Hartog’s Den

It is a beautiful but hazy morning in the San Joaquin Valley, as I ride the Amtrak #701 north to Sacramento, sipping my habitual coffee as I type. In the early morning light, the endless fields of crops – the farms, vineyards, and orchards that supply the nation with a third of its food – are at once modern and nostalgic; both a testament to the industrial age of machinery, and a pleasant appeal to the pastoral legend of early rural America.

Yet the many fallow fields and piles of idle equipment also speak to the times; the megastate of California, the world’s 6^th largest economy, stares down the grim specters of severe drought, insurmountable debt, and a broken state government. And to be sure, these are but our regional reflections of hard times across the nation and the world over.

After the initial rawness of 9/11, the opinion was generally held that the dark times were temporary, and lofty rhetoric from our leaders spurred us on to seek a recovery of spirit and confidence. And in spurts and starts, some light did shine through. Yet eight years since the trauma, the times remain quite dark.

In the face of such extended troubles, optimism grows ever harder to come by. We may ask, is this the way things will always be? Are we, as a civilization, now inexorably committed to a downward spiral of our own making? I think not. At least, I disagree that our slide is inexorable in any sense. But recovery, and more importantly, long term survival, growth, and prosperity, depends wholly on a fundamental shift in our perspective.

For generations, we as a nation have held a strong sense of entitlement – the notion that we as a people are wholly unique in the history of mankind, and that, as such, we must therefore be first in all that we do, no matter the cost. This belief, in itself, is neither incorrect nor misguided; even the harshest (sane) critic of this country must admit that it is this very attitude that has spurred a great many of the world’s most profound feats of scientific discovery, invention, exploration, medicine, and the spreading of liberal democracy throughout the world.

But what has been profoundly lacking in our core principles (or perhaps what has been gradually lost from our system of ethics) is a sense of prudence – the judgment to exercise restraint on our ambitions and wants, and a tolerance for those times when life is not comfortable.

Our way forward lies in renewing that old American can-do attitude, the irrepressible optimism that divides us from our dourer estranged parent, Europe. But it must be tempered with the willingness to once again understand the nobility of, and need for, sacrifice. The sacrifice of the perceived right to excess – no longer, with 6 billion people (and more coming), can we disregard the environmental and socioeconomic consequences of our standard of living. The sacrifice of the perceived right to isolationism – no country, not even the most powerful the world has ever seen, can survive on its own. The sacrifice of the perceived right to comfort – security and success demand hard work, education, and solid principles. The sacrifice of the perceived right to dominance – our head start after WWII has evaporated, and we can no longer take for granted that we shall be the standard of excellence in the world; instead we must sharpen our skills and compete.

So, on this eve of our nation’s 233^rd anniversary, I ask my fellow citizens to reflect; when you behold the rocket’s red glare and the bombs bursting in air, consider not only the tremendous amount of good we have done for the world, but also the difficulties we face, and how we must reform ourselves to ensure our future prosperity; the fields of the San Joaquin, like our way of life, must not lie fallow forever; they must be replanted and grown sustainably. It is only the truly free whose primary concern is the improvement of themselves and society; those more fettered in life or spirit lack this luxury, which we must ever refuse to take for granted.

by Nalin Ratnayake

I haven’t written anything but technical memos for a long time, so to get back in the zone I’m going to take a transition approach. This is an edited and expanded article that I published some time ago on another blog.

Time and time again I see articles and blog posts, mainly on liberal-leaning sites, lamenting the disparity between white males and everyone else in the workplace. I think these articles by and large miss the point. Certainly, there is a still a troubling disparity between white males and everyone else in acquiring professional positions. But I do not believe the problem lies entirely, or even mostly, in the hands of the institutions doing the hiring.

Read this entire paragraph before reacting. I suggest that perhaps not enough minorities and woman are skilled enough to be hired fairly for these positions. This *not* to promote the idea of an “innate disparity in aptitude” as Harvard President Lawrence Summers seemed to suggest so infamously some years back. Rather I would like to point the finger of blame at the root cause of so many of America’s domestic problems: a flawed and underfunded public education system.

We must remove the social bias that is built into public education to remove the social bias that will form in the mindset of the next generation. For this next generation will be the parents of the generation succeeding them, and parenting is an inextricable part of a child’s education.

I have heard countless stories from my female friends of family and teachers simply assuming (whether subconciously or not) that women do not belong in science and engineering. The general mindset seems to be, “if a woman makes it in the sciences, great; but we won’t encourage it.” This is connected to the dangerous mindset that postulates if women aren’t voluntarily going into the sciences or professional training, they must either not want to be there or they are innately incapable of doing so. It is flawed logic, but much easier to accept than a complete overhaul of the way we think about education.

With minorities on the other hand, often the problem is economic in nature. Minority communities tend to be much poorer on average than whites. Poor families cannot afford private education for their children, and are forced to send thier kids to under-funded public schools; these schools do not have the resources to provide the same education as private institutions, so minorities graduate with skills and knowledge inferior to whites. This in turn prevents them from getting high-paying positions, and the cycle continues.

I’ve said it time and time again, on every blog and general interest website I have ever had. The major domestic issues in this country could be solved, or at least alleviated, by biting the bullet and rethinking public education at a fundamental level. All other solutions only scratch the surface and delay the issue; the root of the problem is simply not addressed in programs like affirmative action and special hiring policies for women.

A national standard for students, teachers, and curriculums alike would be a start. Funding in the form of resources for failing schools and discretionary funds for achieving schools would be an excellent next step. The longer we wait, the further downward this spiral will descend, negatively affecting this country politically, socially, and economically.

by Nalin Ratnayake

In Donald Eiken’s letter of Nov. 23^rd to the East Valley Tribune, he reels off four so-called “facts” about evolution that he claims go unchallenged by the scientific community. I would like to rebut:

1. There are intermediary gaps in the fossil record. Well ok Mr Eiken, let’s say I have two fossils, Fossil A and Fossil C. There is a measurable difference between the two, a “gap” as you call it. Now say I find Fossil B which provides a link between the two, so that we see a progression from A to B to C. Your point seems to be that there are now TWO gaps, one between A and B, and one between B and C! A fine system you have set up for yourself there, wherein the more evidence there is, the more gaps you find! Physical reality is not continuous Mr Eiken, it is discrete, and there is plenty of discrete evidence for evolution. Your argument here is nothing more than a logical fallacy.

2. Evolution violates the 2^nd Law of Thermodynamics. A statement often smugly stated by anti-evolutionists, it is just plain wrong. Mr. Eiken, if you knew anything about thermodynamics, you would know that the 2^nd Law applies only to a closed system – that is, a system completely cut off from its surrounding environment. Net entropy (relative disorder) can decrease all it wants in a particular system, provided that the overall entropy of the surroundings (e.g. the entire universe) increases. I assume that you eat, drink, breathe, and absorb sunlight Mr. Eiken, and therefore you are most certainly not isolated from your environment, and your evolved complexity does not in any way violate thermodynamics. Complex systems naturally arise when mass and energy are allowed to flow through them, and they decay only when these are cut off.

3. The origin of life cannot be explained. Maybe not – but that doesn’t mean it cannot be known, nor does it mean that you need to make up a deity to tie together the things that you do not know. As for your comment that life cannot be created in a lab, it has definitely been proven that amino acids, the building blocks of life, do indeed self-form under conditions similar to that of early earth when given a jolt of energy (in real life, say a lightning bolt?). Modeling the subsequent 4.5 billion years in a laboratory is beyond our technology at the moment, granted; but that in no way shows that the theory is wrong or even flawed. It just means we don’t know for sure – YET.

4. The complex design of certain animals cannot have arisen by mere chance. Consider the sheer astounding variety of different environments on earth – the crushing, sunless depths of the ocean; extreme conditions of temperature; nearly complete lack of oxygen… we continue to discover new types of ecosystems even today. Life is naturally inventive and incredibly adaptive specifically due to its evolutionary nature. People tend to think that because evolution results from random variations, the result must be random as well; this is a false perception. Random variations that do not conform to their changing environments will die out or be eliminated by more competitive forms of life; thus random variation in a game where the fittest survive is a game that will progress steadily towards creatures that are specifically tuned to their mode of existence in a highly specialized way. And with a few billion years to explore the possibilities, the variation in life can be astounding, as is evident around us today.

Any comments? Did I just invite a comment-riot over my head?