Hidden Away

There are a lot of concepts that float around in American politics that make things difficult, and one of the big ones is: "It's okay when we do it." Consider the following exchange from a recent episode of Radiolab:

Hank Green: There were people who were like, "Shh, don't tell people about this."

Lulu Miller: There are some people, including climate scientists, who say we shouldn't even talk about geoengineering, like, at all.

Hank Green: Yeah. That—the main thing is you don't give the fossil fuel industry a way out that's not, don't burn fossil fuels anymore.

This is a sentiment that I've heard before. Public discussion of geoengineering, especially in forms that can be implemented today, is bad, because it leads people away from the idea that the production and use of fossil fuels must be halted as quickly as possible. In effect, the only acceptable answer to anthropogenic climate change is a massive overhauling of the energy infrastructure; accordingly any ideas that may lead people to believe that there are other solutions to the problem are bad on their face, and should be effectively suppressed.

I understand the logic here, even if I am more than a little dubious of the idea of decreeing that there is only one allowable answer to a problem; mainly because it raises questions about what problem is being solved. In this case, is atmospheric carbon the problem, or are the changes to the climate the problem? In any event, one could look at things this way; there is a moral imperative (reduce the introduction of man-made greenhouse gases into the atmosphere) and there is a concern that certain information (knowledge of viable geoengineering technologies) would lead people to believe it's acceptable to not obey that moral imperative.

Where things become wonky is when people have different moral imperatives that they seek to protect. Consider Florida's "Parental Rights in Education Act" colloquially known as the "Don't Say Gay" law. One could look at the legislation this way; there is a moral imperative (people should live within "biblical" idea of sexuality and gender norms) and there is a concern that certain information (discussion of sexual orientation or gender identities in classroom settings) would lead people to believe it's acceptable to not obey that moral imperative.

Although I suspect that the people that support the two positions would disagree on the similarities, in no small part because the discussions in question have taken on partisan valences, and Liberals and Conservatives tend to see their own positions as legitimate, and those of others as being taken in bad faith. (And to be sure, it's not a completely apt comparison. But it is, as they say, close enough for government work.) But the idea that one of the ways that moral imperatives are enforced is by withholding information concerning alternatives is a more common one than it is often given credit for. And one of the things that drives it is the idea that the stakes are too high to allow everyday people to make choices based on their own understanding of the situation and their interests. The perception that things must be a certain way, or a catastrophe will result that does not respect political ideology.

Off Target

Despite appearances, the man at the bus stop is not the intended subject of this photograph. Instead, it's the Target store behind him, on the other side of the intersection. It's one of nine, nationwide, being closed for "theft and organized retail crime." It also sits along my commute.

I don't live in Seattle's Ballard neighborhood, and so don't know much about it. I am aware that it has a fairly significant homeless population. (After all, I've only posted about them five times in the past few years.) But people I know who live in the area were well aware of constant shoplifting that took place in this particular store.

When the news hit LinkedIn, the response was intense. It was far and away the most commented-on story in LinkedIn News for the day. And a lot of the comments were the standard: calls for more police, partisan attacks on Democrats in municipal government and general aspersions directed at the sort of people the commenter guessed must be behind all it it.

It is, however, worth noting that no level of law enforcement will compel people to endure poverty with stoicism and equanimity. Some number of them are going to feel that they are deserving of more than they have, and, accordingly will have no compunction against taking from others who they see as having either more than they deserve, or enough that sharing will not injure them. And while it is true that not all poor people turn to crime to improve their material circumstances, there is a reason why poverty is considered something of a predictor for crime. And one of the things about the Seattle area is that it's very easy to become poor around here. With homes that definitely qualify for the moniker "fixer-upper" going for several hundred thousand, if not more than a million dollars in much of the metro area, low income people have the unpleasant choice between living quite some distance away from where they work or needing to spend a significant percentage of their paychecks on keeping a roof over their heads. And it's easily possible that, if they don't go far enough away from the city, they'll be stuck doing both.

The nice thing about making crimes like retail theft into matters of character, as opposed to resourcing, is that it creates a justification for not doing anything. After all, bad character is bad character. Simply giving people access to resources won't change them for the better. In case you hadn't guessed, I'm a bit dubious about that line of reasoning, if for no other reason than I tend to hear it from a) laypeople and b) blowhards. Sure, better access to resources doesn't remove all of the incentives to criminal behavior. But it can give people less desire to take the risks involved.

In my opinion, the United States is too fragmented to solve problems like street crime well. The social distance between the various constituencies that make up the nation tend to allow for people to be on board with remarkably draconian punishments, secure in the understanding that they will be meted out only to those who are not like themselves.

As for stores like Target, their problems are only going to become worse if there isn't a better solution to poverty. As they close more stores, problems will migrate to follow them into the places where they still do business. After all, this is how one winds up with the Target in Redmond having a shoplifting problem of its own. And that can lead to much worse outcomes than are evident in Ballard. There are neighborhoods where bars on the windows of stores are common, and establishments refuse to take cash due to the difficulties in keeping it secure. The people who live in those neighborhoods of necessity suffer for it, if for no other reason than they're subsidizing the costs of the security measures that lend the places the air of a prison colony.

Sooner or later, something will have to give, even if a lot of people are betting that it won't. One hopes that when they turn out to be wrong, it won't be catastrophically so.

Unmeant

The fact is, humans need to experience meaning in our lives. [Emphasis in original.] According to research by the psychologists Login George and Crystal Park, this meaning comes in three varieties. First, there’s the kind of meaning acquired from ‘coherence’, or our sense that what we experience makes sense, and that we can understand and predict what happens next; for example, that clouds in the sky mean rain is likely.
You can be a materialist and find meaning in the universe

Of course, by this standard, bears also experience meaning, if it comes from something so simple as being able to understand the basic rules by which the physical world works. But, I will admit, this is a good way to get to a universal. Still it feels like a cheat; one may as well decide that meaning comes from water, that would also force humans to need it in their lives. Research articles are expensive to read, and I wasn't willing to pay for access simply to find out if Login George and Crystal Park used as simplistic a definition of coherence as Professor Tracy had done.

I'm going to take a moment and point out that the tripartite pillars of meaning are not the only formulation. Roy Baumeister, for instance, had a four-pillar definition, consisting of purpose, efficacy, value (moral justification) and positive self-worth. I once read a dialog on meaning where significance was the lone determinant. Compared to these simply being able to make sense of the world, to the degree that things don't change randomly from one moment to the next, seems like a very low bar.

But, as I said, this is what makes it useful as a buttress for the idea that people, as individuals, all need to experience meaning. I'm not even sure I can image someone with severe mental illness being completely unable to understand and predict certain events in their physical and/or social environments. And so the question for me becomes: of what use is establishing coherence as a source of meaning other than to universalize the experience of meaning, and thus have a ready-made answer for those people (like myself) who have no real use for a search for same.

Generally speaking, I understand how concepts such as purpose, significance or moral value fit into a sense of meaning that is intended to connect a person to the universe in such a way that they understand themselves to have some degree of importance to the whole exercise. How being able to predict that it will rain before it actually makes one wet is a little more difficult to decipher for me. Even as proof of the universality of the search for meaning, I find Professor Tracy's invocation of coherence somewhat odd; because rather than something that people need to experience in their lives, coherence, at least to some degree, is something that people have no option but to experience. No matter how random, or even actively chaotic, one's life becomes, gravity will still operate in a predictable fashion.

In that sense, I suppose the heavy lifting that coherence is performing in Professor Tracy's Psyche essay is heading off the question of why this supposed need exists. Thus far, all of the essays on meaning that I have read that claim that the need for meaning is universal have declined to explain why. As much as I understand that Professor Tracy was gratified by her ability to determine that her "existence actually matters to the universe" without recourse to a belief in the divine, I don't understand the basis on which she might assert that I am in need of coming to the same conclusion.

I am of the opinion that to be human is nothing more than to be a member of the species homo sapiens; perhaps more broadly including all of the various members of the genus homo, living or extinct. In this sense, humanity is primarily a factor of genetics. If one's parents are human (and to be the best of my knowledge, humans are incapable of interbreeding with anything else), then one is human. What more need be said? But I understand that for many people, that definition of humanity is too sterile, and something more is needed. And as such, there have been many candidates for some other trait that is required for "being human," with a need for meaning being a common candidate. I do not pretend to know which is right, but I am somewhat disappointed by the lack of interesting evidence for most pet theories.

Unprocessed

Dame Caroline [Dinenage, chair of the House of Commons media committee] then wrote to Rumble, TikTok, X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook owner Meta asking if they would follow suit.

In her letter to Rumble chief executive Chris Pavlovski, she said: "While we recognise that Rumble is not the creator of the content published by Mr Brand, we are concerned that he may be able to profit from his content on the platform.

"We would be grateful if you could confirm whether Mr Brand is able to monetise his content, including his videos relating to the serious accusations against him. If so, we would like to know whether Rumble intends to join YouTube in suspending Mr Brand's ability to earn money on the platform.

"We would also like to know what Rumble is doing to ensure that creators are not able to use the platform to undermine the welfare of victims of inappropriate and potentially illegal behaviour."
Rumble rejects MP's 'disturbing' letter over Russell Brand income

Expecting that someone would have their income withheld on the basis of accusations? No wonder "cancel culture" has acquired a bad name. The fact that legislators would feel that it is appropriate to ask that media platforms take unilateral actions without allowing the accused the chance to defend themselves against whatever allegations have been leveled speaks to the need politicians feel to mirror the judgements that are rendered in the court of public opinion. (And, of course, Parliamentarian Dinenage won't be on the hook if it turns out that Russel Brand is cleared, and sues over the withheld funds.)

The problem with following the judgements of the court of public opinion is that they are fickle. This makes substituting those judgements for due process a more dangerous practice than it is often given credit for. The public is not accountable to anyone for popular opinions. Once can imagine a vocal segment of the public being up in arms over YouTube demonetizing a person's videos for some breach of the terms of service, where the public is on the side of the video creator. Legislators will have a difficult time in asking companies to follow their own rules if they advocate for those rules to be set aside every time they start feeling the heat from some or another group of their constituents.

But more importantly, deciding that the processes and procedures that organizations and institutions have for investigating and sanctioning violations of rules need not apply when some number of people are sufficiently vocal about it, or someone is accused of something unpopular has the effect of turning rules and the like into means of punishing people for being unpopular or the targets of public anger, rather than being the result of a formal finding of fact - even if that finding of fact becomes a mere formality. Concepts like democracy and the rule of law are not meant to be weapons wielded against those who are out of favor, because the perception that they are is what splits societies. Especially when it appears that people in government are looking to the private sector to get around the rules that government has set for itself and/or expects the populace at large to follow. This is what lends the letter from the UK's House of Commons media committee an air of illegitimacy. Russel Brand has been accused of "inappropriate and potentially illegal" activity; and while those accusations may be very credible, he hasn't been convicted of anything yet. Placing the focus on victims shouldn't be a means of circumventing that.

Russel Brand, like a lot of people who deliberately set out to push people's buttons, hasn't done himself any favors with his behavior. That's what makes him so vulnerable to this sort of tactic. It's easy to take the allegations being made as the truth of the matter, even though, to the best of my knowledge, no charges have been filed and all of the accusations have been made anonymously. This forces any accountability to be outside of the formal structures of the legal system. Parliamentarian Dinenage doesn't have many options in calling for accountability other than to appeal to the private sector directly. (This still doesn't make it a good idea.) Mr. Brand, having made himself look bad in front of the court of public opinion (likely because he didn't predict that behavior that he thought was simply "edgy" when he did it would morph into "predatory" several years later), now finds that the public believes him capable of open sexual misconduct.

This leaves legislators in a difficult position. The public has a habit of expecting elected officials to mirror their attitudes and preconceptions back to them. And failing to do so can result in a challenger running on a promise that they will do so. That promise may be implied far more often than it's openly stated, but its there nonetheless. And the public, being merely a rather large mass of individuals, is incapable of being consistent; there will always be people for whom this or that outcome trumps other considerations. And it's worth noting that politicians are members of the public themselves. Be that as it may, however, I think that it's important that people in government not advocate for going around government; it just doesn't end well in the long term.

Derailed

 

The homeless encampment of RVs that had been in this lot recently is now gone. Where the endless game of encampment whack-a-mole pushed them to, I don't know.