The history of anti-Semitism

In the course of reading Richard Rhodes’ The Making of the Atomic Bomb, I have learned more about the history of anti-Semitism than from any other source I can recall. I wasn’t exposed to it in literature until recently and I don’t remember hearing anything much about it before high school. There, I recall it being treated as basically an exclusively Nazi phenomenon that arose in the interwar years and was basically crushed after the Nuremburg Trials (though there are worrisome re-emergences in the European far right).

As such, it was surprising to read a history going back to the 6th century. Rhodes describes the experience of Jews in the Roman Empire; a protection deal some made with the son of Charlemagne; massacres when Jews were blamed for the bubonic plague; the expulsion of Jews from England in 1290 and France in 1392; their harsh treatment by Catherine the Great and the Pale of Settlement in imperial Russia; the forcing of Jewish children into 31 years of military service by Czar Nicholas I in 1825; and various other outrages extending into the 20th century. Reading Rhodes’ book was also the first time I had been exposed to the actual contents of the notorious Protocols of the Elders of Zion – an anti-Semetic text that describes a Jewish conspiracy to control the world, and which apparently had a large effect on the thinking of Adolf Hitler.

The longest passage included, which was plagiarized from a novel called Biarritz, reads a lot like J.K. Rowling:

At eleven o’clock, the gates of the cemetery creak softly and the rustling of velvety coats is heard. A vague, white figure passes like a shadow through the cemetery until it reaches a certain tombstone; here it kneels down, touches the tombstone three times with its forehead and whispers a prayer. Another figure approaches; it is that of an old man, bent and limping. It coughs and sighs as it moves. The figure takes its place next to its predecessor and it too kneels down and whispers a prayer. A third figure appears, and then a fourth and so on until thirteen figures have finally appeared, each one having repeated the aforementioned procedure.

When the thirteenth and final figure has at last taken its place, a clock strikes midnight. From out of the grave there comes a sharp, metallic sound. Suddenly, a blue flame appears and lights up the thirteen figures. A hollow voice says, “I greet you heads of the Twelve Tribes of Israel.” And the figures dutifully reply, “We greet you, Son of the Accursed.”

It is easy to imagine Harry Potter and his wand-wielding friends being added to the scene.

In a sense, it is laughable that this sort of text influenced how politically influential people thought about members of an ethnic group. At the same time, that is frightening. The whole text is a bunch of cobbled-together plagiarized nonsense, and yet it was apparently one of only three books owned by the last Czarina of Russia. I think that shows just how poor quality evidence people are willing to accept, when it confirms something they already believe, as well as just how quick human beings are to demonize one another.

It also suggests that Jewish people have plenty of historical reason to worry about what the governments of both their own states and those of their neighbours might do to them, if the present climate of relative tolerance that exists in most of the world is disrupted. Several contemporary Middle Eastern leaders have apparently expressed their view that the Protocols are a legitimate document, including Presidents Nasser and Saddat in Egypt, King Faisal of Saudi Arabia, and Colonel Qaddafi of Libya. Similarly, textbooks in Saudi Arabia apparently describe the Protocols as factual.

Feynman’s Challenger appendix

In the aftermath of the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster of 1986, a Presidential Commission was established to determine what went wrong. The most unusual member of the panel was almost certainly the physicist Richard Feynman, some of who’s books I have reviewed. Ultimately, his contribution proved to be controversial and was shifted into an annex of the official report. To me, it seems like a remarkably clear-sighted piece of analysis, with wide-ranging importance for complex organizations in which important things might go wrong.

The full text is available online: Appendix F – Personal observations on the reliability of the Shuttle

He makes some important points about dealing with models and statistics, as well as about the bureaucratic pressures that exist in large organizations. For instance, he repeatedly points out how the fact that something didn’t fail last time isn’t necessarily good evidence that it won’t fail again. Specifically, he points this out with reference to the eroded O-ring that was determined to be the cause of the fatal accident:

But erosion and blow-by are not what the design expected. They are warnings that something is wrong. The equipment is not operating as expected, and therefore there is a danger that it can operate with even wider deviations in this unexpected and not thoroughly understood way. The fact that this danger did not lead to a catastrophe before is no guarantee that it will not the next time, unless it is completely understood. When playing Russian roulette the fact that the first shot got off safely is little comfort for the next. The origin and consequences of the erosion and blow-by were not understood. They did not occur equally on all flights and all joints; sometimes more, and sometimes less. Why not sometime, when whatever conditions determined it were right, still more leading to catastrophe?

In his overall analysis, Feynman certainly doesn’t pull his punches, saying:

Since 1 part in 100,000 would imply that one could put a Shuttle up each day for 300 years expecting to lose only one, we could properly ask “What is the cause of management’s fantastic faith in the machinery?”

and:

It would appear that, for whatever purpose, be it for internal or external consumption, the management of NASA exaggerates the reliability of its product, to the point of fantasy.

It certainly seems plausible that similar exaggerations have been made by the managers in charge of other complex systems, on the basis of similar dubious analysis.

Feynman also singles out one thing NASA was doing especially well – computer hardware and software design and testing – to highlight the differences between a cautious approach where objectives are set within capabilities and a reckless one where capabilities are stretched to try to reach over-ambitious cost or time goals.

Of course, the fact that the Space Shuttle was more dangerous than advertised doesn’t mean it wasn’t worth the risk to launch them. Surely, astronauts were especially well equipped to understand and accept the risks they were facing. Still, if NASA had had a few people like Feyman in positions of influence in the organization, the Shuttle and the program surrounding it would probably have included fewer major risks.

Pondering mosquito-cide

Generally speaking, it seems like a bad thing when human beings eliminate an entire species. That said, it is usually done by accident, as a consequence of habitat destruction and pollution. To a considerable extent, we should probably scale back those harmful activities, and think about backing up some DNA in the meantime.

In at least one case – the eradication of smallpox – the destruction of a species seems unambiguously excellent. Indeed, it is a shame we didn’t manage to finish the job, and that Russia made such huge quantities of smallpox as a weapon. Mosquitoes are another candidate for a species we could wipe out without guilt, especially since ecologists are arguing that they don’t serve a major ecological role.

The ethical question is: if it were practical to do so, should humanity exterminate all mosquitoes?

Williamsburg graffiti

One of the neatest things about the Williamsburg area, in Brooklyn, is the street art. Especially down toward the waterfront, there are many walls and buildings with skilfully-executed and creative images on them.

While not the most artistically appealing thing I saw, this was the most topical bit of art. I do like the creative use of the strech-Hummer.

I started off by exploring the area west of Bedford avenue, toward the waterfront across from Manhattan.

Some buildings are nearly covered with overlapping layers of graffiti, some of it more ‘official’ than the rest. Lots of former industrial buildings are along the water, including a gigantic former sugar factory. Many of the old warehouses now seem to contain art and living spaces.

This has always been one of my favourite presidential quotations. I wonder what Eisenhower would think about the state of America today.

I like how ambiguous this image is. The hair and colours seem playful, but the mouth is truly scary.

I don’t know what it means to ‘clasm’ one’s icons, but I like this guy’s moustache.

This large rabbit is really striking, when seen in person. One of the biggest limitations with looking at art on computers is that everything gets reduced to a set scale. That can work as poorly for big pieces of graffiti as it does for Kandinsky’s giant canvasses.

This seems to be advertising masquerading as graffiti. I am not sure if the complaint written beside the woman was put there by whoever put up the large work, or by a subsequent passer-by.

I like how striking the colours are here, as well as how the verdant and bloody hues set each other off.

I wonder how the owners of this shop feel about how the Obama administration has gone so far. Do they think the ‘moment’ had been well captured?

There wasn’t much reference to climate change in the parts of Brooklyn and Manhattan I saw. Perhaps public policy capitals like Washington, D.C. and Ottawa are more seized with the question of what to do than economic capitals like New York City.

The monochrome backing really makes the shades of blue in this heart prominent.

The complex facial expression here is interesting – it looks like a combination of stoic resilience and enduring innocence.

Academic tenure

We have previously discussed the value of graduate school and the issue of seniority in unions. Academic tenure is certainly a related issue, which came up improbably in a thread on climate and capitalism, and which probably deserves a discussion of its own.

Is tenure a good thing? Does it serve universities well? Professors? Students? The general cause of academic advancement? Clearly, tenure track professors obsessed with publishing have less energy to focus on teaching students. That said, what really distinguishes universities from other educational institutions is that they are live centres for real research. This Slate article does a good job of pointing out the flaws with tenure, while debunking a few of the purported benefits.

What kind of alternative tenure systems exist out there? The Slate article suggests that renewable contracts of 7-10 years are a superior alternative, along with offering breaks in the tenure track, and allowing for part-time tenure. Would society or students benefit if any of these (or other) ideas were more widely copied?

Misled by Palin?

Sarah Palin has been a political spectacle ever since her unlikely selection as John McCain’s running mate in August 2008. She is especially frightening for political liberals, given how she espouses causes that are anathema to them, and does so in such a maddening manner. Rather than provide any kind of intellectual justification for her views, she seems to assert them on the basis of simple slogans and a superficial world view. Slate magazine has a regular feature called ‘Palinisms’ where they mock her statements, accompanied by a ‘Grand Unified Theory’ to explain them. The Economist highlighted the superficial nature of her political views:

On policy, Mrs Palin’s book is negligible. Her call for “commonsense conservatism” is a string of clichés. She favours free markets and a robust defence, but other than that she offers few specifics about how she would grapple with the big problems America actually faces. She sometimes says things that make no sense: whatever its flaws, cap-and-trade is not a Ponzi scheme.

Certainly, Sarah Palin does not behave like a woman who wants her views to be evaluated on the basis of logic and evidence. At the same time, I wonder whether her opponents have misunderstood her in a way that is harmful for the quality of overall political discourse. Specifically, if people on the political left have been too quick to assume that she is representative of the positions and styles of their political opponents.

If Palin helps to make those on the right a caricature to those on the left, the effect is to stifle real political conversation. She may be partly to blame for that effect, but I think those being misled have some responsibility as well. It is easy and psychologically satisfying to pick out the craziest person in a camp you oppose, and then hold them up as an example of what people in that camp are like. While you may be justified in pointing out that one person’s flaws, you may well be guilty of faulty extrapolation for assuming them to be properties of the group at large.

It also seems plausible that there are people on the political left who have a similar effect on moderate conservatives – people who are very outspoken, but who do not provide a convincing justification for their views. If such people make liberals into caricatures in conservative minds, the effect is also to reduce the calibre of political debate.

Democracy and minority rights

Judge Vaughn R. Walker’s ruling on California’s Proposition 8 is a good demonstration of how it is possible for the serious expert consideration of ethics and law to produce better policy-making than direct or representative democracy does:

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

Gay marriage is restricted around the world not for any rational reason whatsoever, but because large numbers of voters are prejudiced and uncomfortable with the idea.

While it is encouraging when gay marriage is legalized by legislation or popular referendum, I think it is ethically preferable when courts assert its necessity. That is because the power to determine the scope of minority rights should not rest with the will of the general public. Establishing minority rights on that basis is precarious and unjust. Rather, societies that aspire to be ethical have to acknowledge the fact that the majority cannot be allowed to strip minorities of fundamental rights, and that laws that do so ought to be struck down, regardless of how popular they are.

Energy in wasted food

Here’s a sobering fact: there is apparently more energy in wasted food in the US than in the Gulf of Mexico:

Americans aren’t, technically, eating an average of 3774 calories per day. This figure is calculated by looking at food produced, divided by the number of Americans. It assumes we’re eating all that, but, in reality, according to environmental scientist Gidon Eshel we really only eat about 2800 calories per day. That whopping 3774 includes both what we eat—and what we waste…

We use a lot of energy producing, transporting, processing, storing and cooking food we don’t eat. About 2150 trillion kilojoules worth a year, according to a recent study. That’s more kilojoules than the United States could produce in biofuels. And it’s more than we already produce in all the oil and gas extracted annually from the Gulf of Mexico.

This is suggestive for several reasons. Firstly, it reinforces the point that the United States cannot drill the way out of their oil addiction problems – domestic oil supplies just aren’t adequate to make much of a difference. Secondly, it is a reminder of how energy is both a critical and a largely hidden part of our society. Thirdly, it shows how people respond to economic incentives – such as the cheapness of food – by acting frugally or wastefully in response. Fourthly, it shows yet another area where conservation can help us, as we make the shift to sustainable and zero-carbon forms of energy production and use.

Ten indicators from the Met Office

One reason we can have a lot of confidence about the basic science of climate change – that the world is warming, because of people, in ways that could be harmful to humanity – is because there are numerous independent indicators showing the same trends. A new report from the Met Office in the United Kingdom highlights this, pointing to ten distinct indicators that all show the planet warming:

  1. Rising air temperature over land
  2. Rising sea-surface temperature
  3. Rising marine air temperature
  4. Rising sea-level
  5. Rising ocean heat
  6. Rising humidity
  7. Rising tropospheric temperature in the ‘active-weather’ layer of the atmosphere closest to the Earth’s surface
  8. Declining arctic sea-ice
  9. Declining glaciers
  10. Declining spring snow cover in the northern hemisphere

Deke Arndt, who co-edited the report, explained that: “The records come from many institutions worldwide. They use data collected from diverse sources, including satellites, weather balloons, weather stations, ships, buoys, and field surveys. These independently produced lines of evidence all point to the same conclusion: our planet is warming.”

None of this is new, really, but there is value in re-expressing it and stressing how the different indicators reinforce one another. Climate change deniers often fixate on details, raising doubts about a single measure and then suggesting that this calls into question the whole edifice of climate science. What work like this Met Office report indicates is how climate scientists are approaching the problem in a way that reduces the danger of such dangerous extrapolations.

Of course, that means climate change is something we really do need to worry about, and which we ought to be taking much more action about.

The DSM and defining mental illness

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is published by the American Psychiatric Association and contains the most authoritative definitions of mental illnesses. The current version – the DSM-IV – was released in 1994. Now, work is ongoing on a fifth edition.

To me, it seems like ‘mental illness’ often describes a situation in which a person manifests a normal part of psychology to an excessive extent. For instance, it is perfectly normal and probably even essential for people to feel things like guilt, shame, and anxiety. Any of these felt to an extreme extent, whether that means extremely strongly or weakly, could form the basis for a mental illness.

There is a danger, perhaps, in being too quick to say that someone is ill, when they simply manifest a normal tendency to an unusual degree. Doing so might make them feel stigmatize and lead to unnecessary medical interventions. It also risks making people feel less responsible for their choices and actins, since they can be ascribed to a medical condition rather than to the free expression of their will. At the same time, increased awareness of mental illness is probably an important thing for society to develop. My sense is that most people do not have a great understanding of the character of mental illnesses, and that society is generally poorly set up to assist people suffering from them.