The Transient Suppression of the Worst Devils of our Nature—a review of Steven Pinker’s ‘The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined’(2012)(review revised 2019)

This is not a perfect book, but it is unique, and if you skim the first 400 or so pages, the last 300 (of some 700) are a pretty good attempt to apply what's known about behavior to social changes in violence and manners over time. The basic topic is: how does our genetics control and limit social change? Surprisingly he fails to describe the nature of kin selection (inclusive fitness) which explains much of animal and human social life. He also (like nearly everyone) lacks a clear framework for describing the logical structure of rationality (LSR—John Searle’s preferred term) which I prefer to call the Descriptive Psychology of Higher Order Thought (DPHOT). He should have said something about the many other ways of abusing and exploiting people and the planet, since these are now so much more severe as to render other forms of violence nearly irrelevant. Extending the concept of violence to include the global long-term consequences of replication of someone’s genes, and having a grasp of the nature of how evolution works (i.e., kin selection) will provide a very different perspective on history, current events, and how things are likely to go in the next few hundred years. One might start by noting that the decrease in physical violence over history has been matched (and made possible) by the constantly increasing merciless rape of the planet (i.e., by people's destruction of their own descendant’s future). Pinker (like most people most of the time) is often distracted by the superficialities of culture when it’s biology that matters. See my recent reviews of Wilson’s ‘The Social Conquest of Earth’ and Nowak and Highfield’s ‘SuperCooperators’ here and on the net for a brief summary of the vacuity of ‘true altruism’ (group selection), and the operation of kin selection and the uselessness and superficiality of describing behavior in cultural terms. This is the classic nature/nurture issue and nature trumps nurture --infinitely. What really matters is the violence done to the earth by the relentless increase in population and resource destruction (due to medicine and technology and conflict suppression by police and military). About 200,000 more people a day (another Las Vegas every 10 days, another Los Angeles every month), the 6 tons or so of topsoil going into the sea/person/year –about 1% of the world’s total disappearing yearly, etc. mean that unless some miracle happens the biosphere and civilization will largely collapse during next two centuries, and there will be starvation, misery and violence of every kind on a staggering scale. People's manners, opinions and tendencies to commit violent acts are of no relevance unless they can do something to avoid this catastrophe, and I don't see how that is going to happen. There is no space for arguments, and no point either (yes I'm a fatalist), so I'll just make a few comments as though they were facts. Don't imagine I have a personal stake in promoting one group at the expense of others. I am 78, have no descendants and no close relatives and do not identify with any political, national or religious group and regard the ones I belong to by default as just as repulsive as all the rest. Parents are the worst Enemies of Life on Earth and, taking the broad view of things, women are as violent as men when one considers the fact that women's violence (like most of that done by men) is largely done in slow motion, at a distance in time and space and mostly carried out by proxy -by their descendants and by men. Increasingly, women bear children regardless of whether they have a mate and the effect of stopping one woman from breeding is on average much greater than stopping one man, since they are the reproductive bottleneck. One can take the view that people and their offspring richly deserve whatever misery comes their way and (with rare exceptions) the rich and famous are the worst offenders. Meryl Streep or Bill Gates or J.K Rowling and each of their kids may destroy 50 tons of topsoil each per year for generations into the future, while an Indian farmer and his may destroy 1 ton. If someone denies it that's fine, and to their descendants I say "Welcome to Hell on Earth"(WTHOE). The emphasis nowadays is always on Human Rights, but it is clear that if civilization is to stand a chance, Human Responsibilities must replace Human Rights. Nobody gets rights without being a responsible citizen and the first thing this means is minimal environmental destruction. The most basic responsibility is no children unless your society asks you to produce them. A society or a world that lets people breed at random will always be exploited by selfish genes until it collapses (or reaches a point where life is so horrific it's not worth living). If society continues to maintain Human Rights as primary, to their descendants one can say with confidence "WTHOE". Those wishing a comprehensive up to date framework for human behavior from the modern two systems view may consult my book ‘The Logical Structure of Philosophy, Psychology, Mind and Language in Ludwig Wittgenstein and John Searle’ 2nd ed (2019). Those interested in more of my writings may see ‘Talking Monkeys--Philosophy, Psychology, Science, Religion and Politics on a Doomed Planet--Articles and Reviews 2006-2019 3rd ed (2019), The Logical Structure of Human Behavior (2019), and Suicidal Utopian Delusions in the 21st Century 4th ed (2019

The Nature of Legal Dispute Bargaining

The longstanding debate over the relative merits of adversarial and communitarian theories of legal dispute bargaining has been in somewhat of a holding pattern for several years, but recent research in the field of cognitive neuroscience may break the logjam. Laboratory experiments and case studies in that field have shown how dispositions and capacities for social cooperation inherited from natural selection and evolution predispose humans to configure disputing as a mixture of argument over factual reality, disagreement over the interpretation of normative standards, and a search for impartial resolutions that protect the interests of everyone involved equally. This neurobiological inheritance can be difficult to appreciate, resist, and control, but it is something all dispute bargaining theory, adversarial and communitarian alike, must take into account. Theories that ignore it are limited to telling only part of the dispute bargaining story

First Words

I do not know how long I have loved the theatre, but I know that my earliest memory is of a show. When I was two years old, my mom took me to see Wynne High School\u27s 1999 spring musical. It was a production of \u27The Sound of Music, and my oldest brother played a Nazi. My recollections are foggy: a snatch of costume illuminated by a spotlight and a moment of awe when the Mother Abbess hit the highest note in Find Your Dream. It was probably unwise to bring me to the theatre at such a young age, since toddlers are often prone to outbursts and rambunctiousness. I posed no problem, though: according to my mother, I went still as soon as the lights went down. I stared spellbound at the stage and did not make a sound until intermission. In the following years, I watched the movie adaptation of The Sound of Music so many times that my parents still have it memorized. My love for the theatre developed from there. Every year, my mom would take me to see Wynne High School\u27s spring musical. When I was in high school, my mom started giving me season passes to the Orpheum Theatre in Memphis. This was the birthday and Christmas staple for several years. I worked backstage for school productions of How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying and Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat, even making a brief foray into acting during my junior year. I played the main antagonist in Wynne\u27s 2014 production of The Slipper and the Rose, and I learned quickly that I hated the spotlight. My love for the theatre was not like that of most theatre kids. I never wanted to be onstage. I only wanted to help however I could: paint scenery, work backstage, or wear a stage manager\u27s headset. When I graduated from high school, I assumed that would be the end of my theatrical career. I was not skilled enough for backstage work in college or talented enough for onstage appearances. With this understanding, I contented myself as an audience member. Things changed in my sophomore year of college, when I took an introductory creative writing class with Dr. Curlin. I had dabbled in poetry and prose, but for my last assignment, he asked me to write something less familiar. He called it a ten-minute play. My first attempt, Echoes, followed two astronauts on their search for meaning. Their damaged rocket took them on a comedic journey through a vast, unforgiving universe, which ultimately destroyed them. At first I had no clear idea for what I was trying to do, aside from some vague memories about the Ray Bradbury stories I adored in high school, so I typed instinctively until I had ten pages. I ended up playing with comedic timing, twist endings, and monologues, and I threw in just enough philosophy to be pretentious. I found that I enjoyed writing it more than I had enjoyed any sort of writing in a long time. When it was time to workshop the piece in class, the other students loved it. I realized that I suddenly had a new way of interacting with the theatre. Finally, I had something worthwhile to contribute. I got down to business after that. I wrote more, slowly learning as I wrote

Spartan Daily, October 6, 2003

Volume 121, Issue 27https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/spartandaily/9893/thumbnail.jp

Spartan Daily, November 22, 1991

Volume 97, Issue 59https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/spartandaily/8196/thumbnail.jp

Spartan Daily, November 15, 1977

Volume 69, Issue 52https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/spartandaily/6273/thumbnail.jp

Mime: The Musical

This is a script, including scores and lyrics, for a new musical. Premise Listening is the key to harmony. Those who do not listen to others provoke disorder, chaos, and war; but a listening ear brings peace, love, and happiness. Cast of Characters Siga -A rebellious mime prince, who believes in talking and especially singing; Rayrna -The beautiful princess of Speak City; King- The old fashioned king of Speak City; Queen- The King\u27s nagging wife; Advisor- The King\u27s evil advisor, who wants to marry Rayma; Guard 1- One of the King\u27s guards; Guard 2- Another Guard; Guard 3 - One of the King\u27 s goofy spies; Guard 4- An equally goofy spy. Time and Place Setting - The play is set in Speak City. In a fairytale time period of the past, when Mimes inhabited a portion of the earth