the biology of morality

Authentic morality comes out of a realistic assessment of human nature.  Human beings are not blank slates.  We are born with moral inclinations.  Except for those of us who suffer from personality disorders, we all have innate psychological traits that not only facilitate moral behavior but also incline us to value it.  Had these genetic traits not represented a competitive advantage in the survival game, they would not have been what was produced by the evolutionary process.  I’m not going to attempt to explain the exact evolutionary mechanisms by which the human capacities for love, loyalty, and social cooperation were selected, but we can at least know that had there not been a clear evolutionary advantage to the traits and inclinations that we have inherited genetically, we would not have them.

While human beings are certainly capable of being ruthless or unscrupulous in the pursuit of their own self-interest, that is not surprising given what we know about the evolutionary pressures that have shaped our DNA.  We expect drives associated with self-preservation to be strong.  What is surprising is how common human behaviors that serve a greater good than self-interest are.  Not only is each individual born with a significant capacity for personal virtue; she also has talent for cultural creativity by which she can contribute to and participate in collective moral understandings. 

The social contract is not just a bright idea that some idealistic visionary came up with recently; it has been a matter of survival for millenia.  Human existence has always depended on a critical mass of individuals behaving in ways that contributed to the wellbeing of the whole community.  Our biology has been shaped by that reality.  For the vast majority of time human beings have been evolving, our ancestors lived as hunter-gatherers and absolutely depended being a part of communities.  Who we are genetically is largely the product of the evolutionary pressures that were associated with that.  Individuals who didn’t have the psychological traits that supported participation in social cooperation were not as likely to survive and pass on their DNA.

Consequently, we are genetically hardwired with the capacity to be guided by an internal ethical template somewhat along the lines of the golden rule.  The fact is that supporting the social contract is in virtually everyone’s interest.  Different cultures have different understandings of the social contract, but even though the specific moral expectations are different, the equation is basically the same.  The ability to comprehend the need for a social contract and intuitively knowing how to participate in it are innate.  That is not to say that human beings are especially virtuous.  Self-preservation is still a much stronger drive than altruism.  We have to work with rather than against our natural tendencies.  Given the basic selfishness of human nature, the most stable basis for morality is always going to be enlightened self-interest, the recognition that being a decent human being is the best long term strategy even if we are purely selfish.

Ethical choices never occur in a vacuum.  There is more to morally constructive choices than relying on an inborn sense of right and wrong.  We are capable of morality because of the best in us, but we value it because of the worst.  Moral behavior is almost always a blend of doing the right thing for its own sake and doing it because we want to avoid negative consequences.  Whatever sublime pleasure we might derive from just being good as an end in itself, most of us also find ourselves making many choices based on the recognition that behaving badly will catch up with us in the long run. 

Doing the right thing is always a blend of nature and nurture.  We are born with the capacity for making moral choices, but actual choices are always influenced by the collective wisdom that is embedded in cultural understandings.  At the intersection of individual freedom and the desire to be virtuous, there is a precarious balance between the legitimate right to pursue my own interests and the obligation to play fair.  What is best for each of us, even from a selfish point of view, is some optimal blend of the two.  The idea that what is best for us is always getting as much of what we want as we can is childish and unrealistic, but expecting people to always sacrifice for the sake of the community is not realistic.

Evolutionary biology testifies that cultural commitments that offset pure selfishness make us better competitors in the survival game; otherwise, natural selection would not have given us the many traits that support them.  Some cultures are better than others at fostering socially cooperative behaviors.  Ideally, how cultural moral understandings are shaped is a blend of conscience and intelligent, open reflection on ethical dilemmas.  The individual has a responsibility at the macro as well as the micro level and a responsibility to participate in the shaping of the collective conscience as well as the responsibility to heed it.  The collective conscience is constantly being informed by actual experience and by publicly shared reflection on that experience.  I have a responsibility to speak up when social mores are a function of small-mindedness rather than truly promoting socially constructive behaviors.

An illustration of the tension between the social contract and self-interest is a game theory application called the prisoner’s dilemma.  The prisoner’s dilemma is based on a scenario where two suspects are in two different interrogation rooms and are each offered a deal.  Each of them can win sympathy with the prosecutor by snitching on the other one.  A suspect who doesn’t snitch but is snitched on receives the greatest penalty.  A suspect who snitches but isn’t snitched on does the best for himself.  Either of them can improve her own fate by snitching on the other, but if neither snitches, they both get off relatively easy.  So the best outcome for both of them is if neither cuts a deal with the prosecutor.   Unfortunately for them though, that is an unstable solution because each of them can do better by screwing the other one, no matter what the other chooses.  It turns out that the most likely outcome is that they both snitch and thus both lose. 

It is easy to see the how the prisoner’s dilemma game parallels real social situations.  Putting aside the fact that the characters in the scenario are criminals who are presumably involved in antisocial behavior, choosing to not snitch can be seen as socially cooperative behavior.  It is more beneficial to the other guy than it is for me.  Most of the time any one of us can improve our short term gain by being selfish mercenaries.  The curious fact though is that, in real life, socially cooperative behaviors happen anyway.  In order to more adequately model actual social cooperation, game theorists have expanded the prisoner’s dilemma game to a serialized format known as the iterated prisoner’s dilemma game.  It turns out that if the players know that snitching in one round will likely be punished in a subsequent round, they are less likely to snitch.  The take-home lesson is that the most stable basis for social cooperation seems to be an approach that combines enlightened self-interest with a means of holding each other accountable. 

Truly moral behavior is a blend of the following elements:

·         I have a basic sense of the difference between right and wrong, and I care.  In other words, I have a conscience.  All other things being equal, I generally prefer right over wrong. 

·         I am willing and able to be honest as I reflect on the ethical implications of my decisions, commitments, and actions.

·         My self-interest is enlightened by my understanding of ultimate consequences.  Getting what I truly want in the long run usually involves acting in good faith along the way.

·         I am committed to the social contract for consciously selfish as well as virtuous reasons.

·         I want to have a reputation for being decent, trustworthy, and fair.

·         I participate actively in the shaping of the collective conscience, and I make ethical decisions in the light of collective wisdom.

·         I resist the pressures of groupthink and speak up when the collective conscience becomes small-minded condemnation of those who are marginalized.

·         I guard with special care the rights of minorities because their voice is a crucial corrective to blind spots of the majority perspective in the process of collective discernment, and how I treat those who can’t push back is the truest reflection of my own ethical commitments.

·         I value the rule of law because without it the strong devour the weak and there is no justice.

·         I am supportive in word and deed of formal and informal retributive justice as a deterrent (though I guard against getting carried away by reckless vigilantism).

·         I support checks and balances on power.  This includes public servants, law enforcement personnel, teachers of children, authority figures, religious leaders, experts, persons who enjoy wealth and privilege, and demagogues.

·         When I find it necessary to dissent, I am guided by an understanding of the principles of civil disobedience.

This is not a foolproof process that guarantees positive outcomes.  It is a deliberative process that is characterized by struggles, uncertainty, and failure, but it is a more sound and realistic strategy than any version of traditional morality.  It is an eyes-wide-open approach to moral choices.

accountability

Most of us recognize that a well-functioning society depends on people doing the right thing even when it goes against what is strictly in their own personal interest. No one practices that perfectly. Some violate it with impunity. And there is profound disagreement as to exactly what is the right thing to do in a given situation.

The greatest source of disagreement has mainly to do with the question of authority. By what authority is right and wrong determined? To what or to whom are we accountable? What are we obligated to do or not do? The most significant fault line is that which runs between those who believe that adhering to traditional morality is what is most important and those who believe that having an eye toward actual consequences is what is most important.

The vast majority of traditional morality is quite sound. It is hard to imagine a society functioning without understandings of right and wrong being passed down from one generation to the next. However, certain appropriations of traditional morality don't make sense in our culturally and religiously pluralistic society.

Being smugly indifferent to actual consequences (and sometimes even seeming to enjoy inflicting pain on other people) clearly reflects a perverse understanding of morality.  Christians who claim to hold to traditional morality would do well to pay attention to what their own tradition says: "Those who say, 'I love God,' and hate their brothers or sisters, are liars; for those who do not love a brother or sister whom they have seen, cannot love God whom they have not seen." (1 John 4:20 NRSV)

If what this biblical passage is talking about weren't a common tendency that its author believed needed to be fought, it would never have been considered necessary to include it in the Bible. And even though those who are most guilty of it deny their own culpability, it is still a problem today. They say that they "hate the sin, but love the sinner", but their actions speak louder than their words.

fully and fruitfully human

Recovering humanity encompasses the full range of human experience – fallibility, frailty, and fickleness as well as brilliance, courage, and gritty determination. It calls for a comprehensive engagement on every front, engagement of our whole selves, engagement of the highs and lows that make life rich and interesting, engagement of the challenges that disturb our complacency when we dare to dream, engagement of our unquenchable thirst for freedom as well as of our inescapable dependence on the goodwill, fair-mindedness, and cooperative spirit of others, and engagement in the discipline of intelligent, honest reflection by which we can learn from our experience. It is about being in touch with our deepest longings, being inspired by our highest aspirations, keeping our wits about us, and staying on our toes, aloft but alert, buoyant but with feet still touching the ground. Enlivened by our hearts, compassionate, and truly kind, but also mindful in every sense of the word – aware, attentive, thoughtful, sensible, reality-based, actively practicing self-examination, welcoming feedback, we establish a sturdy foundation strengthened by humility.

Stepping up to the challenge of being fully human is not an undertaking for the faint of heart. When we stake our reputations, security, and wellbeing on interdependence, on daring to imagine what we can accomplish if we work together, on kindling, nurturing, and on encouraging our own and each other’s surprisingly complementary peculiarities, we rouse a sleeping giant. Unleashing raw, unbridled humanity can be a roller coaster ride. Stirring up ardent likes and dislikes; calling forth unrefined, uncensored responses; and emboldening unwieldy forces that are latent within the human heart can be risky. What is most obvious about being human are the many ways that we miss the mark. We are afflicted by bad judgment, fall short of what we sincerely and earnestly intend, or get swept away by incendiary emotionalism. Having been burned in the past by misplaced trust, we are wary of letting our guard down and opening ourselves up to being taken advantage of. Our perceptions are distorted by past trauma, resentment, and fear. We are touchy, suspicious, defensive, cruel, or passive-aggressive. We withdraw into our shells, stonewall, or overreact with hair trigger nastiness or unmerited condemnation. We are easily manipulated by unscrupulous charlatans and demagogues who the flames of an already perilous mob mentality. Nevertheless, the very fact that our humanity is a mixed bag is all the more reason to cherish, cultivate, and count on abundant human goodness and to pursue a full embodiment of that which makes us human – heart and head, vulnerabilities and strengths, the depths of our despair, the heights of our triumphs, and the breadth of our imagination – the entire package.

Unless we show up, come together, do what it takes to follow through, “keep it real”, refuse to pull any punches, and decline dumbing down the truth, we are contributing to the problem by perpetuating the apathy, cynicism, factionalist enmities, and free floating rage that have gotten us where we are. Recovering humanity is about having the courage to put aside the defense mechanisms that get in the way, to let go of the excuses that hold us back, and to leave behind accumulated baggage like wounded pride, jealousy, and retaliatory spitefulness. We thereby approach rather than avoid, advance rather than retreat, and live our way into lives that are characterized by:

●     the robust buoyancy that comes with tapping into the wellspring of innate generosity and goodwill deep within each of us

●     having a solid relationship with evidence-based reality

●     being deftly guided by consideration in two senses of the word: being considerate and considering the facts at hand

●     routinely stepping back, taking a deep breath, and allowing time for circumspection, thereby averting whatever tendencies we might have to be carelessly swept away by emotionalism or impulsiveness

●     benefiting from a big picture perspective

●     using strategic, collaborative intelligence to solve difficult problems

●     playing well with others

●     fostering win/win interpersonal dynamics

●     welcoming the complementary strengths that come with diversity

●     surfacing unsuspected inner resources 

●     recognizing previously unimaginable opportunities

●     accumulating experiences of effectiveness that strengthen self-confidence and increase personal empowerment

●     profiting from ongoing learning

collective action

On the one hand, I am as frustrated as anyone with the intractable, deadly conflicts around the promotion of purportedly untainted universal truths that would bring everybody together if only “all those other people would just come to their senses and accept what is obvious to us”. I’m not going to pretend that that I’m OK with manipulative public pulpiteering or that there is nothing wrong with cynically invoking ostentatiously spiritual sentimentality to promote political agendas. I will not go along with willfully ignorant denial of factual reality or condone reckless self-deception with my silence. On the other hand, it is cruel and unnecessary to pull the rug out from under anyone who relies on religion for comfort, security, unconditional love, worthy and meaningful purposefulness, encouragement, and/or a sense of connection with other people and with something larger than themselves. Disparaging those who are doing the best they can to get by does not make the world better or us seem smarter. It only pits us against each other, gets us unnecessarily bogged down in a counterproductive side issue, and takes up energy that could be directed toward common goals. 

The possibility of working together toward a more promising future is not a ridiculously idealistic fantasy. Pursuing it takes us down a brightly-lit, broad highway that has led the greater human community to many historic breakthroughs, surprising victories, and revolutionary accomplishments. Those who have preceded us on that venerable highway didn’t know any better than to challenge set ideas about what is possible. Considerable obstacles notwithstanding, finding solutions to the most difficult problems the global human community faces is not complicated. What we need to do to move forward is as obvious as first grade arithmetic because the main requirement is to get in touch with our commonality, and by definition, commonality is common. While it would be unrealistic to aim for unanimity, if we can translate what we largely share in common with each other into a nonpartisan commitment to the common cause of building up social, political, and economic institutions that foster freedom, fairness, opportunity, personal responsibility, and the common welfare, we can find a rallying point that would bring us together around a shared vision for a society that is more hospitable to basic human decency. There are enough of us who are capable of experiencing a deep mutual affinity that is firmly grounded in our common concerns, our common interests, and our ability to identify and empathize with each other. We can achieve critical mass, unite behind the goal of encouraging sustainable economic growth, and promote a more broadly prosperous global human community through a large scale collaborative effort.

What stands in the way is not a shortage of talent, brainpower, or resources; instead, we are defeated at the very outset by our fear, our short-sightedness, and our cynicism. Whoever first observed that it is amazing what people can accomplish if they don’t care who gets the credit deserves more credit than he or she was probably looking to receive, but actually, what is even more amazing is how many of our worst problems would simply evaporate if we could see the attention-grabbing and the ostentatious self-importance that we take for granted for what they are, a sad charade of one-upmanship produced by childish insecurity. In recent centuries, humanity has come to recognize that the earth is not the center of the universe; most of us however have not outgrown the tendency to view the universe though anthropocentric, ethnocentric, or egocentric eyes. Our skewed perspective distorts reality, crowds out empathy, humility, respect, and trust, and severely limits our ability to work through conflicts, to appreciate our complementary differences, and to foster meaningful unity, impactful solidarity, and productive collaboration. We trade in hope, confident wellbeing, and goodwill for social rituals that perpetuate an endemic pattern of wasted talent, misused time, and misdirected energy. The considerable good that ordinary people have to contribute is driven out of the process or buried by greedy, aggressive pursuits of power prestige and ugly displays of territorialism which are like the dance that dogs do with fire hydrants, often under a thin veil of sanctimonious pretence of moral superiority. 

Consequently, who we are becomes shaped by a paranoiac need to protect ourselves against real and imagined adversaries and against any troubling circumstance, intrusive idea, or uncomfortable awareness that would topple the houses of cards that pretend to offer security and places to hide. A bunker mentality sets in. We hide inside our fortresses of discontented obliviousness, surrounded by stockpiles of yesterday’s distractions, anxiously guarding sentimentalized versions of reality, elaborate museums of what never was, shrines to what will never be, mausoleums of foreclosed possibilities, and hollowed out spaces that accusingly echo and amplify our regrets. We become trapped in a vicious circle of fear, hoarding, and scarcity. As with someone dying of thirst in the middle of the ocean, what we need is abundant but tragically unavailable. Even more tragic, our deprivation is self-inflicted. The situation we are in is akin to the hell described in an old parable known as the allegory of the long spoons. In the parable, everyone in Hell is perpetually hungry because the only means of eating is with spoons that are too long. They are incapable of getting any food into their mouths because of their aversion to feeding each other. In the real world, being in a situation in which the simple willingness make choices that would bolster a rising tide that lifts all boats is too weak to overcome the warranted fear of being taken advantage of is what is known as a collective action problem. The solution is obvious; however, it involves cooperation, intelligent pooling of resources, and trust that others are going to follow suit, and because of costs, risks, and insufficient incentives at the level of the individual, what happens instead is a cascading race to the bottom. Dreams of what could be sit on the shelf collecting dust, producing a return on investment equivalent to hiding our life savings under the mattress.

Recovering humanity, playing on two meanings of the word humanity, humanity as a set of personal characteristics we all share in common and humanity as a collective entity of which we are each inescapably a part, is about the natural reciprocal relationship between the vulnerability that is inherent in humanity at the individual level and the strength that emerges when we gather seemingly unrelated puzzle pieces drawn from our fragmentary understandings and our disparate perspectives and combine them into something resembling a unified whole. As each of us stokes the glowing embers of human sympathy that smolder in our hearts, we augment our bond with the humanity that all of us together instantiate. And coming from the other end, as we recover a communal bond with the humanity arrayed around us, we enrich our connection with the humanity within that is our birthright. We find new connections by looking inward at our own restlessness and incompleteness, looking outward for companionship, similarities that we can identify with, and for ways to belong and participate, looking inward again for stirrings of our most authentically human responsiveness, and looking outward again toward possibilities beyond our own limited reach as separate individuals. If we accept the challenge, dare to care, venture out from the cozy cocoons within which we smugly insulate ourselves, reawaken our imagination, dredge up our buried dreams, bring to the table underutilized talents and untapped strengths, replace unverifiable suppositions with human-centered actualities, and cultivate optimism and openness through mutual encouragement and trust-building, our hopeful gamble will be rewarded over the long haul, if not always in the near term.

the importance of a strong middle class

Being able to maintain a basic sense of human decency while doing what it takes to have a reasonably prosperous life shouldn't be a luxury. It should be the norm. What that means is that economic policies that build up the middle class need to be a priority. There are other reasons for ensuring a stable middle class besides the benefits that are experienced at a personal level. An economy that fosters a large middle class is a healthy economy and an essential ingredient of a healthy society. One of the main features of politically and/or economically oppressive countries is that they don't have much of a middle class. They simply don't offer any opportunity for individuals to, through honest means, improve their socioeconomic status. And when there are few people who have much money to buy products, the economy remains stagnant and depressed. In addition, when there are few people who are not either in a desperate struggle for survival or among those who benefit from a corrupt political process that supports economic and social injustice, human rights and governmental accountability inevitably go by the wayside.

living large

Human social instincts are paradoxical. On the one hand, it is quite natural and common for human beings to make sacrifices for others. On the other hand, the very biological traits that predispose us to loyalty and kindness can turn us into ruthless killers if we believe that people we care about are threatened. The true spirit of a warrior is less about hatred of the enemy than it is about love for his own tribe or nation. Some of the worst wars ever fought were waged in the name of a loving god.

If we examine the paradox of our social instincts more deeply, we discover an even greater paradox than that love for one's own can translate into murderous hatred of everybody else. Human altruism is paradoxically selfish at its core. That might sound cynical, but the take-home point is not about diminishing the nobility of altruists; instead, it is a useful insight by which we can construct a realistic and sustainable rationale for morally virtuous choices and thereby strengthen the human capacity for benevolence. The question shifts from how to find the right balance between selfishness and unselfishness toward how to pursue both in a way that enhances each of them.

In general, win/win solutions are more likely to succeed and are more stable than win/lose approaches that pit our own interests directly against those of others in a zero sum competition which allows us to win only to the exact extent that someone else loses. Asking people to be noble and support win/lose choices that involve setting aside what they want for themselves and for the people they care about for the sake of some abstract good inspires healthy skepticism, but inviting them to make personal sacrifices for the sake of the common welfare from which they tangibly benefit can tap into a deep well of extraordinary largess.

Most of us, at least in moments when fear is not driving the bus, welcome opportunities to enlarge our worlds. We don't want to view the world through the lens of fear and pessimism. We want to be defined by what we love and by what we have to offer rather than by our hatred or our cruel indifference. Deep down, we know that our greatest happiness does not come from the possessions we pitifully cling to; instead, it comes with feeling like what we do makes a positive difference. Wanting that happiness is the ultimate selfishness.

toward a more compassionate culture

At any given time, there are three groups of people. First, there are those who mostly want to do what's best even if it involves some degree of personal sacrifice. Second, there are those who default to selfishness. And third, there are the fence-sitters. There are no clear lines that divide the groups. The distribution is actually along a spectrum. Each of us, with the exception of the most extreme narcissists and sociopaths, is a blend of altruism and selfishness.

The relative size of each group and the direction the middle group is generally tipped toward are influenced by the cultural context. Some cultural contexts are more encouraging of altruism than others. In the more altruistic cultures, the group of those who default to altruism is larger, and the middle group tends to be more altruistic.

My guess is that most people would prefer living in a society that rewards trustworthiness, fairness, generosity, and loyalty. The obvious question is what any of us can do to move the needle even a little bit toward the society we want to be a part of. How do we build up "social capital"? It's easy to sabotage, undermine, or erode the social and cultural fabric that makes it possible to have a reasonable degree of trust that other people are going to live up to their commitments and aren't going to stab us in the back. All we have to do to pull that off is follow the line of least resistance. It is far more difficult to be conscientious and to care about long term consequences of our choices.

What is especially difficult is resisting entrenched political and economic currents that are driven by greed and a lust for power. Very few of us have anything to gain over the long haul by going where those currents inevitably take us, but none of us can singlehandedly overcome the political heft that deep pocket money can buy. It takes enough of us standing in solidarity with each other to counterbalance the natural power inequity. The good news is that a broadly representative democratic movement can achieve critical mass and create a rising tide that lifts all boats by prioritizing the common welfare.

recovering optimism

One of the main themes of human history is the search for and discovery of better ways of doing things. We've gotten much better at meeting many challenges. We don't have to forage to feed ourselves. We have elaborate systems for conveniently providing not only the basic necessities of life but also great luxury that many of us have come to take for granted.

Recent centuries have seen the emergence of modern science, democracy, and more enlightened attitudes toward religion. The ensuing cataclysmic social and cultural shifts did not come without casualties or resistance, but until about a hundred years ago, it didn't seem strange or naive to believe that humanity was on an upward trajectory that would know no limits. Advances in areas like science, medicine, and technology didn't stop, but two devastating world wars and many other dark and discouraging byproducts of modernity have dampened our enthusiasm for progress.

The quaint optimism that was so abundant prior to World War I has been replaced by a desperate search for anything that might offer some basis for hope. People go to ridiculous extremes to escape the sense of doom they have about the general state of the world. It is hard to imagine what it would take to recapture that which motivated many previous generations to move forward and to regain a simple faith in ourselves, in our innate capacity for goodness, and in our ability to make the world a better place. Nonetheless, nothing else makes sense.

never too old to be idealistic

My personal commitment to preserving an idealistic outlook on life is a calculated move. Some people think old idealists are fools, but I have known too many embittered old men to believe that. I understand how cranky codgers end up where they are, and I don't want to go there myself.

I would prefer to risk becoming an old fool over finding myself in an emotional space that is all about how inconvenient it is to me personally that there are so many people in the world who want to have a fair shot at acquiring the basic necessities of life.

I don't want to be prisoner of pessimism. I don't want to resign myself to the gloomy attitude that there is nothing any ordinary person like me can do about problems like climate change. I don't want to give up on the possibility of a future that is brightened by what I do rather than darkened by what I don't do. It is about being responsible, but it is also about the quality of my own life.

going beyond getting the trains to run on time

Human beings are amazingly ingenious. What we have accomplished in areas like technology, medicine, and space travel is astounding. There is no reason we can’t direct our considerable brainpower and resourcefulness toward solving dire problems like climate change and unsustainable economic practices. One of the main obstacles is that we aren’t very good at responsible collective decision-making.

I’m a big fan of democracy, but the so called democratic governance models that we currently have are ineffective. Some say democracy is inherently incapable of “getting the trains to run on time”. I don’t agree. I believe that the problem is that our governments aren’t democratic enough. The main goal should be empowering and mobilizing ordinary stakeholders everywhere to contribute their ideas, talent, skills, time, and energy toward tackling the big problems that will never be solved without their vital participation.

The basic template for democracy as it is generally practiced today was designed by privileged white males who couldn’t imagine the possibility of sharing power with everybody else. To some extent, their fear of losing control was warranted. Democracy does need to be protected from itself. The majority can be very misguided at any given time. Mob rule run amuck is worse than being governed by an oppressive dictator.

We are currently at a crossroads. One way leads to an exacerbation of our worst problems. The other way would lead to new possibilities. The difference lies in whether we can translate what we already know about information architecture into a model that facilitates robust and broadly representative participation in responsible collective decision-making. I know that sounds ridiculously idealistic, but unless we can find a way to harvest the human potential that is currently being wasted and misdirected, we will continue in a downward spiral toward a series of inevitable global cataclysms.

standing on old shoulders to reach new heights

Self-improvement is not only a possibility for human beings; it is a necessity. That has always been the case. Even our hunter-gatherer ancestors weren’t born knowing instinctively how to survive in the wild. It took years before individuals learned everything they needed to know to be contributing rather than dependent members of their families.

That we can augment and override natural instinct is one of the most significant distinctive characteristics of human beings. Our ability to learn and to pass on what we have learned to successive generations is what has enabled the human species to live, build communities, and thrive in almost every habitat on the planet. It’s not that we lack instinct. We do have instincts, but they seem to be more complex, subtler, and more pliable than those of other animals.

It is as though we have an instinctual appetite for participating in the communal production and distribution of tangible and intangible resources that make survival possible and desirable. The experiences of acquiring new understandings, learning new skills, developing new insights, and sharing accumulated knowledge with others are deeply satisfying.

Since a community of learners and teachers is about simultaneously preserving what is already known and discovering new possibilities, what is required is a blend of conservative and progressive values. We need both perspectives. Not only do we need the contributions from each camp; we need to recognize that it is not possible to be exclusively one or the other. Each of us individually is a blend of both. None of us can reject either.

It is not possible to get by without the benefit of accustomed ways of doing certain things, but since the vast majority of what any of us knows was new at some point, no one can say they what is new is inherently bad. What we need is balance. Each of us defines that differently, but all of us have to find a way to welcome what is new and helpful, even as we count on being able to continue doing what we know works.

It would be foolish to precipitously trash the solid wisdom that comes from traditional sources, but there is always room for improvement. In fact, some of the problems that the global human community currently faces will only be solved by making improvements to our familiar ways of doing things. We are responsible for our own choices. Refusing to accommodate change is at least as harmful as the destabilizing impact of challenging that which currently seems unquestionably true and necessary.  

overcoming political polarization

There is a lot of talk these days about how impossible it seems to have become for the right and the left to work together, but talk is cheap. And actually it is worse than cheap talk. I find most of the talk to be disingenuous because it is usually more about bashing the other side (and thus contributing to the problem) than looking for a real solution. The starting point needs to be a fundamental affirmation of the fact that conservatives and liberals both have important roles to play in the political arena. It is natural for them to be in opposition to each other, but sabotaging the other side crosses a line.

Sabotaging people we disagree with sabotages the whole democratic process. I admit I'm biased and that that affects my perception, but I don't really believe that the blame is equal. What I see is that most liberals believe in government and want it to work, so they generally tend to be more averse to doing anything that would actually have a detrimental effect on the ability of the government to do its job. Many conservatives hate the very idea of government and see sabotaging it as a noble act. (I have to say though that being opposed to a well-functioning government is not an inherently conservative position, but how they have ended up there is a whole other topic.)

Liberals tend to have more faith in the democratic process so are more likely to be willing to work with people they disagree with. Obviously though, there is plenty of blame on both sides. One of the biggest problems is that the political system is inescapably corrupt. The corruption is mitigated to some extent by the ability of journalists to expose blatant corruption and abuses of power (an important role of a free press). The fact of the matter is that getting elected requires money, an enormous amount of money, and a lot of that money comes from people who expect special treatment in exchange. Politicians are human. They like the perks that come with being at the bidding of deep pocket special interests. So even though progressives are supposed to be advocates of public policies that are broadly beneficial, so called progressive politicians are less beholden to ordinary citizens than they are to those who finance their campaigns.

One of the end results is a general sense of futility, an emotional state that is easily exploited by demagogues. Politics thus becomes cultural warfare. Advocacy becomes purely symbolic. Politicians get elected based on hot button issues that are peripheral to doing what it takes to actually govern. The whole process becomes intractably polarized. There is little or no incentive to work together toward real solutions. Everything comes be about bashing the opposition.

The only way out of the morass that I can imagine would entail a grassroots movement of insistent citizens who are committed to bringing honesty and responsibility into the process. That is hard work. It involves swimming upstream. Most people prefer being told comforting lies over hard truths. However, enough of them eventually come around if the facts are made clear to them. Most people want to believe they are doing the right thing, even though they might not know exactly what that would look like. They are not stupid; they just haven't taken the time to really sort things out. The loudest voices are the well-financed shills who are telling them lies that are more appealing than the truth. The truth will win out in the end though if the responsible grown-ups in the room are willing to speak up with loving-kindness and patience. 

raising expecations

Attitude makes a big difference in how things turn out, but actually changing a less than helpful attitude is easier said than done. The difficulty is not that the way to get there is a big secret. We don't see it because we don't want to go where it would take us. The solution involves letting go of some of our most fundamental beliefs because of how they create, perpetuate, and exacerbate a vicious circle wherein the way we seek satisfaction yields bad outcomes which in turn produce disappointment, a soured attitude, and increasingly wrong-headed and dysfunctional approaches.

If we are not getting what we want out of life, we might need to step back and ask ourselves whether what we are pursuing is even capable of providing any actual satisfaction. If our best efforts are thwarted or if accomplishing what we set out to do leaves us feeling unfulfilled, just trying harder is probably not the solution. There is a pretty good chance that there is something fundamentally wrong with our approach. Conventional wisdom is that we just need to lower our expectations, but that is a prescription for even greater disappointment.

The only thing worse than unmet expectations is expecting too little out of life. The problem is not that we expect too much, but is instead that we expect too little. As the famous quote from the movie "Auntie Mame" goes, "Life is a banquet, and most poor suckers are starving to death". Too often, they are starving simply because they don't show up.

unpleasant truths and comforting lies

Truth claims are often intensely disputed, but that is all the more reason to be vigilant. Some methods for arriving at understandings of the truth are more reliable than others. In fact, some methods are blatantly dishonest, especially those that are tainted by a bias against science and, in general, any evidence that contradicts what they already believe. Scientific consensus is never final, but the very recognition that it is not final actually adds credibility. Truth claims that can't be questioned and tested are highly suspect. It is disingenuous to attack science on the basis that scientists change their minds.

Unfortunately, the sense of certainty that accompanies popular delusions can feel more true than the disconcerting uncertainty that accompanies honest evaluation of actual evidence, and there is nothing more dangerous than a mob of people who are absolutely convinced that they are right and therefore that they need to do whatever it takes to pursue what they believe needs to happen. To a great extent, the problem is in a shortage of critical thinking, but it actually goes deeper than that.

Even smart, highly educated people can get sucked into groupthink, which is collective stupidity that comes about when those who would dispute mainstream beliefs feel pressured to go along or when it just doesn’t even occur to anyone to ask questions. The textbook example of groupthink is the Challenger disaster. The remedy for groupthink is inherently uncomfortable because some of the questions that need to be asked would shake the very foundations of the prevailing value system. Sacred cows become fair game. Since what is being challenged is what seems like the only conceivable truth, the challenge is perceived to be obviously false. We can’t always trust what feels true or what feels like the right thing to do. We need to listen to what our hearts seem to be telling us, but we also need to keep our eyes open.   

being mindful of the big picture

Even when I was working as an ordained minister, I was more interested in the discipline of theological reflection as a way of framing questions than of providing answers. It seemed to me that the primary value in a lot of serious theology (as opposed to ordinary folk theology) was that it provided something other than easy answers. I didn't ignore the extent to which official theological doctrine was about maintaining power over people. I have to admit that I wasn't above using my arcane knowledge of theology to augment the power I had over laity. Nonetheless, I was mainly interested in theology as a body of work that could be mined for helpful resources. It was less about the content than it was about the search itself.

So I don't believe that becoming trained to think theologically was a total waste of time. Being practiced in posing big questions is somewhat rare these days. Almost everybody is a specialist. Few know or even much care about how each specialty fits into the big picture. Theology, prior to the scientific revolution, used to have the role of determining how everything fit together. Today, it is the physicists who are the most serious contenders for the role of probing the biggest questions that can be imagined. They have the most sound knowledge about cosmology. They are the ones who are working on what they call, in all seriousness, "a theory of everything".

I have my doubts about the possibility of formulating a theory of everything, not because of the limitations of human beings, but instead because the ultimate secrets of life are probably not reducible to a single theoretical construct. It seems to me that the attributes that are most helpful in the search for answers to life's deepest and most challenging questions are open-mindedness, honesty, humility, and being prepared for mind-blowing, life-changing surprises. I'm not wanting to go back to the mystification within which theology has traditionally been shrouded; however, I do believe that we would do well to restore mystery to a position of centrality. 

humanizing democracy

There is more to freedom of speech than individuals having the right to express themselves without being persecuted. While personal freedom is important, the main point of freedom of speech is democracy's need for a diversity of perspectives. We especially need the viewpoints and the active participation of those who are systematically excluded because of their socio-economic status, their ethnic background, their race, their gender, their sexual orientation, their religious beliefs, their lack of religious beliefs, or their outside-the-mainstream political views or because their farsighted, visionary ideas are not yet widely understood and thus might seem to be "out in left field".

The challenge is not just about how to overcome the stupefying effects of the herd instinct; it is perhaps even more about how to improve the signal-to-noise ratio. Most of our inability to hear distinct voices amidst the din of the crowd has to do with information overload. Democracy was far simpler when the criterion to be fully enfranchised was being a property-owning, educated white male. And actually, it is questionable whether the governmental design we inherited from the brilliant but hardly representative group of individuals who originally pioneered the basic idea of democracy is adequate to meet the needs of a fully representative democracy.

We have three options. First, we can just carry on with what we've been doing and thereby continue getting the results we've been getting. Second, we can create work-arounds whereby an activated citizenry can overcome the limitations of our current governance model. Or third, we can go back to the drawing board and invent democracy 2.0. In a perfect world, option three would be best, but obviously, we don't live in a perfect world. And actually, in order to get to option three, we would have to go through option two in order to institute the necessary reforms. Our work is cut out for us. 

humanizing civilization

Civilization inspires a lot of ambivalence. Some even believe that we would be far better off without it. Others just believe it is a necessary evil. It supposedly prevents us from the ideal, which is to live in a natural state; however, what that natural state would be is usually not especially informed by actual evidence from anthropology and evolutionary biology. 

What we call civilization was made possible by the Agricultural Revolution, which is thought to have occurred about 12,000 years ago. While that seems like a long time ago, it is not long enough ago for what has happened since then to have had much influence on human evolution. During the vast majority of the time between the emergence of the human species and now, our ancestors lived in hunter-gatherer bands, so having some understanding of what life was likely to have been like for those ancestors from whom we inherited our genetic predispositions would provide the insights into what our natural state might be. 

Evidence about hunter-gatherers past and present demonstrates that even before anything that would be considered civilization, human life was not what seventeenth century philosopher Thomas Hobbes called “a war of all against all”. The hunter-gatherer lifestyle is far from ruthlessly individualistic. The very survival of hunter-gatherers depends on cooperating with each other. They might be suspicious of and even hostile toward outsiders, but they are deeply bonded with and intensely loyal toward members of their own tight-knit group. And while they might be “uncivilized”, they aren’t without culture. 

Our natural state is to be participants in a culture that fosters caring, generosity, and cooperation. The basic idea of being civilized ought to be to enlarge the group with whom we are caring, generous, and cooperative. The stakes are much higher. War is no longer fought with bows and arrows against the neighboring tribe. We’ve now had two “world wars”, and the next world war would likely mean the end of human civilization as we know it. Nonetheless, we can’t go back to some mythical natural state. Our best option is become more civilized. That is the only path to the recovery of humanity. 

reframing dissatisfaction

A central question in being human is what to do with dissatisfaction. There is no one-size-fits-all solution, but the best strategy is usually a blend of finding satisfaction when it's possible and practicing patience when it's not immediately available. I might not always be able to directly scratch the actual itch I'm feeling, but I can always find something that provides some degree of satisfaction. If satisfaction is elusive, I might need to shift my focus, dig deeper, or go further.

Potential satisfactions might be right under my nose, or I might need to put some effort into breaking out of whatever it is that is limiting my search. There is a good chance that I'm making it more complicated than it needs to be. Human beings are more intellectually and psychologically complicated than other animals. Our power of imagination can be an affliction as well as an asset. Sometimes our restlessness is of our own making. We often don't really know what we want, or what we want is incapable of providing any actual satisfaction.

Distinctively human attributes have enabled us to enjoy significant success in the Darwinian survival game, but they can also create problems for us. It is possible to have an overly gloomy view of this. The Christian doctrine of original sin is not the only example of that. A thoroughly secular and objective assessment of the human capacity to do great harm to other living things, to each other, and to ourselves can easily lead to the belief that the planet would be better off without us. However, since eliminating the human menace through collective suicide doesn't feel like a very good solution, we are morally obligated to do what we can to improve the situation. But how do we do that?

Some would say that our only hope is divine intervention. They might argue that the main problem is that society has moved away from God and from traditional morality, even though there is no chance of ever finding agreement on just what society returning to God and to traditional morality would even look like. Or they might believe that the best path is to hasten the apocalypse. Thus increasing the likelihood of human demise through nuclear annihilation or radical climate change seems like a good idea to them. For the rest of us though, such talk leads away from rather than toward an actual solution.

There is a reason that society has become increasingly secular in modern times. As the world has grown smaller and cultures are bumping up against each other, often leading to pointless and devastating wars, it has become more and more clear that the global public arena needs to be a space that is judiciously neutral with regard to religion and matters of private morality. That doesn't mean that society would become amoral. It is just that we make a distinction between, on the one hand, morality that is in the public interest (like "thou shalt not kill") and, on the other hand, morality that falls strictly into the realm of personal values.

What we have in common with each other is our humanity. That has to be the basis of public morality, and while some don't have a lot of confidence in the human capacity for good, it is our only hope. Only if we are able to feel empathy and act compassionately can we make any progress toward peace and general wellbeing. It is also the most reliable way to still our restless hearts, since much of our dissatisfaction is caused directly and indirectly by our repressed awareness of troubling realities. We can't solve the problem of human suffering, but we can each find what is in our hearts that can contribute to its mitigation.

rebirth

If being born again is good, why would we limit ourselves to a once-and-for-all experience of it? Why can't we be reborn every day even? Every new day requires a renewal of outlook so that we don't limit ourselves to old beliefs about ourselves and about what we are capable of. Being open to new possibilities requires that we make active choices to be welcoming when opportunities present themselves. Allowing inertia to make choices for us is to be asleep and barely alive. We need to bestir ourselves. We need to disrupt the status quo. We need to question what we've been told. We need to question inadequately examined beliefs we have adopted. 

If being born again is to have any meaning at all, shouldn't it introduce something new instead of merely leading to compliant acceptance of an outdated belief system? We celebrate the new life that children bring into our midst, so why is it often so hard for us to embrace that gift of new life and see it for what it is? If being born again would actually resemble literal birth, shouldn't it be bursting with new possibilities instead of merely being about becoming obedient to authority?

There is an unfortunate attitude toward children that often accompanies traditional religious beliefs. That attitude takes many forms, but at its essence it is about caring more about getting them to fit in than about truly appreciating who they are and the freshness their lively presence introduces. Some Christians talk about the necessity of breaking the will of their children. That approach to parenting is consistent with the doctrine of original sin, which teaches that human beings are born sinful and that our only chance for being saved from our sinfulness and its consequences is through the grace God.

I have all kinds of problems with the idea of original sin, but the point I want to make here is that we should be less concerned with taming children and more with fostering their giftedness. We have more to learn from them than they have to learn from us. We can teach them how to do some things that are generally helpful, but they keep us on our toes and remind us of what is most important.

Left to our own devises, most of us as adults naturally choose what we are used to over disruptive change. We equate wisdom with prudence. We get more conservative as we grow older. I find that rather sad. It feels like acquiescing to a so-called life that is dead to itself. How wise is that? How smart is it to deprive ourselves of the best of what life has to offer? What do we gain by avoiding risks at all costs if the main result is dying a thousand figurative deaths before arriving at the literal death that we fear so much.

However, rejecting the life that comes with each present moment in order to protect a life that we will never really live is less about conscious choice than it is about seemingly innocuous (and perhaps even ostensibly sensible) failures to show up. Which brings me back to the theme of being born again. Most of us would benefit from being born again if that is understood as a return to a childlike relationship with life in all its fullness. 

toward a warmer secularism

Many secular-minded individuals are rather hypocritical in the way they demand tolerance but often don't practice it themselves. Religion per se is not the enemy. Making religion the enemy only adds to the problem. The problem is that modern society tends to be inhospitable. Its being inhospitable is the inevitable byproduct of cultural collisions. We are thrust together with people we don't understand. Many of their values are alien and even contrary to ours. It is hard to be sympathetic toward cultures that condone so-called "honor killing" for example.

Secularists obviously don't want to make de-conversion a mirror image of conversion. What we can do though is provide viable alternatives. Secularism tends to be relatively impoverished emotionally. It is easy to understand why so many otherwise quite sensible people feel drawn to religion. I believe that if there were more emotionally warm secular alternatives, religion would lose much of its draw.

We are heirs to a splendid legacy that we have inherited from brave pioneers who were guided by a vision of a world that would be guided by reality-based reasoning. Many of those pioneers underestimated the difficulties their successors would encounter. They had their own difficulties with their superstitious contemporaries, but they believed that reason would eventually triumph once enough people began to get a taste of freedom. Theirs was a worthy vision that can still inspire us even though we seem further away from its realization than ever. 

The revolutionary thinkers whose legacy is constitutional democracy understood some of the inherent dangers and thus put safeguards in place, but who among them could have imagined their baby growing up to choose Donald Trump as its president. We seem to have made a wrong turn somewhere along the way, but I don't think we did it on purpose. Perhaps the greatest factor in our ending up where we are is backlash.

It might seem strange that there are a lot of people who honestly believe that political correctness is the source of all our problems, but it is not so strange if we view it in context. It is a solipsistic conflation of feelings and beliefs. They feel put down, and they, not wholly without warrant, believe that their being put down says everything about the extent to which democracy has been undermined.

Their (solipsistic) inability to imagine democracy as anything other than people like them getting their way creates a no-win situation for everybody. They would rather steer the ship into the rocks as one big "f*** you" than accept the imperatives of a culturally pluralistic democracy, and everybody is paying the price now and probably will for years to come.

How do we recover from this cultural, social, and political crisis? How do we calm the storm created by backlash? How do we recapture a vision of a truly inclusive civil society? What is the message that we can put on the banners that we would raise high?