Libido Amor

Sex is fun. Sex is for procreation. The tension between these two facts is a current pushing many of society's controversies. Marriage, birth, struggle for resources, and more are all tied to our sexuality. Part of our definition of morality comes from how, when, who, where and why we have sex.

Won't you be mine?

Eros Begetting

Lovemaking is a delight. Nerves from all our senses trigger endorphins in our brain. Smell, touch, sight, and even the sound of our lover all release rushes of these hormones. Memories of these sensations drive us in anticipation. Memories of these sensations give us comfort when far apart.

Copulation is for conception. Animals reproduce by sharing genetic material. Egg and sperm unite, combining codes into something new, yet similar to both partners. We are biologically driven to make babies with the onset of puberty. Our physical maturity gives our offspring the best chance for survival.

Lust for the fit!

Lustful Nature

Our first experiences of sex are usually mechanical and surprising. “Gosh, that felt good!” or “What the heck was that?” are common experiences of unexpected physical stimulation in early adolescence. The brain is hardwired to seek out the endorphins produced by sex.

In puberty we begin to think about “the other” differently. We experience almost overwhelming desire. We begin to be driven to competing for the ability to procreate with the fittest around us. Our first clumsy attempts to eliminate our competition and attract potential mates are a hallmark of this age.

Until death do us part...

Restrained Nurture

Family and culture push and pull at us, creating our individual thoughts on sex. We define rules and institutions that will enable better reproductive chances for our offspring. Marriage is a social structure that defines our basic sexual practices.

Calls to abstinence exemplify the virtue of self discipline. Birth control attempts to side track desire's result. Abortion is sought to overcome abstinence and birth control's failure.

We wish to protect children from reproducing too quickly. Often we do not teach them about sex with the hope they will not be tempted. Bodies overwhelm our intent and ignorance often leads children to tragedy. Clear conversations of understanding promote healthier attitudes and give will the chance to halt desire.

Parents push our offspring to reproduce quickly once married. We desire to see our strand of the chain of life continue forward. We fear our gene set becoming extinct, especially while we are alive to have any control of the outcome

Love's Labor Won

Even the word “love” itself contains the inner struggle for reproduction. We express our adoration, our respect, our desire to do better for the other when we tell them of our “love”. The drive to procreate, to copulate with wild abandon is also called “love”.

Love's meaning evolves through life as a basic part of maturity. We slowly grow from lust for the other to honor in their service. The effort of passion gives way to the labor of kindness. 

We start holding hands one way and we end holding hands another.

Be sure to subscribe to this blog!

Marriage Matters

Marriage is at the heart of what makes a family. This traditional union between two people is a very old one.  To many, the institution of marriage is under threat. Historically and in our time we have been and will continue to transform the nature and definition of marriage. Where will it take us? Will marriage as we know it survive? Probably not. Something similar and different will take its place.

Queen Victoria Gets Hitched

Marriage has meant different things.  Marriage changes meaning with cultures and time. It changes slowly enough that we see multiple generations living through similar interpretations of marriage and consider our current definition to be the only one. Let us examine societies and eras in history to see how this is so.

Ancient Women as Property

Marriage in old Jewish tradition was about procreation to perpetuate a a tribe. Weddings were a celebration of the daughter's family accepting a father's purchase of her. The bride price was not paid by the potential husband, but rather the groom's father.

The Sultan's Harem

Women in this time were considered property. Men were economically responsible for women. Women gave all their labors in service to their man. Divorce, the sale of your female property, was not allowed

Men could have many wives and even concubines. As property, women could be considered a sign of prosperity and wealth. Strict hierarchies of wives were maintained with one woman being in charge of the others.

Sex outside of marriage was forbidden by law. Relationships between men were supposed to be brotherly only. Sex between members of the same gender could be punished by death.

Greek Domestic Bliss

Roman Patriarchy

In ancient western civilizations like Greece and Rome, marriage was a basic social unit. It was not considered a romantic union. Marriage was considered a mark of citizenship and coming of age. Men who were not married were treated with scorn as not fulfilling their civic duty.

Marriage was neither a government or religious institution in Europe at this time. It was a contract between large family units. Fathers arranged their marriages for their sons and daughters. Choosing one's own partner was considered rebellious and could even be punished by death. The contract of marriage was signed between two fathers, not the son and daughter. Typically men were ten years older than women at the time of contract. Breaking the contract ended the marriage.

Giving of a Roman wife

Prostitution, male homosexuality, and concubines were common in some areas, especially ancient Greece. Intense emotional relationships between men were considered a normal part of life. Sleeping with someone else's wife however was taboo universally as it made identifying the father of a child difficult.

Dark Ages Church Law

The biggest change in the European marriage customs occurred as Christianity became a state religion. Over several generations divorce laws were tightened until almost it became almost impossible to leave one's betrothed. Marriage was a gift from God. Divorce was only possible by the death of one's spouse.

Church controlled society through marriage.

Simultaneously the Catholic church, as the state governmental authority, became the arbiter of marriage by requiring the ceremony of a church sanctioned wedding. Permission to marry was the church's to decide. Catholic law required that accurate records be kept so that no marriage could occur by blood up to seven generations back. Marriage was the uniting of families by God. With marriage the two united families became one.

Romantic love was not an issue in this time and place. Love was something God gave to your marriage as time passed. While no longer property, brides were expected to be subservient to their grooms for life.

During this time having multiple wives, visiting prostitutes, concubinage, and homosexuality were banned as sin.

Reformation Divorce

When Martin Luther nailed his new ideas to the door of his church, the institution of marriage under went slow but serious change. Protestants saw marriage as a secular activity, not having to be ordained by God. English Puritans even passed a law stating “Marriage to be no sacrament”. They brought this view to America when they migrated, developing the concept of “common law” marriages.

Martin Luther thought marriage
needed no church

With the French Revolution, main land Europe declared that marriage was a purely civil institution. Religious weddings were allowed only after a civil ceremony in front of a government official.

Divorce was also considered no longer sinful with the Protestant reformation. Some sects even believed that marriage could be broken by the couple at anytime for their own reasons without the law or church involved.

With the arrival into Maryland of a large number of Catholics a diversity of opinion spread through the colonies. Each American colony made their own laws about what constituted a marriage and divorce.

With no legal or church sanction,
slaves "jumped the broom".

Love Rules

In Victorian England, our modern sense of romantic marriage came about. Choosing one's own true love after courtship was enshrined in tradition mimicking the Queen and Prince Albert's inspiration. The virginal white dresses of brides became all the latest fashion and have continued as a symbol of union ever since.

With the Victorians, divorce was seen as a betrayal of love. While legally possible, it was highly frowned upon and rarely happened due to its stigma as failure.

It was during this time frame that the novel as a literary form spread across Europe. Books by authors extolling romance were widely read.  Novels about love generated a new thoughts of passion related to courtship and marriage. These appeals to emotion brought down the idea that parents should choose their child's life partner.  Love came before marriage.

Dating and Divorce

With modern technologies came a new sense of marriage. Dating started spreading as a social institution as late as 1920. In heavily commercial societies, some even began advocating "try before you buy", putting sex before marriage.  During this period, all parental controls on marriage where abandoned.  Laws came into being governing the "age of consent" protected children from being caught up in marriage too early.

During the 19^th century divorce in the United States required finding of fault in either the husband or wife. One party must be injured by the other by abuse, desertion, adultery, inebriation or impotence. Without proving in court that these things had happened, marriage continued until death.

Prior to becoming a place to elope to, Nevada was the haven for an easy, no-fault divorce. Starting in the mid-1950's rules across the United States began to change, allowing simple divorces without placing blame. It wasn't until the early 1970's that these laws changed federally and divorce became easy.

The liberalization of divorce law had a major impact on marriage. Unhappy couples could now break and make marriages as they wished. Women with newly won freedoms and economic independence no longer were kept bound to house and husband.

Threats to Marriage?

Recently we are struggling with the idea of allowing gender-less marriage. This effort has been an attempt by gay and lesbian couples to gain legal privileges, freedoms, and rights. Against them are arrayed largely religious groups who see their activity as a threat to the institution of marriage.

Sulu's special day.

Saying that marriage is about bringing together men and women so children can have mothers and fathers, some think allowing these non-traditional marriages will cause a break in the fabric of society.  Same sex marriage is declared an "untested social experiment" on children.

Research indicates that parents' financial, psychological and physical well-being is enhanced by marriage and that children benefit from being raised by two parents within a legally recognized union. 

Science has been generally consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents. 

In 1996 the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) passed in both houses of congress by large majorities. DOMA codifies the non-recognition of same-sex marriages for all federal purposes. DOMA has since been found unconstitutional in eight federal courts, including the First and Second Circuit Court of Appeals. In response, the Republican leadership of the House of Representatives instructed the House General Counsel to defend the law using taxpayer dollars. 

Conclusion

Ron and Nancy cut the cake.

Definitions of who can get married, how they can get married, and when they can divorce has changed with time. The relationship between marriage, law, and church has evolved. The rules for divorce morph.

What we grew-up understanding as "marriage" is about our culture. What we know as children is what we see as “normal”.  Marriage has not always been one way or another.

I am neither advocating or denying any particular change to the institution of marriage. Rather, I am claiming that we should not “stay the course” just because it is familiar. Embracing new understandings can enrich us all.

Changes to the definition of marriage have had affects on society. We need to consider them and choose wisely.  Change can be positive. 

While we may dislike or fear changes to marriage, we can not claim that we are the first to modify it's definition. In fact, we are irresponsible if we do not continue to modify marriage's meaning.  We have an obligation to climb the ladder of freedom for future generations.

Be sure to subscribe to this blog!

Citizens in Transition

Great events separate the people of the United States into generations. War, prosperity, and social events all contribute to forming citizens in an age. Our parents guide us through childhood to become adults in the culture currents of our times. Events in our lives define us into distinctive generations.

Transitions of  citizens.

Those who grew up in the Great Depression and fought in World War II were named by Tom Brokaw to be the “Greatest” generation” for their sacrifice and service.  

The Korean War and the start of the economic boom that came after world conflict defined those we know of as the “Silent" Generation.  

A huge boom in births lead to a population heavily influenced by Vietnam and the social turmoil created the “Baby Boomers”.  

“Generation X” had information technologies like the personal computer and cable television as their bread and butter.  

An economic boom and a war on terror heavily influenced the most recent of these generations of citizens, often known as the “Millennial's” or “Generation Y”.

Recently the Pew Research Center released a report highlighting the differences between these groups. Some of the differences between them are startling. They point to large demographic trends that will effect our nation and even the world over the coming decades.

Marriage

One of the largest trends is in the break down of traditional marriage.

Less than half of “Millennial's” are marrying when compared to the “Greatest” generation. 

This trend has been going on for many decades.  Some of have attributed the decline in marriage to the legal redefinition allowing for no fault divorce.

Population

The huge influx of boomers still dominates the population. Sometimes referred to as the “egg in the snake”, the huge numbers of births in the post World War II has moved the largest populated generation slowly through society. 

 As they age in the next few decades they will place a large load of support on the less populous generations that followed them.

Education 

The Feminist Movement has had a major impact on the educational differences of the generations. The Title IX act of 1972 forced schools to give women equal opportunity in education across the land forcing changes that are apparent today.  The country is becoming more highly educated with each generation.  Note that  the "Millennial's" percentages may be lower than for other generations as  they have had less time to finish college.

Income

Along with more education, incomes for the generations have risen. 

Considering that the peak earning years are age 40 to 50 for most people, the Millennial's are doing surprisingly better than their parents did at their age.

Factored into median household income, although not shown specifically in the graphs, are that many families have become "two income" with both men and women earning.

Military Service

Lastly is information that should give us pause. With the advent of a volunteer military service, the connection between voters and military members has been shattered. 

The number of citizens who are veterans and bear the responsibility for defending liberty has seen a sharp decrease since the 1970's when the draft was ended. 

The long term effect  to our social contract with each other has yet to play out, but will over the next decades.

Be sure to subscribe in order not to miss out on the next post.

Age of the Brain Tools

In the near future our brain tools (computing machines) will be smarter than we are. These brain tools may not be able to have free will or think like we do. The brain tools capability to do mental type tasks will be huge. Computers, or something like them, will be embedded into everything we use. They will be smart, highly connected and everywhere. Of course, this assumes that we as a species survive into that future. In this post we will examine the basic directions of our calculating machines and try to see what some of the outcomes may be.

Moore's Law

Computing Power Is Increasing

Intel co-founder Gordon Moore described a trend in brain tool power that has held true for over 40 years. He described a trend that components were getting smaller each year. (Click on the images to expand them.)

More Computers than People

The number of computer processors units (CPU) being sold is also increasing. Even a very conservative estimate based on the growth rate of CPUs sold over the last 20 years suggests there will be more computing machines than people soon. If this trend continues, we will be awash in brain tool power with dozens or even hundreds of machines per person.

Bandwidth Usage Exploding

First with modems, later with cable, and more recently with wireless, the global demand for bandwidth connecting these brain tools is growing exponentially. Even if this growth were to begin to level off, our brain tools will have an enormous ability to communicate by the middle of the century.

Multiplying the Human Brain

One abstract measure of the ability of our brain tools to calculate is in millions of instructions per second (MIPS). MIPS are a method of comparing brain power. Current brain tools have about the same capability of processing as a lizard.

If Gordon Moore's trend continues at the same pace, in my life time a single brain tool will have the ability to process at the level of a human brain. 

Within my children's lifetime a single brain tool will have the ability to process as much as all the human brains on the planet.

What Will We Become?

Even if these estimates are exaggerated, the world of 2100 will be radically different than today. If we think in terms the age of the earth, thousands or even millions of years, this is a sudden and drastic change in information, computation, and communication power on Earth.

Imagine having a machine that has the ability to process as much information as every human mind alive today does today.  All at once, in one little box.  In your home. In your car.  At your job.  On the street lamp.  In the police car.  In the criminals hand.  In the tank.  Everywhere.

DARPA pack mule with a lizard brain.

The potential power of these processing machines overwhelms my ability to conceive what will be possible. Even if the tool is limited to just pushing information around, its power will be awesome. As this kind of power becomes wide spread, it will be a boon and a threat to us humans.

Our grandchildren will live in a reality so different from my grandparents that it will be unrecognizable. The ability to make smarter decisions will certainly be present. The amount of information available to us to do what we do will be much greater. As the machines become more capable, they will deliver the information we need more readily. Even if artificial intelligence is never obtained, the shear power of the calculators and communicators that these brain tools become will make us transcend what we humans are today.

The connected-ness of the world is increasing so rapidly as if to make the old barriers of time and place which kept us apart almost irrelevant. This blog alone is read in 20+ countries by many people I would have had no contact with 50 years ago. Our ability to speak with each other and understand each other in real time across the planet will make the Tower of Babel seem like a the dreams of a child.

Decisions At Hand

I do not know if it will be a better world, but hope it to be so. We are at a key point in human history where we have the opportunity to solve many intractable problems by applying our new brain tools. We are also at great peril of losing our freedom to the domination of information. We could rely on these machines as a crutch and even lose our ability to think for ourselves.

"I'm afraid I can't let you do that, Dave."

As we move forward into this new age of the mechanical minds, we need to take care as to how we use them. If we just 'let it happen' the world could turn into a dystopia or utopia. The decisions we make in the next decade or so will essentially change what it means to live a human life all across the planet.

While we debate issues about this year's economy, gun control, gay marriage, and immigration; the world of the brain tool is fundamentally transforming us. We hardly discuss the ramifications of these brain tools to our freedom, power, social borders, or economy. We are just letting it happen.

We need to take a step back and consider the longer term issue of what kind of world do we want to build with these tools. We need to give debates about our brain tools a higher priority in our political sphere. What kind of world do you want these brain tools to usher in?

• What limits to information should we have?
• What information should be free?
• Are access to brain tools a  human right?
• Should nation state boundaries keep information limited?
• Should brain tools fight our wars?
• What information can others have about us? Government?  Business? Church?
• Should we automate our government with brain tools?
• Should anyone have private control over large data sets?
• What information should be kept private?
• How do we protect our children from information they are not ready for?
• How do we keep dangerous ideas from bad people?

I hope you will consider questions like these. I hope you will vote with these issues in mind. I hope our media will help us focus finding answers to them. If we do not, we are rolling the dice with the whole world's future.

In God We Vote

In order to be elected to United States Congress, it is still necessary to affiliate oneself with one of the major publicly accepted religions.

Religious composition of the 113th Congress.

Our current crop of Representatives and Senators are still largely Protestant and Catholic with only a small 13% representing all other religions.

A full 97% of elected members self identify within the Judeo-Christian paradigm.

Although specifically ruled out in the U.S. Constitution as a requirement for any appointed or elected office, declaring a faith of some kind is widely known to be a litmus test for elect-ability by individual voters.

In early January of this year The Pew Forum On Religion & Public Life released its latest survey results of congressional members religious identifications.

This years batch, the 113th Congress, had three unique people one each declaring for the first time to be a Buddhist, Hindu and None.

Detail of protestant sects within Congress.

Protestants Highly Divided

Baptists, Presbyterians, Episcopal and Methodists still make up the largest group of protestants in both houses.

Many smaller protestant groups such as Adventists, Pentecostals, Quakers, and Christian Scientists have a member or two each compromising the "other" group.  A significant number of Senate and House members refused to define which branch of protestants they belong to and remained "unspecified".



Party Affiliation Important

When comparing Democrats and Republicans religious affiliation, there is a startling difference in their composition.

Republicans proclaim themselves to be over two-thirds Protestant while many more Democrats identify as Jewish or Catholic.  Further those who do not identify as one of the large Judeo-Christian denominations fall almost exclusively in the Democratic party.


Long Term Trends

Using historical data from similar Congressional surveys, a long term trend away from Protestant faiths toward Catholic and Jewish adherents is small and slow, but clear.

The presidential election of 1961 was when the United States elected its first non-Protestant President in the Catholic John F. Kennedy.  Mitt Romney also may be a bell-weather for the small rise of the Mormon faith in U.S. public life, although their impact is still small in comparison to other major faiths.

For a detailed break-down on the religious affiliation of each member of Congress, The Pew Forum as a PDF file available for download  here.

I Gotta Goooo! Free Will?

Daddy.

You do what you
HAVE to do.

Daddy.

I gotta go now, please.

DADDY!

I Gotta GOOOOO!

If you have ever been on a road trip with a young child, words similar to these are familiar. The biological drive to eliminate bodily wastes is one we can control. Kind of.  Sometimes.  We are able to post pone it for a bit. With age and practice we may be able to 'hold' it longer. Eventually though, we must all heed natures call. When we get even older, our capacity to wait diminishes and the pressure can become greater.

Free will is like this. We have the ability to observe and choose what we do, only to a limited degree.

We do not want to go in our pants. We do not want to go in public. We want to go as soon as we are practicably able. We monitor our condition and suppress our urges when we can. We give into our urges when we must.  Our urges and our requirement to eliminate bodily waste is not a choice.  They just are.

We follow cultural conventions.

We would like to think, we are in total control of ourselves. Our society expects us to act in certain ways, restrain from doing unacceptable behaviors. Culture and parents teach us do do those things which are considered good and right. If we look closely at what we really are, we find a different case. Free will is often about when we do what we were going to already do. If you don't think this is the case, try to hold back your bladder for a day. Report back on your experience.

Occasionally our decisions, our free will, allows us to make big decisions that change the path of our lives or those around us. Should I marry her? Is that the right job to take? What classes shall I take in school? Some acts of free will have big consequences. We make a choice and it affects our potential futures.  Often these acts are only consequences of previous choices.  If I did not take that class, I would not have gotten that job and she would not have married me.

These kinds of big free will decisions are rare. The rarity is a good thing. Making life altering decisions every day takes a toll on us emotionally, physically and socially. Changing ourselves in drastic ways tears apart the social infrastructure that makes our lives simple and pleasant to live.

Previous decisions limit us.

Most decisions we make have little or no real impact on the course of our lives. Should I eat an apple or a pear? Do we watch this TV program or that one? Which pair of socks will I put on today? If you could take a step back from your life and observe it, you would find that these decisions are often based on habits of behavior. The trivial decisions are often pre-determined from previous decisions, our environment, or even just who we biologically are.

Free will is only an occasional choice in a particular moment, often with limited consequences. Humility teaches that most of the time, we drift by habit and expectation along an already chosen path.

Mine! All MINE!

I am precioussssss

Do you want a healthier economy? Want to sell your product? Want more equal rights? Getting large groups of people to take action is a messaging problem. How can we best motivate people to take action? It turns out that calls to collective action are not the best. It turns out people respond better to selfishness motivation.

John F. Kennedy's inaugural address got the messaging wrong when he said “Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.” His desire may have been to do good.  The cry for self sacrificing service was not the best way to deliver the idea. We citizens do not react well to calls to actions for the society at our own expense.

To act together we must be motivated alone. We get more done for the group when given messages of self interest. This paradox is at the heart of our political debate between social responsibility and individual freedom. A new approach to motivation may contain solutions to our most difficult societal problem. Individuals acting freely do best for the group.

Bad messaging?

A new study shows that individual people acting in self interest are more effective at positive social change. Scientists at Stanford have done a series of experiments showing interesting results. Appeals to care, act, and think for a group sap motivation. The studies also show that when people emphasize their independence to be free in their actions they will be more motivated to do good for the group.

United States culture is a reflection of all of us as a group. Often the message from society to individuals is that we should act as a group. Messages like “Everyone should go do <fill-in-the-blank>” act as de-motivators to action and get less done.

A series of experiments were conducted trying to figure out what inspired people to work the hardest at solutions. It focused on the relationship between self action and group action. One experiment tested the persistence of people while another tested to see how motivation effected actions.

The first test examined how long people would persist at a physical challenge when they were thinking about independence versus interdependence. Those who thought about independence (self) worked at the challenging task longer. When primed to think about interdependence, the subjects gave up on the task sooner. Thinking in terms of self interest makes us work harder.

Good messaging!

Another test was designed to have people describe how descriptions of future actions affected their desire to complete the action. In this experiment, when the future tasks involved working together, understanding, and adapting to a group, subjects predicted they would work at it less. When told that the future effort would emphasize self discipline, being unique, and understanding their own viewpoints better, subjects predicted they would work harder. Thinking in terms of self interest makes us more motivated.

The study is about desire, not goals. The suggestion is that if we want effective change in behaviors we need to motivate the individual as a free actor. It is better to appeal to individual effort and self interest to cause changes in how people act.

If we desire to have a better world through politics, business, and morality then we must call on individuals to seek self-interest. Cultural inspirations to better 'me' work better than calls to better 'us'. Call each and every person to action, each to themselves. Mahatma Gandhi got the messaging right when he said “Be the change that you wish to see in the world.”