Category: civilization

Life is better than ever for most of humanity.

Life is better than ever for most of humanity.

In 2019, I wrote a book review of “Enlightenment Now” by Stephen Pinker. I revisited this review in 2022. In these three years, I’ve experienced a worldwide pandemic, Russia at war with Ukraine, and domestic turmoil in the US. Despite the turbulent times, I still agree with Pinker. Here’s my review; this is a book worth reading.

Life is better than ever for most humanity; despite a barrage of media that paints a dismal picture of life on Earth. Most of society would agree with Barack Obama’s 2016 view “…. if you had to choose blindly what moment you’d want to be born, you’d choose now.” [1] In “Enlightenment Now,” Stephen Pinker provides a quantitative assessment of how life has improved throughout human history. He asserts:

“…. I will show that this bleak assessment of the state of the world is wrong. …. I will present a different understanding of the world, grounded in fact and inspired by the ideals of the Enlightenment: reason, science, humanism, and progress.” [2]

The book starts with three chapters that explain the Enlightenment, some basic science, and the counter-Enlightenment. The majority of the books, seventeen chapters, deal with progress in life, health, sustenance, wealth, inequality, the environment, peace, safety, terrorism, equal rights, knowledge, quality of life, and happiness. The final three chapters deal with reason, science, and humanism in our world.

First, Pinker asks: What is the Enlightenment? He starts with Immanuel Kant’s 1784 definition:

“Enlightenment is man’s release from his self-incurred immaturity. Immaturity is man’s inability to make use of his understanding without direction from another. This immaturity is self-imposed when its cause lies not in lack of reason but in lack of resolution and courage to use it without direction from another. Sapere aude! “Have courage to use your own reason!” — that is the motto of Enlightenment.” [3]

Of course, if the Enlightenment was so great, why aren’t all human problems solved? Pinker says:

“And if you’re committed to progress, you can’t very well claim to have it all figured out. It takes nothing away from the Enlightenment thinkers to identify some critical ideas about the human condition and the nature of progress that we know and they didn’t. Those ideas, I suggest, are entropy, evolution, and information.”

Pinker next explains entropy, evolution, and information. I found this chapter a bit hard to grasp. Perhaps my engineering background causes me to yearn for straightforward definitions. Let’s say that entropy is the tendency towards disorder (such as in my office), and energy is required to counteract entropy. A brief synopsis of Pinker’s description:

[Entropy] “Living things are made of organs that have heterogeneous parts which are uncannily shaped and arranged to do things that keep the organism alive (that is, continuing to absorb energy to resist entropy).”

[Evolution] “The replicating systems would compete for the material to make their copies and the energy to power the replication. Since no copying process is perfect—the Law of Entropy sees to that—errors will crop up, and though most of these mutations will degrade the replicator (entropy again), occasionally dumb luck will throw one up that’s more effective at replicating, and its descendants will swamp the competition.”

[Information] “Information may be thought of as a reduction in entropy—as the ingredient that distinguishes an orderly, structured system from the vast set of random, useless ones.” [4]

Here’s a summary of why we should care about entropy, evolution, and information:

“Getting back to evolution, a brain wired by information in the genome to perform computations on information coming in from the senses could organize the animal’s behavior in a way that allowed it to capture energy and resist entropy. …. Energy channeled by knowledge is the elixir with which we stave off entropy, and advances in energy capture are advances in human destiny.” [5]

Next chapter, there are some details of the counter-Enlightenment. Pinker provides four alternatives:

  1. Religious faith
  2. “People are the expendable cells of a superorganism .…”
  3. [declinism] “One form of declinism bemoans our Promethean dabbling with technology.”
  4. [scientism] “… the intrusion of science into the territory of the humanities ….

A summary of why the counter-Enlightenment should be transcended:

“Our greatest enemies are ultimately not our political adversaries but entropy, evolution (in the form of pestilence and the flaws in human nature), and most of all ignorance—a shortfall of knowledge of how best to solve our problems.” [6]

The majority of “Enlightenment Now” deals with progress in many areas of human life. Here are a few of my most significant findings from Pinker’s extensive research, supported by much data.

[Sustenance] “… in spite of burgeoning numbers, the developing world is feeding itself. Vulnerability to famine appears to have been virtually eradicated from all regions outside Africa.”. … “Famine as an endemic problem in Asia and Europe seems to have been consigned to history.”…

“Once the secrets to growing food in abundance are unlocked and the infrastructure to move it around is in place, the decline of famine depends on the decline of poverty, war, and autocracy.” [7]

[Wealth] “Among the brainchildren of the Enlightenment is the realization that wealth is created. It is created primarily by knowledge and cooperation: networks of people arrange matter into improbable but useful configurations and combine the fruits of their ingenuity and labor. The corollary, just as radical, is that we can figure out how to make more of it. …. “Also, technology doesn’t just improve old things; it invents new ones. How much did it cost in 1800 to purchase a refrigerator, a musical recording, a bicycle, a cell phone, Wikipedia, a photo of your child, a laptop and printer, a contraceptive pill, a dose of antibiotics? The answer is: no amount of money in the world. The combination of better products and new products makes it almost impossible to track material well-being across the decades and centuries. “[8]

[Inequality] “Inequality is not the same as poverty, and it is not a fundamental dimension of human flourishing.” … “As globalization and technology have lifted billions out of poverty and created a global middle class, international and global inequality have decreased, at the same time that they enrich elites whose analytical, creative, or financial impact has global reach. The fortunes of the lower classes in developed countries have not improved nearly as much, but they have improved….” [9]

[Environment] “The key idea is that environmental problems, like other problems, are solvable, given the right knowledge. …. humanity is not on an irrevocable path to ecological suicide.” “An enlightened environmentalism recognizes that humans need to use energy to lift themselves out of the poverty to which entropy and evolution consign them.” [10]

[Knowledge] “Homo sapiens, “knowing man,” is the species that uses information to resist the rot of entropy and the burdens of evolution. …. But some of the causal pathways vindicate the values of the Enlightenment. So much changes when you get an education!

• They are less racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, and authoritarian.

• They place a higher value on imagination, independence, and free speech.

For all these reasons, the growth of education—and its first dividend, literacy—is a flagship of human progress.” [11]

[The Future of Progress] “Ever since the Enlightenment and the invention of science, we’ve managed to create a tiny bit more than we’ve destroyed each year. But that few percent positive difference is compounded over decades into what we might call civilization . . . . [progress] is a self-cloaking action seen only in retrospect. Which is why I tell people that my great optimism of the future is rooted in history.” Hans Rosling, who, when asked whether he was an optimist, replied, “I am not an optimist. I’m a very serious possibilist.” [12]

The final part of “Enlightenment Now” explains the importance of reason, science, and humanism. Pinker makes a strong case for using reason to understand the world. Here’s a brief selection of why reason matters:

  • “Making reason the currency of our discourse begins with clarity about the centrality of reason itself.”
  • “The human brain is capable of reason, given the right circumstances; the problem is to identify those circumstances and put them more firmly in place.”
  • “People understand concepts only when they are forced to think them through, to discuss them with others, and to use them to solve problems. A second impediment to effective teaching is that pupils don’t spontaneously transfer what they learned from one concrete example to others in the same abstract category.” [13]

Pinker advocates that science is the best tool humanity has to understand the world. Here is his explanation of what distinguishes science from other exercises of reason:

“All the methods are pressed into the service of two ideals, and it is these ideals that advocates of science want to export to the rest of intellectual life.

1. The first is that the world is intelligible.

2. The second ideal is that we must allow the world to tell us whether our ideas about it are correct.

When scientists are pressed to explain how they do this, they usually reach for Karl Popper’s model of conjecture and refutation, in which a scientific theory may be falsified by empirical tests but is never confirmed.” [14]

The book’s final chapter explains humanism, why it matters, and how it substitutes for religion in the modern world. Here are some of Pinker’s explanations of humanism:

  • “Spinoza: “Those who are governed by reason desire nothing for themselves which they do not also desire for the rest of humankind.” Progress consists of deploying knowledge to allow all of humankind to flourish in the same way that each of us seeks to flourish. The goal of maximizing human flourishing—life, health, happiness, freedom, knowledge, love, richness of experience—may be called humanism.”
  • “There is a growing movement called Humanism, which promotes a non-supernatural basis for meaning and ethics: good without God.” [15]

Pinker addresses many of the deficits of religion in this chapter. I can’t synopsize all his arguments, but here is one quote that stuck in my mind:

“To begin with, the alternative to “religion” as a source of meaning is not “science.” No one ever suggested that we look to ichthyology or nephrology for Enlightenment on how to live, but rather to the entire fabric of human knowledge, reason, and humanistic values, of which science is a part.” [16]

One issue I see is that current representations of human knowledge aren’t in a holistic framework that covers the “entire fabric of human knowledge” accessible to most humans. It would be helpful to have an accessible form of humanism, the closest that I’m aware of are Unitarian Universalists.

To summarize, “Enlightenment Now” makes a strong case, using data, references, and compelling explanations, that life is improving for most humans. As Pinker asserts: “As always, the only way to know which way the world is going is to quantify.” [17]

The author makes a strong case that reason and science are the root cause for the progress of human life across many dimensions. In contrast, while Pinker explains well the importance of humanism, in the end, I’m not sure how to truly put humanism into practice in my life and community. That said, “Enlightenment Now” is a profound and encouraging book. I agree with Pinker:

“We will never have a perfect world, and it would be dangerous to seek one. But there is no limit to the betterments we can attain if we continue to apply knowledge to enhance human flourishing.” [18]

Notes

[1] As quoted in “Enlightenment Now”, Part III
[2] “Enlightenment Now”, Preface.
[3] Kant, Immanuel. “An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?” (Was ist
Äufklarung?), 30 September, 1784. Pinker translates the Latin “Sapere aude!” as “Dare to understand!” Instead of “Have courage to use your own reason!”
[4] “Enlightenment Now”, Chapter 2. I’d note that the majority of living things are single cell organisms but that doesn’t change Pinker’s observation.
[5] “Enlightenment Now”, Chapter 3.
[6] “Enlightenment Now”, Chapter 3.
[7] “Enlightenment Now”, Chapter 7.
[8] “Enlightenment Now”, Chapter 8.
[9] “Enlightenment Now”, Chapter 9.
[10] “Enlightenment Now”, Chapter 10.
[11] “Enlightenment Now”, Chapter 16.
[12] “Enlightenment Now”, Chapter 20.
[13] “Enlightenment Now”, Chapter 21.
[14] “Enlightenment Now”, Chapter 22.
[15] “Enlightenment Now”, Chapter 23.
[16] “Enlightenment Now”, Chapter 23.
[17] “Enlightenment Now”, Chapter 14.
[18] “Enlightenment Now”, Chapter 23.

Lincoln and Free Speech   by Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

Lincoln and Free Speech by Theodore Roosevelt (1918)

PATRIOTISM means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him in so far as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth—whether about the President or about anyone else-save in the rare cases where this would make known to the enemy information of military value which would otherwise be unknown to him.

Sedition, in the legal sense, means to betray the government, to give aid and comfort to the enemy; or to counsel resistance to the laws or to measures of government having the force of law. There can be conduct morally as bad as legal sedition which yet may not be violation of law. The President-any President-can by speech or action (by advocating an improper peace, or improper submission to national wrong) give aid and comfort to the public enemy as no one else in the land can do, and yet his conduct, however damaging to the country, is not seditious; and although if public sentiment is sufficiently aroused he can be impeached, such course is practically impossible.

One form of servility consists in a slavish attitude – of the kind incompatible with self-respecting manliness-toward any person who is powerful by reason of his office or position. Servility may be shown by a public servant toward the profiteering head of a large corporation, or toward the anti-American head of a big labor organization. It may also be shown in peculiarly noxious and un-American form by confounding the President or any other official with the country, and shrieking “stand by the President,” without regard to whether, by so acting, we do or do not stand by the country.

A distinguished Federal Judge recently wrote me as follows:

” LAST November it seemed as if the American people were going to be converted into a Hallelujah chorus whose only function in government should be to shout – ‘Hallelujah!’ ‘Hallelujah!’ for everything that the Administration did or failed to do. Anyone who did not join that chorus was liable to imprisonment for treason or sedition.

 “I hope that we shall soon have recovered our sense as well as our liberty.”

“The authors of the first amendment to the Federal Constitution guaranteeing the right of assembly and of freedom of speech and of the press did not thus safeguard those rights for the sake alone of persons who were to enjoy them, but even more because they knew that the republic which they were founding could not be worked on any other basis. Since Marshall tried Burr for treason it has been clear that that crime cannot be committed by words, unless one acts as a spy, or gives advice to the enemy of military or naval operations. It cannot be committed by statements reflecting upon officers or measures of government.”

“Sedition is different. Anyone who directly advises or counsels resistance to measures of government is guilty of sedition. That, however, ought to be clearly distinguished from discussion of the wisdom or folly of measures of government, or the honesty or competency of public officers. That is not sedition. It is within the protection of the first amendment. The electorate cannot be qualified to perform its duty in removing incompetent officers and securing the repeal of unwise laws, unless those questions may be freely discussed.”

“The right to say wise things necessarily implies the right to say foolish things. The answer to foolish speech is wise speech and not force. The republic is founded upon the faith that if the American people are permitted freely to hear foolish and wise speech, a majority will choose the wise. If that faith is not justified the republic is based on sand. John Milton said it all in his defence of freedom of the press: ‘Let truth and error grapple. Whoever knew truth to be beaten in a fair fight?’”

ABRAHAM LINCOLN was in Congress while Polk was President during the Mexican war. The following extracts from his speeches, during war time, about the then President, ought to be illuminating to those persons who do not understand that one of the highest and most patriotic duties to be performed in this country at this time is to tell the truth whenever it becomes necessary in order to force our government to speed up the war. It would, for example, be our highest duty to tell it if at any time we became convinced that only thereby could we shame our leaders out of hypocrisy and prevent the betrayal of human rights by peace talk of the kind which bewilders and deceives plain people.

These quotations can be found on pp. 100-146 of Vol. I of Lincoln’s “Complete Works,” by Nicolay and Hay.

 In a speech on Jan. 12th, 1848, Lincoln justified himself for voting in favor of a resolution censuring the President for his action prior to and during the war (which was still going on). He examines the President’s official message of justification and says “that, taking for true all the President states as facts, he falls far short of proving his justification; and that the President would have gone farther with his proof if it had not been for the small matter that the truth would not permit him.” He says that part of the message “is from beginning to end the sheerest deception.” He then asks the President to answer certain questions and says: “Let him answer fully, fairly and candidly. Let him answer with facts and not with arguments. Let him remember that he sits where Washington sat and so remembering, let him answer as Washington would answer. Let him attempt no evasion, no equivocation.” In other words, Lincoln says that he does not wish rhetoric or fine phrases, or glittering statements that contradict one another and each of which has to be explained with a separate key, or adroit and subtle special pleading and constant reversal of positions previously held, but straightforward and consistent adherence to the truth. He continues that he “more than suspects” that the President “is deeply conscious of being in the wrong; that he feels that” innocent blood ” is crying to Heaven”; that one of the best generals had “been driven into disfavor if not disgrace, by the President” for insisting upon speaking unpalatable truths about the length of time the war would take (and therefore the need of full preparedness); and ends by saying that the army has done admirably, but that the President has bungled his work and “knows not where he is. He is a bewildered, confounded and miserably perplexed man. God grant he may be able to show there is not something about his conscience more painful than all his mental perplexity.”

REMEMBER that this is Lincoln speaking, in war time, of the President. The general verdict of history has justified him. But it impossible to justify him and not heartily to condemn the persons who in our time endeavor to suppress truth-telling of a far less emphatic type than Lincoln’s.

Lincoln had to deal with various critics of the “stand by the President” type. To one he answers that “the only alternative is to tell the truth or to lie,” and that he would not “skulk” on such a question. He explains that the President’s supporters are untiring in their efforts to make the impression that all who vote supplies or take part in the war do of necessity approve the President’s conduct” but that he, Lincoln, and his associates sharply “denounced the President’s conduct” and “condemned the Administration.” He stated that to give the President the power demanded for him by certain people would “place the President where kings, have always stood.” In touching on what we should now speak of as rhetoric, he says: “The honest laborer digs coal at about seventy  cents a day, while the President digs abstractions at about seventy dollars a day. The coal is clearly worth more than the abstractions, and yet what a monstrous inequality in the price !” He emphatically protests against permitting the President “to take the whole of legislation into his hands”-surely a statement applying exactly to the present situation. To the President’s servile party supporters he makes a distinction which also readily applies at the present day: ” The distinction between the cause of the President … the cause of the country …you cannot perceive. To you the President and the country seem to be all one . . . We see the distinction clearly enough.”

This last statement was the crux of the matter then and is the crux of the matter now. We hold that our loyalty is due solely American Republic, and to all our public servants exactly in proportion as they efficiently and faithfully serve the Republic. Our opponents, in flat contradiction of Lincoln’s position, hold that our loyalty is due to the President, not the country; to one man, the servant the people, instead of to the people themselves. In practice they adopt the fetishism of all believers in absolutism; for every man who parrots the cry of “stand by the President,” without adding the proviso “so far as he serves the Republic” takes an attitude as essentially unmanly as that of any Stuart Royalist who championed the doctrine that the King could do no wrong. No self-respecting and intelligent freeman can take such an attitude.

THE Wisconsin Legislature has just set forth the proper American doctrine, as follows:
“The people of the State of Wisconsin always have stood and always will stand squarely behind the National Government in all things which are essential to bring the present war to a successful end, and we condemn Senator Robert La Follette and all others who have failed to see the righteousness of our nation’s cause, who have failed to support our Government in matters vital to the winning of the war, and we denounce any attitude or utterance of theirs which has tended to incite sedition among the people of our country.”

In view of the recent attitude of the Administration as expressed to its attention the utterances of Abraham Lincoln in 1848 and of the Wisconsin Legislature in 1918. The Administration’s warfare against war German spies and American traitors has been feeble. The Government has achieved far less in this direction than has been achieved by, for instance, a private individual, John Rathom, of the Providence Journal. This failure is aggravated by such action as was threatened against the METROPOLITAN MAGAZINE. The METROPOLITAN—and the present writer-have stood and will continue to stand “squarely behind the National Government in all things which are essential to bring the present war to a successful end” and to support ” the righteousness of the nation’s cause.” We will stand behind the country at every point; and we will at every point either support or oppose Administration precisely in proportion as it does or does not with efficiency and single-minded devotion serve the country.

From this position we will not be driven by any abuse of power or by any effort to make us, not the loyal servants of the American people, but the cringing tools of a man who at the moment has power.

The Administration has in some of its actions on vital points shown great inefficiency (as proved by Senator Chamberlain’s committee), and on other points has been guilty of conduct toward certain peoples wholly inconsistent with its conduct toward other peoples and is wholly inconsistent with its public professions as regards all international conduct. It cannot meet these accusations, for they are truthful; and to try to suppress the truth by preventing the circulation of the METROPOLITAN MAGAZINE is as high-handed a defiance of liberty and justice as anything done by the Hohenzollerns or the Romanoffs. Such action is intolerable. Contrast the leniency shown by the Government toward the grossest offences against the Nation with its eagerness to assail anyone who tells unpleasant truths about the Administration. The Hearst papers play the German game when they oppose the war, assail our allies and clamor for an inconclusive peace, and they play the German game when they assail the

distinguished between the two, and voted supplies and men but men who truthfully point out the shortcomings which unless corrected will redound to Germany’s advantage and our terrible disadvantage. But the Administration has taken no action against the Hearst papers. The METROPOLITAN MAGAZINE has supported the war has championed every measure to speed up the war and to make our strength effective, and has stood against every proposal for a peace without victory. But the Administration acts against the magazine that, in straightforward, American fashion, has championed the war

Such discrimination is not compatible with either honesty or patriotism. It means that the Administration is using the great power of the Government to punish honest criticism of its shortcomings, while it accepts support of and apology for these shortcomings as an offset to action against the war and, therefore, against the nation. Conduct and of this kind is a grave abuse of official power.

WHATEVER the Administration does, I shall continue to act in the future precisely as I have acted in the past. When a Senator like Mr. Chamberlain in some great matter serves the country better to the than does the Administration, I shall support that Senator; and when a Senator like Mr. La Follette perseveres in the course followed by the Administration before it reversed itself in February, 1917, I shall oppose him and to that extent support the Administration in of its present position. I shall continue to support the Administration in every such action as floating the Liberty loans, raising the draft army, or sending our troops abroad. I shall continue truthfully to criticise any flagrant acts of incompetency by the Administration- such as the failure in shipping matters and the breakdown of the War Department during the last fourteen months—when it appears that such truthful criticism offers the only chance of remedying the wrong. I shall support every official from the President down who does well, and shall oppose every such official who does ill. I shall not put the personal comfort of the President or of any other public servant above the welfare of the country.

I CONTEMPTUOUSLY refuse to recognize any American adaptation of the German doctrine of lèse majesté.  I am concerned only with the welfare of my beloved country, and with the effort to beat down the German horror, in the interest of the orderly freedom of all the nations of mankind. If the Administration does the work of war with all possible speed and efficiency, and stands for preparedness as a permanent policy, and heartily supports our allies to the end, and insists upon complete victory as a basis for peace, I shall heartily support it. If the Administration moves in the direction of an improper peace, of the peace of defeat and of cowardice, or if it wages feebly and timidly, I shall oppose it, and shall endeavor to wake the American people to their danger.

 I hold that only in this way can I act as patriotism bids me act. I hold that only in this way can I serve in even the slightest degree the cause of America, of the Allies, and of liberty; and that only thus can I aid in thwarting Germany’s effort to establish a world tyranny.

I thought to transcribe after hearing “Governor Schwarzenegger’s Message Following this Week’s Attack on the Capitol” that was published on 10 January 2021. At about 3:06 into the video, Governor Schwarzenegger states: “Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President.” I wanted to learn more about the context of the statement and I ended up finding a link to the original speech while reading “Did Teddy Roosevelt Say ‘Patriotism Means to Stand by the Country … Not the President’? by Dan Evon 15 January 2021

My conclusion is that there’s a lot more I should learn about the specific reason President Roosevelt gave this speech and also the context of Abraham Lincoln’s original speech. My intent in putting this out on 15 February 2021 is to learn form the wisdom of others than no more than I do.

Sources:

I transcribed the original Roosevelt speech from the source Metropolitan magazine. v.47 no.6 1918 May. It took me about four hours of editing effort to correct a lot of OCR transcription errors using the original that had been scanned by Google.  (accessed 16 January 2021) I did retain the original spelling which is a bit different from current usage. Any errors are my own and I provide this as a source for others to use as they will.

This file was downloaded from HathiTrust Digital Library. Find more books at https://www.hathitrust.org.

Title: Metropolitan magazine. Publisher: [New York : Blakely Hall,

Copyright: Public Domain, Google-digitized http://www.hathitrust.org/access_use#pd-google

We have determined this work to be in the public domain, meaning that it is not subject to copyright. Users are free to copy, use, and redistribute the work in part or in whole. It is possible that current copyright holders, heirs or the estate of the authors of individual portions of the work, such as illustrations or photographs, assert copyrights over these portions. Depending on the nature of subsequent use that is made, additional rights may need to be obtained independently of anything we can address. The digital images and OCR of this work were produced by Google, Inc. (indicated by a watermark on each page in the PageTurner). Google requests that the images and OCR not be re-hosted, redistributed or used commercially. The images are provided for educational, scholarly, non-commercial purposes.

Find this book online: https://hdl.handle.net/2027/uva.x030708290

This file has been created from the computer-extracted text of scanned page images. Computer-extracted text may have errors, such as misspellings, unusual characters, odd spacing and line breaks.

Silver gelatin photograph of Theodore Roosevelt  (1918) By Baker Art Gallery – Cowan’s Auctions, Public Domain,

Brewbooks – Ramblings of John Brew

Brewbooks – Ramblings of John Brew

My goal is to learn about the world my entire life. “Each one of us adds a little to our understanding of Nature, and from all the facts assembled arises a certain grandeur.” – Aristotle as quoted by Bradford Washburn.

My tendency is to analyze whatever I come across.  My guess is I over quantify the world; probably a result of over forty years as an engineer.

This site focuses on capturing what I learn. My interests include

  • Books – mainly nonfiction
  • Fitness: hiking, running, and walking. How to maintain fitness as we age
  • History and Politics
  • Investing and Economic history
  • Nature: Learning about the flora, fauna, and geology wherever I travel
  • Religion and Philosophy
  • Science: biology, botany, neuroscience, physics
  • Technology: electronics, neural engineering
  • Travel – Learning from around the world

Well, that’s a little about me. Hope to see you on a hike or walk.