the human condition

Nothing is more surprising to people than reading about the deteriorating conditions of today's society or today's rebellious youth and then finding out that the text was written over 100 years ago. Or in some cases, as long as several thousand years ago. There are many Greek and Roman texts discussing the human condition that sound as real today as they did back then. Once you remove the time dependent clues, it is virtually impossible to tell when the text was written.

Obviously the human condition has not changed all that much. If we were to magically revive an average Roman citizen, chances are they would have no trouble adapting to today's conditions. After a bit of initial amazement at the cars and cell phones, they would quickly fall in line and act like everyone else.

Here is another hint. Many people when discussing human behavior like to point out that our "hunter-gatherer" brain prefers this or that look or situation or environment. We are said to like women with a certain waist to hip ratio, with a certain breast size, etc. because it indicates how fertile they are. We are told we enjoy certain situations because they appeal to the "primitive parts of our brain." Many pseudo-scientists and, unfortunately enough, scientists talk of human evolution as it it stopped 100,000 years ago, when our species appeared. When you read their comments, it may sound as if humans evolved from primate ancestors, and voila, that is that, here we are, forever static and unchanging. We are trapped in a modern world with a primitive brain.

It is baloney of course and evolution is an everyday phenomenon. We change continuously and from one generation to the next. Human evolution is quite rapid and surely more rapid than any scientific treatise lets on. The Europeans for example had evolved quite a bit of resistance against many diseases that came from Africa and Asia by the time they discovered America. The American natives, who had no such exposure had not evolved in the same way -although they were by definition equally evolved-, and hence they were quite quickly decimated once the Europeans arrived bringing with them ferocious and unknown germs.

Why is it then that we evolve so quickly, yet things remain so familiar? Are our brains evolving slower than the rest of our bodies? Fat chance, really. What it really tells us is that the human niche has remained essentially the same for the past 5,000 years. And very likely it will remain the same for the next 1,000 years. Probably a lot longer if we are lucky enough to stay around. The latter may be a bit doubtful now that we are outgrowing our resources.

Evolution is much like the red queen in Alice in Wonderland. You have to change continuously to remain in the same place. It is called the red queen hypothesis. It is also a lesson futurists never learn. They are always so impressed with new technology that they think these new technologies will fundamentally change us or our environment. Unfortunately, all technology really does is allow us to exploit our environment faster and more efficiently.

We now use more energy per capita now than the Romans did. We drive cars instead of chariots. We fly planes. We have indy and nascar instead of ben-hur's horse racing. If one movie is to be believed, we will soon have pod racing. The experience won't be that much different, it will be more of the same. We will just burn more energy more quickly. Until we run out that is.

the press and objectivity

In America, journalists are supposed to be objective. At least that is the advertised rule. It is a rule that doesn't hold in other countries, where a biased press corps is acceptable. Most countries have political parties with their own newspapers and these newspapers reflect the view of the party. That view is not limited to the editorials but pervades the entire paper. If you read a socialist paper you will get news through a socialist lens. If you buy a conservative paper, you will see the world as a conservative does. In most of those countries, the only "objective" source of news is on TV, where a national broadcasting company holds sway. The broadcasting company is funded by the government and so the news is more or less impartial -although generally not too critical of the ruling party or parties.

Australia is a country where news is biased and it should surprise nobody that Rupert Murdoch, who was born in this tradition would bring it with him to the US. The only problem is that we "expect" objectivity. The other problem is that we do not have a powerful public broadcasting system, and most people get their news from a private business, supported by advertising. The only "confidence" we have is that the journalists, writers, and editorialists working there are schooled in the "objective" tradition.

Now notice two things: advertisers are the real customers of the network. They are the ones that pay. As such they like shows that people watch, but not if these shows have negative connotations. They do not like their products to be associated with negative images. Right off the bat, you have a situation of pervasive, and very powerful censorship. It won't ban things outright but we have to make sure that the newscast is not too negative or dwells too much on stories that may upset people. Here is the source of your public interest story about the cat that got rescued from a tree.

It is also likely the main reason why news stations go commercial-free in times of disaster. You may think they want to give you the news without interruption, but they probably think, our advertisers would not like it anyways. At least we have the viewers and if people know we cover things they will tune in when nothing happens too.

The second thing is even more frightening. Here are some very powerful corporations, led by some very powerful people, who -invariably- have very strong opinions about a lot of things. These people are the ones paying the bills. You as a poor journalist are paid by these people. Furthermore, the people you get the news from also have strong opinions. They too know how to protect their "turf." And they too wield a very powerful weapon: they can give you the story you need. But only if they like you. Otherwise they can give your competitor a heads up. Now answer this simple question: how long do you think it will take the successful journalist to "see" this picture? And what will happen next?

Yesterday we got a powerful admission of this fact during Anderson Cooper's 360. This came up in reference to Scott McCellan, the former White House press secretary who wrote another scathing memoir. One in a long list detailing how disconnected, disfunctional, and chaotic the White House really is. But that is another matter.

Scott was apparently frustrated that the journalists did not ask the though questions regarding the war. And then one guest revealed to us that her bosses were sensitive to the ratings of the president. You may remember that Bush had very high popularity ratings before the war. The bosses were not eager to go hard on a President who was so popular. Furthermore, the bosses were not keen on being seen as unpatriotic by opposing the war. They were sensitive to their image. And apparently, they were sensitive enough to let the journalists and writers, and editors know.

This was not some case of Fox News. By now we all know Fox News is biased, strongly biased. We all know Rupert takes time out to make sure the news is covered the way he likes it covered. It is understandable given his background and tradition. It is rather unusual that he would bother, but he has strong opinions. It is however inexcusable that he does this in a tradition of objectivity, without bothering to inform us of it. To the contrary, he does the opposite. Fox News swears it is objective. It is fair and balanced. More kool-aid anyone?

The story we saw last night is perhaps more scary. It shows that meddling, active meddling is not limited to Fox. It happens everywhere. Of course, we expected as much. But being told it is really true is another matter altogether. So now you know. Don't trust the news. Especially not when it supports the powers that be.

three Americas

America consists of three societies that live next to one another with few, if any interactions. On top there are the rich and superrich, who are effectively shielded from everyone and participate little in regular society except to further their wealth and wield their power. In America the superrich are a source of great public interest and a subset of them live lives that are exposed to a level not seen in other nations. Publications such as Forbes and Fortune publish data on the wealthiest individuals that many in other countries would consider inappropriate or even obscene. Despite the visibility and voyeurism, Americas top group is effectively isolated in its ivory tower. There is a glass wall.

The most remarkable characteristic of the superrich is how their wealth has consistently increased over the past half century. The gap between the rich and the middle class is now as wide as it has ever been and it is still growing. What that means is that these individuals are increasingly out of touch with the masses. It is -as history shows- a potentially dangerous situation in the making.

The bulk of Americans are part of the second society that includes the middle class (white collar) and the worker classes (blue collar). Although politically and ideologically divided, with a vast spread in wealth between the upper middle class and the non-union worker at the bottom, this group has more in common than they are willing to admit. This is the America we refer to when we discuss every day concerns.

The key attribute for the middle is vulnerability. All these individuals are to a large extent vulnerable to disastrous events that can wreak havoc with their livelihood and status. All have the feeling they have to keep going in order to survive. They are the ones on the treadmill who have to walk ever faster to stay in the same place.

Common phenomena such as divorce, chronic illness, and even accidents can have a major impact on their well-being. Bankruptcy and financial disaster are a reality for these people. As Lou Dobbs likes to point out, the middle class is under attack. It is the American middle class that experiences the glum that Fareed Zakaria highlights in his latest book. It is this part of society that feels the country is moving in the wrong direction. It is this part of society that knows the economic uncertainty, the problems in the job market, even the threat of terrorism. It is this part of society that is kept in fear by the onslaught of the media. These are the people who are one pink slip away from ruin.

The middle is the part affected by the subprime lending crisis. These are the American consumers. The ones who are constantly being told it is their patriotic duty to buy more things. They are also the small town Americans who cling to guns and religion and xenophobia out of bitterness over lost jobs and declining opportunities. Barack Obama hit the nail on the head. The mistake he made was to say it out loud. That did not go over well and Fox "news" was waiting for him.

The third America is surprisingly large. Almost 10% of the US population, the highest number of any civilized country. These are the people who live in hunger and misery. Many of them are safely tucked away in forgotten valleys and desolate countryside. The rest is considered a blight to inner cities or resides in crime-ridden neighborhoods. Even in plain view, the poor are largely ignored and sequestered away. It is common for Americans to view poverty as a self-inflicted state, unworthy of sympathy or compassion. The poor do not participate in American society. They do not vote, so politicians ignore them. The rest just tries to get away or put them away. Here are the bodies that make up the largest prison population of any industrialized country. They "require" the most policing and social services. They are an enormous burden on society. It is a tax we all have to pay.