Politically Incorrect Implications of Evolution

The idea that all life on earth evolved from single celled organisms is the prevailing scientific view.  Asking where that first single cellular life form originated is where it gets more entertaining, but let's set that issue aside for the moment.  There are various levels to which this idea of evolution is seen to conflict with the biblical worldview, in regards to time spans and divine intervention, but the 'theory of natural selection,' or 'survival of the fittest' is a fairly agreed upon idea, regardless of what degree you might believe it might have impacted the resulting life forms we currently find on earth.  But if you believe that that principle is responsible for 'all order and advanced life on the planet,' that should only strengthen the value that you have for the principle.

But the logical conclusions of any belief that 'survival of the fittest' has been the primary mechanism that drove development of all life on earth are in stark contrast to the values that most people who hold that belief espouse.  Just to be clear, I am not necessarily in support of any of these ideas, I am just pointing out that they are the logical conclusions of the idea that the theory of natural selection is responsible for the undirected development of life on the planet, and therefore all biological order.

First off, the endangered species list should be hugely offensive to anyone who believes that advanced life developed by the less suitable variants dying off.  By protecting less well adapted animals (or plants) we are weakening the entire ecosystem and planet.  If they can adapt to survive in the changing conditions, great.  If not, the planet is apparently better of without them.  But to try to modify the environment to better suit their needs, would be the height of sabotage of the evolutionary development process.

Regarding humans, healthcare should be relatively minimal if it existed at all.  It is imperative that the weak and sick die off, ideally before they have the opportunity to reproduce.  This strengthens the species as a whole.  So the logical course of action would be to refuse to date or sleep with anyone with any identifiable defect of any sort.  This would be especially important for females as they have fewer reproduction opportunities, while males aren't as negatively impacted if one of their offspring is from a genetically inferior partner.  I hesitate to point this out, as we are seeing this beginning to actually happen in Europe with the increasing popularity of euthanasia, but it needs to be discussed in its most extreme forms to highlight what we are really dealing with.  Any form of mercy stands in opposition to the cold ruthless process of natural selection.

And then there is the issue of race.  Among humans, the theory of natural selection is basically a justification for 'might makes right.'  If you have the strength to dominate someone else, you can justify doing so for the good of the planet.  If one culture is particularly dominant, then it must be the stronger option, and the propagation of those ideas and values at the expense of other cultures is for the good of the planet.  It appears historically that over the past 500 years, white Caucasian cultures have developed the technology and means to colonize and subjugate most of the rest of the world, specifically Africa, Asia, and the Americas.  It each of these places, the existing inhabitants were marginalized by the stronger newcomers, and their land and resources shifted to be exploited in new and more effective ways.  In America the native peoples were nearly wiped out, and have been nearly entirely replaced with decedents of the Europeans.  The peoples of Africa and Asia are still numerous, but have largely adopted European methods of achieving success.  Colonization was by no means perfect, but it is today viewed as an unpardonable sin, while 'natural selection' would indicate that it is a moral good.  It cleanses the planet of less effective and efficient cultures and civilizations, and assimilates what is left into the 'superior' system.

It would be more logical for Christians to have a more mercy-based social justice and environmental view, and for atheistic evolutionists to want to see natural selection run its course without intervention.  But that is not what we see, in regards to the strongest supporters of protecting endangered species being biologists.  And the view that evangelizing to foreign peoples is a form of erasing their culture is primarily held by atheists who should see the process of dominant ideas replacing weaker ones as a positive step in the process of strengthening civilization as a whole.  Artificially propping up weaker species or cultures would weaken the entire planet and hinder further development and progress.

The converse proposition is not necessarily as hypocritical, because if you don't believe natural selection is the primary mechanism driving the development of life on earth, you are free to hold all sorts of different values about life, and various Christians do.

Interesting Implications of Chess

Chess is an interesting game that has been around for hundreds of years.  Unlike modern games with stylized artwork and backstory, chess feels very plain, with a few key identifiers in piece design on an otherwise plain board. It is all strategy and no luck via random chance, but complex enough to have nearly limitless possibilities. (There is no single approach to winning that can't be overcome with the correct response.)  In one sense it is a very straightforward game of strictly defined logic and planning, but it is actually thematically skinned.

The pieces all represent members of a royal court, with of course the king and queen in the most important roles, surrounded by bishops and knights to help them, and a bunch of little pawns arrayed before them.  The king is the most important piece, but he doesn't actually do much himself.  Keeping him alive is the point of the entire game, and you lose if he dies.  The queen is an important piece, that can move in unpredictable ways (relative to the other pieces which are more restricted) and run circle around the king and other pieces.  It is the most effective solution for trapping the opponents king, but if the queen is lost, the game goes on.  It is even possible to replace the queen, you just promote one of the pawns.  Which pawn?  Any one that can survive the gauntlet, and make it to the other side of the board.  Heck, you don't even need to lose your first queen before you can promote another piece to the position, resulting in having more than one queen simultaneously.  But not the king; you can't get a second king, and you can't promote a pawn to a king at all.  That is actually the only role they can't be promoted to.

Checkers appears to have been created purely as a rebellious response to these limitations, where any piece can become a king by reaching the end of the board, you can have multiple kings simultaneously, and they have the fewest movement restrictions.  But these characteristics do not reflect historical realities in the same ways that chess does.  Its interesting to think about the messages implicit in the game of chess: most people are just pawns, and if you work hard and with a little luck, you could be promoted to a bishop or knight, or even become a queen, but you will never be king.  And if you do become queen, watch out, some other pawn behind you might be striving for your new role as well.  That is actually a lot of cultural context and messaging overlaid on a game that otherwise seems very straightforward and logical.

Stress vs Responsibility

 I have been listening to a number of Jordan Peterson's podcasts, and he usually repeats a number of the same principles throughout those varying conversations.  Some of those ideas I remember from his books, but one I do not, which is: fulfillment in life is found through taking on responsibility.  This is not something that I was every taught growing up, and didn't even appear intuitive or self evident when I heard it.  But if it is true, it might explain a big about certain things I find myself dealing with.

I have not shirked responsibility in the realms of relationship and family.  I am married and have son, I provide for my family, and I am a reasonably good father.  But career wise, it could be argued, that I HAVE avoided taking on responsibility.  And similarly in my ministry and volunteer work.  Growing up, especially in college and shortly thereafter, I was acutely aware that stress led to problems: strained relationships, general business, and lower quality of life.  This is true when taken to the extreme, but stress is really, in many cases, a different perspective on responsibility.  I have definitely avoided being responsible for large undertakings, preferring to be second in command, advising those making the decisions, but not responsible for the outcomes of those choices.  This was true at Bandito Brothers, and in my role at Apple, head of technology, or workflow, but not the one in charge of the entire project.  In general, that has allowed me to better balance work with the rest of life, which I otherwise would have struggled with more.  I have had time to invest in my marriage and family, I built my own house, and spend months on ministry trips.  But I have probably leaned too far away from stress (responsibility) career-wise at the moment.

This is more obvious when looking at my ministry endeavors.  I wisely avoid liability for my ropes course projects by doing all of that as a volunteer, but prior to that, my roles at camp had little official responsibility beyond being a counselor for a cabin of kids.  I worked hard, and pretty much ran the camp from an operational perspective, but if anything went wrong, most of that was technically someone else's responsibility.  With the church garden and food closet, I help out on a frequent basis, but I am not "on the schedule," responsible for any particular task or day.  This is partially because of my inconsistent travel schedule, but mostly because I don't want to have to be locked into anything, or find people to cover for me if things change.  Those changes have been pretty rare recently, so I definitely could have been doing more.

The result is that at the moment I find myself with too little that I am responsible for.  Things have slowed down at both of my paying jobs, in that they don't have many tasks for me.  And I don't have the initiative to start up larger projects like my freedom series to more fully utilize my time.  So much of my time is currently piddled away on little tasks around the house, or worse, just wasted on various activities.  I spend a lot of time playing with my son, which is great, but when he is in school, I don't maximize my use of that opportunity for more productive activities.  And I have little outside of my own family that I am responsible for, and interestingly enough, I don't feel very fulfilled.  My family is fulfilling in a certain way, which I expected.  But I didn't anticipate that I would feel a need for more than that.  But it makes sense, because God created us to do more than just that.  And while you can't let things get out of balance the other direction and ignore your family, there is more to be done out in the world.  I just have to figure out exactly what.

Body vs. Soul

I have been thinking a lot about the difference between our bodies and our souls recently.  Partially because of a friend's exploration of theological views of hell, with the resulting conversations, and partially due to the will and trust process, which involves indicating plans for what should be done with my body after I die.  In one sense, it doesn't matter what happens to my body after I die, as I will be gone, or no longer using it.  But it is also an important part of me in the present, and so it feels like it should be in the future, or it is in some way intrinsically tied to our identity.

In reality I believe that our soul (and spirit) are the more significant parts of our identity once we die (our physical bodies die).  But intuitively it is hard to disconnect our identity from our body.  I know little about the details of exactly what happens to our souls or spirits when we die, but I have a reasonable understanding of the options for our body.  The two most common options are burial or cremation.  Burial used to be far more common in western culture, which is why there are large cemeteries found in any area that has been inhabited for a long period of time.  That has become more expensive in recent times, leading to increased popularity of cremation.  Burning the body decreases its mass, for cheaper long term storage and memorialize, or the ashes can be spread, removing all identifiable traces of the body, but making it one with the area it is spread in.

My grandfather is my only recent ancestor to be buried, with the rest of my grandparents, and my mother, opting to be cremated, and in most cases have their remains stored in a niche in a wall at the cemetery.  It is much closer than my grandfather's veteran's cemetery, but I have still only visited once since they were interred there.

I didn't really have a strong preference on the matter, as neither seemed appealing: rotting in a box, or being consumed by flames.  But I read an article by John Piper that was fairly opposed to cremation for Christians based on the idea that burning bodies is too similar to hell from the flames and death sense, and that it showed less respect for the hope of resurrection at the end of the age.  Now no one is claiming that God is not powerful enough to re-constitute a cremated body, and we might be getting brand new bodies anyway, but it is still a powerful metaphor for the living who are seeing the results of the practice.

That article is enough to swing me in favor, at least for the moment, of being buried.  But beyond that, I have few specific wishes for what should happen in the event of my unexpected passing, besides that I want my family taken care of, and preparations have been made for that.  I believe I should be much more concerned about what happens to my soul when I die, than I am of my body, and I am.  But it is less clear precisely who one influences that outcome, compared to how we navigate the body issue.  I have trouble wrapping my mind around the difference between our soul and our spirit in most cases.

One recent explanation I have heard is that our spirit doesn't even exist until we are "born again," just like our body doesn't really exist as a freestanding entity until we are born of our mothers.  So people who have not been born again have a soul, but not a spirit.  And that soul can be utterly destroyed in the fires of hell, but a spirit can not.  If this is actually the case, I am not sure the functional difference between the soul and the spirit if we do have both after being born again.  And are there people who do have both that don't make it into heaven?  Jesus has some harsh words for Judas's situation, and Paul talks a lot about persisting in faith until the end.  I being born again the ticket into heaven, or is that just the initial qualification?  An important question to be more fully explored later.

Go Forward

 I signed up for a new health service earlier this year.  It is a subscription to doctor access, outside of the insurance system.  I did it because I was having trouble finding a doctor who would see me, and while I still haven't had an in-person examination, I have had a battery of blood tests done, as well as a full genetic sequencing, as part of my initial onboarding process.  The health issues that I was experiencing mostly dissipated by the time I got started with them, having been caused by lactose in vitamins I was taking.  So my urgent issue was solved, but it has been interesting to observe the process of being a member of this organization.  My first and only in-person interaction, when I went to get my blood drawn, was quite the story.

I had been waiting for the Sacramento location to open, and signed up for an appointment as soon as they became available, so in hindsight I may have been their first or second customer at that facility.  The office was in east Sacramento that didn't have a direct route from my house, making it an hour long journey to get there.  When I arrived, there was basically no reference to the fact that I was in the right spot.  I found an office door with the right logo on it, and upon opening it, and found myself looking into an empty lobby with a single stanchion with a sign on top that said "Welcome, Please proceed to the next room."  I could see through an open doorway, another larger room, with a single Conex sized object in the middle, on a raised platform.

So, feeling like I was in some sort of sci-fi movie, I approached at and saw a single doorway in the side, with a screen and keypad next to it.  I stepped up onto the pedestal, and saw that is said to enter my phone number.  Once I keyed it in, it told me to enter the code I had just been texted.  My phone buzzed, and once I had entered the code, the door unlocked, and slid open to the side.  I stepped inside, and the door slid shut behind me.  Inside was a larger screen in a wall that obscured my view of the rest of the room, but when I peeked around it to the left, I saw a large chair facing a much larger screen.  A voice told me to press anywhere on the screen to continue.  I walked up to the large screen and touched it with my finger.  No response.  The voice continued to prompt me to touch anywhere on the screen.  I pushed harder, but no luck.  Great, I am locked in a computer controlled box that is erroring out.  How do I even get out of here?  I went back to examine the door, and noticed the screen I stepped around when I came it.  In a moment of inspiration, I touched it. "Welcome Michael..."  Finally, we are getting somewhere.  I was worried for a minute there, but maybe this will be fine.  "...and place them on the hooks to your left.  When you are ready, step onto the circle in front of the chair, to prepare for the body scanning process."  Wait, did it just tell me to take my clothes off?  "Repeat!"  Nope, not voice activated.  I think it just wanted me to take my jacket off.  I'm not sure, but I am going to error on the side of less embarrassing misunderstanding.  So I took off my jacket, placed it on the hook, and stepped onto the circle.

I was prompted to spread my arms, and unexpectedly, the circle I was standing on rotated either direction as cameras, created a 3D model of my body on screen.  It was definitely lumpy and "clothed" but that ship had sailed.  I was then instructed to sit down and watched a presentation about what was possible to do with the health information they were gathering.  I knew that a blood draw was coming, and was very conscious that there was a panel in the wall to my left, and I was just waiting to see if some robotic arm came out of it to work on me.  It is a bit of a blur, but the chair may have taken my blood pressure, which would have been artificially elevated at the thought of what may be to come.

Eventually I was told that is was time for the blood draw, and that "Maxine" would be assisting me.  As a GTC attendee, I am aware that is the name for one of NVidia's AI assistance technologies, so this didn't settle the question of whether a real live person would be involved.  It then warned me that Maxine would be entering from the left.  A door in the wall opened, and thank goodness a human being stepped through.  After introducing herself, she began to prepare me for the blood draw using gear from a drawer that had extended from the wall next to me, where I was anticipating a robotic arm potentially appearing.  I told her I was relieved to see another person in this isolated little chamber, and confirmed that I was in fact supposed to keep most of my clothes on for the body scan.  "It is probably less accurate that way, but my job would be much different if the patients were all naked."  She asked me about the camp on my T-Shirt, and chatted, presumably to distract me, as she proceeded to get the sample she needed.  She told me there would be a couple more things to do on screen before she left, and then I was once again alone in this chamber.  The system presented a few more pieces of information, and then prompted me to collect my belongings and depart through the sliding door I had entered through.

I glanced around on my way out, without being too nosy.  There was nothing else in the room besides me and this big chamber, so either "Maxine" had exited through a rear door and headed to another part of the building, or she must still be in there, in a smaller compartment in the back of the box, waiting for the next patient.  Either way, it was kind of weird to think about.  On the drive home I concluded that, as an introvert, I could get used to that form of healthcare, but that that would be very unhealthy, from a psychological perspective.  Anyhow, that is still my primary healthcare provider, but everything else has been done with real people, via remote telehealth.  But I am considering moving a more local and in-person solution, even if it costs more.  At least I got a good story out of it.

God Save the Queen

 In international news, the Queen of England passed away last week after 70 years on the throne.  Her official role seemed fairly minimal to me, but she apparently had a greater impact on Britain and it's culture than I was aware.  I did see the Queen a decade ago, within 6 hours of my arrival in London.  I was staying at a hotel across the street from Buckingham Palace, and they were throwing a full ceremony for a visit of the Prime minister of Indonesia that day.  So I saw the Queen and many other dignitaries going by in royal carriages, with hundreds of Cavalry on horseback riding behind them, and thousands of Red Coats in the tall furry hats, with modern assault rifles.  It was quite the spectacle, but that appears to be one of the main points of having royalty, a country showing off.  But they may also serve a purpose beyond that, and we are about to see more about their impact during this transition.

My initial impression of her was negative, based on my original introduction to the idea of her existence during Princess Diana's death and ensuing the publicity.  Similar to Ford pardoning Nixon, her responses at the time were not popular, but in hindsight appear to be wise in the long term.

She also appears to have been a good 'ruler' by most measures, especially compared to others in her role.  It will be interesting to see how her much less popular and respected son Charles handles the throne, and if the position survives to pass to his descendants.  Which raises the question: should that position continue to exist in the modern world?  My initial reaction is 'no,' based on my values for freedom and assumed equality.  I am fairly opposed to nobility and royalty being determined by birth, instead of everyone starting out equal and moving from there.  But they may serve some useful purpose, when compared to the polarized politics in America, royalty appears to have a unifying effect.  The UK's royal family may have a stabilizing effect on the country and culture, and I have one friend who believes the queen's influence has been restraining the effects of "wokeness" on British culture, compared to the rest of Europe.  They exist outside of the political party structure, and have just enough power to be relevant, but not enough to be in danger of becoming tyrannical.

The one aspect I think may need to be adjusted, is the level of ostentatious excess involved.  Charles' 100 staff members may be laid off as he inherits the queen's 541 household staff.  Couldn't that be cut by 90%, and they make due with 50 staff members?  And not everything in sight needs to be made of gold, and inlaid with jewels.  An austere royalty would be an interesting concept, vested with power but not wealth, in the service of leadership.  But then we find ourselves with the question of how are these austere leaders selected?  The one benefit of the current hereditary system is that they have been groomed from birth for the position.  Another option would be a pool of high achievers, who are then chosen from at random, once meeting a certain qualification. (Maybe military service, an advanced degree, and a few other specific accomplishments to apply)  America did something similar for choosing astronauts, why not leaders?  But to be clear, they would only be vested with a limited power within a divided government, maybe a fourth branch.  The UK basically has a symbolic branch of government.  But much of the benefit should be achievable without the same level of expense and waste.

And that extravagant wealth is relevant to the question of what is next for the UK.  If they were to abolish the monarchy, what would happen to all of those assets?  What would be a fair way of handling the billions of dollars currently controlled by the royal family, outside of the British tax system.  The palaces can continue to be museums and tourist attractions, but the other assets and holdings would need to be dealt with.  And while the surviving members of the house of Windsor should not be dumped on the street, it would be hard to justify their current wealth.  It will be interesting to see if the new monarch is worth the expense.

Large Organizations

I have always preferred smaller organizations over larger ones.  I chose the smaller boy scout troop in my home town, the smaller high school in the area, a small college instead of a large university, and deliberately sought work at a smaller company instead of a large corporation.  One of the reasons I dislike the government is that it is an excessively large organization.  Part of this is because I don't like larger organization is that I don't like dealing with strangers.  It's not that I don't like people who are strangers to me, its that I don't like the awkward process of interacting with them before I know them.  And there is less of that in smaller organizations.

If I go work somewhere with 10 employees, I will likely know them all by the end of the first day, and importantly, they will know who I am.  If I go work at a company or facility with thousands of employees, I will likely be interacting with people I don't know, on a regular basis throughout my work day.  There is also the aspect of excelling in one's environment, and while I have been the top student of every school I attended, I was not as confident that would have been true if I had reached higher and bigger.  There is nothing wrong with not being the absolutely top performer, but I have been told that likely would still have been true in a larger university, and at the very least I could have benefited from having real peers.  But maybe I lacked the ambition to take on the larger challenge, and was stressed about all of the strangers I would have to deal with.

While most of my professional work has been with small teams, I have done work for large companies on a number of occasions, but it was always more stressful than smaller environments.  Same with working onset, which always involves large numbers of people.  But having just successfully completed my second project with the world's largest company, an having found that to have been a largely positive experience, I have been re-examining that idea.

The first time I ever applied for a job in a large company was a couple months ago, and while I did not envision taking the position if it was offered to me, I was at least considering the idea, and wanted to explore the process.  I didn't get past the first round of interviews, which was bit surprising to me, but it was a good reality check.  I recently discovered that I (loosely) know the guy who got that job, and he more closely fits the corporate mold, and has held similar positions in the past, while I have not.  It was interesting to come upon that piece of information, and process the various implications.  If I had gotten (and accepted) the position, it would have been a huge boost career wise, but would have likely come at the cost of my variety of other ongoing roles.  It would have been challenging to adapt to certain responsibilities in that role, but I believe I could have done that very successfully.  But more importantly, it presumably would have provided me with a steady stream of technical problems to solve, which would be fulfilling in its own way.  And it probably would have connected me with a lot of other things that are going on in the world of media and workflows.

Maybe having that job would have turned me into a corporate guy, with a very different perspective on things.  While it would have boosted my career path, that is never something I have been overly concerned with.  And it seems at odds with other changes I am looking at making in life.  My current flexibility allows me to do a variety of different things, take summer off for ropes course trips, and volunteer to help various ministries.  That flexibility doesn't matter if I don't take advantage of it to help others when I can, but I have been getting better at that, and feel called to lean farther into that process.  Working for a large company would remove a lot of my current distractions, but would put some solid boundaries around what I could be doing in other faucets of life.

So while I would be willing to make some major sacrifices to accommodate working on The Chosen or something similar, because I believe God is calling me in the direction, that doesn't mean I need to be willing to make those sacrifices to fill another role.  But I also need to learn not to discount the idea of being part of a larger organization out of hand, because maybe that is what God will be leading my towards at some point in the future,