In this brief video, a writer for the NY Times (Anthony Tommasini) explores a beautiful moment in one of Chopin's ballades. It's worth a quick watch if you're a fan of music and harmonics.
Monday, November 19, 2012
Saturday, November 17, 2012
"The Singularity": Myth? Reality?
Many of you know that I listen to lots of podcasts. One that I recently picked up is called "Stuff You Should Know", which recently broadcast this episode about something called "The Singularity". First of all, what is "The Singularity"? Admitting my limited knowledge in this area, The Singularity seems to be the moment when, intentionally or accidentally, computers/networks become self-aware and possess greater intelligence than human beings. Some scientists working in the field of artificial intelligence with computers predict that this will occur around the year 2030, others suspect it may take a few decades longer, but most technologists seems to agree that it will happen.
I am intrigued by this idea, and would like to pose a few questions and make some general comments. I can be a bit of a luddite, so perhaps my comments should be taken with a grain of salt.
I'm no technology expert, but the idea of a computer or a network of computers becoming "self-aware" doesn't seem very logical. I'm not sure how a machine can suddenly obtain self-awareness. Many people talk about this as though it is a threshold, and computers just haven't reached it yet, as if it is a fore-gone conclusion that they will reach it. I don't agree with the concept of self-awareness as a threshold; it seems to me that it is an innate quality of the soul. I've never heard anyone sufficiently explain how a computer/network would become self-aware.
Furthermore, when one listens to people talk about "The Singularity", there is an implication that with self-awareness comes will or volition. This is not necessarily true. The concept of "will" is complex even to describe, and certainly no one can explain the origins of volition. Where do our desires, as human beings, come from? How do we decide to act upon our desires? How do we convert ideas into actions? No one has adequate answers to these questions, and the idea that one could "program" them into a computer is ridiculous, as is the idea that these elements could suddenly, spontaneously arise from a machine.
As evidence of this imminent Singularity, many scientists point out that in 15-20 years, we will be able to create a computer that has more computational power than the human brain. First of all, the human brain is about more than computational power. It is the seat of judgement, inference, hypothesis, etc. No transistor, regardless of its computational power, has the ability to generate these complex higher functions of the brain (what psychologists call the "executive" functions). Ever since humanity became enamored with machines in the 18th and 19th centuries, people have been trying to compare the human body and the human brain to a machine. This analogy is simply false. Humans are not some kind of organic machine. Our brains are not some sort of chemical computer. We are infinitely more complex than the wildest unattained dreams of any scientists/technologists. So much of how we operate as a person, where our identity comes from, how our personality is formed and extended, etc. remains a mystery.
I think the root of this conundrum is how one thinks about "intelligence". I am always hesitant to speak of "intelligence" with my students, because it is so easily mis-understood. Many people believe that intelligence is a fixed quality, that it can be demonstrated and measured, and that if we can simply get a computer to display "intelligence" in the same way we measure human intelligence, then we'll have reached this Singularity. I, however, respectfully disagree. I think that our attempts to measure human intelligence are inadequate at best. No test can truly measure a human being's intelligence, because intelligence is too multi-faceted to fit neatly inside of a test. There are too many dimensions to intelligence to fully describe any human being's intelligence. I humbly submit the idea that the totality of the human experience cannot be replicated or even approached by a machine. Our lives are too full of beauty (completely unquantifiable), mystery (indescribable), and a richness of experience (both internal [psycho-social-emotional] and external [physical]) to be computed or calculated or replicated by a machine.
I suspect that 20-30 years from now, there will still be individuals working on artificial intelligence and the Singularity. And I think they will have made some remarkable discoveries and contributions to humanity. But I do not believe that we will have computers that can approximate human beings or that somehow represent "the next stage in evolution or intelligence".
I am intrigued by this idea, and would like to pose a few questions and make some general comments. I can be a bit of a luddite, so perhaps my comments should be taken with a grain of salt.
I'm no technology expert, but the idea of a computer or a network of computers becoming "self-aware" doesn't seem very logical. I'm not sure how a machine can suddenly obtain self-awareness. Many people talk about this as though it is a threshold, and computers just haven't reached it yet, as if it is a fore-gone conclusion that they will reach it. I don't agree with the concept of self-awareness as a threshold; it seems to me that it is an innate quality of the soul. I've never heard anyone sufficiently explain how a computer/network would become self-aware.
Furthermore, when one listens to people talk about "The Singularity", there is an implication that with self-awareness comes will or volition. This is not necessarily true. The concept of "will" is complex even to describe, and certainly no one can explain the origins of volition. Where do our desires, as human beings, come from? How do we decide to act upon our desires? How do we convert ideas into actions? No one has adequate answers to these questions, and the idea that one could "program" them into a computer is ridiculous, as is the idea that these elements could suddenly, spontaneously arise from a machine.
As evidence of this imminent Singularity, many scientists point out that in 15-20 years, we will be able to create a computer that has more computational power than the human brain. First of all, the human brain is about more than computational power. It is the seat of judgement, inference, hypothesis, etc. No transistor, regardless of its computational power, has the ability to generate these complex higher functions of the brain (what psychologists call the "executive" functions). Ever since humanity became enamored with machines in the 18th and 19th centuries, people have been trying to compare the human body and the human brain to a machine. This analogy is simply false. Humans are not some kind of organic machine. Our brains are not some sort of chemical computer. We are infinitely more complex than the wildest unattained dreams of any scientists/technologists. So much of how we operate as a person, where our identity comes from, how our personality is formed and extended, etc. remains a mystery.
I think the root of this conundrum is how one thinks about "intelligence". I am always hesitant to speak of "intelligence" with my students, because it is so easily mis-understood. Many people believe that intelligence is a fixed quality, that it can be demonstrated and measured, and that if we can simply get a computer to display "intelligence" in the same way we measure human intelligence, then we'll have reached this Singularity. I, however, respectfully disagree. I think that our attempts to measure human intelligence are inadequate at best. No test can truly measure a human being's intelligence, because intelligence is too multi-faceted to fit neatly inside of a test. There are too many dimensions to intelligence to fully describe any human being's intelligence. I humbly submit the idea that the totality of the human experience cannot be replicated or even approached by a machine. Our lives are too full of beauty (completely unquantifiable), mystery (indescribable), and a richness of experience (both internal [psycho-social-emotional] and external [physical]) to be computed or calculated or replicated by a machine.
I suspect that 20-30 years from now, there will still be individuals working on artificial intelligence and the Singularity. And I think they will have made some remarkable discoveries and contributions to humanity. But I do not believe that we will have computers that can approximate human beings or that somehow represent "the next stage in evolution or intelligence".
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Anonymity of the Internet and Free Speech
Peter DeWitt wrote an excellent article in Education Week about social media and freedom of speech which you can read by clicking here. I particularly enjoyed his comment in the article that "Those people posting negative comments on Facebook were negative before Facebook ever started." There is a lot of discussion about cyber-bullying on social networks, and anyone who has ever read the "comments" on any controversial on-line article knows that adults can be just as bad (if not worse). One of the things we see on the internet is that the ability to be anonymous certainly influences some people to write things that they would never say out loud. And sometimes, although the person is not anonymous, s/he knows that s/he is commenting on the work of someone half-a-world away whom s/he will never have to look in the eyes. But I have discovered that even in situations where adults are not anonymous and they are writing to persons they know rather well and will certainly have to continue seeing face-to-face, they feel empowered to make hurtful and uncivil comments.
I spend considerable time in my classroom working with students on developing the life-skills of politeness and civility. I don't know where parents are on this, but I must be blunt when I say that these are basic skills that a majority of students (at all socio-economic levels) lack. It takes time and patience to teach students that just because I think something is true, and just because I can say it, doesn't necessarily mean that I should say it. I refer readers back to my post on Chaminade's silence of words: "Speak only when you will it, and will it only when it is necessary."
Scripture tells us that the power of life and death is wielded by the tongue (Proverbs 18:21). I think, we, as adults, need to set an example for children both in life and on-line of using our words to foster life and growth. Positive and uplifting speech should be our norm. We need to cut unnecessary negative, judgmental, hurtful, gossipy comments out of our speech, and restore our speech (particularly our public speech) to a more civil level.
I spend considerable time in my classroom working with students on developing the life-skills of politeness and civility. I don't know where parents are on this, but I must be blunt when I say that these are basic skills that a majority of students (at all socio-economic levels) lack. It takes time and patience to teach students that just because I think something is true, and just because I can say it, doesn't necessarily mean that I should say it. I refer readers back to my post on Chaminade's silence of words: "Speak only when you will it, and will it only when it is necessary."
Scripture tells us that the power of life and death is wielded by the tongue (Proverbs 18:21). I think, we, as adults, need to set an example for children both in life and on-line of using our words to foster life and growth. Positive and uplifting speech should be our norm. We need to cut unnecessary negative, judgmental, hurtful, gossipy comments out of our speech, and restore our speech (particularly our public speech) to a more civil level.
Saturday, November 3, 2012
Thirst for Knowledge
One of the ways I define myself is as a seeker of truth, beauty, and wisdom. I am a life-long learner. That concept is at the heart of this blog. I realized that as someone who continues to challenge himself to learn new things, read (and re-read) great books, and to ponder the deeper questions of life, that a blog about my intellectual journey might be worth sharing. I have observed over the past year that many people (of varying ages, races, and walks of life) tend to fall into one of two categories: self-induced learners and non-self-induced learners.
This has come to light not only in my classroom (all teachers will tell you that students come in both varieties; and students who are not self-induced learners can certainly grow to become self-induced learners as adults), but in conversations with other teachers and with my wife (who deals with these different kinds of people in a business setting). A friend of mine has recently asked me to give her some instruction in Latin, because she wants to recapture a sense of what it’s like to be a student. She is an excellent example of an adult who is a self-induced learner. She isn’t getting anything out of this experience other than knowledge. She’s pursuing this purely for the self-edifying aspect of learning a new language, expanding her own knowledge and perspective. I’ve been reading about the ancient Minoan civilization, and expanding my own knowledge of Bronze Age civilizations.
There is a thirst for knowledge and an ability to investigate and “work up” a subject on one’s own that some people just seem to have instinctively. I cannot say where it comes from; but it is immensely helpful. In business, for example, people with this instinct are able to quickly pick-up on office protocol and procedure; they also learn the ins and outs of their specific company’s business more quickly than those who don’t have this instinct. In academia, this instinct is essential for authentic learning; past a certain point, real educators stop spoon-feeding you information, and start expecting you to find it on your own. If you don’t have an internal drive to learn and acquire knowledge, then this is going to be challenging.
I wish I could say that there is some sure-fire method for helping children cultivate an internal drive to learn. Certainly it seems that exposing children to many perspectives and experiences is a key pre-requisite to helping them develop an thirst for knowledge. The other thing that seems possible is that it is a kind of learned behavior; children who see this internal drive to learn in adults mimic it until it becomes part of their own personality.
Anyway, I guess the fact that you, gentle reader, are taking time to read a blog about books, reading, and life-long education, puts you in the category of “self-induced learners”. So keep up the good work!
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Thomas Cole...
In my ongoing series on beautiful things, I wanted to high-light a series of paintings created by Thomas Cole. Not only do I think each of the paintings individually are beautiful in their own right, but I also find the series and its theme to be powerful and captivating. The series is entitled: "The Course of an Empire". In it, Cole attempts to capture snapshots of the stages a civilization goes through as it develops, reaches its pinnacle, declines, and eventually disappears. Here are the five paintings:
"The Savage State"
"The Pastoral State"
"Consummation"
"Destruction"
"Desolation"
I hesitate to say too much, because such beauty is better experienced than dissected, but I have always loved "The Savage State" in particular. There is something wild and chaotic about it that captivates me. The dark and bold colors make me think of the chaos out of which God created the order of the universe. As with all wilderness, there is an ominous feeling that something dangerous could happen at any moment. The dark clouds lend to that sentiment.
Saturday, October 27, 2012
What's Education For?
I was at a conference of educators yesterday. I had been invited to sit on a panel concerning the integration of professional learning communities in schools (primary and secondary). One of the attendees asked the panel how we dealt with the mindset of parents, who expect our schools to produce a certain “product” (i.e. to form their children into a certain mold). I often hear educators talking about students as “products”, and I find this terminology disturbing. It seems to me that there are two major mindsets in the educational world right now.
The first mindset is what I’ll call the “product” mindset. Educators in this mindset think of students as raw material that they must shape and form into a pre-ordained mold. They think of schools as factories that take in all different kinds of raw material and churn out homogeneous “products” (i.e. students) to certain specifications. This mindset comes out of the application of principles from the industrial revolution to the field of education. Many parents and current teachers went through an educational system that treated them this way, and so this is how they conceive of “school”.
The problem I see with this perspective is that every child comes to school as a unique individual; every child has different interests, natural talents, background, family, interest in school, work ethic, perspective, mindset, fears, hopes, dreams, habits, cultures, etc. Personally, I have always been a believer and a follower of the classical “liberal arts”--the skills which, once mastered, set the learner free (i.e. liberate her/him); and which help her/him be a better human being today than s/he was yesterday. I believe authentic education is more about discovering one’s self and one’s place in the kosmos (order of the universe/world) than about learning pre-determined facts.
I don’t see my students as raw material that I need to shape into some desired “product”. Rather, I see my students as individuals, and I try to be a mirror for their souls, to help them discover their true nature, their gifts, their deep selves, and their place in the world, so they can go forth and be authentic human beings who can contribute positively to a global society.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Beauty...what's it good for?
In Howard Gardner's latest book, "Truth, Beauty, and Goodness Reframed: Educating for Virtues in the Age of Truthiness and Twitter", he posits an idea that everyone should begin a collection of beautiful things as children that they keep and curate throughout their lives. I was struck by this idea when I read it, and I have a certain mental list of these kinds of things. But it occurs to me that it would be worthwhile to regularly post some of my personal objects of beauty on this blog to share with others; many are pieces of excellent writing, music, or visual art.
Before I do, however, I would like to engage the question in the title of this post: what is beauty good for? I don't think anyone would say that beauty is bad, but I think many people consider it a secondary concern in their lives. Many people would suggest that beauty is not more important than food, shelter, clean water, etc. I would respond that Beauty, true Beauty, should not be thought of as something separate from the everyday events of our lives. Why can't food be beautiful? It is difficult to imagine something more mundane than a work commute, but I have seen some of the most beautiful sunrises while driving to work in the morning.
I prefer to think of Beauty as something I swim in, or breath, like air. It's all around me all the time, and depending on my own mental state and my perceptiveness and level of pre-occupation or distraction, I am more or less tuned into the Beauty around me at any given moment. This time of year seems to lend itself to this kind of awareness with the extreme natural beauty of autumn (colorful leaves, pumpkins, striking sunrises and sunsets, the taste of apple cider and pumpkin pie...all beautiful things).
I would argue that Beauty is an essential element of the well-lived human life. There is something about our human nature that drives us to seek out beautiful things: a mountain, an ocean, a beautiful statue, building, or painting, a beautiful combination of flavors in food or drink, or a flower. When we are aware of our surroundings and the beauty in life, we are happier and more whole-some (i.e. more integrated and complete). Extreme beauty can also give us a sense of our place in the cosmos. There is nothing as humbling or as peaceful as standing in the presence of beauty and soaking it up.
So, find something beautiful today! For my part, I thought I'd kick my sharing of beautiful things off with the "Prelude" of Bach's Cello Concerto No. 1 in G Major. If you're not familiar with this piece, I've included a link to Mischa Maisky playing it below. Enjoy!
Before I do, however, I would like to engage the question in the title of this post: what is beauty good for? I don't think anyone would say that beauty is bad, but I think many people consider it a secondary concern in their lives. Many people would suggest that beauty is not more important than food, shelter, clean water, etc. I would respond that Beauty, true Beauty, should not be thought of as something separate from the everyday events of our lives. Why can't food be beautiful? It is difficult to imagine something more mundane than a work commute, but I have seen some of the most beautiful sunrises while driving to work in the morning.
I prefer to think of Beauty as something I swim in, or breath, like air. It's all around me all the time, and depending on my own mental state and my perceptiveness and level of pre-occupation or distraction, I am more or less tuned into the Beauty around me at any given moment. This time of year seems to lend itself to this kind of awareness with the extreme natural beauty of autumn (colorful leaves, pumpkins, striking sunrises and sunsets, the taste of apple cider and pumpkin pie...all beautiful things).
I would argue that Beauty is an essential element of the well-lived human life. There is something about our human nature that drives us to seek out beautiful things: a mountain, an ocean, a beautiful statue, building, or painting, a beautiful combination of flavors in food or drink, or a flower. When we are aware of our surroundings and the beauty in life, we are happier and more whole-some (i.e. more integrated and complete). Extreme beauty can also give us a sense of our place in the cosmos. There is nothing as humbling or as peaceful as standing in the presence of beauty and soaking it up.
So, find something beautiful today! For my part, I thought I'd kick my sharing of beautiful things off with the "Prelude" of Bach's Cello Concerto No. 1 in G Major. If you're not familiar with this piece, I've included a link to Mischa Maisky playing it below. Enjoy!
Saturday, October 20, 2012
Analytical Reading (part 1)
I've recently started reading a new book by Gavin Menzies entitled The Lost Empire of Atlantis. I thought that I would take this opportunity to give a practical walk-through of some of the steps of analytical reading as described by Adler and Van Doren in How to Read a Book. The first step centers around the idea of gathering as much basic information about the book as quickly as possible without really reading anything. (I know, it sounds counter-intuitive, but it's a good first step.) Adler and Van Doren call this "Inspectional Reading", but I think it's a good first step to take in Analytical Reading too...
Step 1: Know what kind of book you're reading. For me, this new book is non-fiction in the history genre. Gavin Menzies is a retired naval officer and has written other books about naval history. This is a good time to inspect the obvious elements of the book: title, table of contents, index, dust-jacket notes. The full title of the book is: "The Lost Empire of Atlantis: History's Greatest Mystery Revealed: The astonishing true story of the rise and violent end of the Minoans, the forgotten ancient civilization that discovered America and sparked the Atlantis legend". This is a very descriptive title. The author is telling me up front that he will be linking the legend of Atlantis to the ancient Minoan civilization. He also claims that this is a "true story", and he tells us that he will claim that the Minoans discovered America. These are some bold claims for a subtitle! I don't want to type the entire dust jacket here, but it goes on to tell me that Menzies will be presenting geological, archeological, and DNA evidence.
It never hurts to know a little about your author as well, particularly on what authority he makes his claims and what others in his field think about him. The copious quotes from newspapers and book-reviewers that publishers tend to put all over the dust-jacket and the inside of a book now-a-days can give you some insight, but it is important to remember that the publisher is obviously only going to put good things in there.
The next two things you want to inspect are the table of contents and index. Browsing through the index, I notice some of the entries which occur often or have multiple sub-headings are: stars, Thera, ships, tin, pyramids, navigation, Minoans, Mycenae, languages, Lake Superior, Knossos, Homer, Ireland, India, Egypt, Crete, cotton, copper, animals, and Americas. This further supports the information I've already discovered that points to a book about a Minoan sea-faring civilization that had a vast trading empire (note all the various locations that are prominent in the index, as well as the goods which would have been traded...). The prominence of tin and copper are no surprise, as the Minoan civilization was a Bronze Age civilization, and those are the two metals that create Bronze.
Also, Menzies provides a wonderfully analytic table of contents that really breaks his book down into logical sub-sections. The 41 chapters are grouped into six sections. I don't want to type out the whole table of contents, but I will list the six sections here, and you can see how they give the reader a good idea of where the author is going: 1) Discovery: The Minoan Civilization ; 2) Exploration: Voyages to the Near East ; 3) Journeys West ; 4) Examining the Heavens ; 5) The Reaches of Empire ; 6) The Legacy.
One last preliminary note: this is also a good time to check out maps and other auxiliary items the author might have added. In the case of my book, there are extensive maps, pictures, and timelines. All of these support the conclusions about the book that I've mentioned above.
Step 1: Know what kind of book you're reading. For me, this new book is non-fiction in the history genre. Gavin Menzies is a retired naval officer and has written other books about naval history. This is a good time to inspect the obvious elements of the book: title, table of contents, index, dust-jacket notes. The full title of the book is: "The Lost Empire of Atlantis: History's Greatest Mystery Revealed: The astonishing true story of the rise and violent end of the Minoans, the forgotten ancient civilization that discovered America and sparked the Atlantis legend". This is a very descriptive title. The author is telling me up front that he will be linking the legend of Atlantis to the ancient Minoan civilization. He also claims that this is a "true story", and he tells us that he will claim that the Minoans discovered America. These are some bold claims for a subtitle! I don't want to type the entire dust jacket here, but it goes on to tell me that Menzies will be presenting geological, archeological, and DNA evidence.
It never hurts to know a little about your author as well, particularly on what authority he makes his claims and what others in his field think about him. The copious quotes from newspapers and book-reviewers that publishers tend to put all over the dust-jacket and the inside of a book now-a-days can give you some insight, but it is important to remember that the publisher is obviously only going to put good things in there.
The next two things you want to inspect are the table of contents and index. Browsing through the index, I notice some of the entries which occur often or have multiple sub-headings are: stars, Thera, ships, tin, pyramids, navigation, Minoans, Mycenae, languages, Lake Superior, Knossos, Homer, Ireland, India, Egypt, Crete, cotton, copper, animals, and Americas. This further supports the information I've already discovered that points to a book about a Minoan sea-faring civilization that had a vast trading empire (note all the various locations that are prominent in the index, as well as the goods which would have been traded...). The prominence of tin and copper are no surprise, as the Minoan civilization was a Bronze Age civilization, and those are the two metals that create Bronze.
Also, Menzies provides a wonderfully analytic table of contents that really breaks his book down into logical sub-sections. The 41 chapters are grouped into six sections. I don't want to type out the whole table of contents, but I will list the six sections here, and you can see how they give the reader a good idea of where the author is going: 1) Discovery: The Minoan Civilization ; 2) Exploration: Voyages to the Near East ; 3) Journeys West ; 4) Examining the Heavens ; 5) The Reaches of Empire ; 6) The Legacy.
One last preliminary note: this is also a good time to check out maps and other auxiliary items the author might have added. In the case of my book, there are extensive maps, pictures, and timelines. All of these support the conclusions about the book that I've mentioned above.
Friday, October 19, 2012
Crop rotation?
I'm working on a series of posts about analytical reading, but until they're ready, I read a fascinating article today about how crop rotation combined with the integration of live-stock into the farming business can drastically reduce the need for chemicals, and can actually increase yield! Check it out by clicking here.
Monday, October 15, 2012
Are we forming an elite ruling class in the US?
The following thoughts were inspired by two articles in the NY Times this week: "Which Millionaire Are You Voting For?" and "The Self Destruction of the 1 Percent".
In the first article, "Which Millionaire Are You Voting For?", the author discusses the decreasing representation of the working class in politics and its influence on the government's policies. In "The Self Destruction of the 1 Percent", the author discusses how in Venice, an elite class grew out of favorable economic policies that created an open environment for social mobility, and then closed the pathway to social mobility to those who might come after them, effectively choking off social mobility and becoming extractive rather than inclusive. The oligarchs began to extract as much money as they could from the lower classes to enrich themselves. Ultimately, this was a failing strategy that caused Venice to decline as a global political and economic power.
The confluence of these two articles struck me deeply. In the United States, right now, about 94% of households (which tends to be 2 incomes) have an income of less than $174,000, which is the annual salary for senators and members of the House of Representatives, on their own. Just being elected to Congress automatically puts a congressman/woman in the top 6% of wage earners in the US. As the author of "Which Millionaire Are You Voting For?" points out, the fiscal policies adopted by Congress tend to reflect what's best for those individuals in the top 5-6%, rather than the other 95% of the country. (statistics from payscale.com) In fact, his essential argument is that for a country to be "for the people", it must also be made up "of the people". The reality is that many of our elected officials today don't really represent average Americans in their economic make-up.
Meanwhile, there has been an increasing gap between the richest 1% of the country and the other 99%. Check out this graph from Mother Jones:
So, it seems to me that there is a pretty strong case to be made for a growing "elite class" of Americans who are extracting resources from the rest of the country rather than working to create a society with high potential mobility and open doors for advancement rather than a closed society in which the "elite class" builds its wealth on the backs of the rest of society.
As a society, we're becoming dangerously unbalanced economically, and if we don't find a way to sort things out and create a society that is more open and has better social mobility and room for people to move up, we're going to lose economic and political clout around the world. This is what happened in Venice and in many other ancient civilizations.
In the first article, "Which Millionaire Are You Voting For?", the author discusses the decreasing representation of the working class in politics and its influence on the government's policies. In "The Self Destruction of the 1 Percent", the author discusses how in Venice, an elite class grew out of favorable economic policies that created an open environment for social mobility, and then closed the pathway to social mobility to those who might come after them, effectively choking off social mobility and becoming extractive rather than inclusive. The oligarchs began to extract as much money as they could from the lower classes to enrich themselves. Ultimately, this was a failing strategy that caused Venice to decline as a global political and economic power.
The confluence of these two articles struck me deeply. In the United States, right now, about 94% of households (which tends to be 2 incomes) have an income of less than $174,000, which is the annual salary for senators and members of the House of Representatives, on their own. Just being elected to Congress automatically puts a congressman/woman in the top 6% of wage earners in the US. As the author of "Which Millionaire Are You Voting For?" points out, the fiscal policies adopted by Congress tend to reflect what's best for those individuals in the top 5-6%, rather than the other 95% of the country. (statistics from payscale.com) In fact, his essential argument is that for a country to be "for the people", it must also be made up "of the people". The reality is that many of our elected officials today don't really represent average Americans in their economic make-up.
Meanwhile, there has been an increasing gap between the richest 1% of the country and the other 99%. Check out this graph from Mother Jones:
So, in the last 30 years, overall wages have remained relatively flat, while productivity has increased by 80%! That's nearly double the productivity! Increased productivity typically comes from people working harder, which means that we have people working harder but making almost no more money for their extra work. Increased productivity usually leads to increased profits. One might expect to see those increasing profits from the increased productivity going to overall wages... Meanwhile, in the same 30 years, the income of the top 1% of wage earners has increased 240%. Hmm... I wonder where all that profit went?
Check out this info-graphic from ritholtz.com:
As a society, we're becoming dangerously unbalanced economically, and if we don't find a way to sort things out and create a society that is more open and has better social mobility and room for people to move up, we're going to lose economic and political clout around the world. This is what happened in Venice and in many other ancient civilizations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)