Looking Backward

Household dust harbours [sic] a cocktail of toxic chemicals that have been linked to an increased risk of a range of health hazards, from cancer to problems with fertility, researchers in the US have found.

The quotation in Environmental Science and Technology certainly raises concern. And an internet essay today (September 14, 2016) by Nicola Davis adds

We think our homes are a safe haven but unfortunately they are being polluted by toxic chemicals from all our products,” said Veena Singla, co-author of the study from the Natural Resources Defense Council in California.

And

While, perhaps confusingly, homes that are too clean have been linked to an increase in allergies and asthma in children, potentially due to a lack of exposure to various microbes, the presence of toxic chemicals in dust raises separate concerns.

There's a lot more, but the article itself raises concerns about the costs of progress. Moreover it is not the only report on the subject. Perhaps we were better off a century ago, or a millennium, or in an era past; perhaps we'd live longer if we didn't have antibiotics like penicillin, or have products protected by fire retardants. We might even benefit if we washed our clothes in a (polluted) stream using rocks to beat out any dirt or other impurity. We read about the evils of modern life all the time. We hear the downside of every product introduced, with emphasis, by the media, on every potential risk.

Several decades ago, when Saturday Night Live was young, and in the midst of a rash (bad word?) of reports of (theoretically) carcinogenic products, the show presented a skit in which it was maintained that leisure suits caused cancer. It was very funny, and it pointed out the idiocy of those who panic whenever someone gets nervous, or wants to scare others away from something which he or she considers “wrong,” or when a problem is found, without anyone considering the context or implications of the ranting. Too many among us always see the cloud, rather than the opportunity that, because of them, it hides.

There is no question that side-effects have been found for each new medication – new things will always have them. As do old things. Benefits come with costs and with risks but, for the most part, products that have been cleared for distribution generally have an overall beneficial effect on our lives.

The suggestion of a researcher that “homes that are too clean have been linked to an increase in allergies and asthma in children, potentially due to a lack of exposure to various microbes, the presence of toxic chemicals in dust raises separate concerns” shouldn't be taken as a condemnation of using modern products and keeping our homes clean. It's too easy to do that. But a dirty house, with outdoor plumbing, an ice box rather than a refrigerator, home remedies instead of medications, and a dirt floor instead of floorboards or a carpet, is not a guarantee of good health and a safe life. Nonetheless that is where we are being driven by those with an agenda. (The same is true, unfortunately, of other “scientific” studies by those seeking the fast track to honors – people willing to cut corners – and others unable to recognize that they're on the wrong track.)

It certainly makes sense to fully test new products and to react quickly to any problems that might be discovered subsequently. (The same is true, of course, of items released to the public before any safeguards were in place – though that aspect of the problem is rarely considered.) But it is unfortunate that weight is given to scientific studies prematurely – before thought is given to their implications and to both the problems that might be anticipated or to the ways to deal with them.

I think, though, that by and large improvements are improvements, and I'll stick with the clean house.

Auto Auto

Have you noticed? There are two major engineering projects going on in the automobile industry – at least two that have gotten a lot of publicity and that I'm aware of. They're hybrids and self-driving cars. The first has already hit the market and most manufacturers have at least some form that's available, so I'll mostly ignore it. (I'll mention it only once for purposes of comparison and once in the conclusion.) Self-driving cars, however, are worth discussing more fully.

If the road does not have too many potholes, the car is a wonderful means of transportation. (And the driver's license is a wonderful means of identification.) But it is accompanied by problems. The most important of these is the fact that it may be involved in accidents with associated injury or death. The National Safety Council estimates that as many as 40,200 people died in our country in 2016 as a result of automobile accidents and that property damage in 2016 was $432 billion. Both represented increases. Self-driving cars are likely to lower the human and economic tolls markedly. The concern of those developing them are (apart from making money) relates to the good of the individual.

Another problem is that automobile emissions contribute to pollution and global warming. This is the problem addressed by hybrid vehicles, and reflects concern for the good of society as a whole. But, based on my own priorities when driving along, the first concern is for my own safety.

What are the advantages of self-driving cars? Ultimately driving skills will not be necessary, though for the time being it is recommended that a knowledgeable driver should have his hands on the steering wheel and be able to take over in a dangerous situation. Eventually manned taxis and cars-for-hire will not be necessary because for those who don't have their own such vehicles, but driverless car services of various kinds will be available.

There are numerous other anticipated advantages to be obtained by such a system: those who drink will be able to do so without fear of violating the law (in retrospect I'm not sure that's so desirable), those who are ill or disabled can get to the doctor's office even if they can no longer drive, the tension of driving can be eliminated, people can carry on undistracted conversations and telephone calls, etc.

Of course, not everyone agrees.

Writing from Detroit (coincidentally, the capital of the traditional gas-guzzling, emission-spewing automobile), two New York Times reporter that “the race by automakers and technology firms to develop self-driving cars has been fuelled by the belief that computers can operate a vehicle more safely than human drivers. But that view is now in question after the revelation on Thursday that the driver of a Tesla Model S electric sedan was killed in an accident when the car was in self-driving mode.” (Op-ed in The Guardian by John Naughton)

It is of note that the driver's hands were on the wheel (as he is instructed by the manufacturer, a condition that won't be required in the long run) and that, in the United States, eighty-nine other drivers were killed in automobile accidents – all of whom were driving without electronic aid. “Human drivers” don't guarantee safety nearly as well as computers.

And there are other reasons that self-driving cars are viewed with alarm.

In June, Christopher A. Hart, the chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, said, “Driverless cars could save many if not most of the 32,000 lives (a different number from that above but that doesn't change the thrust of the reporter's argument) that are lost every year on our streets and highways.” Even if self-driving cars only realize a fraction of their projected safety benefits, a decline in the number of available organs could begin as soon as the first wave of autonomous and semiautonomous vehicles hits the road—threatening to compound our nation’s already serious shortages. (Slate “Magazine”)

How do you argue with that grave concern? And why waste your time doing so?

Combine the two technologies, self-driving hybrid cars, and we would certainly begin to address the woes of both individuals and society. There will always be critics and cranks, but they don't merit our attention. Progress is our most important product.

July 26, 2017

What's To Be Done?

Mankind has a genius for solving problems. Of course there are some conditions that have to be met if a problem is to be solved – two more than any others. The first is that the problem must be recognized as one for which it is reasonable to seek a solution. The problem itself must be formulated and understood. Second is the existence of tools that can be used to so. Without them it is not reasonable to seek a problem's solution.

The tools must be of two kinds. One kind – the obvious one – relates to the physical tools that allow us to construct the solution: you can't build a better automobile unless certain instruments are available to do so. More important, however, is knowledge of a more theoretical nature – one that makes a solution imaginable and designable. Unless we believe that a solution is feasible, we'll never solve the problem. And that's probably the most important element in problem-solving – the one that most limits us. Once we accept the idea that a problem should, and can be solved, we'll find a way to solve it. And if particular tools – tools not yet available – are needed, we'll fabricate them.

I don't mean to suggest that animals can't recognize and solve problems, or even use tools (as Aesop wrote, crows, for example, will drop pebbles into a class of water until its level is high enough for them to reach and drink), but the problems are few and the solutions are limited. The human, however, is better equipped to analyze and solve more complex problems; given the challenge, and the belief that it can be done, he will build a better mousetrap. And the idea Chester Gould had (in 1946) for Dick Tracy, a wrist radio, has reached fulfillment with today's “smart phones” and “smart watches.” How did our ancestors ever live without it? And how did we, in our childhood, survive without some of the products available now?

Sometimes, however, the problems aren't real. Sometimes an ambitious entrepreneur will create a problem that never existed because he can provide a “solution” for it. And with the help of avaricious advertisers he can convince consumers that his product is worth their money. He has created a “need” which doesn't exist, but for which he can offer a solution. Existing products are inadequate to the seriousness of the situation. We're fortunate that his secret ingredient was perfectly designed to solve the problem we didn't even recognize until he told us about it.

There are many good examples of this phenomenon, but none is as good as the cosmetics industry that parades an endless line of products which, they claim, are perfect solutions to one imagined malady or another. Usually the improvement over previous panaceas is the substitution of one vegetable for another in the magic cream they market. (Veganism wins again.)

And the pharmaceutical industry and its advertisers demonstrate another variant on the theme of a superior product. That's what advertisers do: they convince us that their variation on the theme is far better than anything existing. (Advertisers make a good living by persuading us that there actually would be an advantage to purchasing what their employer is selling. Truth is irrelevant.) In the case of drugs, however, it may be necessary for you to demand that your physician prescribe their product irrespective of the price and the existence of other alternatives.

Another risk of “advancement” is that too often the “cure” is worse than the “disease.” A medication with disabling side-effects may make a fortune for the manufacturer while harming the consumer. Or, if a recall is necessary, it may harm both of them. Similarly the subjects of (often unjustified) lawsuits that bankrupt manufacturers believed by consumers and their lawyers, to have “deep pockets.”

Nonetheless, “progress is our most important product.” And there are many ideas and products that actually improve our lives. Successful entrepreneurs develop them, and help both us and themselves in the process. “American ingenuity” has been credited with contributing to our success as a world leader in many fields. Israel has gotten a reputation as a “start-up nation” for all the new ideas and industries it has originated. (It is sometimes difficult, however, to see it as a nation other than one with which others want to start up.) That's how humanity moves forward.

It takes ideas, money, and nerve to advance us in the commercial (and political) world. Fortunately, Mankind has members who possess these qualities or can determine methods of gaining them. We have a genius for solving problems – far more than simply dropping pebbles in a glass to raise the water level.




October 13, 2016

Various Revelations III

I had a little too much wine tonight. I guess that means I'm drunk, although there's no way that I'll ever find out what my blood-alcohol level was. Interestingly my recognition of a problem centers on the physical aspects of my problem rather than an attack on the intellectual. I guess that's why so many accidents are caused by people who thought they were capable of driving. There may be all sorts of recommendations about drinking and driving, but they're of no interest to those who consider themselves sober. Rational judgment is gone.

Me? I'd be a hazard on the road right now. But fortunately I have no place to go so there's no problem. I had three glasses of wine instead of my usual one or two, so I'm unfit for further activity. At least in public. In addition, irrespective of my current perceived lucidity, I doubt that I have the reflexes and physical control necessary to operate a motor vehicle. (Indeed, my ability to write this essay is provided by the spell-checker in my word processor; and more attention than I usually pay to things I write. I think I can think clearly, but my unsteadiness tells me that I'd be a peril were I to try to take a position behind the wheel. Unless I were in a self-driving car of some kind. (Notwithstanding the fear people have of them, I suspect they're safer than the human-driven ones now on the road.) People tend to overestimate their own capabilities, and to deny that they are in any way compromised. If they can still think, they can still drive.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Our army is in Iraq. A few days ago one of our bombing missions killed 14 members of ISIS. I think that's the number. Unfortunately one to two hundred civilians were also killed. We killed ten times more people we were “protecting” than the number who threatened them. We claim that the civilians were “human shields” for the combatants, but they didn't help. No threat to our country was cited. There is no protest that I've seen in the media or among our citizens.

When Israel was under direct rocket attack from Gaza in 2014 and fought back (Operation Protective Edge) with bombing of the sites of origin of the rockets and the sites of storage of armaments – often in schools or hospitals as shields – some civilians were killed. They,too, were human shields. The world protested. “Disproportionality.” Only a few Israelis were killed by the Hamas attacks. So it wasn't justified.

I have the sense of a double standard. The world doesn't care unless it can express its righteous indignation at Israel. Massacres in Africa, killings in the Middle East outside of Israel, wars elsewhere, are all understandable and not subject to the attention and wrath that the world's nations, and the United Nations, display when some perceived wrong involves Israel. In 1975 Eric Hoffer wrote

Civilized countries fell over each other to court Hitler even as he turned Germany's Jews into pariahs. The same countries are falling over each other to court the Arabs, who are determined to destroy Israel. The world feels no shame when it betrays Jews. It is as if fate has placed Jews outside the comity of mankind.

Nothing has changed in the eighty years since the Holocaust, or to the pandering of mankind to Arab interests that Hoffer decries.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Is it time to think small? Many years ago I used Super Scripsit on my TRS-80. The learning curve was long, but it did everything I needed. It was a small program and lacked some of the bells and whistles on the word processor I'm using now, but most of those are of no interest to me. Then Radio Shack discontinued it and I've been through several word processors since. They're much bigger, fancier, and more expensive but I can't recall anything that was lacking in Super Scripsit, or what the new programs provide that I need. And the files I created on the TRS-80 are now closed to me. I haven't noticed the loss but there are likely to be some documents that I'd benefit by having back.

And the same is true not only of many other programs but of technological progress in general. I'm not a Luddite wed to the idea of stopping scientific advancement, but it seems to me that some of the less complex programs should be allowed to live, and machines should be made to understand and work with some of the older and smaller ones. I realize that such an action would lower profits, and that's un-American, but it would improve people's views of companies that make the new products, and might pay off in the long run.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

There's nothing earth-shattering here, but the issues have been annoying me and I decided to annoy you. More next time – whenever that is.

March 30, 2017  (begun on March 28, but I was in no condition to continue.)

Mail Call

A frequent scene in World War II battle epics, and in some other old films as well, is mail call. All the men (at that time it was only men) flock about the postal dispenser with the hope and enthusiasm heretofore reserved for Santa Claus. In the end, some of them walk away beaming while others, having lost their hope, mope away empty-handed. Mail was their connection with family, sweethearts, and other friends, and, usually (“Dear John” letters excluded), a morale booster for someone feeling very alone.

I have a friend who, though I don't think he poses any danger to others, is incarcerated for a violation of the criminal code. I correspond with him and I imagine him to be equally desirous of those communications. Letters are his primary connection with the outside world. And there are others like him. Mail is their link with what they remember, and a letter provides some evidence that they are still part of society, even if other privileges are withheld.

There was a time when the letter was treasured, and not something to be mindlessly tossed into the trash. There was a time when people would wait with great anticipation for the arrival of the mail carrier. And although that may have been possible several times a day, there may have been no mail delivered to them for days on end. Magazines were a rarity and bulk-mail hadn't yet become the advertising instrument it is today. Mail was important. There was no junk mail.

Mail is ageless. Whether by voice, written message, smoke, or some other means, people have always felt the need to communicate. Before nations developed postal services, messages were often transported by travelers who were asked to carry notes from one place to another, often to people they didn't know. In ancient Rome Augustus established a courier service for transmission of messages and taxes, but it was much later that national services were established with availability to the public. The first American Post Office was created in 1775, when the Continental Congress appointed Benjamin Franklin as Postmaster General. Both before and subsequently, carriages and horseback riders carried mail, and we've moved on from there – in some places in an organized manner since the sixteenth or seventeenth century. With the nineteenth century (1840) came the first postage stamp, and all the rest is philately.

When I was young (sorry to subject you to this), although we paid our taxes and other bills using the mails, we wrote letters. I learned how to type in elementary school, but when I wrote a letter, I wrote it. (If what arrived was typed it was from someone who could afford a typist, and it was usually a bill.) Every real letter was unique. It was from someone and it was to someone. And it carried unique information of interest to the recipient. Its arrival was often awaited impatiently, and the carrier was often the most important person (apart from family) we saw all day. And reading the letter was one of the highlights of the day.

That letter was handwritten, and often covered several pages. There was so much to say. (We had telephones, but they were expensive to use, and if the call was “long distance” it could be difficult. That was especially the case if it was an “overseas” call and had to be scheduled.) It took a long time to write and a long time to read.

But times change, and so do letters. Duplicating machines made it possible to send out multiple copies of the same letter. Like Christmas letters. The uniqueness was lost but a lot of time was saved. In addition, as telephones improved it became possible to engage in personal dialogue without having to learn to write. Telephones soon earned the love of their users, especially teen-agers who spent inordinate amounts of time on them.

That, too, has changed. What were once standard and modern telephones are now “land lines” and they're disappearing. Along with telephone booths. The telephone is in your pocket or purse or somewhere else on your body. You're carrying it with you and talking as you walk (or drive). It's distracting for you and annoying for everyone around you, but they probably have their own devices anyway, so you won't feel sorry if they're annoyed by you.

Worse. Letters have disappeared. The mail is all junk, and the communication is the product of people's thumbs. It's texting, and neither ability in spelling nor grammar is required. Nor any sound ideas. Longer thoughts come on Facebook or some equivalent, and they tend to be short and confused. No one has time for a real letter, only some social media imitation. 

Much more intelligent letters were ones I got recently from my two year old grandson: lkjdahoieuy rorivn. He wanted to write some letters on his mother's computer. Not long and not handwritten, but meant for me and me alone. From a mail call powered by his enthusiasm I have a message which brings me hope.

Who needs progress?

December 5, 2016

Who's Whose?

We've cracked the genetic code. We can characterize and identify individuals by their DNA. It constitutes more evidence, beyond that already abounding throughout our society, that almost anything is possible in the field of technology.

I raise this issue because a few weeks ago I discussed “Jewish Geography” (October 2, 2016) and recalled the concept of “six degrees of separation.” I wrote about our connections to everyone else, focusing on the idea that we're not as separated as we think from others, even if they speak a different language or live in some distant land. However we don't know of the connections.

Why not? We're at a point in time when it doesn't seem far-fetched to imagine a closer linkage of people and a means for determining those links. All it takes is the right “App.” And, of course, a lot of raw data.

With that possibility in mind I am working on (and I'm almost ready for alpha testing) a new program to solve the problem. Although it is primarily designed for use on “smart phones” (almost everyone [except me] has one) it can also be used on obsolete devices, like computers. It deals with a complex, but not insoluble problem. The goal is to list everyone on earth, and to show the relationships (blood and friendship) that exist among them. At least among those who matter. We may not be able to eliminate the six degrees, but we can try. Indeed, by being able to identify connections wherever you go you will be able to eliminate the distance and to short-circuit the separations from those we'd like to know better.

There's a lot to accomplishing this, but the tools are more and more available. The primary ones are national population data (if you're not registered, you don't exist) and the social media (if you're not listed, no one cares about you anyway). Understanding the system calls for more detail, and I'll try to provide it.

Every nation worth the name has population data. Minimally it includes births, deaths, and marriages, but there is also information based on passports, social programs (like the American Social Security System in which babies are registered at birth), medical systems, telephone companies, news media, credit cards, and numerous other references. (Other sources of data, where available, like census records, citizen identification, prison ledgers, drivers' licenses, and other governmental records will be used as well, as well as those from private industry and private groups.) There are likely to be many who are not registered in one or more of these data bases, but, from a practical point of view, those people are not likely to be seeking connections with others, unless they choose to do so through another mechanism. Also important are the facts that most of this information is digitized and updated regularly, as it would be in the App. (“Updated” is probably not the right word since the process would be continuous. It happens more than once per date. Births and deaths, for example, happen all the time. At the time of this writing [July 19, 2016] the US population is 324,034,087. No, wait. It just went up. Once every eleven seconds. “Upseconded,” “upminuted” and “uphoured,” however, are a little clunky, so we'll probably stick with existing terminology.)

More important from the perspective of establishing connections are the social media. Have you “friended” or others, or been friended by them? Are you “LinkedIn” with others. What bonds have you through the numerous social media? Has anyone mentioned you on any of these sites? Chances are good that even if you haven't initiated a link, you're there. And that's the key. Not only is there likely to be basic demographic information about (almost) everyone (and government data will probably include addresses, age, and other identifying content) but the various on-line social programs will spot friends, friends of friends, colleagues and coworkers of friends, and the vast web of interconnections that exist. If additional information, like previous homes, professions, military service, or other such is available it can be mined for other relationships; and the six degrees may, in some cases, be converted to five. And people would be able to enter information about those omitted – both of the current and previous generations.

The program would be able to illustrate the ties that bind us – even those at a distance. We'd be able to find the connections, no matter how many degrees may exist. Birthdays, anniversaries, and other significant dates would be ours for the taking. In addition, moreover, we'd be able to construct family trees with the data, perhaps discovering relatives of whom we never knew. Imagine having a data base that includes everyone in the world. And if everyone's DNA map were determined and included, we might even discover unknown relationships (even those we deny).

Of course there are kinks in the links, kinks that are still to be conquered. Among them are duplicate names which will be a large category, but we have a start at sorting using a variety of addresses, home, e-mail, work, etc. and travel records will give us a start on this and on the elimination of duplicate entries for the same person. It will be necessary to get the cooperation of all nations, and the UN can be a big help here. There will be countries that don't want to help, and insurgent groups that will bristle at requests for membership lists, but the UN is dedicated to bring us all together (on their own terms) and will surely aid in the effort. Similarly there will be individuals who fear the existence of a unified listing of everyone and those people may seek anonymity, but they cannot be permitted to separate themselves from the world. The Bill of Rights be damned. (Winston Smith feared its happening, but he told me it would take place eventually.)

Imagine being able to find out who lives next door. How nice to know about the person who looks just like ________. My app will be done any day now. You don't think so? In the words of William Arthur Ward (twentieth century writer), “if you can imagine it, you can achieve it.” I can imagine it.

Watson

“Surely, when he was home, he worked on his invention saying, in his first call, 'Mr. Watson – come here – I want to see you.'”

Many intermediaries.

“Sherlock Holmes worked on his cases with Dr. Watson and wanted him to see some hair.”

The game of “Telephone” is based on the idea – no, the reality – that when people pass on to others what they have heard, the message gets altered. Sometimes beyond the point of recognizability. Gossip and rumors are natural outgrowths of this problem. The current reality is that often the sound on telephones is so poorⁱ that the messages are not understood.

That's the good news. The proliferation of notepads, portable telephones, and Skype, along with the social media, has made it possible to spread misinformation to the entire world, not just to a group of giggling children. False information can circle the globe rapidly, and correcting it is not as easy as spreading it.

The telephone's history prior to he internet is fascinating. Not only were there real varieties, like two cans and some string, but also the imagined – at least at the time – like Dick Tracy's Two Way Wrist Radio.ⁱⁱ However, although there were experimental models for the transmission of sound, the first practical model of what we now call the “telephone”ⁱⁱⁱ was developed by Alexander Graham Bell in 1876. He is famous for summoning his assistant on it^iv as the first example of its actual use.

But, as I have noted, much has happened since then, and we now live in an age when almost everyone in the country, including children, carries a telephone around. I'm not sure if having the device immediately available gives them a sense of security, but I am sure that it deprives them all of privacy. Not that people want that anymore. With social media of various sorts there is an urge to inflict their private lives on everyone else and, for reasons that are completely beyond me, everyone else looks.^v

Even more frightening is the tableau that meets our eyes as we walk down the street. No one's eyes meet ours because they are all focused on the contents of their hands: electronic devices, apps, and texts. Some even use the instruments as telephones, although that has receded into being a secondary function.^vi But, by whatever means, it seems to be necessary always to be in contact with someone else. Earbuds and isolation are the order of the day. Telephone calls and texting may be significant contributors to motor vehicle accidents and deaths, but that information is not likely to have any effect on those responsible. After all, they only happen to someone else.

I know almost nothing about economics, so I probably shouldn't be commenting on this subject. But that certainly won't stop me. To use my personal lack of knowledge as a criterion would be subjectivity, and I'm nothing if not objective. (I'll leave time at this point for your individual musings.)

You can't go anywhere nowadays without seeing people on the telephone. Nor can you escape the advertisements for various telephone and texting plans or the ubiquitous apps that you must have in order to keep up with modern society. Add to that the cost of satellite, cable, or other television and internet service and the average family is probably paying for several communications packages – enriching the providers and draining personal savings.

One might argue that such a drain is bad for the economy in addition to being an unnecessary luxury, but another approach is that this creates jobs and keeps the money moving. As I said, I'm not an economist and not the one to answer those questions. But I do suspect that, for the economic better or worse, expenditures which may extend into the thousands every year are causing people to feel poor and resent the ones who are receiving the money. Well, not all those receiving the money – not the installers, linemen, office workers, and the like – but certainly the executives of communication firms.

As for privacy, forget it. In addition to the senseless material that so many post nowadays, there's also some significant data available to those tapping our lines and to hackers around the world.^vii The only privacy that exists is the experience of blotting out the rest off the world^viii when the earbuds are inserted.

Am I a troglodyte? Do I yearn for a return to the past? Perhaps in some ways. But I'm not a Luddite. I haven't destroyed an electronic device all week, although I may, in the future, find it necessary to put some of them out of their misery if I am to maintain my own sanity.^ix Most of all I long for the days when people only talked when they had something significant to say, and when you could occasionally believe what you were told – if you cared.

Alexander Graham Bell moved society forward with his work. Or was it back?

Next episode: “As Luck Would Have It” – Growing old and golden.

I       However helpful the apps.

ii       Which first appeared in 1946.

iii      Definition of the term from the Online Etymological Dictionary: 1835, "system for conveying words over distance by musical notes" (devised in 1828 by French composer Jean-François Sudré (1787-1862); each tone played over several octaves represented a letter of the alphabet), from French téléphone (c.1830), from télé- "far" .... Sudré's system never proved practical. Also used of other apparatus early 19c., including "instrument similar to a foghorn for signaling from ship to ship" (1844). The electrical communication tool was first described in modern form by Philip Reis (1861); developed by Scottish-born inventor Alexander Graham Bell (1847-1922), and so called by him from 1876.

iv      Alexander Graham Bell: notebook entry of March 10, 1876, describing his first success with the telephone. He spoke through the instrument to his assistant, Thomas A. Watson, in the next room. "I then shouted into M [the mouthpiece] the following sentence: 'Mr. Watson – come here – I want to see you.' To my delight he came and declared that he had heard and understood what I said." We are asked to assume that he heard through the instrument, not simply because someone in the next room was shouting. OK. Sounds plausible. I'll buy it.

v        Heaven help us if there is a problem with the internet; if, as a result, we're not all connected. How will we know all that's going on. Not that most of it matters.

vi       Of course if you call a commercial firm you're not likely to get anyone. Only voice activation and simulated speech. It's hard to get a live person anymore. But remember, “Your call is important to us. Please stay on the line. It will be answered in the order received.”

vii      I won't discuss the relationship of hacking and cyber war for the moment, but it's becoming a major battlefield.

viii     And any contemplation or thought in general.

ix       I suspect questions of the sanity of others have crossed your mind as they have mine when seeing someone walking alone but talking. It might be that he's on the telephone or he may be bonkers.

Time And Again

 

                                                                                           

Time was when things didn't change much. Perhaps that was the most that could be said for them.  Sure there were famines, plagues and wars, but who knew?  Prices were the same from year to year and people lived their entire lives within a small area. They died close to where they were born because there was nowhere to go within the range of the transportation available to them, and it would be too expensive to try. A boy would generally do whatever his father did before him, whether that meant working by his side on the farm or in the shop, or less commonly, he would become a craftsman or a tradesman, which often required an apprenticeship to another. His sister would almost certainly, like her mother, be married off at a young age and spend life as a homemaker – if she didn't die in childbirth first.

Between the year of their birth and that of their death, prices would not change much unless some natural phenomenon – like a crop failure – dictated a temporary price rise. That reality, however, wasn't especially important since most people didn't have much spending money, and they were usually self-sufficient anyway. The technology of their latter years wasn't very different from what they recalled in their childhood. That's not to say that nothing much happened – although that is true – but most of the population never heard about what did take place.

I remember that when I was young, television was new. The radio was the staple – the known factor. It hadn't been around that long, but as far as I was concerned it had always been there.ⁱ In fact, it was on the radio that I heard the announcement of the death of President (Franklinⁱⁱ) Roosevelt, and that Harry Truman had become President. That was wrong. I knew it. It just sounded wrong. The only President I had ever known was Roosevelt. He had been around for more than twelve years by that time,ⁱⁱⁱ so his death marked a significant change in America's perception of their country and their world.

But, as the saying goes, that was then. In the past seventy years or so there has been a scientific explosion^iv with major technological and medical advances, as well as cultural changes that governed the paradigm^v of life in the new version of America. What was once an agricultural economy became industrial, and then service. Our rural population diminished as our cities enlarged. And baseball teams moved around and increased in numbers.^vi

Although the changes may have seemed rapid at the time – in comparison to the past – by current standards they were slow.^vii In my childhood, for example, there was no way we could have envisioned recent changes in communications. Television had just become available to the consumer, but beyond that all we could imagine was the Dick Tracy wrist radio in the comics. It was almost unthinkable that it should come to pass, and, even moreso, that it should become obsolete so quickly. Computers, the internet, tablets, notebooks, and a range of other hand-held devices, combined with calculators, telephones, cameras, and GPS devices, have replaced party lines, scheduled long-distance calls, home movies, maps, and other such primitive contrivances.

I should point out that some of these advances are useful to society,^viii but they're happening too quickly. Before the ethicists have time to deal with the medical advancements, the lawyers with implications of perceived new risks,^ix and the politicians and bureaucrats with new regulations, we have moved far beyond the issues with which they are dealing. Before we can digest and incorporate one change, we're faced with a new one that makes the previous seem childish. There seems to be the default position that change is always good – change for the sake of change. A change that doesn't work is a change that needs to be changed. If something fails it is wrong to criticize it unless you're prepared to offer an alternative. That's always the rejoinder when some new initiative is found wanting. There is a presumption that the change is necessary. The problem is always in the means, not the end. “Unintended consequences” will be dealt with when they occur and they are justified by the change.

But perhaps it would be more prudent to follow the old dictate: “Don't just do something. Stand there.” 1966 was a while ago, but Simon and Garfunkel got it right: “Slow down. You go too fast.”^x

Next episode: “Cogito Ergo Sum” – Think about it.

 

 

 

 

i        Very little changed when I was young. At least it seemed that way. Since I wasn't especially interested in current events, I didn't keep track of very much. I knew car models, baseball standings, and the Hit Parade, but little else.

ii       How old do you think I am?

iii      For me, of course, that was forever. For the rest of the world it was longer than everyone else, but not interminable. Not much changed during that period except a major war and the social and economic improvement that it fostered.

iv      No. I'm not referring to the atomic and hydrogen bombs, though they, too, have changed the world.

v       There has been, among other things, an almost incomprehensible increase in jargon. “Character” would have been a better word, but it's not in vogue. (Nor is the concept of character.)

vi       The world changed for the worse when the Dodgers and the Giants moved to the west coast. It was all downhill after that. Some time later the players started demanding high salaries and switching teams, and all the loyalties in the sport, and the faith in the players, disappeared forever.

vii      Of course in the future what seems to us as swift improvement in all aspects of our lives will be considered slow. As our ancestors could not have conceived of the world in our times, so we cannot imagine what life will be like in times to come – if there are any.

viii    I'm not so sure about “social media,” which seem to me to be a medium devised for the narcissistic who seem to believe that others are actually interested in them and their juvenile exploits.

ix      And real ones like texting while driving.

x       I'll explore the question again in a few months. There's much more to say about it but I'm tired. I need to slow down.

The First Step

                                                     

“My name is Sir Oracle, and I'm a retrophiliac.

“I've sort of known that for a long time, but I never gave it much thought. I never really considered its implications, or the effects it might have on others. But when I finally recognized the seriousness of the condition I “googled” it, and I think I now understand it better, and I understand myself better. But I also know that I'll always be a retrophiliac. I'll never be cured.

“And I'm glad.”

I know I'm not supposed to feel that way and I should certainly not say it in public, but that's the way it is. I don't want to be cured! That admission doesn't make for an auspicious start to the process, but the emphasis is on honesty and I have to be honest. So my first step at RAⁱ has to be seen as something less than a complete success.

A retrophiliac, by the way, is someone who's nostalgic; who has a preference for things as they were, rather than as they are. And that's the way I feel. Not for all things – but in some categories. Too many things are changing simply because they can. A lot of those changes are related to the increasingly rapid advancement of science. Many, however, are based on economics. Someone, or some company, has figured out a way to get money from the public and isn't shy about hawking a useless product, or a book about a useless technique, or something else, to a gullible audience. I remember a time when the latest car model wasn't very different from the last,ⁱⁱ and prices (and the stock market) didn't change wildly from day to day.ⁱⁱⁱ It was a time of stability. At least it seemed so to me.

Perhaps it seemed so because the primary responsibilities belonged to my parents. I had no concern about life's practicalities and little interest in the world around me. Except, of course, for baseball. But even there you knew that the players on your favorite team would be the same ones as last year. That's certainly not the case today.

Times have changed. Prices go in only one direction – up. Women's clothes seem to be fashioned as part of a competition for the bizarre, and the models are chosen for their appearance of boredom, or their similarity^iv to dazed drug addicts with eating disorders. Food styles emphasize exotically-flavored dishes in tiny portions.^v In addition, we live at a time when popular “music” isn't music. Rap with a backup of rhythm only, and loud^vi rock mock what we used to hear.

And things are moving too fast for me. Especially science.^vii There's a new discovery daily of what life is like^viii a few billion light-years away. But we'll never experience it, so we'll never really know. And most of us – people like me – won't care. The development of nanoscience, at the other end of the spectrum, may have more practical applications, but it is equally incomprehensible, as well as being hidden from our view. I do welcome many of the medical advances that have taken place in recent centuries, especially in therapies, but perhaps we have moved too fast in other aspects of biologic science. As much as I may admire the development of genetics, I'm not convinced that we'll gain from the cloning of human beings^ix or the ability to design our offspring.^x

There are several driving forces behind the rapid scientific advancement. The wish for fame is certainly one of them,^xi but an important factor is economic. Marginal improvements in unnecessary products are hailed as “game changers.” We wind up with frequent news conferences announcing a larger TV screen, or the latest model of cell phone, pod or pad or computer, indispensable even though we didn't realize we needed it. And the last one goes into a drawer or the attic.

I guess I'm an anterophobe.^xii It's not that I'm against progress, but I need the time to digest one “advancement” before I'm presented with its second, third, or fourth generation. I don't have a cell phone or other electronic device. I'm satisfied with what I have and with peace and quiet. In Greta Garbo's words, “I vant^xiii to be left alone.”^xiv We need to slow down.

Surely my views are not new. They've been the same for generations. I suspect that those who preceded us found the changes that occurred during their lifetimes too rapid. Our music didn't please them and they had trouble keeping up with all that was happening around them, whether in science, politics, or style. Our children and grandchildren will be appalled by the way we live. They won't be able to understand how we could go around without an iPad^® or its equivalent, and our great-grandchildren won't believe there was a time when such conditions existed – even though the particular devices are fossils. But that's the way it is. I can't understand how people lived before there was a reliable refrigerator.

So I'm a retrophiliac. But the more I think about it the happier I am. I'll leave the advances to the advanced, and wallow in my memories. I like nostalgia. Thinking about step one of my treatment has convinced me that I don't want to be “cured.” The world's wrong. I'm right, and I'm convinced that the best thing we can do is to stop the world.

Next episode: “Better Things For Better Living" – On the art of self-improvement .

i      Retrophiliacs Anonymous. Not the Royal Academy, Rifle Association, Rural Americans, Resident Advisors, or the Rabbinical Assembly.

ii      Actually that's as true now as before, but the advertising has become more aggressive, and minor differences are promoted as major improvements – advances that change the industry.

iii    Indeed. There were times when there was little change from century to century. But I'm not that far gone. And I have neither the interest nor ability to be a medieval farmer.

iv     Or, of course, they may be the real thing.

v      Both the flavors and the portion sizes are offensive. I would not be appeased by being served a large dish of something with, for example, cilantro. [Cilantro lovers and other fools should stop hissing.]

vi     It's always loud.

vii    I said it before, but it's worth repeating. Looking back at the previous mention of this idea gives me a feeling of nostalgia and comfort.

viii  More accurately “what things are like.” We have no idea at this time whether “life” exists elsewhere. We may suspect it but there is no adequate proof at this time.

ix     If it hasn't been done already.

x      Ditto.

xi     Sometimes leading to falsification of results. As the wise man once said, even a retraction adds to the length of your resumé. Fame, and employability, are sometimes more closely related to quantity than to quality.

xii    Don't waste your time “googling” it or looking it up on Yahoo! I made it up as the opposite of retrophilia, which does exist. It's not that I fear the future, but I think that our race to it is unwise. I don't think we look enough to the past and to incorporate its lessons before we go hurtling forward and making changes that are ill considered and which impoverish us.

xiii   No disrespect is intended by the use of her accented English. However she pronounced it, she had it right.

xiv    In “Grand Hotel.”