microbes Before Pasteur?

I want to share come of Bruno Latour’s writing with you – because it is such good writing, and – almost as a side-effect – because it is so profound. Bear in mind that his native language is French, but he must also be fluent in all the modern European languages – and feels comfortable in all of them – something few Americans can say. From page 145:

There is no avoiding the answer: “No they did not exist before he came along” – an answer that is as obvious, natural, and even, as I will show, commonsensical! As we saw in Chapter 4, Pasteur encountered a vague, cloudy, gray substance sitting meekly in the corner of his flasks and turned it into the spendid, well-defined, articulate yeast twirling magnificently across the ballroom of the Academy. That the clock has struck twelve many times since the 1850s and her coachmen still haven’t turned into mice does nothing to change the fact that before Prince Charming came along the Cinderella was a nearly invisible by-product of lifeless chemical processes.

He goes on to explain how his theory allows things to talk! Just as the yeast spoke to Pasteur, and through him to the rest of the world.

It said, in effect “I am here!” The same message all of us should be saying to the rest of the world all the time.

But most of us are not.

The Germ Theory

I am still reading Bruno Latour; he is now running my personal educational project. I am reading about Louis Pasteur’s discovery of the fermentation process – which included the discovery of the yeast organism – which ended with the discovery of germs (and later viruses) – which completely revolutionized medical practice. We can no longer imagine being without it.

Since Pasteur was French, his discoveries were not appreciated by Scientific world when English became its dominant language. Latour, being French, is changing that. At first, in the middle of the 19th Century, no one could believe that microorganisms, so tiny they could hardly be seen by the microscopes of the time, could be important.

Even today, there are people who do not believe in the Germ Theory. I had one of these teachers myself once when I was involved in an esoteric Oriental healing practice in Southern California in the Eighties. I came down with the flu, and she tried to heal me – but failed.

No matter, faith conquers all – if it doesn’t kill you.

Computers are Super-Natural

People have always believed in two realities – the natural world, and the supernatural (religious) world. And the supernatural world was always more important than the natural one, which it could intervene in anytime it wanted to.

This is the basic situation – the supernatural world was in control of everything. But Science did not believe in this, and proceeded to demonstrate its own understanding of how the world worked – which was undeniably impressive.

How did people cope with this conflict? They ignored it, and became even more religious. They happily accepted the gifts of science, which made them rich – while clinging to their religions even more stubbornly.

But I must clarify what I mean by the people here. I mean the vast majority of the people, something like 80 percent of them – who bask in their control – the mass of the people. The new force in the world which the other 20 percent have ignored – because they like to think they are in control.

You should have detected that for me the key word is control – and in case you have not realized this, I want to point it out myself. The key question is “Who (or what) is in control?” And I want to make it clear that the answer is “Not us!”

The people are now helpless, and love being that way. But I have gotten off the subject, which was Computers. Let me return to it.

We kept making more and more impressive things, but with the computer we hit a breaking point. Why? Because it seemed to be supernatural. It was not, of course, but this did not matter – for people, impressions are everything.

We are not very bright – but we believe the opposite: that we are extremely bright. And completely in control. When it is clear that something else is in control – for the lack of a better word: Progress.

And Computers are now behind this Progress – we think. When actually the Rich and Powerful are in control of these computers. In less than half a century we have reverted to the Middle Ages, politically.

Because we do not understand our latest creation, and serve it – instead of it serving us.

Disconnected From Reality

We have many, many problems, but this is one of the worst. Because Reality is not something we can do without. Reality, on the other hand, can easily do without us.

As I said before, I am reading Pandora’s Hope by Bruno Latour – and he is warping my mind. I am discovering that I too, do not like to know things that are too far different from what I already know. He is patiently trying to take me back through the brambles and thorns of Modern History to the point where we went wrong.

Something I am sure most people are not interested in doing at all. Because they are not interested in Reality at all. And they do not want to know this.

I have been forced to this conclusion over and over. People do no want to know, or to understand – they want to be entertained, to be distracted. Instead of working at understanding the world – they work at not understanding it. And are highly pleased when they succeed – in spite of their basic instincts.

Let me put this in context. I was at a neighboring town yesterday to pick up the results of my medical tests. I don’t have a car, so I travel by bus, which is usually no problem. But yesterday the bus was very late, and I had to wait for a long time in unpleasant circumstances, forced to see what I didn’t really want to see – how the locals were coping with their stressful world.

For many of the younger woman, they were coping by being blatant sexual objects – something Latin America encourages. The men are interested in power, and the woman are interested in capturing that power. It is all about power – in one form or the other. The result is a society that has never gone anywhere, and never will. Because it has never learned how to cope with power.

America (North America) by contrast, did have a good (but far from perfect) understanding of the use of power at its beginning. I am listening to a biography of George Washington, and he was very sensitive to this issue. He did not want power for himself, but only for the nation he was founding. He was focused on being the Father of His Country, because he knew history would remember him for that. – as it certainly has, to an exaggerated degree.

This attitude is completely foreign to contemporary Americans, who are only out for themselves. The result is easy to see. America is becoming an underdeveloped country. But let me return to Reality.

Latour points out that Modern History resulted in our being disconnected from it – and with no way of reconnecting. This is hardly a novel observation, but his approach is different – because his field is Science Studies. He points out, correctly, that Science does have a way of connecting to Reality, and takes us on a field trip in Brazil to show how this works in practice – step by logical step.

Scientists, far from being disinterested observers, are human – and very much so. But they work at staying connected to the real world. This is no doubt why society has become anti-scientific – and strongly so. It wants nothing to do with Reality, and says loudly to itself that it does not exist – and even that it must be destroyed.

Singing loudly, and in unison, that “Nothing bad is going on!”

Blurring the Distinction Between the Human and the Non-Human

I do love to read, and my latest book is Pandora’s Hope by Bruno Latour. Perhaps the attribution at the beginning of the book will give you a taste for it:

Lucifer is the chap who brings false light…
I am shrouding them in the darkness of truth.

Although a Frenchman, his is extremely fluent in English, the language of Science. I speak (frequently) of technology, but he prefers to use the phrase non-human – and, once I got used to it, this does seem better.

His basic point is obvious, once when he explains it to you:

Non-humans are becoming more human – and humans are becoming more non-human

We have been told many times that computers have become more human – without acknowledging that humans have become more like computers. You can’t have one without the other.

He is one of the foremost proponents of the Actor-Network Theory (ANT):

 it maps relations that are simultaneously material (between things) and semiotic(between concepts). It assumes that many relations are both material and semiotic.

ANT is often associated with the equal treatment of human, as well as non-human actors. ANT assumes that all entities in a network can and should be described in the same terms. This is called the principle of generalized symmetry. The rationale for this is that differences between them are generated in the network of relations, and should not be presupposed.

Latour is concerned with the conflicts between the humanists and the scientists – certainly an important subject. But these guys are a very small part of the population.

The important conflict, as I see it, is between them and mass of the people (at least 80%) – who are opposed to both.

Like most French intellectuals, and indeed like intellectuals everywhere, he succeeds in making the mass invisible – and only speaks of them in passing, as the mob - which they do indeed resemble, but they are a new force altogether.

Thinking with the Body

All of my best thinking has been done by my body, working on its own. All of my worst thinking has been done by my mind, working on its own. Getting them to work together is the most important project of my life.

My best emotional and mental state is equanimity. The Merriam Webster Unabridged quotes Reinhold Niebuhr:

evenness of mental disposition : emotional balance especially under stress <the inner life where the rational soul may cultivate equanimity in defiance of all outward circumstances

I suspect this state is not prized by most, who prefer to be upset – and are not too particular about what upsets them. The state of equanimity means that we accept ourselves, as we are – something our time rejects completely. As techno-beings we consider the world (which includes our bodies) as disgusting, something to be destroyed with gusto. And it is unable to realize this – or stop it.

I am tempted to equate the body with the emotions, and the mind with thinking. But that is too facile. The emotions can be totally misleading by themselves, and the mind needs the emotions to function. The body is something else; working quietly in the background.

The body is something that everything else depends on – and I need to emphasis that. Without the body we are literally dead. But in our time (and I keep repeating that phrase) we have created a new state of being – where we are neither dead or alive, just dysfunctional – unable to think or to feel.

Much of what I am talking about is covered by the excellent book The Master and his Emmissary - which talks about of the functioning of the left and right hemispheres of the brain. So far as I know, this has been disregarded by our intellectuals and everybody else.

The author, Iain McGilchrist, (who has taught English, who I heard of from Poetry Magazine – and is also a brain researcher) points out that the right hemisphere – which should be our dominant hemisphere – does not use language – but depends on the left hemisphere for that. He does not need to point out that the lower brain controls very basic bodily functions, such as the electrolyte balances of the blood – and sexual arousal. And the whole thing, when is it healthy, is in harmony – it literally pulsates with satisfaction.

In another posting Being Nothing I made the surprising discovery (one of the pleasures of writing) that our bodies reject the dysfunctional state of being mentioned above. I also noted that this posting did not attract the slightest interest – which meant it was original, too original – and probably too disturbing. Mankind has worked itself into a trap of its own making – from which it is unlikely to emerge.

It has failed to listen to its body (or bodies). And as result it is sick, sick, sick. Mentally, emotionally, and physically.

China approaches a defining moment

Open Democracy

In my blogging, I try to stay close to home – but I do read about the rest of the world, often in Open Democracy.

This article is excellent, and illustrates the kind of social planning I advocated in my other posting today Forces Not Our Own Are in Control. The Chinese are ahead of us here in recognizing these forces – but as this article states, they are now in trouble too.

Recommended reading.

Collapse!

Scientific American

This is a review of a book review. The original is not very long, and this will be even shorter.

I spoke of computer models in my posting Making Society Work - models that would include the changes inside people as part of the model.

The model here does not try to model the internals of people – only their externals: food, water, population, oil, pollution, global temperature. All these have complex interactions.  The economy in this model will continue largely as it is until about 2015, but then decline as oil becomes more expensive, and then collapse about 2050.

And the way things are going now (the business as normal scenario) this sudden collapse cannot be prevented.

Making Society Work

It should be clear to us that large-scale society (civilization) has never worked very well – and if we were honest with ourselves, has never worked at all. We need to stop our mad rush into the future, and consider what has happened to us in the past – and for that matter, what is happening to us right now.

One thing we notice right away is that human societies are complex – and I use that word in its technical sense, meaning all kinds of things are effecting all kinds of other things. This is not unusual, the world is full of complex systems (ecosystems, for example). But human society with its learning feedback loops makes for a new kind of complexity that makes everything unstable.

Could this be overcome? Perhaps, with the aid of computers, which can model almost anything – and models (software) that would accurately monitor what is going on. But we would have to make our societies (one society, really) much more aware.

Some of this is done now. Countries monitor economic indicators, and take public opinion surveys. The Internet has evolved into a surveillance network – but not with the objective of making things better, only towards making those in power (mainly the corporations) more powerful.  The result is even more instability – which may have become critical.

But people have adopted an extreme view of liberty: one where only individual interests matter. They reject violently very idea of any kind of overall control. They say this was attempted in the Soviet Union and failed. This overlooks the success of the Chinese, with their version of control (by the Party).

The overall control I have in mind is one where the system has a good idea of what is going on – in enough detail to be able to predict what is going to happen. We probably have the modeling software that could do this – or at least describe how it could be done – including which vital signs would have to be monitored.

The trick of course, is modeling human behavior. We would have to become much better at this, and we should make this one of our highest priorities. People, by their very nature, cannot be modeled exactly. But we should be able to understand ourselves better (especially our group dynamics).

This immediately raises the specter of Big Brother – but with one vital difference: control is in the best interest of everyone.

That of course, is the trick. Plato had his own idea of how to do it: rule by philosophers. And the Enlightenment has its own half-backed idea: just let the people do it. Neither idea came close to working.

For our global society to work, there would first of all have to be the desire to make it work. But people have become helpless and incapable of even conceiving such a thing.

Which means it cannot happen.

The Cheerful Robot

This is taken from From Counterculture to Cyberculture by Fred Turner, page 29.

“As means of information and of power are centralized,” wrote sociologist C. Wright Mills in 1956, “some men come to occupy positions in American society from which they can look down upon…and by their decisions mightly affect, the everyday lives of ordinary men and women.” Under the controlling eye of this “power elite,” Mills argued, ordinary Americans found themselves trapped in corridors and offices, unable to envision, let alone take charge of, the entirety of their work or lives. Ordinary people lacked the ability to “reason about the great structures – rational and irrational – of which their milieux are subordinate parts,” he explained. So too, in a way did the men at the top.

For critics like Mills, both the masters of bureaucracy and their minions suffered from a paring away of emotional life and a careful separation of psychological functions. After World War II, reationalization had begun to give rise to “the man who is ‘with’ rationality but without reason, who is increasingly self-rationalized and also increasingly uneasy.” This man, continued Mill, was a “Cheerful Robot.”

Sheldon S. Wolin, in Democracy Inc., takes this further – everyone, rich or poor, identifies with the powers that be.

Turner continues:

Mill’s critique could be heard echoing throughout the 1960s in works as varied at Jacques Ellul’s The Technical Society (1964), John Kenneth Galbraith’s The New Industrial State (1967), Herbert Marcuse’s One-Dimensional Man (1964), Lewis Mumford’s The Myth of the Machine (1967), Theodore Roszak’s The Making of a Counterculture (1969), and Charles Reich’s The Greening of America (1970).

Like Mills, these authors suggested that society was undergoing a rapid process of centralization and rationalization, a process both supported by new technologies and designed to help the. The resulting social order went by a variety of names – the “technostructure” (Galbraith), the “Technological Society” (Ellul) the “technocracy” (Roszak). In each case, critics pointed to computers and automation as forces driving the rise of this new way of life.

A way of life that was really a way of death.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 361 other followers