I have more than once been asked why I blog. Whatever reasons I give are probably lies and guesses, incomplete or over-thought, true today but not tomorrow (or vice versa). Things are rarely simple, life is not black or white, there are usually many reasons for things, and those reasons change. Motivations are rarely truly understood and explanations are made after the fact to try and make sense of things. So don’t believe a word I say.

Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself;
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)
— Walt Whitman

I think I blog from insecurity. I’ve always wanted to express myself, to show the world that I exist, to be noticed, to be respected. I want to be different ⁽¹⁾.

But why blog at all? There are plenty of other ways to express oneself, to be noticed. And I’ve done many of them: hard rock climbs, long bike rides, books, art. Blogging is just a fairly immediate way to be noticed: it connects random thoughts I have to an expression that someone somewhere might read.

My mind is constantly thinking about things I find interesting, but I often find that an idea which seems beautiful in my head can be almost impossible to pin down when expressing it verbally. It’s easier to explore the idea by writing it down; then I can see if it goes somewhere, or if the beautiful butterfly that had been floating in my head is just a dead husk.

I think everyone wants to be heard, to be appreciated. Many people do this by talking – sometimes through conversation 🤐. I too want to express my ideas but I tend to shy away from conversation. It’s easier to say something on paper where I can ponder and rearrange and add and subtract (I can do this as I studied Math at University 😀). It’s easier for me to write—and edit—and let an idea germinate, than it is to speak it.

I also blog to learn. When an idea is interesting, it often makes me curious. I now want to learn more. Is this idea an isolated idea or is it part of a bigger picture with wider implications? Curiosity comes into the process. While blogging allows me to express my thoughts, it also keeps me curious and interested, wanting to research and learn more.

I rather enjoy having a written record of my ideas and thoughts. I occasionally look back through what I’ve written  and marvel at how brilliant I once was. Depressingly, I can also realize that I had far more interesting ideas in the past than I do now.

I like the sense of purpose that blogging provides. I’m not very good at a free-form type of life, and like having the structure that goals provide. Writing a blog makes me think that I’m accomplishing something. And maybe the occasional reader will be influenced or at least mildly entertained by something I write.

However, my writing may be like a tree falling in a forest where no one can hear it, in which case everything I’ve written about wanting to be noticed is delusion. But at least no one will be arguing with my brilliant ideas. Which may be the real reason I blog 😁.

Notes

1) A problem with being different or doing things that get you noticed is that it doesn’t always get you liked. When a person is different, it often generates uncomfortable feelings in other people when they realize they are not following their dreams, not doing what their hearts tell them to do.

Links and Other Clicks

I used to have a blog called Endless Curiosity. I stopped blogging there five years ago because I was putting so much time into it. Or that’s the explanation I tell myself now.

I wanted to include Hugh MacLeod’s lovely sheep and wolf drawing so I added Note 1 because it vaguely relates to the drawing. I love MacLeod’s art, although his website has gone very commercial and less edgy. If you want to see samples of his art, Google “hugh macleod art” and click on the Images tab.

Another post from 2017 moved here from a no-longer-existing blog….

I’ve been reading a fascinating book, Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow, by Yuval Noah Harari.

The book covers many things, and one of the things Harari talks about that fascinates me—and worries me—is what might happen to regular people as more and more things are done by algorithms.

Harari very sensibly talks about algorithms rather than AI, which we often associate with consciousness. As he stresses, algorithms are not conscious yet they are able to do more and more things that we once thought were the domain of human intelligence and consciousness.

Algorithms can already drive cars better than most people, recognize faces better than most people, diagnose cancer better than most doctors, write music that is indistinguishable from human-composed music, and beat the best human players at chess and GO.

And algorithms are learning how to do more and more things that previously only humans could do. What happens when there are few jobs left for people? The standard answer is that there will always be jobs for people. As one profession becomes automated, other more creative professions will open up.

But as Harari says, “The most important question in twenty-first-century economics may well be what to do with all the superfluous people….. The idea that humans will always have a unique ability beyond the reach of non-conscious algorithms is just wishful thinking.”

What value will people have in the future? If we aren’t working and contributing to society will we have any value? If all we are doing is playing computer games, taking drugs, and having sex with robots will the elites have any interest in us?

Harari: “In the twenty-first century liberalism will have a much harder time selling itself. As the masses lose their economic importance, will the moral arguments alone be enough to protect human rights and liberties? Will elites and governments go on valuing every human being even when it pays no economic dividends?”

Already we see, at least in the US, that poor people have less value than rich people. The whole Republican effort to repeal Obamacare shows that in the eyes of one of our two major parties, it’s more important to provide benefits to the rich than to provide good health to the poor and disadvantaged.

Again, Harari: “But the age of the masses may be over, and with it the age of mass medicine. As human soldiers and workers give way to algorithms, at least some elites may conclude that there is no point in providing improved or even standard levels of health for masses of useless poor people, and it is far more sensible to focus on upgrading a handful of superhumans beyond the norm.”

Will this be our future? Who knows? Harari doesn’t predict, he just talks about possibilities. However, I suspect that barring a catastrophe such as nuclear war, our future will be one where the elites pay for life extension and genetic manipulation while the unemployed or underemployed masses live increasingly insecure lives.

But can’t democracy prevent this? And will democracy in this country even continue to exist, requiring as it does an informed citizenry? So far the elites have very successfully prevented class warfare, instead persuading the masses to follow the politics of resentment against immigrants and their “undeserving” neighbors. A system of lies, truly “fake news”, and the strange belief that truth is whatever we want it to be, keeps people voting for the benefit of the elites and against their own interests.

In other words, who knows what will happen in the future? Technological change is happening so fast that politicians can’t keep up with it, and society changes in ways that are hard to predict.

In the meantime, read Homo Deus for all its fascinating thoughts on where we are, how we got here, how things change, and what the future might look like.

Links and Other Clicks

Homo Deus at Amazon. Also available in e-book and audio format on Overdrive at your local library (or at least at my local library).

How America Lost its Mind. A great article about our post-truth era and how we got here.

I hold this truth to be self evident: that all men are not created equal.

Some are born to privilege, some to a life of poverty and despair. Some are born intelligent, some lacking in intelligence. Some to caring parents and nurturing environments, some to uncaring and distracted parents and brutal environments. Some go to schools that nourish them, some to schools where no one seems to care.

To go beyond this country, some are born in societies that consider everyone entitled to healthcare, education, and freedom from insecurity. Others are born in societies where the rich prey on the poor, the strong on the weak.

No, all men are not equal.

We may think that everyone should be equal but this is impossible. People cannot be equal in terms of natural gifts such as intelligence, beauty, physical strength. However we can be more equal in terms of the things that society has control over: educational opportunities, financial security, job security, health, childcare, and so on. But this takes a change in the way money is treated: less inequality, higher taxes, changes to the tax code, different spending priorities, fairer funding of schools.

But the rich and powerful will not willingly give up their wealth and privilege. As Lucy Parsons says, “Never be deceived that the rich will allow you to vote away their wealth.”

Curiously, neither will the poor and powerless necessarily give up their poverty and disadvantages. One of the things driving the changing electoral patterns in the world is resentment. In Europe it tends to be resentment of immigrants. In the US it tends to be resentment of blacks and immigrants. In both cases it’s resentment of people who are regarded as undeserving, people who are getting jobs and benefits that should have gone to the resenters.

The result is a turn to the right, to politicians who promise to keep out or keep down the undeserving. The fact that the resenters will also lose out seems to be irrelevant. What counts is that the undeserving are punished.

In the end it doesn’t seem to matter that people are unequal. Quite the contrary: inequality is important, comparison is important. What matters is making sure that the undeserving are worse off than the resenters.

Links and Other Clicks

A fascinating article about the failure of social democracy.

I wrote this post in 2017 on a blog that no longer exists. Now that I’ve added a blog to Cycle Uphill, I thought I’d transfer the post over here….

I was reading an article about how a Professor Longo is selling a special formula diet that lets people live longer by being on a calorie restricted diet while still getting the essential nutrients in a tasty form.

And of course there are many other researchers looking into life extension including people at Google, Human Longevity, SENS Research Foundation, and several universities such as Harvard and UCLA.

A part of me wonders, to what end? Why?

There have always been smart, intellectually curious people who want to live as long as possible because they are fascinated by the world and want to learn more or create more. These people believe that as we have more time we will use it in an “elevated” way.

As Gary Kasparov, former World Chess Champion said, “Intelligent machines will continue that process, taking over the more menial aspects of cognition and elevating our mental lives toward creativity, curiosity, beauty, and joy. These are what truly make us human, not any particular activity or skill like swinging a hammer — or even playing chess.”

But for every one of those who believe we will elevate our mental lives towards creativity, curiosity, beauty, and joy, I’ll bet there are hundreds who don’t know what to do with their time. That’s partly what the opioid epidemic is about. It’s why so many retirees drink themselves, if not to death, then at least to oblivion. It’s why in 2016 the average American adult watched 5h 4m of television every day. It’s why so many unemployed young men spend their days playing video games.

Perhaps I misspeak. All the people do know what to do with their time. It’s just not perhaps what those seeking to extend life might be thinking.

Besides the question of what will people do with that extra time, one needs to consider the economics. If anyone is concerned about the financial health of Social Security and Medicare, they need to start panicking if people retire at the same age yet live longer.

And if people have to retire later, what does that mean for someone working a tough minimum wage job? Or being at the beck and call of the brutal scheduling algorithms now used in retail? More years of misery?

Or perhaps extended lives are just for the lucky few: those rich enough to afford the extra years of life and also curious enough about the world to want to keep learning and exploring.

I guess we’ll find out soon enough. I for one will be curious to know how we will fill our (possibly) extended lives with creativity, beauty, and joy.

And of course the answer to the question of “to what end? Why?” is fame, status, and money for the people who figure it out.

Links and Other Clicks

Article about Professor Longo and his research. And an article by someone who tried the diet.

The article from which the Gary Kasparov quote comes.

Originally, before I decided to focus this website on cycling and hiking, it was a blog named Contributing to the Problem. Then I decided to change its focus to cycling and hiking, and made it a website with static pages rather than a website with scrolling blog posts. Then I realized that Contributing to the Problem was a rather dumb name for a website focused on cycling and hiking so I changed the name to Cycle Uphill.

When changing from blog posts to static pages, I removed access to the old blog posts. I also deleted all the images associated with the blog posts—probably to save storage space.

Now, after someone commented on one of these inaccessible blog posts (inaccessible from the website, but presumably Google still has references to them), I’ve decided to make the posts visible again. Because I removed all the associated images, the existing posts are now all pure text.

Note that the original posts are all over six years old. Note also that I’m currently blogging at Cat World—if you can call the comics a blog.

We were watching Netflix a few days ago, and we couldn’t find the movie we wanted to see. But apart from that movie, there were so many choices of movie or TV series. It was overwhelming.

Add in Amazon and all the other streaming sources and it gets ridiculous. Tanya and I have a really hard time choosing what to watch if presented with an almost infinite choice. Often we’ll just retreat to the comfort of a book.

In the old days there were just a few TV channels to watch, and programs had fixed schedules. So if we wanted to watch, say, Lovejoy, we sat in front of the TV at the appointed time—or we missed it. I enjoyed TV a lot more in those days. Predictability and limited choices.

Now there are many choices, and much better visual quality, but the experience is no better. Back then we knew only what we had and we enjoyed it. Watching TV is little more than entertainment, an escape from reality—unless we watch the News shows 🙂 —and modern TV is no better than old TV for escapism. It’s arguably worse because we no longer have the added benefit of being able to discuss what we watched with friends at work the next day.

For some reason—money comes to my mind—we are constantly told that the answer to life, the universe, and everything is more choice.

But my brain is not well-designed to handle choice. What I want is predictability and the security this brings. My brain doesn’t really like choices and having to make decisions.

I don’t really want a 401K where I choose among investment options. I want the predictability and security of a pension with a known payment every month. Too late for that now though.

I don’t want a choice among a hundred different medical plans with different options, different copays, different deductibles. I just want to be able to go to the doctor and be fixed, as people do in all other industrialized countries.

I don’t want to be paralyzed by the choice of a hundred toothpastes and toothbrushes. I really am no more satisfied having chosen X than Y.

So why do we have so much choice? The politically correct answer is so that there is more competition and thus lower prices. But this answer only works up to a point.

There is no real competition in toothpaste, there’s just pointless choice. There’s no competition in medical care because we can’t read reviews and we can’t switch at will. There’s less and less competition in cellphone networks, airlines, health insurance because providing choice is not a good business model—every big company would rather be a monopoly because that’s where the money is—and so companies with deep pockets persuade governments to allow consolidation of their industry. And I don’t want choice of risks in retirement planning; I just want a predictable income stream on which I can base my plans.

But no one asks We, the People, what We want. Medicare and Social Security are incredibly popular programs, yet we are not asked if we’d like their simplicity and predictability to be available for all healthcare and all retirement payments. Instead, we are offered choices based on the political beliefs of politicians and the profit-making desires of the companies that fund them.

More choice, less satisfaction. Sigh. 😕

Links and Other Clicks

Two wonderful books about choice: The Paradox of Choice: Why More is Less and The Art of Choosing.

So what is Uber? Europe’s top court is trying to figure that out so European countries can decide how to regulate the company. Uber claims it’s an app, “an intermediary providing a technology service in exchange for a fee”. Taxi drivers claim it’s a transport company.

At stake is whether Uber will have to “adhere to the same laws and norms as staid rivals on employment, health and safety, taxes and pricing.”

Apparently the decision will also affect other companies in the “sharing economy”, such as Airbnb and Booking.com.

I have no idea how things will work out or who will be presenting evidence to the court, but if they asked me, I would say that Uber is one type of animal and Airbnb and Booking are a different species altogether.

When I use Uber, I say, “Let’s get an Uber”. I don’t think, “Let’s use the Uber app to get a car driven by an independent contractor.”  The prices are all pre-defined and it doesn’t matter which individual car comes and picks me up. The details of the specific car are irrelevant; I just get the car that is closest to me.

Whereas with Airbnb and Booking I use their app to find places in the area I’m interested in visiting. I study the facts: location, size, amenities, price, and so on, and make a decision based on how important the different factors are to me.

In other words, I use Airbnb and Booking as technology intermediaries to present me with several very different independent options, and I make a choice. Then I use Airbnb or Booking to coordinate booking, payment, and cancelation policies with these independent hotels or people.

But I don’t use Uber that way. I use Uber exactly as I would a taxi company. Sent me the nearest car and transport me from A to B.

So I hope that the top European court will read this blog and take my views into account. If you know anyone on the court, please send them a link to this post. 🙂

Links and Other Clicks

Europe’s top court could help Uber where Commission has failed