What I Believe

Back in the day, when Einstein was grappling with a general theory of relativity, which in turn gave rise to curvature of space, he also envisioned a case where something could, through gravitational force, shrink down into an immensely massive area whose gravity would pull in even light photons. Since light could not pass close to it, it would appear to be a black region in space, hence the name “black hole.”

For decades and decades, it was theoretical. No one had observed (knowingly) a black hole. Now, of course, it is believed that virtually every galaxy has a black hole at its core. As with so many inanimate things, humans love to give them anthropomorphic characteristics. So, we see headlines talking about black holes eating large stars for lunch. To me, this is so silly. A black hole began as one or more stars that eventually ran out of fusion energy to counteract relentless gravitational compression. The only thing driving a black hole’s behavior is its mass and the proximity of nearby stars and gases. It simply obeys the law of gravity.

To humans, gravity seems less dramatic than electromagnetic and nuclear forces. Sure, when we jump up, we come back down. But put two tennis balls six inches apart and there appears to be no overt forces or motions associated with them. Take a very strong rare-earth magnet and put a steel ball six inches away, and, wham, the ball gets pulled to and slams into the magnet. It’s all very dramatic. Unbalance the number of positively and negatively charged entities on an insulation’s surface, and, wham, an electric spark can be made to jump, just as between clouds, or between clouds and Earth, during a thunderstorm.

Yet, these forces – gravity and electromagnetic – obey the same basic inverse-distance-squared relationship. When separated by a distance, d, they have a force, f, between them. When separated by 2d, the force is now one-fourth of what it was. Move them 4d apart, and the force becomes one-sixteenth of what it was at a distance, d. This is all a consequence of the spherical force field and force magnitudes. Relatively speaking, gravity is a much weaker force than electromagnetics, or weak or strong nuclear forces. Yet, it is the tie that binds our universe together, so to speak.

Black holes are simply an extreme condition where the distances between masses grows so small that the forces become immense. The opposite case is where distances become so great that gravity has little influence. Thus, at the extreme distances of the outer part of the universe, dark energy force far outweighs gravitational force, and the galaxies and stars expand space/time at an accelerating rate. With nothing to slow that acceleration, that expansion could occur at light speed so that the outer reaches of the universe become invisible to areas nearer its center.

All these phenomena are incredibly interesting, and the forces and distances involved are immense. Yet, the space/time scope takes millions or billions of years to reach some kind of end state. There is talk about the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies eventually colliding. It is based on speeds and directions as computed at present. But the encounter will take billions of years to occur and if a humanoid was around to witness it, the humanoid would notice nothing special.

Within our individual lifetimes we see things grow and change but the really consequential universal growth and change happens way too slowly for an individual to note it. Yet, by looking at our sky, making the measurements we are able to make, and referring to the physical laws we believe accurately describe the interaction of matter, we are able to project backwards and conjure up a Big Bang event, and project forward (somewhat) and imagine a future end state. What an amazing gift our intelligence bestows upon us to be able to do that. And, even though none of us will be here to witness these prognostications, it is such a wonder to conceive of them based on something tangible – math and science – rather than mythology.

As an undergraduate, I majored in physics and minored in secondary (middle school and high school) education. In addition to a full complement of physics courses, I also learned biology, chemistry, and geology. Among my education courses was one in adolescent psychology where we explored how people process information and develop beliefs. There is a naïve notion that when a teacher says something and writes it on the board, all the students ultimately understand it and accept it.

One of our classes was particularly interesting in that the professor posed an objective problem, with an objective solution, and we ended up with essentially three different prospective solutions. So, he divided us up into three groups where the groups met separately, discussed why they all agreed on that group’s solution, and then chose one in the group to present their solution to all three groups.

After a round of presentations, the professor invited anyone in any group, who felt that they had now been persuaded that another group’s answer was correct, to leave the first group and join the other. There were approximately 30 people in the class, and the groups were approximately 10 people, each. After that first round of presentations only one person, in one group, elected to change groups.

Now, keep in mind that this was not a subjective problem with a multitude of solutions but rather a math problem with one and only one correct solution. Nevertheless, despite reasoned presentations, only one person in 30 was persuaded to change his or her belief. Part of the reluctance to change beliefs was mathematical misunderstanding. Part was semantics. And, I believe, a big part was group loyalty. How else do we explain the “Flat Earth” groups?

The problem that was posed involved a first person purchasing a  product for $10 from s second person. The second person had second thoughts about selling the product, and convinced the first person to sell it back to him for $20. But, the first person felt so bad about it, that he offered the second person $30 and repurchased the product. The question was “how much profit, if any, did the second person make?”

The answers were $10, $20 or $30 as solicited from the class, and then the groups were divided into three groups where they believe the answer was $10, $20 or $30. Again, this is not subjective. There is one correct solution – $20 – but try as each group might to convince others to change their beliefs, only one person did so.

What this speaks to is how difficult it is to change peoples’ minds. The old joke about “don’t confuse me with facts because I have my opinion” is all too real. We are in the midst of the 2020 presidential election. Hundreds of millions of dollars in media advertising is being spent at this moment to attempt to either solidify choices, or change some minds. But, this isn’t a math problem with only one solution. This is a subjective problem with at least two choices – Trump or Biden. I can remember during the 2016 election Kelly Anne Conway saying “we are entitled to alternative facts,” or something like that.

In my mind, there is enough evidence to establish that Trump is a sociopath and narcissist. In a perfect world, even his most ardent supporter, given those facts, should agree that he is a sociopath and a narcissist. But we hear “don’t listen to what he says; look at what he does.” And, when I look at what he does, I still come to same conclusion that he is a sociopath and a narcissist. Yet, some others “looking” at what he does come to a very different conclusion.

Based on my experience in that classroom experiment, I should not be at all surprised that 30 percent of likely voters in America are solid Trump supporters. And, I would argue against spending any money on trying to change their views. As I have said to many people, recently, history shows us that in the US electoral college elections, it is the so-called “independent” voters in a handful of states who swing the election one way or the other. In 2008 and 2012, these were the voters who put Obama in the White House. In 2016, these same voters put Trump in the White House.

I believe that although it is very clear that Biden is far superior to Trump to serve as president, as Yogi said “it ain’t over ‘til it’s over.” If I were calling the shots for how campaign funds would be spent in the run up to November 3 2020, I would earmark just enough funds in key states to increase the likelihood that Biden’s lead is secure, and put most of the money in those handful of states where the independents who voted for Trump in 2016 could be persuaded that, in retrospect, that was a mistake, and they would not repeat it in 2020. There is no amount of money and messaging that will persuade all of them; but there is a finite and reasonable amount of money to shape appropriate messages and targets for those messages to change just enough minds to put Biden in the White House come January 2021.

I believe that early Homo Sapiens formed groups of extended families living an essentially nomadic life where they picked the low-hanging fruit, learned to hunt other mammals and fish, and developed unspoken rules for how to get along as they roamed. If our species is a million years old, this is how they subsisted for probably 900,000 to 950,000 years. Population was kept in check by natural predators, natural disasters, and competition for scarcities.

At some point, though, we learned to grow things, and herd things, and rather than roaming, we settled in areas where we planted and herded. There were natural roles that males and females had based on practical necessities – speed, strength, pregnancy, nurture – and there was a natural tendency for these extended families to grow larger, less closely related to one another, more prone to fiercer competition for scarcities. Again, at some point, the now larger groups had to learn to coexist and additional rules had to be proposed and accepted to prevent internal dissention and violence.

With husbandry and agriculture reducing the individual survival effort, these extended families became tribes, and tribes became towns, and towns became cities, and cities became nations. Along the way, people who felt no familial connection to their neighbors had to find other things to become ties that bound. Nationalism, particularly where geographies were largely inhabited by people who essentially looked alike and had similar customs, took root. Now, instead of tribe competing with tribe, we ended up with nation competing with nation.

The logic of a global rather than national grouping never really took hold. Logically, we can accept that if properly managed, a global government could create a more equitable environment for humans, but it would mean disposing of our prejudices against people who don’t look like us, or have similar customs to us. Even after devastating wars in the 19^th and 20^th centuries, humans seem more inclined to discriminate and hate than to find common ground and help one another.

To me, the ultimate insanity is war. All the rules of civility go out the window and we seek to kill as many of our enemies as we can, as quickly as we can. We keep killing each other until one side decides it has had enough. In World War Two, Europe and England were both heavily bombed; and Japan had two fission bombs dropped on it. After “peace” was concluded, essentially the only two places that still had significant industrial capacity were the USA and Canada. Interestingly, during the post-war period and for perhaps two decades more, US and Canadian workers had the best compensation, fringe benefits and living standards in their histories. But once Japan and Europe got back on their feet, with the help of US largess, the US found itself in serious competition, particularly with Japan and West Germany. But like the proverbial frog in a beaker where the water is slowly heated to a boil, the American amphibian failed to take note of the increased heat until well near boiling.

Arguably, American and Canadian workers never had it so good as they did, say, from 1946 to 1966. And, again, arguably, it was the war that made all that possible. But, I’m sure when looked at in the light of day, few would argue that it was worth the carnage of that war.

What I have always found ludicrous is the idea of the Geneva Convention where countries agreed on rules for war. To me, war is the gross abrogation of rules. To gin up a document specifying how to treat your enemy in war is the height of hypocrisy. Interestingly, since World War Two, no large war (e.g. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq) has ended with an unconditional surrender. Korean War is still in play and what exists is an armistice. Vietnam and Iraq ended with temporary cessations of hostilities and regime change. Yet, the death and destruction was horrendous. To what end?

I guess that war is nature’s way of establishing balance. We see it with an island where deer herds and wolf packs exist with no or little human intervention. If the herds get too big, the female wolves have larger litters, and the packs grow. Once the enlarged wolf pack has winnowed the herds, the female wolves have smaller litters. It just happens. So, maybe war is nature’s way of winnowing our herd when it gets too large. If that’s true, given our relentlessly growing global population, then perhaps Covid 19, and climate change, and Donald Trump is nature’s way of seeking balance.

I am still grappling with what motivates people to amass fortunes, to lord themselves over others, and both. When I look at other animals for clues, it is not much help. The alpha wolves, silver-back gorillas, and that ilk seem to take on that role primarily for reproductive advantage for the group. It’s a DNA thing. We don’t see alpha wolves and silver-back gorillas doing power trips. It’s a sex (reproductive) thing.

Even though Trump alludes to grabbing women by their sex organs as a privilege that accrues to the rich and famous, it is not about sex or DNA advantage; it’s about power. Unlike other animals, there seems to be some ambiguity associated with power and sex. When the Myanmar soldiers raped many Rohingya girls and women, it wasn’t about sex; it was about power and abuse.

Returning to an earlier observation about sex being about pleasure, not love, rape hijacks pleasurable sex and replaces it with ugly abusive assault. Love does not factor into it at all. I believe the same is true for the executive who uses his/her status to take sexual advantage of an underling. It’s not love, or pleasure; it’s abuse.

When we think about ambition, the desire to “move up,” is it solely about having more money and being able to buy more luxuries? I don’t think so. Warren Buffett has tons of money but that does not seem to be what motivates him. I believe for him it’s something more intellectual. But I also believe that for many executives, it is power, not money, that drives them. As kids we realize that there are things we believe we want but cannot obtain because we cannot afford to buy them. If we had the money, we could buy them. We also realize that there are people in our lives whose approval and affirmation we seek. Perhaps having a lot of money, later, will turn disapproval into approval, but there’s no guarantee. For males, because of group influence, many of us look for group approval by having a relationship with someone that the group approves of – a pretty girl, for example. Pretty girls learn quickly that whether they are rich or poor, males will pursue them, and they can essentially say “sorry, you’re not for me.” Is it that rejection, early on, that becomes the obsession for people like Trump who want the power to grab women?

Growing up we all experience the group acceptance and rejection that goes along with interacting together. In America, acceptance and rejection are often largely dictated by appearance. We all know that pretty girls and handsome boys are more likely to be “popular” with the group than “plain” looking children. And, of course, the perception that someone is pretty or handsome is learned rather than internal. In some societies, obesity is a huge negative, for example, though it says nothing about a person’s heart and character. That distortion follows us into adulthood and beyond. We still seem to filter people, first, by how they “look.” And, because of the group’s prejudices, people who through no fault of their own are rejected may accept the group’s perception and see themselves as undeserving. Think eating disorders.

Think about how many world leaders have “movie-star” looks. How many executives are tall, dark and handsome? Most are not. And, they bring with them, along with their “successes” all the childhood baggage of disappointing group encounters. Is it any wonder that given the vestiges of power they try to even some of those scores?

There’s a part of me that wishes we were not as visual and appearance judgmental as we are. Before the Internet, when single people looked for venues where they could look each other over and decide to interact or not, I know I would reject someone who did not fit my model of acceptable appearance. I had a big problem with weight, for example, and would never, of my own volition, engage with an overweight female. Later, when after a second failed marriage I subscribed to Match.Com I was more apt to engage in written communications with someone, regardless of whether they had a photo or not, and even engage in verbal (e.g. phone) conversations before any first in-person encounter. I found, to my surprise, that I became quite enamored of people who I would have dismissed out-of-hand from across the room of a singles’ bar.

This has changed me, profoundly. I am much more open to engaging with people who I would have previously dismissed as someone to avoid. And, I have made great friends, both male and female, as a result.

Something else that has changed for me is that I no longer find myself evaluating whether I would enjoy the pleasure of sex with a woman prior to opening myself up to a friendly engagement. This has broadened my circle of friends in a very satisfying way.

Maybe it’s a consequence of my age but I find that I am not impressed by peoples’ professions or societal status but rather by their openness, kindness, and insight. I only wish I had been more like this when I was younger, but perhaps it takes the benefit of time before one sees.

Beginning in March of 2020, with some hints in February, the world was essentially stunned by a pandemic caused by SARS-Cov2 virus, a so-called “Corona” virus. I find it humbling that humans, those superior beings on Planet Earth, have been repeatedly vanquished by the smallest, most primitive, proto-lifeform. My first thoughts when Covid 19 was wiping the floor with New York City and Italy was it was life imitating art where in H.B. Wells’ “War of the Worlds,” the Martians with their superior vehicles and death rays were beaten by Earth’s germs. Now, in 2020, it looked like Trump, who seemed to be skating toward reelection was going to be upstaged by SARS Cov-2 along with Duterte, Bolsanaro and Putin. How apt.

Viruses are interesting. Like lifeforms, they are made essentially of organic compounds. But, unlike lifeforms, they are incapable of reproduction on their own. They must have a host cell or organism in order to propagate. Yet, they are by far, the most numerous of organic entities on Earth. So, clearly, they have found a way to compensate for their inability to propagate by making use of lifeform cells to do the work for them. We have anthropomorphized viruses. Giving them intent and cleverness when, in fact, they are nothing more than very primitive clusters of RNA and proteins. Given enough viruses, and opportunistic conditions, and enough time, viruses have evolved that can proliferate quite well by freeloading in the bodies and cells of lifeforms, humans included.

With respect to humans, their vulnerability to viral hijack is directly related to their transformation from hunter/gatherers to husbandry. As soon as they stopped moving and staying mostly with their own kind, and began to settle and surround themselves with goats, sheep, cows and chickens, they opened the door for viruses to make the leap from animals to humans…and they did.

As I understand it, some viruses in the process of hijacking lifeforms and their cells undergo mutations quite readily. That’s one of the reasons that we have different flu viruses each year. Last year’s flu virus have morphed. So, it’s never a case of wiping out a virus population so much as it is a contest to anticipate what is coming and finding ways to bolster our body’s defense mechanisms against it. That’s what’s going on with Covid-19. All the pending vaccines are based on detecting the presence of SARS Cov-2 and bolstering our body’s immune system tools to fight it off. If SARS Cov-2 turns out to be like influenza virus, and it changes substantially from year to year, we will be getting multiple vaccine injections. If it’s more like measles, where the virus is pretty constant in organic structure, then we may get by with less frequent vaccine shots. We still don’t know as of September 2020.

What’s interesting is that pandemics have been on the horizon for years, now. And, humans have known of ways to mitigate their progress. Think MERS, SARS and Ebola. By testing, tracing and isolating, we can break the chain and flatten the infection curve. But, it appears, China was reluctant to share early details of the Covid-19 outbreak in Wuhan; and Trump and his ilk, facing reelection, opted to downplay the risks and delay preparations. And, here we are. The USA, the country of American Exceptionalism, the leader in technology and medical innovations, ends up with one of the world’s highest infection and death totals within months of the outbreak. As it now stands, in September 2020, US citizens are unwelcome in many countries for fear of Covid carriers, and countries like South Korea, New Zealand, and even Vietnam make the US look like chumps. Thank you, GOP and your (ugh) president.

In just six months the world has undergone profound change in the wake of Covid. People do not congregate. People do not hug. People do not shake hands. We maintain physical distance. We wear masks. We avoid traveling. We don’t go out to eat, or to a movie. When (and if) we subdue Covid with an effective vaccine, will the world return to pre-Covid ways of being? Or, will we remember these six months and see handshaking, hugging and congregating as health risks. We’ll see.

As far as I can observe, humans are the only animal who think about death. Most animals have the “fight or flight” instinct baked in but I don’t believe they consider the possibility that they may die. That said, I know my dog knows when something is dead. I just don’t think she projects that possible state onto herself. Thanks to our intelligence, we have figured out that we as well as other animals die. And, that idea of ending tends to drive a lot of us crazy.

One of the ways we try to salve our fear of dying is to believe that there is something external to our bodies that continues after we die. We give it a name – “soul.” It inhabits our bodies while we’re alive, and departs our bodies when we die. This allows us to observe a dead person and not see finality. The dead body is simply the container in which the soul resided for a while. Now, with the soul gone, the body is just a husk.

I don’t believe any of that. I believe that what we call consciousness is a manifestation of our brain, eyes, ears, nose, tongue and skin. While we are alive, our eyes, for example, react to light by conveying nerve impulses from our retinas via our optic nerves to our brain. The same with our other senses. When we die, the process ceases. To the best of my knowledge, nothing scientifically based has ever demonstrated some aspect of consciousness that is separate from our brain and nervous system.

But, it is frightening to so many of us to consider that we simply end, that our consciousness fades to black, that our sense of self dissipates. So, we invent a soul and mythology about life after death to allay the fear a bit. We seek comfort that after death, there will be some kind of consciousness that remains, albeit divorced from that corpse left behind.

Part of the fear is that we see animate matter arise, living, then dying but we don’t see a similar cycle with inanimate matter. And, we’re wrong. Shortly after the Big Bang, and the cessation of expansion, the ener-matter that remained has, I believe, remained constant. By that I mean that if we sum up the energy and matter that exists and convert it into an energy or matter term, that term is a constant. What varies are the proportions of energy and matter at any moment in time.

Relatively early after the Big Bang, atoms and ions existed. Clouds of hydrogen atoms, in selected cases, due to asymmetry, began to coalesce due to gravity. Thus, a star was born. During its life it was a balanced system in which gravitational contraction and fusion energy expansion were essentially interacting to give the star a particular size and brightness. At various points in time, the fusion changed from one of hydrogen yielding helium to fusion of larger atoms. Gravitational forces ultimately fell out of balance with nuclear expansion, and the star shrunk into a white dwarf. It effectively died. Here on Earth we see mountains and sandy beaches. In the course of one human lifetime, or even the total lifetime of all humanity, the nature of those mountains and beaches may have seemed unchanged. But, over time, wind and rain gradually reduce that mountain and the pieces removed ultimately end up smaller rocks or sand. A volcano is born spewing lava and rock fragments into the air but ultimately it becomes dormant, and weathered. So, even things comprised of inanimate matter change over time and “die.” By “die” I mean that it is no longer a mountain, or an active volcano. Something remains behind, just like our bodily remains, but its nature has changed.

In essence, nothing is immortal. Stars, galaxies, mountains, and cliffs form, exist in some form for a while, and then change form. The only constant is the total of ener-matter in our universe. But the things that are constructed of that matter all have life cycles in which they ultimately transform into some other combination of matter.

So, does knowing that not only animate matter lives and dies, but so do stars and mountains, offer us some kind of relief for our fear of dying? Probably not. But, that’s the hand we’ve been dealt. We can kid ourselves into believing that there is consciousness after death, or that behaving in certain ways will ensure that we go to heaven instead of hell after we die, but I don’t buy it. For some number of years, the combination of inanimate and animate matter that constitutes “me” will be sensitive to light, heat, sound, flavor and touch. That combination will think, act, enjoy pleasure and endure pain. But, once the system stops, so does the consciousness.

We can choose to be bitter about the nature of our universe, and of life and death, but that won’t change it. Or, we can see however many years we live as a blessing whereby that combination of inanimate and animate matter gets to see some stars, maybe a galaxy, blue skies dotted with white clouds, an ocean and its waves; and hears the sounds of birds, and music, and thunder; inhales the fragrance of a flower; touches the skin of a newborn baby; tastes the sweetness of a grape.

We use the word “love” to mean so many things. We “make love;” we love ideas; we love inanimate things. I believe love is a lot simpler than that. The first time an animal stayed with its eggs and fed, protected and nurtured its off spring, love came into existence.

At first living things simply divided into two equally structured beings. There was no gender or copulation. A paramecium needed no other paramecium to become two of same. Any diversity that occurred was purely of the mutation kind. Ordinarily, clones were the order the day.

For whatever reason, diversity became more important and as life forms became more complex, gender appeared and reproduction became a team (of two) effort.

When a male frog deposits sperm on a female frog’s eggs, is that love? I don’t think so. When a male dog copulates with a female dog to produce puppies is that love? Again, I don’t think so. When a male human has intercourse with a female human, is that love? Nope. To varying degrees, these acts are driven by instinct or pleasure seeking (in the case of humans, anyway). They are not about love.

We don’t make love by fucking. We make love by feeding. When a mother suckles a newborn, that’s love. When someone feeds a starving being, that’s love. When someone protects a being from harm, that’s love. When someone teaches another being how to survive, that’s also love.

So often we use the word “love,” to mean mutual pleasure seeking, or pride, or joy. So, let’s call a spade “a spade” and say you please me, or I am proud of you, or you make me feel good. Whatever that means.

For many of us, growing up in dysfunctional families, we find it hard to describe our parents’ relationship as loving. But, if mom fed dad, or helped him walk after knee surgery, or helped him recognize the error of his ways, she loved him. Respect, admiration, comfort…that’s another story.

I’m not trying to demean love. It is a wonderful thing that enabled larger, more complex animals to survive. But, I disagree with making it have meanings far beyond feeding, protecting and nurturing. There are other terms for feelings and actions associated with pleasure-seeking and pain-avoidance. Let’s not confuse them.

If I recited poetry, used digital and oral stimulation, and had intercourse with the same person frequently, but never fed, protected or nurtured that person, in my belief system, that’s not love. It’s about pleasure. And, that might well be enough. Why make things more complicated? Why call them what they are not?

So much of our manipulation by media (books, magazines, film, social media) is about ascribing love to things which are not about love. I find it interesting that we can elevate someone based on their appearance, something which changes constantly over time, and yet ignore the substance of their character, which may not change at all.

Why is thin, blonde, blue-eye’d more attractive than stocky, brunette and brown-eye’d? Is it a natural (i.e. instinctive) preference, or a learned preference? Do we come by our preferences based on what we sense and interpret, or what we believe others believe?

There is money to be made by confusing love with pleasure-seeking, and, boy, has Hollywood, Madison Avenue, and social media made oodles. So many of us spend so much time and money worrying about how we look rather than how we think and behave. How sad.

I tell my dog I love her all the time. And, I do. I feed her twice a day. I walk her three times a day. I comfort her when she freaks out to the sound of gunfire or fireworks. When I pet her, though, that’s not an act of love. It’s an act of giving pleasure (I hope) and deriving pleasure in return. And, pleasure is good. It just deserves its own special identity distinct from love, and vice-versa.

Perhaps a million years ago, as homo sapiens evolved from earlier hominids, our brains were more complex than those of our predecessors, and we developed unique capabilities: drawing, speaking, and the ability to think abstractly.

Prior to that, I believe, like all other animals, we simply adapted to our environments and tried to survive and procreate. During some period, later, some of us began wondering. We wondered about the Sun and the Moon; we wondered about the sky; we wondered about lightning and thunder; we wondered how we came to be.

Interestingly, we make a distinction between polytheism and monotheism in which we ascribe to monotheism a more advanced abstraction. It seems as if all ideas of god or gods gave them human characteristics, particularly jealousy. In polytheism, the pantheon of gods jockeyed for position just like today’s politicians do. In monotheism, one god was believed to be responsible for having created the universe and all contained therein. I agree with Yuval Harari that there is nothing inherently more advanced about monotheism.

One of the outgrowths of this belief in a creator is the idea that everything is preordained. He/she created the universe and everything that happens is his/her will. Later, man changed his idea to include free will. To me, it was just rationalization. What I believe is that our universe (at least) is subject to specific relationships between energy and matter. But because of the variables that occurred from the outset, in the symmetries of the Big Bang aftermath, we live in a universe where nothing is predestined beyond the fundamental relationships between energy and matter.

As I wrote earlier, initially there was only inanimate matter. Under other conditions, the universe could have stayed that way, with particles joining and breaking up as space-time continued to grow. Animate matter and life, itself, I believe, is a random event.

So, if there is no creator, and life is simply a case of probabilities and time, then what is our purpose – individually and collectively? We have no purpose beyond survival and procreation, I believe. In that sense, we are no different than dogs, cats, dolphins, amoeba, and algae.

But, clearly there is something different about homo sapiens. We abstract, draw, speak, write, invent, and record. So, in that sense, we have the capacity to create a purpose where none preceded our existence.

We know that at some point (five billion years?) our Sun will go nova. First it will explode outwardly and consume Mercury, Venus, Earth and perhaps Mars. Then it will contract becoming a white dwarf star. So, our time of existence, if we are confined to this planet and solar system is, in fact, predestined. I doubt any homo sapiens will be around to witness the onset of the nova. There are so many other ways that humans and our Sun could make this planet inhospitable to life.

But let’s not dwell on the long-term outlook. Each human being lives for some amount of time before his/her individual system stops functioning. During that period, our senses detect light, sound, temperature, pressure on the skin, odors, and tastes. How we interpret the brain’s reception of that sensory data is in part learned and in part wired into us. Most of us find pleasure in a light, smooth pressure on our skin; or the sweet taste of a grape; or the fragrance of a rose, for example. Most of us wince when pinched, or sucking on a lemon, or inhaling the odor of human decomposition.

To a large extent, in addition to surviving and procreating, humans also seek out pleasurable sensations and avoid unpleasant ones. Other animals appear to try to avoid pain, and to seek out comfort. But I doubt that a dog wakes up planning out how it will avoid pain and be more comfortable. I believe both are more opportunistic and in-the-moment, whereas people do take steps to attain pleasure and avoid pain.

So, one could add to survival and procreation the seeking of pleasure and avoidance of pain as additional “purpose” elements. However, a sadist gets pleasure by inflicting pain on someone or something else. So does a rapist. So does a serial killer. If we are going to make the seeking of pleasure and avoidance of pain “purpose” elements, we have to add, I believe, that we must also consciously try to do so without depriving another being of life, or causing it pain, or blocking it from having comfort or pleasure.

If we built a set of laws that were shaped by what I just wrote, then corruption, exploitation, violence, theft and the like could be diminished. If we modified our teaching such that the virtues of seeking pleasure, avoiding pain, and not consciously depriving another being of doing the same were extolled, we might be able to lessen the likelihood of aggression, wars, crime and celebrity based on wealth, power and ideology.

So, if humans feel a need to create a god, let’s give that god the virtues of kindness, humility, respect for privacy, and respect for other beings’ feelings. We were on the right track with Jesus but today’s Christianity is not about kindness, humility, respect for privacy, and respect for other beings’ feelings. It is about discriminating against women’s rights, discriminating against other religions, justifying violence, and elevating one human being above another. Judaism, unlike Islam and Christianity, was never meant to become global. It was, and is, a religion based on its roots – the desert. Islam, the newest of the three, is a blend of the best and the worst of the other two, and, in sum, it is the most pernicious.

I abhor religion because it makes a creator the conveyor of principles and virtues. And, in so doing, it elevates those principles and virtues above the realm of man, and therefore, beyond reproach. Man invented god. Man invented religion based on god. Man is capable of taking responsibility for principles and virtues rather than laying them off on some mythological “supreme being.” In so doing, man also is forced to stop saying things like “it’s god’s will.” No, it is man’s will. It has always been so. Rather than declaring god “perfect,” let’s declare man bending over backwards to attain a better experience for all that live.

I was born about a year after the end of World War II in a small suburb of New York City. My father had served in the Pacific and returned a year before I was born. My mother was a housewife and I had one older brother. My first house was a row house and by age of one we had moved into a single-family house nearby. My earliest memories are in the row house as I staggered toward a bridge table where my grandmother and brother were playing cards. I also remember the sounds of the garbage truck outside my bedroom window, and my mother singing as she fed me in my high chair.

The second house is most vividly remembered. My brother and I slept upstairs in a dormer bedroom and my parents slept downstairs in a bedroom next to the stairs. There was one bathroom, a dining room with a wood floor, a small living room with a carpet, and a small bedroom next to that of my parents’ bedroom.

It was in that house I remember my mother listening to radio programs during the day as she fussed around in the kitchen. I can remember the organ music background to the radio dramas that she listened to, and the news of the world punctuated by announcer descriptions such as “iron curtain” and “red china.” I recall hearing references to President Truman and United Nations. In my mind I had images of a living-room curtain made of iron, or a place painted red.

Like many families we had a console radio/phonograph in the living room. Unlike many families, we also had a little TV/FM radio in the small downstairs bedroom. It was by a company called “Gayrod.” In those days, even in New York City area, there was very little TV programming. At night, for entertainment, we sat in the living room, my mother on the couch, my brother and I on the carpet, and listened to evening radio shows while my brother and I played with plastic cowboys and horses on the carpet.

On weekend mornings there were childrens’ radio shows and Ray Forrest’s Childrens Theatre on TV. I can remember listening intently to a radio story with a sad ending where some animal died. My brother and I were bawling, at that point.

When I reached the age of five, the other five year olds on our street were starting kindergarten at our neighborhood elementary school. Because I was born after some arbitrary month in 1946, my family was told there was no room for me in kindergarten and that I would start the next year in first grade. So, I missed that kindergarten experience where you learn to get along with others, to settle differences with words instead of fists, and being forced to “pay attention” when you’d rather be fantasizing. I believe that loss of kindergarten experience had a huge impact on me all through life.

When I started in first grade that next year, the 1952 election was at hand. I remember getting on that yellow school bus in the morning and seeing kids with Eisenhower/Nixon buttons, and a few others with Adlai Stevenson buttons. It was all a big mystery to me – presidents, elections, buttons. I do remember my parents were for Stevenson and that Eisenhower won that election.

None of that seemed of any importance to me. I was more concerned with not getting bullied, not getting punished, and listening to 78 rpm records on our Philco console phonograph. My father brought home two records that I remember most well. One was Duke Ellington’s Caravan, and the other was Gambler’s Guitar by Rusty Draper. I played those records so much that I wore them out – literally.

By the end of that first-grade year, my parents had decided to sell our house and move into a two-family house on the other side of town with my father’s parents living upstairs, and we living downstairs. I lived there from second grade until I was a junior in high school. I was not naturally athletic but I had a real love of music. Before the debut of rock & roll, I was already listening to AM radio and developing a taste for up-tempo, and bluesy music. I was an early fan of rock & roll and remember well the first time I heard Rock Around the Clock, by Bill Haley and the Comets.

At age nine, my parents bought my brother a phonograph that played LPs and 45s. Our collection began growing starting with Elvis Presley 45s and Harry Belafonte LPs.

During that period, my perception of politics was purely driven by discussions I heard by my parents and other adults. They were for the democrats, therefore, so was I – whatever that meant. I heard mutterings about McCarthy and the Rosenbergs, but it meant little to me other than feeling really sorry to hear that Julius and Ethyl Rosenberg were executed leaving behind two young boys. I can remember watching the McCarthy/Army trial on TV during lunch, at home. I remember looking at McCarthy’s face and having mixed feelings of pity and disdain. The pity was because of the body language clues on his face, at times, and the disdain was from remembering all the horrible things he did (according to my parents).

My first real political awakening happened during the run up to 1960’s election. My mother was active in the local democratic party and had seen Senator Kennedy in person at a big event in a nearby town. She was very excited, and some of that excitement rubbed off on me. I remember watching the Kennedy/Nixon debates and marveling at how they did not disagree on objectives but rather on the ways to achieve those objectives. It all seemed very civil to me. I was thrilled when Kennedy/Johnson won the election and I enjoyed watching Kennedy during press conferences where I noticed his thick Boston accent and sense of humor.

My first 15 years of life were spent in those three houses – most of it in the last house. Looking back, I can see how mass communications changed from one of reading newspapers and magazines, to one of listening to programs and news on radio, and ultimately to one of watching programs and news on TV. Our circle of family and friends were all essentially local. We didn’t do much driving around. My friends and I walked to one another’s house and spent our time outside during the day rather than watching TV or listening to the radio.

My ideas about what makes people successful, or attractive, were based in part on my own processing of information and the attitudes and perceptions of people I encountered. Without question, my parents and brother had a lot of influence in how I thought then. At around age 15 I realized that my parents, teachers, celebrities, and Nobel Prize winners were all human. They all had flaws. None of us were perfect. Every idea was subject to review. From that point on, my beliefs were less influenced by outside influencers and more by what my own senses were telling me. I realized that all of us have a sense of self that is partly based on what we think about ourselves and partly based on how we see others reacting to us. There needs to be a balance. If all you use is what you think about yourself, then you become totally self-centered and possibly narcissistic. If all you use is what you see being reflected by others, then you will also have a distorted sense of self.

I live on a planet orbiting a star we call “the Sun.” Our star is one star in a galaxy of hundreds of billions of stars. Our galaxy is one of a hundred billion galaxies in what we call “the Universe.” I’m not sure if there is only one universe or multiple universes.

Our universe is about 14 billion years old. It began with an event we call “the Big Bang.” At a very short time after the Big Bang, and at the end of what we call “the Expansion,” our universe was rapidly expanding but the total amount of energy and matter (I call it “enermatter”) was some finite amount, and that amount has not increased or decreased since the Expansion.

On our planet, at least, all matter began as inanimate and less than four billion years ago, the first animate matter appeared. All matter – inanimate or animate – is made of the same constituents we call “atoms.” The difference is that animate matter is capable of making copies of itself from other inanimate or animate matter. I believe this is a consequence of time and random chemical reactions.

Animate matter began as relatively simple single-cell life forms and evolved into relatively complex life forms. All life forms have the same purpose; they survive and reproduce. Viruses are not life forms, per se, because they are parasitic entities that must use the facilities of life forms in order to reproduce. Yet of all animate matter, viruses, perhaps the simplest, are the greatest threat to our survival. A subject for another post.

We humans, today, are members of species homo sapiens. We are primates who have evolved with unique intelligence capabilities. That has given us a leg up on competition with all other life forms. It may also lead to our destruction and, perhaps that of most other of Earth’s life forms, before the Sun goes nova and finishes the job.

We homo sapiens have advanced competitively because of our ability to observe, learn, and communicate, and to leave records of our learning behind for succeeding generations. One thing that seems to be endemic to all homo sapiens is a need to understand where we came from and why we’re here. So many of us feel that if there is no grand plan, then why bother to live, work and procreate.

I don’t believe there is a grand plan beyond surviving and reproducing. And, that plan is not something bestowed on us by a creator. It is something fundamental to the emergence of animate matter. I’m here because my parents combined ovum and sperm. I live because that insemination resulted in my birth. And, I will surely cease living at some time. What I do or do not do during that period of life has nothing to do with some creator’s master plan. For me, at least, what I do or do not do is based on what gives me satisfaction, avoids discomfort, and does not consciously put some other life form at risk of dying. Life is precious. It is fleeting. The most important of the ten commandments, allegedly bestowed upon us by a creator, is Thou Shalt Not Kill. Not just other homo sapiens, but chickens, pigs, and cattle. We have no right to take another being’s life!