Email Title: Ice, Fire, Can’t, Prep, 1, 2, Tesla, Consent, Structure, GenBio, Nay, Good (10 January 2025)
Being without electricity is unexpected in 21st Century America.
When you’re stuck at home without heat or hot water (not to mention coffee!).
This is no small thing in the modern world.
This happened to me in a small section of my Virginia community. I literally heard a transformer blow early Monday morning. We were without power until late Tuesday night. Snow is no big deal to drive on if you’re careful (I’m from upstate New York, Syracuse, one of the snowiest cities in the nation). But ice?! No way. Ice is dangerous. The storm that hit us was most about ice. Thankfully we have a propane fireplace that helped keep the place warm. I felt like Abraham Lincoln reading by candle light (in my case, a number of battery powered lanterns). I tell the tale to remind us all that “normalcy bias” is real (see my writing on the topic here). What we come to expect is not always what will happen.
And tell that to the folks in Los Angeles. Watching the video, seeing the pictures, the devastation is horrific. There has been much political fallout from the handling of resources, finances, and preparation. Compare news sources to consider what is being said and what is left unsaid. [Note in particular The Smithsonian Magazine April-May 2023 where we discover that some Californians were practicing conservation that others in the state could have learned from.] I have been without power in my home. I have not been without a home. I cannot imagine.
There is a long list of “what I can’t imagine.” I couldn’t imagine the deceit of fact-checking ever being held accountable (I wrote on this consistently over the past four years). But now progressive writers have awakened, and thankfully so. I couldn’t believe when I read of the grooming gangs in the United Kingdom. I had a hard time reading this piece (you can also listen to the podcast on Honestly). Bari Weiss condemns The West for its cowardice, as well she should.
But here is something made my eyes go wide. Paul Harvey, famed radio commentator, taped “If I Were the Devil” in 1964. Listen to his three-minute social statement, then ask yourself, “Does that seem familiar?” His point is directed toward America. If he wanted to destroy our country, what would the devil do. Paul Harvey saw the future we are living in.
I listen to a lot of people. I check sources. I care about “getting it right.” I’m not always successful, but I do care to point out ideas and situations that will impact everyone. Shawn Ryan, former Navy Seal, has been on my radar for a while. If you want to ponder the future of our country you should give careful attention to a podcast (#149) Ryan does with Sarah Adams who advises governments on terrorist threats. I have a friend (on this email list) who says, “I keep one foot in this world and one foot in the other.” What my friend means is that preparation for the Next Life is imperative as is his responsibility to provide for and protect those he loves in this life. Shawn Ryan casts a wide net. You can even hear his 3.5 hour (!!!) conversation with Lee Strobel about whether or not Jesus is the Son of God.
And boy did I mess up last week! I think my email was over 2200 words last week and I forgot to talk about my own stuff! So here it is! I started a new series titled “Give Me a Minute” where I talk about proverbial truths (wisdom embedded in God’s creation). The first in the series (status viator) is a focus on charting our path in life (much less 2025!). After doing the video I thought, “I should show people how I have appropriated status viator in my own life. So you can find “what I am made to do,” a one-page that explains how I use my gifts along the way. I encourage everyone to create their own status viator.
Second in the series (“God and Reality”) is literally what I’ve been doing over all the decades of my teaching. Some of my compatriots (teachers, also on this email string) are acknowledged there, as is the title for my high school class “Christian Life and World Studies” (CLAWS, which fit nicely with our mascot, a cougar 😊). As many of you may know, I believe nothing is “secular,” everything is “sacred.” So, my first thought in any study is from a God-centered point of view first.
Tesla. A one-minute video (YouTube) shows how the famed inventor had overwhelming influence on the use of modern electricity. Something that struck me as I watched the clip was that infighting amongst inventors is a constant. I am not surprised either by the brief recognition of conflict then, or now. Competition sometimes fosters jealousy. Jealousy arises out of pride, the idea that I know it all. I am ever responsive to those who live their lives in humility while doing exceptional work.
Science Interlude: The ten people who most influenced science in 2024.
“Consent of the governed” is an important phrase in America’s Declaration of Independence. Those who are being governed are saying to those who do the governing, “Hey! Don’t forget who’s in charge here! And it’s not you!” Standing up for one’s self, for one’s freedom is a clarion call for every generation. Certainly the idea of “consent” came from a biblical point of view (1 Tim 2.2). My friend Brian Smith and his wife Sarah do a masterful job, not only of explaining the historical significance of the phase and the importance of the Puritans (who tend to get a bad rap in this cultural from those who don’t know history), but show its application for today. Take 15 minutes to remind yourselves that the government is not our nanny but (supposed to be) our servant.
Structure is important in government and our understanding of culture. There are indeed cultural structures. George Yancey does us a great service explaining the conservative counternarrative in our present day. Humans tend to adopt a paradigm (a way of thinking) and then can’t see anything outside that mindset. I love the fact that Yancy cites Kuhn here (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions). Yancey’s article dovetails well with the Smiths’ essay. Read them together to see how the “consent” that is given can be taken away by the populace.
In my present role structure is also important. [I would say that no matter what I was doing!] This week our president Dr. Costin passed an article to a few of us concerning how it may be possible to assess that which we cannot see, namely, the interior character of an individual. Can we measure what is “spiritual,” for instance. Let the debate begin! But for my part, I focus on how to build the interiority of the individual. Can we change our attitude? I believe so, writing about it here. Can we model behavior that will change other’s behavior? Yes, as another article argues here. Can we tell stories that plant the seeds of transformation? Yes, again! I am a big fan of building people. I believe by so doing, transformation will take place.
Because I like people (really! I do!) I want to see transformation that is best for them and the people around them (see me leaning into my Hebraic-Christian worldview here!). When confronted with something I had not heard of before – “living intelligence” – I said to myself I need to consider the implications of that article. Well I did. Here are just a couple of sentences that set off my “ethics meter.”
Living intelligence’s third general purpose technology is bioengineering, which involves using engineering techniques to build biological systems and products, such as designer microbes, which can be engineered specific tasks. Right now, this is the easiest to dismiss, but in the longer-term it could prove to be the most important general-purpose technology. Paired with AI, bioengineering can create “generative biology” (genBio), which uses data, computation, and AI to predict or create new biological insights — generating new biological components, such as proteins, genes, or even entire organisms, by simulating and predicting how biological elements behave and interact.
The author Amy Webb is excited about the “potential.” From a biblical point of view I’m thinking, “What can’t go wrong?!” Ms. Webb is writing from a framework of perfectibility pragmatism, believing people can be trusted so we should “just do it.” I appreciate what benefits could accrue. I also don’t see any boundaries or safeguards in Webb’s essay. Those of us who believe in “the human condition” (a.k.a., “sin”) would want to build very large walls and very strong guardrails.
If you think I might be just a little too uptight about technological breakthroughs, then read this article all about “brain monitoring” which is “the next big thing.” Okay. Just skim all my misgivings noted above and apply them here. Yeah. You get it.
I know, I know. It is easy to be negative. The effort is minimal. It costs the naysayer little or nothing. What costs is the time, effort, energy, blood, sweat, and tears it takes to create. CREATIVES pour themselves into projects. NAYSAYERS pour themselves a drink. Creatives grind through their work. Naysayers shred the work of others. Creatives disappear for long periods, slaving over ventures yet to see an end. Naysayers appear when the job is done only to shade the accomplishment. Creatives feed off encouragement. Naysayers feed discouragement. Creatives build. Naysayers tear down. Creatives find joy in their achievements. Naysayers are gleeful in failures. Creatives press on no matter what the naysayers say. I am ALL ABOUT creativity, curiosity, inquisitiveness, wonder, mystery. But I am also all about (I’m repeating myself) ethical high walls and strong guardrails.
AI Interlude: You know who doesn’t like AI? Apple. They use a bad word in the article’s title but it sure gets the points across.
I have to admit, I was kind of giddy when I read Joseph Laycock’s article about professors paying attention to supernatural phenomena to “save the humanities.” He nails the naysayers (see above) in the humanities who are always critical saying
What do we, really, have to say that’s useful, positive, and attractive to the public? The answer: very little, or nothing at all. We criticize, criticize, and criticize . . . Accordingly, humanists are too often the bummers in the room. Of course, no one wants to listen to us.
Now Dr. Laycock and I would surely disagree on many things, but I am 100% behind the idea that maybe, just maybe, the supernatural realm has something to teach us, that we should pay attention to.
It should come as no surprise to anyone reading this email that Mark sees an article with the title “Does Morality Do Us Any Good?” as clickbait. The subtitle was even better!
Our basic sense of right and wrong appears to be the product of blind evolution. The hard question is how unsettling that should be.
Mark’s answer? VERY! Mr. Krishnan reviews a book with another suggestive title, The Invention of Good and Evil. There is much to say about the review and the book. I’ll cut to the chase. “Moral progress,” even based on ancient origin stories does not account for what Krishnan clearly understands,
“Our capacity for endless conflict may be just as much a part of our inheritance as is our ability, every now and then, to get along.”
Wow. There is so much theology in that statement (belief in both the dignity and depravity of humanity) that Romans 5 should have been given as attribution: footnote please! Bottom line for me? I’ve been reading books and reviews like this for decades from people for whom I have loads of respect. But there is no basis for “morality” unless there is an Outside Source. I’ll give you three guesses about Who that is (and the first two guesses, don’t count).
We are in the throes of post-season football, and I do love it so. Enjoy the playoffs (college and NFL) or not. If you want me I’ll be on my couch watching.
Thanks for your trust, Mark