Solitude and Population Pressure

In today’s crowded world, even Yosemite in summer can’t provide necessary solitude

Fresno Bee, July 21, 2017

John Muir extolled the solitude of Yosemite. In 1899 he said, “Nearly all the park is a profound solitude.” That may have been true at the close of the 19th century. But if you want solitude today, stay away from Yosemite Valley on summer weekends.

One weekend in June, we were stopped by traffic in Fish Camp, a few miles from the park’s south entrance. We turned around and retreated to Fresno Dome, where we had the place to ourselves.

But Fresno Dome does not compare to the Yosemite wonderland. So on a more recent weekend, we got an earlier start. Precious few parking spots remained in Yosemite Valley. The busses were mobbed. The trails were crowded. Teeming throngs jostled to pose for pictures. So much for solitude.

SOLITUDE IS QUICKLY BECOMING A RELIC OF AN OLDER WORLD.

In Muir’s day only 1.5 million people lived in California. Thirty years ago, our population had not yet reached 28 million. Today, there are nearly 40 millionof us. By 2035, there will be 45 millionCalifornians.

The population issue is vexing. It quickly connects to questions about birth control, sex education and reproductive rights. These are contentious issues. In April, the United States cut funding to the UN Population Fund due to concerns about abortion.

But it is still worth asking: how many people are too many? At the turn of the 20th century the global population was 1.6 billion. The current global population is 7.6 billion. By 2050, we will near the 10 billion mark.

Yosemite on the weekend is a microcosm of our crowded future. Sometimes there is literally nowhere to park and no room on the bus. New parking lots and bigger busses could help. But making the Valley more accessible will not solve the fundamental problem, which is that crowds destroy solitude.

Solitude is quickly becoming a relic of an older world. How rarely we are alone. Our electronic devices keep us occupied and connected. Our lives are crammed, cramped, and congested. Our minds are as crowded as our streets.

The world’s spiritual traditions have often advocated solitude. Jesus spent 40 days praying in the desert. The Greek word for desert—also translated as wilderness—becomes the English word “hermit.”

Thomas Merton, an American Christian monk, explained that desert hermits sought to purge away the superficial self so that “the true, secret self” could emerge. He warned that without solitude, we lose our true humanity. He wrote, “When men are violently deprived of the solitude and freedom which are their due, the society in which they live becomes putrid, it festers with servility, resentment and hate.”

Solitude is connected to the experience of wonder. It inspires humility. And it opens the door to reflection and insight.

Go to Glacier Point at the crack of dawn, when no one else is there. Sitting alone on the edge of the world provides a revelation. That insight is lost when excited tourists pile out of buses and pose for selfies.

PRESERVING SPIRITUAL HEALTH IN A CROWDED WORLD
IS AS MUCH OF A CHALLENGE AS PRESERVING WILDERNESS.

Of course, the same kind of solitary wonder can be experienced at home. Take a walk in your neighborhood at dawn. Find a library or church. Or simply close your eyes and sit in silence.

Those moments of quiet aloneness are essential for spiritual hygiene. To be alone is to be “all one”—to find a sense of self, integrity and wholeness. We need silence and solitude as much as we need friendship and dance and song.

Sometimes “the more the merrier” is the right motto. We can even experience a shared sense of solitude in the company of others, as when good friends pause together in hushed admiration of nature’s wonders.

All of this is a matter of dosage and degree. Saints may find enlightenment in 40 days of solitude. The rest of us can only handle a moderate dose. But the same is true of crowds and congestion—a little goes a long way.

The long-term challenge of managing the masses will require ingenuity and care. Preserving spiritual health in a crowded world is as much of a challenge as preserving wilderness.

In the short term, we can still find solitude. Turn off the phone. Sit in silence. Greet the dawn. And go to Yosemite—but not on the weekend.

http://www.fresnobee.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/andrew-fiala/article162924573.html

July 14, 2017November 18, 2017

Nepotism and the Trump White House

Nepotism has no place in American democracy, but Trump does not practice that truth

Fresno Bee, July 14, 2017

Donald Trump Jr. jumped into Russia-gate this week. And we have yet another reason to be wary of nepotism. The benign interpretation of Trump Jr.’s Russian meeting is that he is a political neophyte, clueless about the impropriety of trying to get dirt on Hillary Clinton from Russia. He said on Fox television’s “Sean Hannity” show, “In retrospect I probably would have done things a little differently.”

But there are no “do overs” in the big leagues. Experienced and expertise really do matter. The problem with nepotism is that family members get the job, whether they are qualified or not.

The family members of presidents may be smart, virtuous people. Or they may be embarrassing goofballs like Billy Carter. But in most cases, these relatives lack relevant experience, education and expertise.

And anyway, we only elect one person to office at a time. The voters picked Donald Trump Sr. to be president. We did not elect his son, son-in-law, or daughter.

When Ivanka Trump sat in for President Trump last week at the G20 Summit, Trump critics howled. The president tweeted that such criticism should go both ways. He wrote, “If Chelsea Clinton were asked to hold the seat for her mother, as her mother gave our country away, the Fake News would say CHELSEA FOR PRES.”

THE VOTERS PICKED DONALD TRUMP SR. TO BE PRESIDENT.
WE DID NOT ELECT HIS SON, SON-IN-LAW, OR DAUGHTER.

Trump is right. Nepotism is as wrong for the goose as it is for the gander. If Hillary Clinton had been elected, it would be wrong of her to empower her daughter or husband. Only one person is elected to serve as president. We vote for individuals, not families.

A further problem is that nepotism means that family loyalty can trump other commitments. About 2,500 years ago Plato warned that this was dangerous and divisive. He wanted citizens to be guided by their loyalty to the state, not by devotion to their families.

Some of the divisive partisanship in our country can be attributed to our bipartisan nepotism problem. Republican animosity toward Hillary Clinton is connected to disdain for Bill. Democrats disliked George W. Bush because he was a scion of the Bush dynasty.

Nepotism creates the appearance of bias and partiality—and yet another reason to distrust the political system. Family feuds and dynastic intrigue have no place in democratic politics.

George Washington recognized this. When he became our first president, he was scrupulous about avoiding the appearance of conflicts of interest. He said that “impartiality and zeal for the public good” should never suffer from the intermingling of “connections of blood and friendship.” He declared he would not be influenced by “ties of amity or blood.”

In private life it can make good sense to hire a family member. Families are based upon trust, a sense of obligation and a common set of values. Expertise can also be handed down through families.

INSTEAD OF FAMILY LOYALTY WE NEED OUR LEADERS TO BE DEVOTED TO JUSTICE AND THE GREATER GOOD.

The daughter of a doctor may have shadowed her father and learned about medicine firsthand. But patients don’t hire a doctor because her father was a gifted surgeon. We expect a legitimate medical education. We also expect trained nurses and anesthesiologists in the operating room, not the doctor’s sons and daughters.

In our political system there is no credentialing process. Anyone can run for president. And apparently the chief executive can appoint whomever he wants to serve as an adviser.

Another worry is what this tells us about “the American Dream.” They used to tell us that anyone could become president. Political dynasties make that dream seem hopelessly naïve.

Donald Trump Sr. offered a bit of hope for the unconnected masses. His popularity was based upon his status as an outsider. Ironically, by putting his children in power, he is taking a page from the insider’s playbook.

The risk of this strategy has become apparent. Trump Jr.’s cluelessness undermines his father’s presidency. The Trump family is seemingly unworried about all of this. They are also unconcerned about nepotism. President Trump’s other son, Eric, once said, nepotism “is a beautiful thing.”

Family devotion is important—in the private sphere. But in democratic politics, things should be different. We need expertise and experience in the public sphere. And instead of family loyalty we need our leaders to be devoted to justice and the greater good.

http://www.fresnobee.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/andrew-fiala/article161419818.html

July 7, 2017November 18, 2017

Dignity and Public Service

A nation lacking in dignity means our children have no one to look up to

Fresno Bee, July 7, 2017

After President Trump’s most recent tweet storm against the media, several people – including GOP senators – said his behavior was “beneath the dignity of the office.”

On July 1, Trump tweeted that his use of social media was “modern day presidential.” A new norm is emerging, lacking in dignity. Trump takes this to a new level. But the modern presidency has lacked dignity since Bill Clinton dropped his pants in the Oval Office.

Dignity is difficult to create, but easy to destroy. The same is true of trust and respect. Dignity inspires confidence and admiration. Shameful behavior undermines credibility and inspires revulsion.

The demise of dignity also afflicts the news media, since Walter Cronkite gave way to Jerry Springer. Consider Mike Brzezinski’s response to Trump’s outrageous attacks against her. She posted an image on Twitter implying that Trump has small hands.

That sexual euphemism was used by Sen. Marco Rubio against Trump during the 2016 campaign. Trump, you’ll remember, badgered him by calling him “little Marco.”

And so it goes. It seems there are no adults left in the country. We are all smaller these days. Our children have no one to look up to.

DIGNITY IS DIFFICULT TO CREATE, BUT EASY TO DESTROY.

The demise of dignity is linked to a general failure of civility. It is also linked to our inability to distinguish between public and private. Petty arguments and private parts are all on public display.

But dignity requires us to draw a line. The official acts of the office holder should be our focus. The private idiosyncrasies of those officials are really none of our business. In a dignified world, private personality is concealed behind the public persona.

That’s why judges wear robes and we call them “Your Honor.” It is also why cops wear uniforms. And it is why we say “Mr. President” instead of “Hey dude.”

Modern culture rejects that deferential stuff. We are informal and easygoing. We care more about cheap laughs than deferential esteem. Social media encourages thoughtless, reactive crudeness. And it degrades traditional notions of privacy. Dignity is destroyed by speed, stupidity and familiarity.

Some will say this is all good. Presidents and pundits are people, too. They have sex and get mad. Why not stop pretending that they don’t? It seems duplicitous for pundits and politicians to conceal their personal quirks and private opinions.

But the public-private distinction remains important. The First Amendment to the Constitution depends upon it.

You are free to pray in private; but the government is not free to force you to pray. You are free to assemble in public for political purposes; but you cannot trespass on private property for private purposes. You can say things that are highly critical of political figures; but you cannot slander or libel private persons.

WHEN DIGNITY IS LACKING,
WE HAVE NO REASON TO TRUST OUR LEADERS, LISTEN TO THEM, OR RESPECT THEM.

And despite our informal culture, we expect professionals to live up to public standards of ethics and excellence. We want journalists, judges and janitors to keep their quirks concealed. What professionals do in private is their own business as long as they do their work for the public good.

Trust depends upon dignity. We trust professionals who clearly serve the public good. Dignified professionals speak carefully. They think critically and apply relevant expertise. They embody the collective wisdom of the institutions they represent. And they place service above self.

When dignity is lacking, we have no reason to trust these people, listen to them, or respect them. Respect must be earned. Once lost, it is not easily regained.

The demise of dignity in the public sphere is a serious problem for our democracy. Many Americans no longer trust our institutions, including government, business and the press. We have come to believe that no one is objective or professional – that everyone is in it for themselves.

Perhaps we are finally learning that public service was always a farce. Perhaps true dignity never existed. Maybe we are simply realizing that the emperor was never wearing any clothes. But the solution is not for everyone to simply drop their pants. A race to the bottom diminishes us all.

The recipe for dignity is simple. Behave according to the expectations of professional service. And always remember that the next generation wants someone to admire.

http://www.fresnobee.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/andrew-fiala/article160036834.html

June 30, 2017November 18, 2017

Literacy and Liberty in the emoji era

Can the Declaration of Independence be reduced to a Thomas Jefferson smiley face?

Fresno Bee, June 30, 2017

A recent Harris Poll indicates that people prefer to communicate through images rather than with words. Young people in particular seem to think GIFs and emojis are more useful than words for expressing emotions. We are entering a new chapter in the evolution of literacy.

Words seem quaint, old-fashioned, and boring. We send pictures or exchange videos instead of writing letters. Twitter is changing spelling, punctuation and attention span. People don’t read long emails. And most people would rather watch the movie than read the book.

One wonders whether the emoji generation would have the skill or patience to read something as verbose as the Declaration of Independence. It is over 1,300 words long and includes some pretty big words: unalienable, tyranny, perfidy, magnanimity and consanguinity.

Consider the following fateful phrase calling for revolution: “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government.”

ONE WONDERS WHETHER THE EMOJI GENERATION
WOULD HAVE THE SKILL OR PATIENCE TO READ SOMETHING AS VERBOSE AS
THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.

That sentence is too long for a tweet. Could such an idea be expressed in emojis? Maybe we could use a mean face followed by a thumbs-down.

Electronic communication is changing our vocabulary, our syntax – and our thinking. Our thoughts are determined by our vocabulary and by the complexity of our propositions. A limited lexicon constrains thinking. A primitive grammar only permits primitive thought.

It is true that a quick exchange of pictures can often suffice. If you like something, post a thumbs-up. If you don’t, send a frowning face. You need not explain or think further—or agonize about using just the right word. Click, post and move on.

Writing and reading are laborious and slow. So too is speaking and conversation. But we crave speed. Literate people can read faster than they can listen to something read. And online readers skim faster than those who read in print.

There is even a technological fix for the slow pace of the spoken word. College kids listen to the news and online lectures played back at fast speeds. Perhaps they dream of a conversation app that would speed up interactions with boring people. Or how about a widget for wisdom?

We seem to think that communication is simply about file transfer. Our computers provide a model. We dream of faster downloads. We imagine thinking as data processing. And picture intelligence as processing speed.

PICTURES SHOW US THINGS.
BUT THEY DON’T TELL US WHAT THOSE THINGS MEAN

But speed is no substitute for depth. The pace of human thought is fixed by neurobiology and by deeply rooted social convention. The human mind can only absorb information at a limited rate. Conversation is a tedious dance involving layers of social interaction that are continuously rehearsed, repeated and revised.

We are not simply data processing units waiting to receive the latest file transfer. We are human beings who seek out meaning. And meaning is more than information. Thinking is more than data processing. Communication is more than a quick download.

Deep thoughts and emotions percolate slowly. A conversation is often less about the information exchanged than about the process of building relationships. Wisdom cannot be downloaded directly into our wetware. It must be earned by dwelling on things and mulling them over.

And here is where words are better than images. Words open the door to abstraction, rumination and deliberation. The time span of a sentence – or a book – allows us to reflect, connect and make meaning.

Consider this sentence—also too long for Twitter: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Those words provoke and inspire. They require concentration and focus. Their meaning resonates and leaves us wondering.

Pictures show us things. But they don’t tell us what those things mean. A picture may convey a passing feeling, provoking tears or laughter. But an image cannot explain the rationale for a political revolution or help us make sense of who we are and what we stand for. For that we need words and sentences, literature, poetry, and philosophy.

http://www.fresnobee.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/andrew-fiala/article158928284.html

June 23, 2017November 18, 2017

The Dream of Leaving Earth

Humans need to care for Earth before blasting off to Mars

Fresno Bee, June 23, 2017

As this planet overheats, some people are planning to leave. Billionaire Elon Musk wants to start colonizing Mars. He imagines 1 million people migrating to the red planet within 100 years.

Elon Musk, chief executive officer of Space Exploration Technologies

Musk argues that we should become a “multiplanetary species.” He says that there are two paths that humanity can take. “One path is we stay on Earth forever, and then there will be some eventual extinction event … The alternative is to become a space-bearing civilization and a multiplanetary species.”

The most likely extinction event is global warming. An asteroid could wipe us out – or a deadly virus. But climate change is already happening, posing a threat to the human future.

Global warming gives us a reason to worry about the ethics of interplanetary colonization. Until we can prove that we are able to care for this planet, we have no right to colonize another. Until we evolve ethically, we ought not leave this planet and destroy another. The colonizing impulse is connected to the hubris that created the climate catastrophe.

We are living through the hottest years on record. Deadly heat waves have killed tens of thousands of human beings. The World Health Organization predicts that between 2030 and 2050 climate change will contribute to 250,000 excess deaths per year. In addition to the heat itself, risk factors include malaria and other diseases exacerbated by climate change.

But we mostly ignore this. Malaria and hyperthermia don’t make headlines. Perhaps we think common-sense measures provide adequate solutions: drink plenty of water and use mosquito repellent.

The problem is that the poorest people do not have access to clean water or mosquito repellent. The laboring masses live and work outside in the elements. Most of the people who will die from the changing climate are in countries we don’t care about – in Africa and Asia.

Americans will be the last ones affected. We can simply crank up the AC, sip icy beverages and avoid mosquitoes by staying inside. But many humans don’t have such luxuries.

It will be the rich few who will venture off planet, seeking a new start on Mars. Musk wants to get the price of a Mars trip down to around $200,000. At that price, affluent Americans can save or borrow to get on board.

Such a trip is beyond the wildest imagination of those living on $2 per day. But those impoverished people are the ones least able to cope with the world we’ll leave behind.

This is a question of what we call “environmental justice.” Environmental justice is concerned with the fair distribution of environmental benefits – and harms. It seems especially unfair for rich people, who already burn more than their fair share of carbon, to head off planet, leaving behind a ruined world inhabited by poor people with no hope of departure.

Planetary escape is a fun summer fantasy: a diversion to chew on while fishing in a cool mountain stream. But our extra-planetary fantasies should not distract us from the stark reality of the present. Global population is increasing. Fragile earth resources are overexploited. And the climate is heating up.

A harbinger of our hot future is seen in California’s fisheries. California trout, salmon, and steelhead are threatened by increased heat, which changes river flows, even in wet years. Combine the heat with overfishing and increased need for water for agriculture and you’ve got a recipe for fishery collapse.

An old adage about eliminating poverty says, “give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach him to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” The problem is that this assumes that there are fish left to catch.

This is also a problem of the Mars dream. There are no fish on Mars. And no flowing water. Musk suggests that life on Mars would be “quite fun.” But human happiness occurs within our ecological niche. We have evolved in a Goldilocks world. It is not too hot and not too cold. It contains clean waters abundant with fish.

The Goldilocks days may soon be ending. Our ethical task is to fairly distribute harms and benefits on this hot, crowded planet, while preserving an inhabitable world for our grandchildren.

http://www.fresnobee.com/living/liv-columns-blogs/andrew-fiala/article157750589.html