Carl Sagan changed my life

Flipping through a worn copy of Cosmos by Carl Sagan, I relish the musty smell of pages that changed my life.  This beautifully illustrated book has withstood the test of time as a history of science and its significance.  But I never saw the original PBS series so watching the sequel with Neil DeGrasse Tyson thrills me!  The illustrations and photos, many actual NASA shots, are phenomenal.  True to the spirit of Dr. Sagan, it is science and history at their best.

Carl Sagan
from the dust jacket of Cosmos

While some may say the version of history advanced by Cosmos is not completely accurate, there's no attempt to fudge the facts for the sake of political expediency. An interesting debate is unfolding between Corey S. Powell,  Discover magazine's Editor at Large, and Steven Sotor, Cosmos's co-writer and resident research associate at the American Museum of Natural History.  Powell asks if the 16th century astronomer Thomas Digges should be depicted as the protagonist of the first episode rather than the visionary Giordano Bruno.   

The question is which man better represents the scientific community.  Powell advances Digges, the diligent astronomer and diplomatic observer. Sotor makes the case for Bruno, who contributed much to our understanding of stars but who also alienated his religious community in the process.  Powell is correct to say that this is an important issue but I disagree that the first episode fails to advance the correct agenda by alienating religious fundamentalists through the use of Bruno. 

As I see it, there are two problems with the critique.  The first is that it fails to appreciate that science is an enterprise of realists and visionaries.  The two are needed but rarely are these attributes woven together in a single person, other than perhaps in Charles Darwin or Albert Einstein. Yes, science is a community affair but that shouldn't mean that all must play similar roles.  The power and beauty of science is that the testing of results confirms or denies not just an individual's opinion but the scientific community's opinion as to the best fit with reality.  And as Michael Polanyi and Thomas Kuhn's concept of paradigm shift explains, this best fit can change radically.  

Science is our window to the world, a window that is enlarged through subsequent generations. Sometimes our view through this window is fairly accurate.  Other times, not quite.  For example, those who appreciate Einstein's contribution to scientific advancement understand that his work both refuted and extended aspects of Newtonian physics.  

The second mistake of the critique is in misunderstanding the nature of Sagan's attempt at compromise.  Carl Sagan was not prepared to water down science, rather he was trying to preserve it with a rapprochement between religion and science.  But this enterprise seems to have failed spectacularly, not just in science but in politics and society generally.  

A compromise with fundamentalist conservative forces is not possible.  George Lakoff, a well-known American cognitive linguist, has explained its futility.  A recent interview in The Guardian sums up Lakoff's thinking nicely -- persuasive arguments are made on the basis of moral frames rather than appeals to rationality.  His argument is a damning indictment of the progressive approach. Lakoff argues the tactics of rational discussion and compromise are flawed for failing to take into account how human beings actually think.  He also makes the case that conservative forces better understand the workings of the human mind when it considers topics such as science, religion and politics.

Fundamentalists have pointed to Cosmos and correctly understood that it has the power to undermine their religious beliefs.  Bold statements of fact when it comes to the age of the earth or evolutionary processes do indeed strike at their core.  For if the universe is infinite in space, who is to say that it is not also infinite in time?  This is the crux of the matter.  An infinite space/time universe, or as DeGrasse Tyson says a possible multiverse, has no need for a creator.

A dumpster at the Fisheries and Oceans Canada library
Mont-Joli, Quebec

In Canada, Conservative politicians have begun dismantling scientific and democratic institutions.  One of the first to go was the long-form census in 2010.  Information from the census allowed politicians at all levels, even school trustees, the opportunity to make decisions in an objective rather than ideological fashion.  

Then in the summer of 2013, Fisheries and Oceans Canada libraries were closed.  With their closures, unique research publications, some over a century old, were no longer available or were destroyed.  This is baseline data, likely much of it gone forever.  Since then, Environment Canada, Transport Canada, Public Works, and the main Health Canada libraries have been closed.  It makes me weep.  The federal government is destroying our scientific equivalent of the ancient Library of Alexandria with nary a word of opposition from Canadians!

Now the government is trying to rush C-23, the Fair Elections Act, through Parliament. A group of academics in an open letter supported by a Globe and Mail editorial said the Act will:

"undermine the integrity of the Canadian electoral process, diminish the effectiveness of Elections Canada, reduce voting rights, expand the role of money in politics and foster partisan bias in election administration."

Canada is facing an unparalleled assault on democratic, scientific and environmental knowledge and institutions.  Like many progressive people throughout the world, Canadians are mostly accepting this destruction.

The second episode of Cosmos talks about the five mass extinctions that preceded the modern age:  the Ordovician, Devonian, Permian, Triassic, and Cretaceous periods. The unasked question is: Are we currently living in the middle of another mass extinction? There are many indicators to think so.

With over 99% of all species now extinct, the only real question is when human beings will join the crowd.  Canadians in particular have a role to play both in terms of modelling good behaviour and in lessening the conditions that hasten humanity's demise.  We are among the best educated populations on earth and we have control over vast reserves of oil, the ultimate cause for the imminent threat of climate change.  

Does it aid our chances of survival to continue to pursue an accord with fundamentalists? In the Open Society and its Enemies, Karl Popper, the great 20th century philosopher of science, responds:

"Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance.  If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."

The answer is no, we can no longer afford to pursue a compromise.  George Lakoff's understanding of cognition and frames is correct and there is no possibility of reaching Powell's "peace between the two sides."  We've run out of time. What is needed instead is to inspire progressive humanity to action and this is the strength of the Cosmos series.

Will further attempts to reach this rapprochement cause an undermining of the grand vision of science?  And if so, will this negatively affect the thinking and actions of progressive people in defence of science and democracy?  Yes on both counts. 

Science is more than simple experimentation and observation.  At it's best, it's inspirational and suggests steps forward.  It's democratic and egalitarian in its leanings. All men and women can and have aspired to be scientists.  While America has yet to see a woman elected president, there have been hundreds of American women scientists including Nobel Prize winners Maria Mayer, Barbara McClintock, Gertrude Elion as well as the famous marine biologist who created and revolutionized our understanding of the environment, Rachel Carson.  Defenders of science need a reminder of what we stand to lose and an example like Bruno to inspire them.  Without a strong vision, we are left floundering.  Cosmos helps restore this vision.  

To return to Powell's original question, would Carl Sagan approve of Giordano Bruno as a hero in Cosmos?  When Dr. Sagan spoke at a special meeting of Parliament in June 1984, he did not mince words when it came to the imminent possibility of mass extinction through the use of nuclear weapons, the concept of Nuclear Winter.  As our understanding of the mind is advancing, I have no doubt that Sagan would say go with the science. In this sense, Steven Sotor is correct in advancing Bruno.  Science is not just an endeavour of careful observers; it is importantly a vocation of courageous visionaries.

We are standing at the sixth portal of DeGrasse Tyson's grand "Hall of Extinction".  Will human beings go through that climate change gateway or remain on this side?  It is time to grow up and take responsibility for our destructive influences on the ecosystem of the earth.  If we don't, not only will we be the first species to be fully aware of our probable demise but also the first to squander an opportunity to prevent it.


P.S.  The final instalment of the Powell-Sotor debate is in.  It's an interesting debate -- thank you.  This final comment by Powell is spot on:

"In truth, it took both Bruno and Digges (and their many successors) to build – slowly, incrementally, with many stumbles along the way – toward our modern understanding of the universe." 

The views expressed in this post are personal opinions only.

The meaning of life is happiness.

I am in the foothills of the Himalayan mountains and feeling the effects of oxygen deprivation.  At an elevation of close to 2,100 meters, the walk up this steep hill in McLeod Ganj has been difficult but oh-so-worth it for in the distance stretch the snow-capped mountains.  It is beautiful and in contrast to Delhi, the air is crisp and clean.

View from McLeod Ganj

There are many Tibetans who have fled to McLeod Ganj in recent years. They make the long trek over the mountains in the winter, when roads are impassible, and they lose toes or fingers to frostbite. This town is filled with Tibetans who despite improbable odds, seem to be universally happy. I would gladly while away an afternoon in a Tibetan shop just to listen to the sound of their laughter.

This day has other plans.  Our little group makes the trek up to the monastery of the Dalai Lama and we are greeted by saffron-robed monks with shaved heads, men and women alike.  I start speaking to a well-educated monk from France and she tries to explain their lives to me.  I am again struck by the natural, not forced, good humour that surrounds me.

After a brief tour, we have a tasty vegetarian lunch and towards the end, there is a big commotion.  I mean these are quiet, happy monks.  What is happening?

I duck out of the dining room to see a courtyard of monks together in groups of three. They are all arguing in loud voices.  What gives?  Punctuating the many gestures and the wagging of fingers is a periodic clap as the right hand is lowered toward the left to produce a loud sound -- one hand clapping!  This seems to be a signal for the monks to exchange places in their triads.

I find my French monk and she explains that they believe in maintaining wellness of mind and body.  Part of their wellness routine is to exercise the gifts of the mind by debating. They were likely discussing religious points but make no mistake, these were heated arguments.  And the clap?  Well, that's the point when the referee in the triad thinks a good point has been made and at this, they change places.

Well this was the best!  I grew up near an order of contemplative monks, the Trappists of Oka, Quebec.  They took vows of silence.  Not these smiling, laughing monks!  Think Dalai Lama multiplied by three hundred.  I thought about signing up on the spot ... perhaps in my old age.

That evening, we ate at a restaurant run by the monks.  We were the last customers and the monks who ran the restaurant also sat down to eat.  I hurriedly finished while asking myself how I could show my appreciation to people who didn't speak English. The answer came to me but I paused as I wasn't sure that my gesture wouldn't be seen as inappropriate.

As I went toward the cash, I turned to the table of monks.  Making eye-contact with a female monk, I smiled and made my point, "The meal was great but the tea was a little weak!"  I followed this with a loud one-hand clap.

For a moment, they looked at me clearly startled but I continued to smile.  Then the monks roared!  The female monk covered her mouth and was doubled-over laughing. One of the monks ran to find someone who could speak English and we spent the rest of the evening laughing and talking together.  Here I was literally halfway around the world but I had found genuine human contact through the universal language of laughter.  What an amazing gift!

This was ten years ago but I came full circle this week.  In the intervening years, I heard the Dalai Lama speak at an event here in Ottawa.  The acoustics weren't great but it didn't seem to matter -- the man is always laughing!  Attached is a great story written by Douglas Preston about the Dalai Lama laughing as he's bowled over by a group of skiers, The Dalai Lama's Ski Trip.

The Dalai Lama's Ski Trip

Here's an excerpt:
"She (the waitress serving the Dalai Lama) spoke with complete seriousness.  "What is the meaning of life?

The Dalai Lama answered immediately.  "The meaning of life is happiness."  He raised his finger, leaning forward, focusing on her as if she were the only person in the world. "Hard question is not. 'What is the meaning of life?'  That is easy question to answer!  No, hard question is what make happiness.  Money?  Big house?  Accomplishment?  Friends?  Or ..."  He paused.  "Compassion and good heart?  This question all human beings must try to answer: What make true happiness?"  He gave this last question a peculiar emphasis and then fell silent, gazing at her with a smile."

There's always something in our genetic makeup and in our upbringing that when combined, can bring on disease.  Allow me to explain.  Some geneticists estimate that we each carry about 20 lethal genes as well as other genes that can make us ill.  When expressed in certain conditions, these cause illness.  There are some families with higher rates of diabetes or alcoholism.1   Others may have higher rates of certain types of cancer.  This is the reason that Angelina Jolie recently had preventative surgery.  Her DNA carries genes that make her particularly vulnerable to the development of breast cancer.  Similarly, schizophrenia, autism and depression tend to run in families.

There is often a nurturing or environmental factor that can either prevent or help bring on disease.  A high consumption of alcohol, high caloric intake, stress or other habits that can run in families cause the genetic disease to be expressed.  Perhaps this is another meaning of the well-known expression, "The sins of the father are to be laid upon the children."

When I was younger, I had depression.  It took me a long time to overcome but this week, a friend sent me a TED Talk that reinforced what I had discovered by trial and error, The Happy Secret of Better Work with Dr. Shawn Achor.  What I like about Dr. Achor's approach is that he breaks down happiness into small steps, small habits, that we can all learn: send one appreciative email a day, smile, give thanks, exercise and have fun.

Perhaps I am starting to get the hang of having fun!  Humour is a habit and it needs to be cultivated.  I turned the anger I felt from depression sideways into bad puns and wisecracks.  Some uncultured people don't like my puns but even they seem to like being around me more.  More importantly, I like being around myself.  By spontaneously having fun, the divide between work and play dissolves.  Dr. Achor says happiness makes us more creative and smarter.  I believe him.  I continue to crack jokes to keep from becoming depressed but just pity my poor sons and colleagues who have to put up with these jokes! 

From the foothills of the Himalayas ten years ago to a TED Talk this past week, I finally get fun and happiness.  And if Dr. Shawn Achor is right, this is something we can teach our children that will make them not only more creative and smarter but truly happy.

When my sons were younger, we would make wishes in jest by breaking chicken wishbones, blowing out birthday candles, or throwing coins in a fountain.  The boys would always tease me, "Mom, we know what your wish is.  You want us to be happy" They were right.  I always looked for ways to break the chain of depression.  The sins of the parent shouldn't be laid on the child.

The Dalai Lama is right -- the meaning of life is happiness, at least it is for me.  And Dr. Achor is also right in that the feeling of happiness allows us to find greater meaning in life. It's an upward spiral as one reinforces the other.  Now where's that saffron robe?


The views expressed in this post are personal opinions only.

You never know which kids are poor

"Principals know which kids are poor."  This is often said in meetings and it makes me want to scream.  It's rarely said by principals though.  Children go to great lengths to hide the shame of poverty and principals know they have no way of knowing which students are truly poor.

Poverty is a constant gnawing in the pit of the stomach and an inability to think about anything other than food.  It is a lack of payment for field trips and the humiliation of being asked once again to bring in the money.  It is the hand-me-downs that don't quite fit and the mocking that follows.  It is being fat and being teased as children who often live on little more than sugar and fat are overweight.  It is loneliness as inviting friends to your home is unthinkable.  It is often the double jeopardy of mental illness and addiction in a family member.  And it has less to do with the lack of resources and more to do with a lack of self-worth.

Poverty is the constant punishment for the ridiculous crime of being born in the wrong place at the wrong time.  In 1989, the federal government vowed to end child poverty by 2000.  Instead even more children are poor1 and more than one in seven Canadian children today lives in poverty.2  

I'm not an educator but I've learnt to read my audience.  When the educators in the room sit up and take notice, I think about it.  Often enough, ideas that are common to social workers or community activists are foreign to educators.  And in fairness, the opposite holds true too.  

There's more implied by "Principals know which kids are poor".   Educators tend to think of poverty as an illness to be cured a child at a time, the medical model of disease.  Like physicians with treatments, educators often believe they can address child poverty if principals have sandwiches to hand out, funds for school supplies, or money for field trips.  The problem is this isn't true.

Is poverty a disease of individuals with a simple cause-and-effect much like appendicitis or diabetes?  No, it is far more complicated and the causes are many.  While poverty's influence impacts individuals, it is families and communities that are actually impoverished and this is where we have to direct our attention.

There are successful models for addressing poverty but they are based on a public health paradigm.  What do I mean by this?  More complicated diseases are often not amenable to individual treatment because either the disease spreads too rapidly, it is not treatable in the conventional sense, or it is too expensive to treat individually. We have community water purification systems because many diseases are water-borne and it is more effective and less expensive to prevent diseases such as E. coli, typhoid or cholera than it is to treat them.  Think Walkerton.  The same is true for smallpox and polio, two diseases that were widespread, highly virulent and even deadly prior to the introduction of mass immunization programs.

This approach can also be used to address poverty.  One such initiative is the Banff-Ledbury neighbourhood's No Community Left Behind project.  This project directly involved members of the community to address their own needs.  Another similar initiative that is particularly dear to my heart is the Pathways to Education project.

Pathways to Education

Unlike what the Fraser Institute might have us believe, studies show that child poverty and failure in school are closely linked.  Pathways to Education is an initiative that addresses the economic and educational needs of poorer children.  And if I tell you that studies also show that better educated populations are healthier, then it shouldn't come as a surprise to hear that Pathways projects are often initiated by community health centres.  Pathways provides student tutoring, mentoring, bus transportation to school or lunch vouchers, and post-secondary scholarships.  High school graduation rates have more than doubled and the rate of post-secondary attendance in colleges or universities has tripled among Pathways participants.3

The Pathways model identifies needier communities and then links these communities to the school.  Families of participating students who live in geographically distinct communities sign contracts and are directly involved in the project.  This helps ensure community and family support for the students and the program.

Let me emphasize this point.  Pathways to Education is not a charity in the conventional sense.  It does not simply provide student resources such as tutoring services or bus tickets.  Rather Pathways is about developing relationships within and between members of the community, families and the school.  In fact, most Pathways services are provided by community volunteers.

If you want to do something right now to support Pathways to Education, simply click on this link and vote everyday until March 21.  If Pathways receives the most votes, it will win a $50,000 grant.

Teachers mean well when it comes to helping young people but few have any personal experience with poverty.  Still particularly among educators, there's no excuse for ignorance.


The views expressed in this post are personal opinions only.