Good morning!
A friend
wrote back to comment on the finding that all net new jobs are going to college
graduates and in response to my rhetorical question about whether college
graduate are even taking the jobs that don't require a degree.
I don't think my son's job required
a degree. Others there did not have one.
But it certainly didn't hurt—despite it being history and political science at
a mortgage lender. He stayed and moved
up the ladder a bit, which the non-degreed people mostly didn't, I think.
He makes a good point. I can imagine that even if hired into a job
that doesn't require a degree, those with the degree may have the option to
move up; those without will likely not—or at least not move up very far. Unfortunately, this isn't the case for Elliott
in his current position, taking care of research animals. You don't go up that ladder without a degree
in biology or veterinary medicine—credentials Elliott has no intention of
seeking.
My friend
wrote about a related point.
It is the "gig economy"
that worries me. No security or benefits
or ability to resist exploitation. But
there is a freedom to it that many enjoy—at least while they are young. I liked "permanent" employment,
though the permanence eventually ended as my employer changed its business.
The gig
economy is indeed a threat to social well-being, in my opinion. You don't make enough money to save anything
for education or retirement, and may not make enough to pay for the groceries
and the rent. It is precisely for those
reasons that Elliott opted for a job totally unrelated to his degree or
interests: it has great health care
benefits and he's in a retirement plan.
Now he just has to figure out how to keep the benefits but move to a
position where he can advance and perhaps even make use of his artistic
talents. But at least the former!
* * *
Anthony Gottlieb, in 1843,
the magazine of the Economist, asks, "Where
is a hedonist to look for his heroes?"
[Gottlieb speaking for himself, so "his."] It's not a dumb question for people who view
life and the universe in entirely physical terms and entertain deep skepticism
about any afterlife. If this is the only
life we have, then we should enjoy it to the full extent possible in our own
circumstances—we must be hedonists.
Gottlieb observes that the world's religions are not
enthusiastic about indulging in the pleasures of life. The three Abrahamic religions, in his words, "are
more interested in pleasing God than in pleasing man" and even Judaism,
more tolerant of pleasure than the other two, "keeps a wary eye open for
recriminations from above." Asian
religions are not much better.
One
of history's major advocates for being a hedonist was Epicurus. Very few of his writings survive; most of
what is attributed to him came from commentators. As sometimes happens in the evolution of
language, Epicurus gets a bad rap from his adjective, epicurean: "fond of or adapted to luxury or
indulgence in sensual pleasures; having luxurious tastes or habits, especially
in eating and drinking." The Church
condemned his views through the Middle Ages.
As
also sometimes happens in the evolution of language, the characterization of
Epicurus was simply wrong, as best scholars can tell from the evidence. There is much to admire about him. He was likely to be condemned from many
quarters, apart from the charge of gluttony, because he wasn't religious, and
indeed argued that "the world consists . . . of tiny material atoms
careering around in space until they randomly collide and form the things and
creatures we see. When our atoms
disperse and we die, that is the end of us." Death is not to be feared because all pain is
gone. He also maintained that the goal
in life should be to avoid pain and find pleasure; what causes pain is evil and
what leads to pleasure is good. Contrary
to what many understand, Epicurus did not argue for the unrestricted pursuit of
pleasure; what people should seek is an absence of pain, which will lead to a
satisfactory and happy life. He also
insisted that nothing should be believed that cannot be observed, tested, or
deduced logically. (I'm not sure how,
given that, he got to an atomic theory of matter.)
The
aim of philosophy, Epicurus maintained, is to make people happy, and one of its
biggest tasks is to quieten the unnecessary terrors caused by religion. In particular, it was crucial to overcome the
fear of death and of an unpleasant afterlife.
"All good and evil lie in sensation, whereas death is the absence
of sensation," wrote Epicurus in a letter.
"Hence a correct understanding that death is nothing to us makes
the mortality of life enjoyable, not by adding infinite time, but by ridding us
of the desire for immortality."
Epicurus maintained that one
should also seek to minimize harm or pain in others as well, as a path to
happiness.
I
don't buy into the blanket claim that religions cause "unnecessary
terrors." Some parts of some belief
systems do so, but I know of too many people who practice their religion
without fear and without inciting fear in others. I may not agree with the premises but I can't
persuasively criticize the approach to life that they embody.
As
for food, according to Gottlieb (and I think he's correct)
Epicurus
did once say that in order to lead a happy life, one needs first of all to be
fed. This was easy to quote out of
context, and his reputation as a glutton is probably based on little more than
that. In fact, Epicurus condemned all
forms of over-indulgence, and recommended a simple diet. [And] for Epicurus,
tranquillity was the ultimate delight. . . .
That is why the real Epicurus . . . denounced the rapidly rotting fruits
of dissipation and excess. The constant
pursuit of intense pleasures will in fact backfire, according to Epicurus,
because it leads to the psychological hell of enslavement to unsatisfiable
appetites. The would-be hedonist must
take care to ensure that the pain of overreaching desire does not ruin his
peace of mind and thereby defeat his original aim of securing a balance of
pleasure over pain.
Epicurus is my kind of philosopher. Avoid pain and suffering (my own and try to
prevent it befalling others) and seek pleasure in moderation. Eat well (especially meals prepared by
others). Have a beer or a glass of wine.
So have a good lunch today and think of Epicurus.
* * *
According
to Emma Byrnes in The Scientist, "screaming
obscenities when you stub your toe makes perfect biological sense." In an article titled "Why Swearing and
Pain Go Hand in Hand," she reports on research that she and others have done
(and she's also written a book on the subject).
People (in experimental settings) who swear when in pain can tolerate
pain longer and later report feeling less pain than those who were not allowed
to swear. Her initial research was in a
bar late at night, but the results paralleled more rigorous university-based
research: people could keep their hand
in ice water longer if they could say "shit" or something
similar.
Byrnes observes that "pain is
not a purely neurological phenomenon. . . .
peripheral sensory neurons give you information about a stimulus, but
the way you process that pain is as much psychologically constructed as it is
neurologically formed. Our anticipation
of pain, our gender roles and social expectations, even whether we're feeling
lonely or sad, all change the way we feel pain."
In addition, subsequent research
suggests that "minced oaths"—the phrases we use in polite company
when we really want to utter an epithet or obscenity—don't work as well as the
curse itself. "Intriguingly, the
same is true in patients with Tourette syndrome. Using a softer form of swearing gives them
much less relief from the urge to tic, like rubbing an itch instead of
scratching it."
Byrnes reports that those doing the
research can't answer the question of why swearing acts as a painkiller. There is no doubt that it does, however. Now, at least, I am justified in howling an
obscenity when I drop something heavy on my toe.
* * *
The
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is "responsible for the
development of emerging technologies for use by the military." It has also been called the "mad science"
division of the Department of Defense.
(If I recall correctly, DARPA is basically responsible for the Internet.) I know that a number of faculty members at
the University of Minnesota have received grants from DARPA, sometimes on
pretty esoteric research. DARPA
apparently also defines "technologies" quite broadly, given a recent
request for proposals it issued. In the
words of Adam Rogers, writing for Wired,
DARPA is "trying to build a real, live, bullshit detector. . . . The quite serious call for proposals Russell
[an anthropologist and DARPA program manager] just sent out on Darpa stationery
asks people—anyone! Even you!—for ways to determine what findings from the
social and behavioral sciences are actually, you know, true. Or in his construction: 'credible.'"
You
ask why DARPA seeks findings from the social sciences, not fields that most
would consider "technology." "They
want to understand how collective identity works, or why some groups (and
nations) are stable and some fall apart. The military would like to get a
better handle on how humans team up with machines before the machines get
smarter and more get deployed. How does
radicalization work, especially online?
Why do people cooperate sometimes and compete at others? All these questions have two things in
common: They are super-important to
national security, and no one knows the answer." In other words, which findings could
reasonable provide the basis for Department of Defense policy or action?
A biologist friend of mine
identified a major headache for the social sciences. "I am always a bit wary of fields which
add the word 'science' to their subject.
Take for example economic 'science,' social 'science' or educational 'science.' These fields are not close to being a true
science because nearly all of their research output is correlative rather than
causal. Hypotheses are never directly
tested and results tend to support a preconceived viewpoint on the part of the
researchers."
Social
scientists—political scientists, psychologists, sociologists, economists,
anthropologists—could test hypotheses by conducting experiments. Many such experiments, however, would be
illegal or unethical or both. (Two
famous psychology experiments could not be repeated today. Milgram had subjects deliver (fake) electric
shocks; Zimbardo had prisoners and guards.
In both cases, the research participants were extremely stressed by the
experiments.) I think it's probably a
little harsh to say that the social sciences are not science. They clearly are not scientists in the
biology-chemistry-physics sense of the term.
(Psychology falls in between; it does conduct experiments. For the most part, economics, political
science, anthropology, sociology, and so on do not, at least not at the level
of general society.) But the social
sciences, including psychology, use highly sophisticated statistical techniques
to tease out "truths" from mounds of data. Whether the "results tend to support a
preconceived viewpoint" is an open question, in my view. In some fields, some of the time,
surely. But I don't have the sense, from
reading in the social sciences and having a lot of friends in the social
sciences, that there's a pattern of effort to interpret (or even bias) results
in one direction or another. Most social
science research I'm aware of tries to confirm or rebut a hypothesis.
I
wouldn't say that DARPA is wasting its money.
Taking action on the basis of social science results—which are
frequently more tentative than those in the biological and physical sciences—is
certainly better than going on what your grandma or your neighbor thought.
* * *
I recently sent to Kathy and Elliott
a link to an article describing the apparent relationship between sugar and Alzheimer's,
published in Diabetology, following a
study at Imperial College London.
A
longitudinal study . . . followed 5,189 people over 10 years and found that
people with high blood sugar had a faster rate of cognitive decline than those
with normal blood sugar—whether or not their blood-sugar level technically made
them diabetic. In other words, the
higher the blood sugar, the faster the cognitive decline.
Another researcher, at the Mayo
Clinic,
broke
nearly 1,000 people down into four groups based on how much of their diet came
from carbohydrates. The group that ate
the most carbs had an 80 percent higher chance of developing mild cognitive
impairment—a pit stop on the way to dementia—than those who ate the smallest
amount of carbs. People with mild
cognitive impairment, or MCI, can dress and feed themselves, but they have
trouble with more complex tasks.
The article prompted Elliott to
write back to me. "I've been
hearing a lot recently about sugar--and carbs in general--contributing
significantly to the body's inflammation response (the article briefly references
that as well), which a lot of doctors and physicians will tell you is the
fundamental cause of the majority of illnesses and diseases in one way or
another."
I asked Elliott what he thought one
should eat.
It
seems like the ideal diet consists entirely of meat and non-starch vegetables. Maybe some blueberries. Pretty much what we would have found or killed
ten thousand years ago. That's what our
bodies are adapted to eating. Makes
sense. When you have a traditional "balanced"
diet, your body stores fat and burns carbs because they're more efficient. But if you put yourself in a state of ketosis
by denying carbs entirely, your body becomes quite good at burning fat for
energy, which means you can happily eat butter and cheese.
This is the ketogenic diet, because
the low level of carb intake leads to ketosis, in which condition the body is
burning rather than carbs. Developed at
the Mayo Clinic in 1924 to treat epilepsy (for which it is no longer used,
replaced with drugs), "the classic ketogenic diet incorporates a very high
fat ratio compared to carbohydrates, with a moderate to small amount of
protein. In fact carbohydrates are kept
extremely low, while fats are eaten in much larger quantities than most people
are used to. As high-carbohydrate food
sources are eliminated from the diet, natural fat sources take their place."
Elliott
said he'd been reading about the ketogenic diet. "Not a lot of peer reviewed stuff on the
subject yet because it's only become a widespread concept very recently. But
all the short term results are excellent, as are the handful of small
experiments in using it to treat some chronic physiological conditions. A lot of professional athletes and
fighters/boxers are starting to adopt it as well, and you know those people and
their teams are always watching the cutting edge of nutritional research to
find any advantage." I protested
that I still like potatoes. Elliott
assured me I could still have my potatoes, but that there should be far fewer
carbs in our diets. He added that the "problem
is [that] for regular people without a dietician it's really hard to have a
proper ketogenic diet and a lot of people who try by following internet advice
end up either failing or malnourished in one way or another."
I asked a faculty friend in the
Medical School about the ketogenic diet. I received a long but contrary, lucid, and I
thought sensible response.
This
is an old idea that has been around for a long time now—the basis of the low
carb craze. It is a particularly
effective way to lose weight— particularly fat around the belly for some
reason. The problems are many however -
one is maintaining appropriate nutrition. Just logically, any diet that tells you not to
eat fruit or even carrots must have something wrong with it. Also, there is no way to cheat and get the
benefits—thus there is high risk of people falling off it. For example, you're all in with the high fat/
meat diet, but then decide you want a piece of whole grain toast to go with
your eggs and bacon—bam, you're off the diet and the ketosis benefit is gone
and you are setting people up for serious weight gain. . . . You can't tell me that eating all that
saturated fat and often processed food (bacon, cheese) doesn't have bad
effects. I have read the Alzheimer's
study they did that showed improved memory in patients on the strict diet—that
may be useful. Because ketosis is a
powerful chemical effect, so it makes sense that it has neurologic implications
that could be harnessed for some benefit.
Again though, maintenance is very hard. I did this diet as a part of a group
of people about a year ago—mainly to see
what it was like. We were restricted to
50g/d which is a typical limit. It was
so hard. Easy for the first couple days,
but then you start craving bread and fruit (not to mention wine!). It also makes people super crabby. Even if you're not hungry, it does affect your
personality, your GI system, your breath.
I
do contend however, that refined sugar and highly processed foods, including,
sadly, white flour, are evil. There is a
lot of evidence that sugar can alter your brain and withdrawing from it is
real! I think (and this is not a novel
idea) that the more you eat real food, the better you are—yes, maintain high
protein (chicken, fish—watch the bacon) lots of veggies (and sauté them with a
little olive oil or whatever makes them taste good) and eat some fruit every
day to diversify your diet. We just have to glance through history to see how
bad our diet fads are in retrospect.
The
Mayo Clinic website concurs.
Severely
restricting carbohydrates to less than 0.7 ounces (20 grams) a day can result
in a process called ketosis. Ketosis
occurs when you don't have enough sugar (glucose) for energy, so your body
breaks down stored fat, causing ketones to build up in your body. Side effects from ketosis can include nausea,
headache, mental and physical fatigue, and bad breath.
It's
not clear what kind of possible long-term health risks a low-carb diet may pose
because most research studies have lasted less than a year. Some health experts believe that if you eat
large amounts of fat and protein from animal sources, your risk of heart
disease or certain cancers may actually increase.
I have learned in recent years to
pay attention to some of what Elliott is paying attention to, but in this case
I told him I didn't think much of a ketogenic diet. It's not a counter argument to the ketogenic
diet, to be sure, but I still like potatoes and I will eat fruit. And drink wine (and perhaps scotch). The news about food intake and health has
been so voluminous and mixed in recent years that I take everything with a
grain of salt (but not sugar 😊 ).
It does appear, however, that the evidence against refined sugar is
piling up. Fortunately for me, I've
never much cared for sweets in any form, so I should stay sane for a few years
longer. I think Elliott doesn't intend
to try achieving the ketogenic diet, to his credit. He agrees that most people couldn't follow
the diet.
On the topic of food, I recently made
my own alfredo sauce to go with some pasta.
1 pint heavy cream, 1 stick butter, half a package of cream cheese, and
1 cup grated parmesan, all melted/whisked together. Plus a few spices. I guess it would be fine if you were on a
strict ketogenic diet, but for the rest of us it's guaranteed to produce a
cardiac event. Tasted great, however. I'm not sure Epicurus would have approved.
Gary
No comments:
Post a Comment