To Alpha Centauri or The Bronx and Mississippi?

I don’t know Yuri Milner.  I know that he made a lot of money by backing some of the biggest Internet social media companies.  I know that about two years ago he decided to use  $100 million of his own money to launch a project called Starshot, to explore outer space, way outer space.  His goal was to find a method to send measuring devices to our nearest star, Alpha Centauri, which is about four light years away.

Space.com

Now, four years doesn’t sound like an impossible amount of time to get to another planet, but, despite the “warp speed” button on the Millennium Flacon, going the speed of light is something that cannot be done, except by light.  Undaunted, Mr. Milner has assembled a top team of  scientists and engineers who want to be a part of this project, and they have come up with ideas that they feel, theoretically, could go almost 20% of the speed of light, if they can work out the many difficult details.  At that speed it would take 20 years to send tiny devices to Alpha Centauri.  What they would send would be a herd of very small chips. like the ones that are in your phone.  They would be sent there by a push from an array of focused lasers, which would give them a giant push, and get them up to 20% of light speed.

Will this work?  That seems to be only part of the mission of this mission.  The real fun is just getting all these skilled people to think and act together attempt to conceptualize technology, execution, and the future.  The odds of getting the machines there, getting them to work during the few moments of fly by, and then getting them to send data back through four light-years of space in manner that can be received and interpreted, are quite small.  But they have $100 million to start with, and about thirty years o figure it out.

Fascinating, encouraging, and hey, it’s his money.

EXCEPT:

I was reading an update on the Starshot program in this mont’s Scientific American, which I still get in hard copy after all these years, even though it isn’t even American any more. The articles have been cut down to three or four pages to cater to an audience with today’s attention span. 

so I was able to keep reading new articles about attempts at using the scientific method to discover other factors that influence our lives.  Science continues to do this even if the results are not 100% accurate, and the struggle for confirmation usually demands “further study.”  The lack of clarity is part of what makes the real quest for knowledge unending.  Nobody, knows it all; even if they think they do.

About ten pages further along in the same issues (March, 2017) is an article by Kimberly Noble, who is a professor of neuroscience at Columbia University Teachers College.  She has studied the effects of poverty on children’s brain development and, not surprisingly, she has found that children who spend their early lives in homes with the lowest socio-economic level show impairments in their cognitive functioning.  These impairments are not due to their genetics, or race or location, as all those factors were controlled, they are due to not having enough of whatever is needed to develop their brains to their full potential.  This includes food, social and cognitive stimulation, attention, heat, stability, and all the other parts of life that come with poverty.

She cites that there are some programs that are somewhat effective and helping children who live in poverty to overcome those dangers, such as Head Start.  She also states that correlation does not always imply causality, as there may be other factors that just haven’t been discovered that may actually be the cause of these cognitive deficiencies.  So, this theory requires further study.

One type of study she suggests would be just to give the families money.  She wonders if fancy education or training programs are necessary, or if that would just be spreading the money around to consultants and teachers, and not the families who are poor.  Why not just give them money and see what good it would do?  Her “hypothesis is that increased family income will trigger a cascade of positive effects for these families.” And that these effects will show up in the  improved cognitive skills of these children.

Her experimental design is to give 100 families $333 a month.  That’s a bit of money.  But not much.  It’s almost $4000 a year.  It’s certainly something, if you have nothing, but not enough to really move anyone out of poverty.

That’s when I began to connect the two articles in my mind.  What if, in addition to his fun and fascinating interstellar Starshot project, Mr. Milner could see his way to dropping another $100 million of the estimated over $3.1 Billion he has parked around the world on Dr. Noble’s project.

Then we could really study what it would mean to a family’s life, including brain development, stability, achievement and future, if they could move out of poverty and into the lower-middle class.  

For around $100 million, 500 families could get $40,000 a year for seven years.  i would begin it at the birth of a child, just like Dr. Noble is doing. I don’t know what would happen; that’s why we do studies.  But my hypothesis would be that after seven years most of the families would have found a way to be able to keep running at that level on their own. It would allow them a better chance at keep the partners together.  It would give them a better way to have one parent at home while the other one worked, and each parent could find work without having the home fall apart or the kids go unsupervised.  It would allow them to keep jobs making $11 an hour long enough to move up and stating making $20 an hour.  Or it would allow them to go to school and get training to make $105,000 a year. It would relieve the stress that comes from not making the rent, or from choosing whether to pay for food, shelter or medicine. Perhaps even give the family resources to get a car, which would get them to work regularly and on time.

This kind of stability would assure that the child receives proper nourishment and proper attention from two parents; parents who would be relaxed enough so that the child would not be subjected to the tension that comes with poverty.

What this study would also be doing is testing the theory behind a guaranteed annual income. That is something that will come more into focus when self-driving trucks are introduced, along with all the other robots that will run our factories, deliver goods, clean our streets and suck the pollution out of the air.

So, if any of you reading this know how to get in touch with Mr. Milner, tell him to talk to Dr. Noble and see if they can work out the details.  You can tell him I sent you.

•   *   *  *   *   *   *

Really, I strongly believe that both of these functions, basic research for space exploration, and practical research on child and family development, obviously should be paid for by our government.  That’s what governments do well, when they are allowed to function.  Mr. Milner, and all of those who possess  the top .1% and the1% and even the top 5% of wealth in this country should pay a lot more taxes to allow the government to do things like this for all of our citizens.  They should do this because the system in this country is designed to help those people become innovative, to take risks, and even to fail and try again.  They have benefitted greatly from the rules that were written to help them.  They should pay some it back to allow the society to benefit also, That way our society can develop more innovators and more problem solvers, using the talent of people from all socio-economic groups.

However, we are living in an upside-down time.  A time when science is bad and anger and scapegoating innocent people is in vogue.  We are still being sold the myth that rich people are better at distributing money, and that giving them more of it helps those with less.  We hear this often, even though it has not worked for over thirty years.  

But that is a discussion for another time.  Almost every other time it seems, which is good, because maybe, if it discussed enough, things will change.

Until then, whisper in Yuri’s ear, or anyone out there who you know who has $100 million that they don’t want to leave to their great-grandchildren because it will ruin their lives.

Fear Pushes Back:

“We have Nothing to Fear, but Fear Itself “— FDR

For the price of a cup of coffee I have garnered a table on the ground floor of the Koch Institute for Cancer Research at MIT. I spent part of the morning listening to papers being delivered at Neurotech 2016 which describe the new and fascinating ways that many neuro-labs are probing into brains to help solve neurological mysteries. There are now technologies that have allowed people to seek answers to questions we didn’t even know to ask ten years ago.

There is irony of course, sitting here at this Koch Institute, which is funded by the same family that also funds some of the most conservative political issues in our country. They did not fund Trump, but their money did help spread exaggerated fear about what is happening in America. It is this fear that is pushing back against the adoption of many of the new technological and scientific advances that are being developed right here on this campus, and at other places all around the country and the world. It is the fear of change.

Trump, the Republican right, the Alt-right, the rightwing reactionary parties that are growing all over the world, and even ISIS, have aimed their messages at that fear. They are appealing to people to hold on to the traditional ways that have worked for centuries. In most cases these are the extreme form of the traditional ways. In many cases the arguments are based upon the unprovable and unfounded beliefs that were the guiding principles of the world before the scientific method of thought began to take hold. In other cases the arguments are put forth by those who have run the traditional power structure, as they struggle to stay in power. They have been feeling that their influence is being eroded by forces that they don’t quite understand and they can’t control. Their response is to clamp down more controls. They justify doing this by raising fears about the usual scapegoats; people who are different, ideas that are different, and any redistribution of power.

There is enough truth in this fear of change to attract almost half the world into being willing to give up much of their freedoms to feel safe. I know, from being a therapist for so many years, how difficult and frightening change can be. Even when the change is obviously for the better, most people resist.

I have spent decades working with people who struggle to stop eating at McDonald’s, stop hitting their kids, stop spending more money than they have. They understand that they need to study to pass a test and exercise to stay healthy. It would help if they could tell people what they want instead of being angry all the time. They haven’t learned that if you promised someone you would do something, do it.

When I talk about these things in therapy people agree that those are the things they want to do. They are almost all capable of change, but it takes months and years for it to happen. The biggest obstacle is fear. Feeling bad has become familiar. How does anyone know what the change will fee like?

If we move away from the being lead by old, White men, who will replace them? Will it be better? For whom? What’s the guarantee?

If I have been told all my life that there is one true god, and these people have a different god, or no god at all, how can I trust them? They are blasphemers. They are infidels.

Many wmen realize that they are as smart, capable and creative as any man. They see that they can prove themselves in the world, and be proud of their accomplishments. But many of them wonder if that freedom is worth giving up their male protectors and the financial support that often goes with it. They feel safer being supportive and nurturing. Why take on challenges when dependency is easier?

All these changes are frightening. I feel much safer if I carry a gun. Everyone on TV carries a gun and shoots the bad-guys. I want to be a hero, protect my family, and shoot bad guys too. Good guy Americans have always shot bad guys (and Indians, [and Black people, but we never talk about that]).

Changes are coming from all over. Almost all jobs have changed, or have been lost. Marriage is between anyone. People from so many countries are moving to other countries. Some are running away from being killed by militias or bombs from their own government. Some come here to start a business and make money. Some come here to pick fruit or cut your lawn. How can I tell which ones are terrorists?

There are so many new ways to communicated and get information. How do I know whom to believe? Facebook? The New York Times? Fox News, My friend Leslie? My doctor? The ads on TV? A priest? A neurobiologist?

When the changes get scary people want to hide. They want a big strong Daddy to protect them and make the decisions. They want a father, who knows best, just like in 1959, when nice White families lived in small towns with quirky neighbors and the same newspapers were delivered to everyone’s door. But we now know that comforting Cliff Huxtable turned out to be Bill Cosby, the rapist. We already know that our new leader-to-be is an overly sensitive narcissist, who retaliates against any criticism. But many are willing to give up some freedoms to feel safe, even when the danger is really slight.

As i sit here in this coffee shop, and go across the street to the conference, I see who it is who is making all of these changes. It is people from all over the world working together, sharing knowledge, trying to correct mistakes, trying to solve the mysteries of life. They are men and women who are all different colors, sizes, styles and backgrounds. Most of them are doing it because it is fascinating, helpful and exciting. Money is hardly a consideration. They want knowledge. They want to make the world better. They are amazed that given what we know today, so many people can still get so angry at each other over such irrelevant things.

What are these diverse groups of people doing? Here in this building they are developing new ways to fight cancer. Some of the treatments are already in use. They were not available five years ago. In the building a cross the street, where the conference is being held, a woman named Canan Dagneviren is describing how she is building “a mechanically-adaptive, mirco-fabricated device for chronic treatment of neurological disorders.”

Dr. Dagneviren was born and educated in Turkey, and then she came to do her graduate work in the U.S. She may or may not be a Muslim. I am sure that many people in the U.S. would yell at her to go back to where she came from. I am sure that the in-flow of people like her, who would love to come here to study, explore and create, will be diminished because of the unwelcoming atmosphere that has been created by this election.

The funding for this research comes from a combination of foundation money and a lot of government grants. But the flow of the government money has been cut by a conservative Congress. It will be worse under Trump, a man who doesn’t understand science, doesn’t want change and seems frightened of innovation.

But even he, with all of his Presidential powers can’t stop the changes from coming. They are pouring in over the fibre-optic network. They are moving in next door. They are the electric, self-driving cars that will be on the highway. They are keeping us healthy. They are warming our planet. They are taking away our jobs. They are making some new people very rich.

These new technologies could be saving the lives of many more people. They could be feeding many hungry people all around the world. They could be controlling greenhouse gases. They could be helping us all live longer, healthier, more prosperous and creative lives. But obstacles get thrown in their path because people are afraid of change. Unfortunately, the backlash seems to always be a part of the process. Change, even when it is clearly beneficial, never comes easily. Adaptation and evolution can take a long time, and many species don’t survive.

Stem Cells

It’s HubWeek in Boston.

What’s that?

That is Boston’s festival of science, medicine, art and technology.  They call it a Festival of the Future.  It is sponsored by Harvard, MIT, Mass General Hospital and the Boston Globe.  It lasts a week and has a few hundred events, ranging from breathing exercises to groups of scientists explaining their work to the general public.  

The “general public” in Boston and Cambridge is not very representative of what is usually considered the “general public.”  The group at these meetings are generally very informed, very intellectual, very scientifically involved. The people in the audience are either quite young and academic, or older and successful. The presenters and the audience at these meeting is also very diverse.  People from literally all over the world.  These are people who not only represent every continent and race, but often several continents and races are combined in one person (not very diverse politically, however).

The first event I went to was a discussion by a panel of doctors and scientists who are developing a cure, not just a treatment but a cure, for Type-1 diabetes.  They already have learned how to take stem cells and get them to evolve into the beta cells that make insulin.  In Type-1 diabetes these beta cells have been destroyed by the patient’s own auto-immune system. The presenters had formed a team from Harvard, The Joslin Clinic, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and a bio-tech laboratory that will do the manufacturing.  

They were working on a method to take a persons’ blood and from that produce stem cells with that person’s own DNA.  Then they then use the proper enzymes and RNA procedures to turn those stem cells into the kind of beta cells that make insulin.  These cells had been destroyed by the person’s own immune system, and thus created the Type-1 diabetes. The beta cells would then be injected into the person so they could again be able to naturally monitor their own glucose level and produce their own insulin to convert glucose into the kind of molecules the body needs for energy.  They have already done this for mice, and now they are beginning to see if it can work in humans.

Obviously, this is very complex.  The panel members were all excited about their progress and felt that they will be able to overcome the many obstacles they still face. They also made it clear that the availability of this treatment is still years away.

To me, this is one of the many examples of how we are entering into a new world.  We are on the brink of really understanding how we are constructed, and how we can get into the most basic structures and fix some of the flaws.  This is radically different from how medicine has worked until now, which has been to do our best to treat the symptoms. I have a close family member who has Type-1 diabetes and I see every day how she has to treat her symptoms.  It also feels as if the companies that have worked on the medicines she uses see her as much as a revenue stream as they do as a patient.  The treatments of so many diseases these days are designed to have a patient take medicine regularly to stay healthy, thereby keeping a life-long revenue stream going for the company.  There are very few actual “cures” for chronic diseases so far.  

I realize, in part, that is because finding the underlying, causal mechanism for any such disease is very complex, as these people made clear.  Still, the profit motive does play a role in what kind of medicine is developed.  The presenters on this panel are not paid by any drug company.  They work for universities and hospitals.  They had to fund their own company to make the supplies they will need, and that company will lose money for a long time.

Unfortunately, another factor that has delayed the progress of this group has been politics.  Again, it was objections from the right-wing, anti-scientific community.  As I said, these people feel that their methods are still five to ten years away from application.  But for the eight years of the Bush administration they were prevented from using any government money to develop stem cells.  Somehow Vice-President Cheney decided that developing stem-cells encouraged abortion and had to be stopped. Therefore people who were alive would have to continue to suffer and possibly die, due to the misconception that this was protecting some unborn zygotes.

Of course, it seems nuts and foolish.  But as a psychologist I know better than most people that logic and reason is not how any of us make decisions.  So much depends upon the people we hang around with, the information we get, the lens through which we view the world, and how comfortable we are with change.

A lot is changing now. We all feel it.  This is one, very positive example. But, as I said, we are beginning to deal with the basic building structures of humanity.  It is very complex.  That makes it all a bit unpredictable, exciting, yet also frightening.

An Almost Civil Disagreement

Max and I disagree.

But we are civil enough to at least attempt to discuss our differences.  We both admit that neither of us should expect to sway the other one at all.  We also will try to present our ideas in terms that could possibly be consistent with the other person’s values.  But really, since we certainly don’t share values, we have a tough time understanding why the other person is such a moron, especially when the truth is so obvious.

However, to begin with, we actually both agree.  We agree that our great country, the land of the free and home of the brave; home of the creative, the entrepreneurial; beacon of hope to the world, with a government of the people, by the people and for the people, — is a mess, and headed in the wrong direction.  We also agree that part of the problem is how terribly divided the population is, and that this division has become more hostile and disrespectful. 

We disagree about America’s priorities, more specifically about what to do about taxes, health care, big government, wages, education, race relations, immigration, refugees, war, weapons, guns, banks, the Fed, welfare, climate control, energy policy, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, All of the Bushes, Israel, Muslims, Christians, Jews, China, the Middle East, the whole defense budget, cities, suburbs, sex, the electoral college, the right to vote, abortion, transgendered people, soda and salt, and many, many other ways in which people care, govern and relate to each other.

We have some overlap in our ideas about Russia, job training, Ben Carson and gay people.

If you want to know more specifically what his positions are, then watch Fox News and read the Wall Street Journal.  He has those positions down pat, almost word for word. My ideas, which I like to think are the result of hours of thought and refection, after reading many sources, are actually close to what you get from the New York Times and NPR.

Not surprisingly, Max was raised in a rich semi-rural suburb in Virginia.  I was born in Brooklyn, NYC.  Really, that’s all you need to know.

Here are some of my generalizations of where we disagree.  If you want to read what Max  thinks, then you can go find his web page. He believes that people should be self-reliant.

Max believes in good and evil.

I believe in cause and effect.

Max believes that the most basic American freedom is the opportunity to make as much money as you can, and that the government should stop messing around with that.

I believe that America’s greatness comes from how it guarantees freedom of speech and thought. The government is there to protect us all equally from being exploited, intimidated or harmed by anyone. I also believe that the government should do whatever it can to help all of us improve our lives, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Max says he believes that all people are created equal and are free to do whatever they want with their lives.

I believe that the rich and powerful have always, always, exploited those who are poorer and weaker, and that they very rarely give up their advantages without a struggle, often with violence, but not always.

Although he hides behind euphemisms, Max believes that some people, mostly those like him, are intrinsically worth more than others, due to their native endowments.

I believe that we are all equal in our insignificance.

Max believes that men and women are equal, but also that they are basically different, and they should both keep to what they are best at doing.

I believe that is bullshit, sexist and exploitive.

I believe in science, and in using data to see what is going on and to help make the best decisions.

Max feels that science can be confusing and can be used to prove anything, and that good, common sense is enough to decide what should be done.

I believe that due to rapid advances in science and technology, shifts in population dynamics, and climate change, this country is going through a major transition, and once all of those things are recognized and accepted, and we learn how to integrate all of these new things into how we live and work together, our country will be much better and stronger.

Max agrees with all of that except that last three words.  He would substitute weaker and worse.

I think we both would like to find some common ground, but we don’t know where.

We have tried talking.  We have even tried listening.  But we both have very strong core beliefs that we can’t give up. It makes compromise difficult.

more on Israel, Gaza, Syria, Ukrain, Russia, Alabama, Vermont, Obama and Boehner

If you are raised to believe that the Kool-Aide they are serving is manna from heaven, and that the Kool-Aide that others are drinking is the devil’s brew, then there is going to be trouble.

Science can tell us that it’s all Kool-Aide -- until it can pass some predictable tests.  It’s fine to believe whatever you want, but then recognize that your Kool-Aide and their Kool-Aide is really the same drink with different flavors, and the color you’re drinking is due to the accident of where you were born and who your parents are, more than any undeniable truth.

             If the scientific community could find a way to convince people of this, that would be one of it’s major contributions to the world.  But that has not happened over the last couple of thousand years,  since people divided themselves up into tribes.  But now, we have enough interconnectedness and enough information to know better.  But believing that all humans are equal in their insignificance would deny our “leaders” a lot of power, something they have always been very reluctant to relinquish.
            So people continue to find reasons to justify deprivation, torture, rape, death and destruction.  Believing in their hearts that it is the only way to survive. And once they beleive it,  it comes true.

New, for the New Year

New Year --2014.  On that, most of us agree.  What the new year will hold seems to be less clear than for almost any year I can remember.

Part of that is, perhaps because I am old, the pace of change seems to be accelerating. More than ever, people expect changes.  They expect life to be different; technology is mostly responsible.  New phones, new apps, new ways to track your life.  There will be new ways that other can track your life.  New ways that we do business.  Do business with new people, new people from new places, who bring with them new ideas.

More data, new data, Big data.  New algorithms: in genetics, in demographic, in sales. Bringing good news,  New ways to track diseases, epidemics, climate change, money flows, where the crops grow, where the fish swim, how much, how many, how good.

Bringing bad news: how to blow things ups, randomly.. How to shoot the enemy, your family, random people in the street, at a mall, at school.

So many new things, even including programs that create programs and robots that build robots,

The economy: better or worse, for the few or the many.  The stock market, more up, flat down, down big, who knows?  Most people are too baffled to even try to predict.

The mid-term election?  The Middle East? Fracking?  Cities, countries, art, music, literature,biology, chemistry, astonomy, food, fun, families, casues, cures.

There will be more changes in 2014 than there were during the thousand years from 500 to 1500. But it is world wide and there is no central authority -- not that I would wish it -- so no one really has any idea how this year will play out.

Right now it seems very exciting, but also risky and confusing, with the possibility of so many unintended consequences, and so many random events that could have a major impact because we are all so much more inter-connected.

So, figure out what part you would like to have in it all, which may just be wondering who will win Dancing with the Stars, or perhaps how to suck all the greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere, or how to teach your kid to dance, and get to it.

Good luck!!

Another political rant of an aging Boomer

Summer is here, we are hanging out with friends down near the beach. Lots of eating and drinking and loose talk.  The men, who are drunker than the women, begin to pontificate about the state of the world and what could have, should have been done.  The women shrug us off like they did our children when they were five years-old and hungry.

Eventually someone asks me, as an aging therapist, about my view of human nature, and I reply somewhat cryptically that I realize that I have become just "one of the many here among us." Now, I do not expect many of you to immediately get that somewhat poetic allusion, although I'm sure that several of you who thought they should have been at Woodstock may pick up on it.  There is a good chance my son will recognize what I'm talking about, and perhaps my daughter.

But it is true.  After all these years of working with people, and all of these years of observing American politics, and the politics of the whole world, that was the best I could come up with.

I remember when I was not that way, when I believed that people shared an underlying sense of values, that most religions were similar, that science was really the search for the truth, that people recognized the folly of war, and that technology would spread knowledge and that knowledge would lead to enlightenment.

It was very helpful and comforting to believe that, although at times it became kind of confusing and a bit disheartening.

Now my views have been changed by my experiences of seeing close up not only what societies will do to their own people, but what husbands and wives do to each other, and worse, what they do to their children.  I have also read lots of studies that show how totally irrational we are, such as the one done recently at MIT, that shows if you read someone's resume on a heavy clipboard, you will be more impressed with it than if you read it on a lighter weight clipboard.

Once you believe that, and I do.  Then what can you say about human nature.

Therefore, I am now just one of the "many here among us who think that life is but a joke."
(B.Dylan, All Along the Watchtower)

If 250 years of democracy produces Sarah Palin as a viable political force, isn't that a good joke.

I'm not saying that this is a bad thing.  Jokes are good.  It is healthy to laugh. Studies have shown that too.

newsweek trashing

The whole profession got trashed in Newsweek this week. Some columnist named Sharon Begley read about, or spoke to a couple of guys who do research and they told her that clinicians don't pay attention to their research, so she decided that means that clinicians don't pay attention to science. She seemed to say we, especially those of us with experience, are a bunch of charlatans who make it up as we go along, based on our own whims and fantasies. Just another shot in the arm for those of us who are already over-regulated and under-paid.

She read an article that says that cognitive/behavioral therapy has been proven in the laboratory, but not all psychologists do cognitive/behavioral therapy all the time with all of our patients.

A few posts ago I wrote about how I reacted when I received the Guilford catalog. It's the same thing. There are books on their list full of research that has shown how to be helpful to someone who shows certain behavioral, emotional or physical symptoms. Now, none of those symptoms are exact, nor are they all indicative of the same underlying causes. The causes can be stress in the environment, in the family, in the sub-culture, or just in the person's mind. They can also be the result of an illness, perhaps a brain condition, or even some genetic factor. The truth is, and this is THE TRUTH, it is almost always an interaction of two, three or four of these factors.

And good clinician knows this. A good clinician takes what he has read in all these books, all the research, and research from more than just psychology, and puts together the best treatment he or she can, using all of his or her own experience of what works and how to do it.

And then, do you know what? Here is the reason we get trashed in Newsweek, because despite all of this science, experience, knowledge and the art of therapy -- there are cases when it all doesn't make much difference. We can't get right into someone's mind and make it change. We are not all Dr. Phil.

Sometimes we can do a great job: be helpful, healing, transformative,
Sometimes it bounces right off, rolls down the block and falls in the sewer.

But, none of these guys in the lab, these guys with the pills, the ones with the new machines have really demonstrated that they can do any better. You can look at the data.