#270 Musings Beyond the Bunker (Wednesday February 9)
Good morning,
Murad Siam sent me the following, which is a timeless affirmation of science over fantasy, facts over fiction, which resonates more in these times of factual denial, ignoring of evidence, and conspiracy theories, than it ever did:
“I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be.”
--Isaac Asimov
CONFRONTING DARKNESS
“Darkness” by Isaac Asimov was designated the best science fiction short story written prior to 1965. Asimov was among the most prolific of writers, a scientist, philosopher and popularizer of scientific fact and theory, who also wrote books on history, religion and the bible, compiling over 100 books.
Darkness posits the existence of a planet that is in a star system of six stars, resulting in the planet being bathed in perpetual daylight. The inhabitants had never witnessed darkness. Yet, once every 2000 years a moon orbiting the planet (typically not visible due to the constant daylight) obscures a sun at precisely the right time, resulting in an eclipse that lasts only a few hours.
The oral history of the planet tells the story of a collapse of civilization every 2000 years. Scientists and historians were perplexed as to the reason of this repeated catastrophe. It turns out that each time darkness descends, the people look up at the sky and see stars for the first time. It is then that they realize the vastness of the universe—a universe beyond their prior understanding. They also realize their insignificance within the greater scheme of things. Collective madness ensues. And it is this chaos that is the cause of the periodic societal collapses—coming to grips with a universe so much larger and so much beyond their comprehension that they can no longer function.
I can’t help but see this story as resonating with the near-hysterical reaction to Galileo centuries ago or the fanatical, seemingly irrational, response to scientific verities in our present day. The extent of human knowledge is almost unfathomable, yet the extent of the universe and the unknown is even more unfathomable. Some have a hard time accepting that science can explain so much of the world and the heavens and, in that knowledge, we are reminded how insignificant we are. It is supremely humbling to contemplate the comparative insignificance of humanity in the vastness of the cosmos. But rather than acquiescing to our insignificance or giving into the nihilism that might ensue, we can accept that our interactions with friends, family, and our community provide us the opportunity to have an impact in a tiny way in the scheme of things. To view our existence otherwise is to succumb to the fate of the planet in this story—driving ourselves mad in the inability—or unwillingness—to accept reality. We are but a tiny blip—if that—in the scheme of things. It is our option to make that tiny blip stand for something.
In the present day, it seems many people grapple with new information—information that can be unsettling or challenging of our existing assumptions—by denial and a retrenchment into preconceptions of the universe. It may seem impossible to believe that humanity is capable of the production of a vaccine capable of arresting a global pandemic. It may seem impossible to believe that the Earth is hurtling through the cosmos either alone or so far from any civilization as to render contact with another civilization nearly impossible. One can embrace this insignificance or falsely elevate our place in the universe (some would call this narcissism).
We are presented with empirical facts and scientific advancement. We can either incorporate new information into our world view and evolve our beliefs or we can turn from science and facts and instead live within a false world that denies these facts.
When people ask me my views on an afterlife, my response is “does it really matter?” The world existed over four billion years without my presence. My suspicion is that the world will do just fine for the next four billion years without me (after which the sun will expand and ingulf the inner planets). I respect those who have faith that there is an afterlife beyond our time on this Earth. And I hope they’re right. That said, it seems wishful thinking—indeed narcissistic—to imagine that I somehow will exist for eternity after my brief time here. It’s possible, I suppose, but not defensible on any scientific theory. I’d rather confront the darkness and live in the moment and for the future of others I will leave in my wake.
FINALLY, THE LEFT MAY BE BAD BUT THE DANGER FROM THE RIGHT—AT LEAST NOW—IS WORSE
From Peter Wehner and Jonathan Rauch, noted conservatives (one of whom served in the Reagan White House), here is an excerpt from a recent Atlantic article. I believe it succinctly summarizes well the danger of the anti-democratic movement on the right in a way that should speak to those who consider themselves conservative. The circulation of empirically provable misstatements of fact, fealty to Trump’s discredited lies of a stolen election, and a systematic effort to discredit our democratic and judicial institutions and our electoral process (despite praise by Trump-appointed officials as the most secure in history), pose an existential threat to the world’s longest-lived democracy, an experiment that I believe faces its greatest threat in the next few years:
“American democracy has often confronted hostile forces from outside the United States; rarely has it been under as much of a threat from forces within the nation. The danger arises from illiberalism on the left and the right. Both sides are chipping away at the foundations of the American Republic; each side seems oblivious to its own defects.
Again and again, we have heard conservatives argue that even if you believe that Donald Trump is flawed and the MAGA movement is worrisome, the left is much more dangerous. We disagree. Fears about the left’s increasingly authoritarian, radical tendencies are well grounded; but they have blinded many conservatives to the greater danger posed by the right, which we believe is a threat to our constitutional order and therefore to conservatism itself.”
Have a great day,
Glenn
From the archives: