Author: Agata

Ira: OK, people, settle down. There seems to be a few more people here tonight. I’m Ira Cordell, and this is the second meeting of Modern Anthropology in the Coreyville adult education program. If you signed up for Zumba you are in the wrong room. (snickers) … OK, first I want show you a picture of my son at his first communion on Sunday.
Phil: Ha ha. I don’t think so, Ira.
Ira: Why is that, Phil? (grinning)
Phil: Because last week you told us you were gay and Jewish.
Ira: Bingo. 2 points for Phil for paying attention. And now I’m saying I’m straight and Catholic. I said that last week just as a fun experiment to demonstrate the generalizations, good or bad, correct or otherwise that come with identity. So in effect I WAS gay and jewish to you. Now, without thinking much about it, you will adjust your perceception of me- based on your preconceived notions of what those categories mean.
Jim: Will you be a bisexual Klingon next week, Ira?
Ira: Ha, I don’t think so, Jim. I will remain as I am. So let’s move on. This evening, a survey. It is universally illegal in the US to marry a sibling. If you think this law is appropriate write ‘yes’ on these little cards. If not write no.
Frank: Are you kidding, Ira?
Ira: No, Frank. And don’t get neurotic about anything. It’s just a little entertainment.
……OK, raise your hand if you wrote ‘yes’….(pause) uh, 13 out of 13. OK can anyone give me a reason for your answer.
Frank: Who would want to marry their sister? (laughter)
Ira: Well, in fact, almost nobody. So the question becomes, why DON”T people want to marry their sister.
Christy: Well, inbreeding is supposed to produce deformities, I’ve read.
Ira: That’s right. Research clearly shows that mental aberrations as well as
physical deformities occur after continued inbreeding, but not always.
Steve: There’s also the stigma. It’s disgusting and it’s not socially acceptable.
Ira: Yes, its certainly socially unacceptable. So now we have 2 reasons for the taboo. It causes developmental problems and it won’t get you on the society A list. Now, question: Which came first? The concern over abnormalities or the social unacceptance?
Christy: I think it was the social unacceptance. In ancient Rome, the emperor Caligula…married his sister and it was as much of a scandal then as it would be today.
John: Yeah, they thought he was literally crazy.
Ira: Okay so the stigma, social faux pas, taboo, distaste was evident 2 millennia ago. So where do we go from there?
Jim: Well, I think the taboo existed before there was the scientific sophistication that incest led to deformities. Especially because they didn’t happen every time.
Ira: So this means – possibly – that social behavior may be driven by biological determinants?
Tom: It seems so. Like our appetites. Things that don’t taste good together aren’t digested well together. Personal tastes differ. Some people like seafood. Others hate it. But no one likes to eat mustard and jelly together, because the digestive juices stimulated will cause putrification.
Ira: woah!! I don’t think this class needs me. That was quite relevant, Tom.
Tom: I studied this once in grad school, heh heh.
Ira: That’s very cool. OK, moving on, from incest to homosexuality.
Lara: What about it?
Ira: Well, until about 50 years ago it was considered immoral or perverted and was
illegal virtually everywhere in the world:
Steve: And it still is illegal in many places.
Mark: I suppose it was like the taboo of sibling sexual relations. It was considered
distasteful and unnatural.
Ira: And perhaps a threat?
Lara: How do you suppose it was a threat?
Ira: In the sense that historically change has often been a threat. If there is a change in cultural values, a change you do not hold to, your position or influence, real or imagined, may be diminished. Values you hold may no longer be as respected. So homosexuality can become an enemy of one’s identity group. Leaders of a community may feel their position, status, power threatened by a new norm and may be hostile to a change in the intolerance of new group, which may be gays,
immigrants, a different religion, a minority, etc. Any people you can group together.
Tom: So the leaders of a community feel their status is threatened so they marshal intolerance to the new group to preserve their own power?
Ira: Exactly, and it often isn’t hard to do. Just verbal abuse can do it. Whether it is rational or not, it may model abuse, open the door to aggressive abuse, which is gratifying in itself for many. And produce an out group which is fair game for discrimination.
Tom: And make them scapegoats. Blame everything on them like the Jews in the 1930’s and 40’s.
Ira: That’s right. But are there biological determinants feeding non-acceptance of gays like we concluded there likely were with incest?
Lara: I would think there could be. People have to procreate to survive.
Ira: Yes, and many tribes and clans of people did not survive in the last 100,000 years.
But the curious question remains.
Mark: If there were a biological determinant driving a taboo for homosexuality, why would it be wrong to discriminate against homosexuals?
Ira: Well, Mark, this would be my argument. Sex between siblings can lead to a weakening of the gene pool and extensive deformities and disabilities. But homosexuality in the 21 century will not lead to declining population. If it were ”natural”to discriminate against homosexuality, man is not always at his best when he is natural. That is why we invented civilization to make laws forbidding man’s natural proclivity to kill, steal, pillage, conspire against fellow humans. So it may be argued that sibling sexual relations cause many problems to the species – and people can find others besides siblings for relations. Homosexuals are causing no harm by not having heterosexual relationships and procreating. And, because of sexual orientation, cannot have, are not attracted to heterosexual relations. Okay, we’re running out of time so let’s try to sum up what we have all concluded together. Or if not concluded, what we have put together as a theory of human behavior and an ethical way forward.
Jim: Well, we have suggested that there may be two reasons for the taboo of incestuous relations. One, that there is a detrimental effect to the human gene pool, and causes physical and mental aberrations. So there may be a genetic predisposition for a distaste for marrying your sibling. And in different cultures there is a conscious taboo on it. It is illegal and very socially unacceptable.
Ira: Or if not a genetic predisposition, a developmental phenomena. There is a new science called evolutionary psychology which contends that some parts of our brain
have evolved to adapt to changing demands met by the species. When man invented jelly and mustard, his brain may have evolved to alter his appetite. But it is all very speculative and not really necessary for our discussion.
Christy: So for the homosexuality, it may also be for 2 reasons. Something we were born with – an aversion to homosexuality, or something we learn through culture.
Steve: And also the purely social thing. People wanting to turn people against gays as a way of maintaining or gaining power. The way people turned others against jews and blacks to gain power.
Ira: Very true. like George Wallace, governor of Alabama ceremoniously stood in the doorway blocking the entrance of the first black student to be admitted to the University of Alabama. He was elected 4 times and had millions of devotees. So there we have it.
We have solved the problem. Two reasons for the sibling taboo and 3 for the homosexual discrimination. (social unacceptance / a genetic or developmental revulsion / use as a tool for power)
Ira: Well, next week why don’t you all bring your ideas on what are the most difficult
unsolved problems of our society.
Phil: Then after this course we can all run for Congress.
Ira: Don’t see why not.

Just kidding.

NASA recently held its first public conference on the recent sightings of UFOs. Except they are calling them UAP’s – Unidentified Aerial Phenomena – seemingly to tone down the sensation. But I’m sure the conference will jack up the hopes of the many co-conspirators who desperately want to believe that extraterrestrials from afar have intruded into our biosphere.

I never want to crush anyone’s raison d’etre, but the chances of aliens visiting our solar system is virtually 0.0. (The term ‘virtually’ keeps it scientific and covers me if little purple men call a meeting in Times Square tomorrow.) This is because of The Factor. The Factor keeps aliens from making it to our solar system and always will. But UFO buffs can take heart that my words will have far less reach than alien believers such as William Shattner, Chloe Kardashian, or Katy Perry. And to know you are a part of a grand tradition of sky watchers and alien searchers.

In the 1890’s, with the expanding reach of new telescopes, an Italian astronomer reported seeing a multitude of “canals” on the surface of Mars – in straight lines and parallel to each other. The sighting was repeated around the world and speculation that they were created by an intelligent civilization launched a tumult of sensational news and compulsive Mars watching. Although the the phenomena was soon found to be an optical illusion, the genie was out of the bottle. Like news of a fraudulent presidential election, many couldn’t let go, and doubtlessly some gained by not doing so. The sensation lasted into the 1920’s after decades of no new evidence of life on the red planet.

Later, eyes turned to Venus as the most likely place to find life. It was the most similar to Earth by size and distance from the sun. But as time passed, Venus too became a dead end for alien searchers and researchers. The increasing abilities of science to measure found that “daytime” surface temperatures on the planet went up to 900 F, it had 92 times greater atmospheric pressure than that of Earth on the surface, and clouds of sulphuric acid and methane are constantly swirling through its atmosphere. Oof, I’d rather live in Hoboken.

After this, UFO people didn’t really have anywhere to search for UFOs’ homes. But this hardly mattered. Many UFO groups were satisfied to concentrate on the thousands of reported sightings every year. And their origin? Out there, of course. One group is called The Center for the Study of Extraterrestrial Intelligence. It’s founder had a project called the Rapid Mobilization Investigative Teams that were on the ready to quickly get to the site of a UFO landing. Another was a project to protect any and all whistleblowers working for the government, who surely know all about many alien landings, and want to come forward but are fearful.

Then in the 1990’s the first known exoplanets (planets outside of our solar system) were discovered orbiting distance stars. Now UFO fans had an unlimited source for purple people. Solid ground. Not burning stars or crushing neutron stars. It seemed a little more credible to claim that we surely aren’t alone if there are an unlimited number of planets.

Now to return to The Factor. The reason for my obstinate dismissal of visitors from space has to do with the understanding of distance. I may have attained a slight advantage here because from the time l was ten through high school l had a map of the solar system hanging on a wall in my bedroom. And like the words of the Lord’s Prayer
hanging next to it, I remember the words of the paragraph in the corner of the map almost verbatim. In part, it said, ‘An idea of the vastness of space may be better understood if we consider it to scale. If the sun were a globe 30 inches in diameter, the earth would be more than 100 yards away and smaller than the size of a pea. In this same scale the nearest star would be more than 14,000 miles away.

So The Factor – super distance – is what precludes space travel for humans beyond our solar system and for extraterrestrials from intruding on us. Our space craft travel fast. Speeding through the void at 30,000 km/hr, 18,000 mph, or 6 miles per second, they reach Mars in a little over 9 months. This is doable for humans so inclined. But exoplanets are a fur piece. The closest one to Earth is called Proxima B, circling the closest star, in our home galaxy, The Milky Way. It is 4.2 light years from Earth. I told my friend Chat the speed and distance, and he calculated the time it would take for a brand new US spacecraft to reach it.

Chat told me it was 152,287 years. 150 thousand years!!!! One way!! Imagine how daunting just planning for the provisions would be. OK, 290 billion beef jerky sticks.  Check.  870 billion chicken bouillon cubes.  Check.

For those not yet convinced, there is the Second Factor, the ‘find me’ factor. Imagine you are standing at the center of a circle with a radius of 100 meters. You can’t find your dog Elvis, but you know he is sitting somewhere on the circumference of the circle.
So you take off between the houses and trees to get to the circumference. After running around for 15 minutes you find Elvis. Now imagine you are again at the center, but this time Elvis is on the circumference of a circle with a radius of ten miles. So now to travel completely around the circle you must travel 10 x 2 x pi = 62,8 miles. Now this is quite a walk and Elvis is a bit harder to find, might take weeks  Finally imagine a circle with the radius of the distance from Earth to Proxima B – 4,5 light years. Chat told me this is 23.54 trillion miles. This is how far away Elvis is, damn dog. But now Elvis isn’t located on a circumference this far away. (Which would be a 144 trillion mile walkaround). He is located anywhere on the surface of a sphere around your spot on the Earth – this far away – 23 trillion miles. Good-bye Elvis. And this is just the closest rock to our Earth. So the goal of this little vignette was to help convey that beings from Proxima B, or anywhere else, have but an infinitesimally small percentage of a chance – virtually zero – of finding their way to us here on Earth.

(Addendum. For those of you who are worried that the chance of Proxima B being able to sustain life is pretty much nill, much less than Mars, the second closest exoplanet is only 30% further. So if the 150,000 years we spent going to Proxima was a royal waste of time, we can try for Barnard B which would take 190,000 years. Or third closest Ross B, 425,000 years. We should probably do all 3 on the same trip to save time)

Man is a romantic species. We have always been intrigued by the mysterious and scary – dinosaurs, ghosts, wars, UFO’s , the 9/11 conspiracy theories, the giant geoglyphs of the ancient South American Nazca visible by airplane, and who really built the pyramids. It would be unthinkable for a modern society not to ponder about UFO’s and aliens coming to Earth. We can’t deny the imagination. But neither can we deny science, objective truth, and rational thought. And rational thought, for those who want to embrace it, precludes the possibility, given our understanding of physics, of living things traveling between our solar system and anywhere else in our formidable universe.

Scientists store knowledge of the workings of their instruments, as well as postulating a theory they attempt to prove empirically.
Social scientists dealing with prehistoric physical and cultural anthropology have a different task: to reconstruct a necessarily incomplete chronicle of human culture and behavior. Then the task is addressing the blank spaces in the story and write the best theoretical hypotheses. The fun part is inspecting where the hard science meets the theoretical social science and analyzing the author’s particular opinions or biases. Harari does not seem to hide his particular perspective of various human situations, and so makes it enjoyable to challenge him. Such as:

p, 70-75 ”Guilty as Charged”. This is a subheading Harari uses to describe Homo sapiens behavior in Australia. About 40,000 years ago Sapiens reached the shores of Australia in some kind of unknown seaworthy vessels. The author describes the rich populations of giant marsupials- giant kangaroos, giant sloths, giant wombats, diprotodons living on the continent when humans arrived. But “within a few thousand years virtually all of these giants vanished. ..Was it all the fault of Homo sapiens?” Then under “Guilty as Charged” he presents the case that Sapiens were culpable, guilty, unethical it seems, for causing the extinction of these animals. He explains how some scientists ”try to exonerate our species, placing the blame on the vagaries of climate”, which Harari dismisses with historic meteorological data.

But do these ancient Sapiens need to be exonerated, even if they caused the extinctions as the evidence indicates? Today it is easy to find culpability in modern man’s role of driving species to extinction. And I do. Whales, sharks, cod, gorillas, tigers, rhinos, elephants and many more are endangered because man chooses not to refrain from overindulgent behavior that he knows is wiping them out. But ancient Sapiens in Australia had no clue that they were causing extinctions. They knew they were killing the animals for food and clothing. and perhaps they killed animals to make their surrounds safer. (As did American settlers) They killed for the survival of their families, their clans and their tribe. It is a bit of a reach to blame them for not thinking, “We need the food and hides of these animals, and our neighbors were killed by a 2-ton diprotodon last week but we must go easy on killing them or they will become extinct in a few thousand years.”

 I think it fair, in light of all the disruptions to the Australian food chains which Harari cites, to say the Sapiens of Australia were somewhat of an invasive species. But like contemporary invasive species – wild bore, devil weed, killer algae, and snakehead fish, they were simply trying to survive and thrive, not a psychopathic…. er sociopathic…… er anthropathic species. (heh heh, Just made up a new word) This extinction of the superbeasts occurred more than 30,000 years before Homo sapiens acquired writing.

1 p 15-17 Prehistoric racism. 150,000 years ago Homo sapiens resembling modern humans populated east Africa. 70,000 years ago they migrated into the Middle East and continued relentlessly till they populated all of Eurasia. They met the Neanderthals in Asia minor and , and Homo erectus in the far east. Over the millenia, the Neanderthals and Homo erectus disappeared. Why? Harari explains the 2 theories. First, the Interbreeding Theory says the “Neanderthals bred with Sapiens until the two populations merged”. The seminal novel Clan of the Cave Bear by Jean Auel tells about a Homo sapien girl orphaned by an earthquake and taken in by a Neanderthals. The end assumes the theory that the two groups interbred and thus endorses the Interbreeding Theory.  The secnd, the Replacement Theory contends that there were sufficient differences between the two that they would have had little sexual interest in each other.  And if they did interbreed the offspring would have been infertile because of the genetic difference. Instead the new neighbors out-survived the old ones, and also probably killed them in warfare. 

Then Harari says, ”A lot hinges on this debate. If the Replacement theory is correct all humans have roughly the same genetic baggage, and racial distinctions among them are negligible. But if the Interbreeding Theory is right, there well may be genetic differences between Africans, Europeans and Asians that go back hundreds of thousands of years. This is political dynamite which could provide material for explosive racial theories. [italics mine]

Seriously, Mr Harari? Racism today is simple by comparison to racism based on the relation of one’s DNA sequencing and its relation to Neanderthal or Homo erectus’  DNA sequencing.

Racism today: Identify a group, tell your colleagues this group is bad, inferior, immoral, dangerous, etc. The disdain generated by hating an out-group is gratifying as is all human endeavor which diminishes the they and enhances the we. Also, try to find other categories which diminishes them. This process has been painfully manifest in the US in current times. To diminish the Biden administration, create the belief that their rDNA vaccination is bad, and our hydroxychloroquine is good. Their mandate on masks is bad, etc. And demonize their experts, such as Marge Green did shamelessly to Dr Fauci.

So how would racism work based on the prehistoric record of one’s DNA? To discriminate against African Americans one need only identify physical traits. To discriminate against Jews, a bit harder. One needs knowledge that a person himself identifies as such. So if you know a person identifies as Jewish, you can harass him personally, or refuse to hire him. And you can attack the institutions of the Jewish culture, such as the synagogues. But to discriminate against someone who neither identifies with, nor has identifiable physical characteristics of, nor has knowledge of, a specific genetic sequence in his DNA would require the work of a myriad of scientists, a broad testing program, and a political agenda. Not very feasible. There are far easier ways to do political demagoguery. So, luckily, no. The Interbreeding theory of how Sapiens came to dominate the Eurasian continent could not become political dynamite, nor evolve to become a racist movement…. (end of article)

NOTES wipe out cod- tragedy because A we have no more of them to eat;  wipe out tiger or mountain gorilla- tragedy because of B no respect for their a right to live. or C trajedy  because of the resulting disrupion in the balance of nature, food chain, etc.

Funny story about the balance of nature factor. True story but I can’t remember all the details. A small island was inhabited by 200 primitive natives, I think off the coast of Australia. Australian health authorities, seeing a good amount of mice and other rodents on the island endeavored to help. They parachuted (yes!) a large number of cats onto the island to despatch the pests, which they did. But within months the natives had to be evacuated from the island. The rodents’ diet had been the ample supply of insects that covered the island. With no predators the insects multiplied quickly. They invaded the natives’ huts and took up residence by the millions in the earthen walls and thatched roofs. eh. Balance of nature disrupted.

Harari says the nature of of man being bad is not the problem. The problem is when good people are given bad info and they make poor decisions.

The nation was apprised of the purported inappropriate attitudes of college presidents through brief and misleading primetime soundbites from the meeting of the House Committee on Education and the Workplace. Here’s the backstory.

This is the third time I have started this article. For some reason I was unable to bring all the elements together to make a concise and coherent story. Then it hit me. THAT was my theme: There was nothing concise nor coherent about this congressional hearing. In fact it was painfully tortuous and off the point most of the time. So I will bring my point by listing some of the most noxious statements from the meeting.

The most glaring of all were the numerous factual errors of the committee members. Time after time disinformation was disgorged to predicate
an opinion or a pompous declaration.
 
NUMBER ONE Rep Joe Wilson of South Carolina insisted that Hamas’ terror was reaching the US, citing that a pro-Hamas professor murdered a peaceful protester in California. Here is Wilson’s story:
A JOE WILSON: Thank you, Chairwoman Virginia Foxx. And Chairwoman Virginia Foxx, I believe appropriately began this hearing about how serious this hearing is. That the Iran puppets of Hamas have victimized the world including here in the United States. And shocking, as we include people who have been affected, it should be Paul Kessler of California, who was murdered by a professor, a professor supporting Hamas as he was demonstrating peacefully on behalf of the people of Israel. And so we have victims right in our own country of murder in California…
My hypothetical question: Congressman Wilson, do you believe the country needs a well-informed public so it can make well-informed choices at the polls? Do you believe that the avalanche of disinformation, including that about the 2020 election, has hindered the ability of the public to be well-informed? Here is the real truth in the Paul Kessler story:

Undisputed documented facts: The ”murderer” of Paul Kessler, Loay Alnaji, 50, is a professor of computer science at the local Morehead College. He attended what was advertised as a peaceful demonstration in support of Palestinians. Paul Kessler came as a pro-Israeli counterprotester to confront the demonstration.  Kessler, 69, after some scuffle, stumbled or was pushed backward and fell, striking the back of his head, and was observably injured. Loay Alnaji called 911, and waited until the police came. Police said Alnaji was completely cooperative. Alnaji later said he did not support Hamas. When Kessler died, Alnaji was arrested on ”suspicion of involuntary (accidental) homicide” and released on bail. Coroners reports said Kessler’s injuries were consistent with a blow to the back of the head from falling.

Hypothetical question to congressman Wilson: Do you think that when the transcript of this meeting is published, your disinformation will cause an increase in hatred and prejudice between pro-Palistinian and pro-Israeli people? 

NUMBER TWO Another case of a committee member pouring the gasoline of disinformation on the conflict was Texas Rep Nathaniel Moran. Claiming wrongly that the BDS movement seeks to destroy Israel, he vilified president Gay because they are still on Harvard’s campus.
NATHANIEL MORAN: In 2022, after the editors of The Harvard Crimson endorsed the antisemitic BDS movement, which seeks the destruction of Israel, a group of 49 faculty penned a letter defending the Crimson editors. Did you ever speak out against BDS during that time? 
CLAUDINE GAY: The university, and I am clear in our positions about BDS, we do not support that position. It’s counter to academic freedom and at odds with the openness that is part of our strength as an institution.
NATHANIEL MORAN: Well, when you say — you said it earlier, and you reaffirmed to me the statement, there’s no place at Harvard for anti-Semitism. Well, those words really ring meaningless, if those folks remain at Harvard that promote antisemitism. Would you agree?
CLAUDINE GAY: We do not sanction individuals for their political views or their speech. When that speech crosses into conduct. that violates our behavior based policies — bullying, harassment and intimidation — we take action.

Moran is wrong. BDS movement DOES NOT seek the destruction of Israel, either in their political views or their speech, and the Harvard Crimson would never have endorsed it if it had. The BDS movement – Boycott, Divest, and Sanction movement seeks the enforcement of international law, legally , encouraging boycotting, divesting and sanctioning- and an end to the illegal occupation of the West Bank. They insist they are not anti-semitic and in fact work together with Jewish Voice for Peace, a Jewish group which supports ending the occupation of the West Bank… Again a Republican congressman who, caring little about the accuracy of his statements, causes more division among Israelis and Palestinians -and admonishes the Harvard president for not speaking out against a group that was wrongly characterized as advocating the destruction of Israel.

NUMBER THREE Chairman Virginia Foxx convened the meeting with a shockingly incoherent and rambling screed and concluded with some strange generalizations. Reminiscent of Florida public school district banning of popular library books, Foxx declared that a prime cause of racism at Harvard was the teaching of certain courses.
Foxx:  “It’s clear that rabid anti-Semitism in the university are two ideas that cannot be cleaved from one another. [ I have no idea what she means here unless she means “have not been” instead of “cannot be”] A prime example of this ideology at work is at Harvard, where classes are taught, such as [here she nominates courses at Harvard which just by their teaching exacerbates racism on campus] DP 385, race and racism in the making of the United States as a global power. The Harvard Global Health Institute hosts seminars such as, quote, ‘Scientific Racism and Anti Racism History and recent perspectives.’ Even the Harvard Divinity School has a page devoted to, quote, ‘social and racial justice.’ Harvard also, not coincidentally, but causally, was ground zero for anti-Semitism following October 7th.” 
So her thesis is that because such courses and “pages”were taught at Harvard, somehow they were racism instigating, and they were ‘causal’ in Harvard’s becoming ”ground zero” for racism after Oct 7. Of course, all the courses mentioned had the goal of studying racism as a perjorative feature of culture in the historical context. ’Scientific racism’ was the non-scientific claim that some races were physically and mentally inferior and thus not entitled to equal treatment under the law.  Thus the course showed the evidence that the claim was untrue.

NUMBER FOUR Next Foxx divulges a bit from her own personal intuition. The concept underpinning the rift between the Israeli/Jewish campus conflict, she says, was the issue of whether Israel had the right to exist. (!!) Simple as that. So, unbelievably, she goes down the line asking the presidents if they believed that Israel had the right to exist!!! Noteworthy here is that the Palestinian State Authority, which was admitted to the UN in 2012 as an observer state, far from the terrorist Hamas, agreed to the right of Israel to exist in 1993 with the signing of the Oslo accord. I have found no groups that stand for the destruction of Israel on any US college campus – only some loud mouthed individuals that often contaminate the venue of 2-sided demonstrations.

Foxx: It seems — as I’ve said and — and Ms. Magill. I appreciate the fact that you feel concerned about the — my feeling about the fundamental culture on the campuses that’s foundational to this issue, denial of the right of Israel to exist.[!!!] So I want to ask each one of you, President Gay, do you believe that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish nation?
CLAUDINE GAY: I agree that the State of Israel has the right to exist.
VIRGINIA FOXX: Ms. Magill same question.
LIZ MAGILL: I agree, Chairwoman Foxx, the State of Israel has the right to exist VIRGINIA FOXX: Dr. Kornbluth? 
SALLY KORNBLUTH: Absolutely, Israel has the right to exist.
The three presidents must have felt they were in a fourth grade class. Relevant is the fact that all the presidents, in their opening statements, expressed their personal abhorrence with the October 7th attack and explained the programs they have developed to combat anti-semitism at their campuses. Was chairman Foxx asleep at the time? 

NUMBER FIVE
Congressman Joe Wilson of South Carolina has it all figured out. He states that the source of racism is most certainly that there are not enough conservatives hired by universities and too many liberals. This, he says is the cause of racism. He asks each of the presidents how many conservatives have been hired and when they say that they don’t keep that kind of data, he springs – aha! None.

WILSON: …With that in mind and I say this respectfully to each of the university professors here today, without any explanation, I would like the answer, and it should be a percentage of conservatives, and that is you each rightfully promote diversity and inclusion of race and gender with percentages available that is available at your universities.What is the percentage of conservative professors at your institutions? I only want to know the percent of conservatives. What is the number, Dr. — President Gay?
CLAUDINE GAY: Thank you, Congressman. So, I can’t provide you that statistic because it’s not data that we collect. But I will say that we — we try to draw our talent to Harvard from —
JOE WILSON: Ok. I — we’ve got to race ahead, please. I want more. I just want to know. What is the percentage of conservative professors at Harvard?
CLAUDINE GAY: I do not have that statistic. We don’t collect that data.
JOE WILSON: Well, that concerns me. And President Magill, what are the percentage of conservative professors allowed to teach at your institution?
LIZ MAGILL: Representative, I strongly believe in a wide variety of perspectives. We do not track that information, so I can’t give that to you.
JOE WILSON: Ok. No, none. I got the message. And President Kornbluth, what is the percentage of conservative professors in — at MIT? 
SALLY KORNBLUTH: We do not document people’s political views, but conservatives are welcome to teach on our campus.
JOE WILSON: And I think this is so sadly and shamefully revealing that there is no diversity and inclusion of intellectual thought. And the result of that is antisemitism.[!] And you can study with government money all you want to, Doctor, but it’s due to illiberalism that has taken over the country. And you might look into that when you get your next government grant.
Had the presidents been aware that such unususal questions were going to be dropped on them, the best response would have been: ‘What is a conservative, Mr Wilson and how do you measure it? Some people consider themselves, for example, conservative in fiscal matters and liberal in social matters. Many people would say they are somewhere in the middle. Some people would say they change often. And how would you propose we change our hiring practices? What questions would you ask in order to hire more conservatives? If it can be shown that professors and staff are not discriminated against in hiring according to political/social proclivities, perhaps you would support an affirmative action program to hire more conservatives, if it can be agreed upon what exactly they are. Perhaps in the insular world of Congress conservative means Republican and liberal means Democratic, but there are many more configurations in the real world.’ But Wilson concludes that because the schools don’t collect information on how many “conservatives” are teaching at their schools, this is “shamefully revealing there is no diversity and inclusion of intellectual thought” !!!!!! ” And the result of that is anti-semitism” !!!!!!

NUMBER SIX: This brings us to what turned out to be the star of the show, Elise
Stefanik. Her discourse was in keeping with the new politics of shouting and accusations, but did little to make progress toward the actualization of goals.

. Her most egregious mistake is her equating “Intifada” with the calling for the genocide of jews. Her second is her lack of definition of “calling for the genocide of jews”. Where is it said? To whom? Did the wording constitute calling for genocide This is where context comes in. Lastly is her lack of definition of what code she is suggesting that is being transgressed. Sometimes she mentions ”code of conduct or rules?”, once she say ”Rules regarding bullying and harrassment” 

ELISE STEFANIK: Dr. Kornbluth, does — at MIT, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate MITs code of conduct or rules regarding bullying and harassment, yes or no?SALLY KORNBLUTH: If targeted at individuals, not making public statements.
ELISE STEFANIK: Yes or no, calling for the genocide of Jews does not constitute bullying and harassment? Of course context is essential when judging if someone is ‘calling for genocide.” Points of contention might be the phrasing : ” I think they should get rid of the jews” Is this calling for genocide? Or context of mood ” Yes, I said it but I was just in an angry mood and I didn’t really mean it. 
SALLY KORNBLUTH: I have not heard calling for the genocide for Jews on our campus.
ELISE STEFANIK: But you’ve heard chants for intifada? There it is. genocide and intifada are equated. And Stefaniik equates calling for intifada with calling for genocide 
SALLY KORNBLUTH: I’ve heard chants, which can be anti-Semitic depending on the context when calling for the elimination of the Jewish people. Here it seems plausible to assume that Kornbluth herself doesn’t exactly know the meaning of intifada.
ELISE STEFANIK: So, those would not be according to the — MITs code of conduct or rules?
SALLY KORNBLUTH: That would be investigated as — as harassment, if pervasive and severe.
ELISE STEFANIK: Ms. Magill, at Penn, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn’s rules or code of conduct, yes or no?
LIZ MAGILL: If the speech turns into conduct, it can be harassment, yes.
ELISE STEFANIK: I am asking specifically. Calling for the genocide of Jews, does that constitute bullying or harassment?
LIZ MAGILL: If it is directed and severe or pervasive, it is harassment.
ELISE STEFANIK: So, the answer is yes?
LIZ MAGILL: It is a context dependent decision, Congresswoman.
ELISE STEFANIK: It’s a context dependent decision? That’s your testimony today? Calling for the genocide of Jews is, depending upon the context, that is not bullying or harassment? This is the easiest question to answer yes, Ms. Magill. So, is your testimony LIZ MAGILL: If it — if it —
ELISE STEFANIK: That you will not answer yes?
LIZ MAGILL: If it is — if the —
ELISE STEFANIK: Yes or no?
LIZ MAGILL: If the speech becomes conduct, it can be harassment, yes.
ELISE STEFANIK: Conduct meaning committing the act of genocide? No, conduct meaning directing the speech to Jews, and in an offensive way, just as she had responded in the previous question. The speech is not harassment? No speech is intrinsically harrassment, ae if no one hears it.This is unacceptable, Ms. Magill. I’m going to give you one more opportunity for the world to see your answer. Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Penn’s code of conduct when it comes to bullying and harassment, yes or no?
LIZ MAGILL: It can be harassment.
ELISE STEFANIK: The answer is yes. And Dr. Gay, at Harvard, does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard’s rules of bullying and harassment, yes or no?CLAUDINE GAY: It can be. Depending on the context.
ELISE STEFANIK: What’s the context?
CLAUDINE GAY: Targeted as an individual, targeted as — at an individual, severe, pervasive.
ELISE STEFANIK: It’s targeted at Jewish students, Jewish individuals. This is quite amazing. Now Stefanik is adding conditions to her hypothetical. Do you understand your testimony is dehumanizing them? Do you understand that dehumanization is part of anti-Semitism? I will ask you one more time. Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard’s rules of bullying and harassment, yes or no?
CLAUDINE GAY: Anti-Semiidation. That is actionable conduct, and we do take action.
ELISE STEFANIK: So, the answer is yes, that calling for the genocide of Jews violates Harvard code of conduct, correct?
CLAUDINE GAY: Again, it depends on the context.
ELISE STEFANIK: It does not depend on the context. The answer is yes. And this is why you should resign. These are unacceptable answers across the board.
If Claudine Gay had answered in the following way, she would have been able to apprise Stefanik of nuance, context, and judgement in cases involving students:
Claudine Gay: Miss Stefanik, let’s suppose you were dean of student affairs at Harvard. A female student comes into your office, upset, and says, “My roomate said last night that they should get rid of all the Jews” You give pause and say, “Are you Jewish?”… Now Miss Stefanik. Is this against the rules of conduct at Harvard, did she violate Harvard’s rules of bullying and harassment? And what should be the punishment?
Elise Stefanik: Well, was the complainant Jewish?
Claudine Gay: Yes or no Miss Stefanik, Did this woman violate the Harvard code of conduct? Did she violate, as you asked previously, Harvard’s rules of bullying and harassment?


What far fewer people heard on Dec 13 was in the 3 presidents’ opening statements.  This was Liz McGill’s opening statement in part:
November 1st, just over a month ago, I announced Penn’s action plan to combat antisemitism. This builds on our anti-hate efforts to date, and it is anchored firmly in the United States National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism. The plan centers on three, key areas and has many elements. Those areas are safety and security, engagement, and education. As part of this plan, I have convened and charged a task force to identify concrete, actionable recommendations, directing them to provide me with their recommendations, both in real time and then a final report in a couple of months.

 

Summary
To summarize there seems to be 3 sources or reasons for the hostilities on the campuses, in the country, and in the congressional hearing.
I.  Careless and inaccurate statements that constitute disinformation or propaganda. This in turn creates distrust, fear, and hatred and helps to continue the cycle of violence. 
  A Paul Kessler was not murdered by a Hamas-supporting professor at a demonstration in California, as Rep Joe Wilson declares.
  B The BDE movement does not support the destruction of Israel as Rep Nathanial Moran states but supports peaceful means of resistence to the occupation of the West Bank. Jewish Voice for Peace, Jewish residents of Israel partners with them for the Boycott of settlements in the West Bank. They are hated by the Netenyahoo regime. (No wonder. The blacks who boycotted the Montgomery bus system in 1955 for being relegated to the rear of the buses were hated also – they disrupted the city budget, but broke no laws.) And recently the gov passed a law that says anyone who condones the boycotts are not to be allowed in Israel, moving the Netanyahoo govt a bit away from democracy.
  C When “intifada” is chanted in demonstrations it is not a call for the destruction of Israel. If Rep Kevin Kiley had understood this he would not have demanded of the presidents: “Would you want someone who has called for the eradication of the Jewish people to be part of the Harvard community?” and Rep Elis Stepannik would not have equated the “calls for intifada” with ” the calling for the genocide of jews. (See

II. A very common mistake of people fighting for a cause is this: Consider the affects of your behavior on your cause. Do your actions really help to move your cause forward, to help achieve noble and just goals? Or do your actions serve only to create the self-gratification which comes with aggression?
  A The most egregious offense of this principle was done Oct 10, in the wake of the Hamas attack, when 31 campus groups at Harvard signed a letter saying they “hold the Israeli regime entirely responsible for the unfolding violence.“ What? 3 days after 1500 Israeli men women and children were hunted down and slaughtered in their back yards?
   After mass violence, the corona of human emotions of sadness, fear, hate must be respected. These emotions often subordinate rational thinking. 
At the funeral of a teacher, a student who comments that s/he was a terrible teacher is not going to get much confirmation. Upon the attack of 9/11/01 no cause could have been helped by maurauding around NYC proclaiming the the US policies were responsible. Emotion ruled. Did the signatories really believe that the Jewish community would respond, ”Oh, I guess you are right. It’s the Israelis fault that Hamas murdered my cousins while they were eating in their back yard.”  Regardless of who was right or wrong, the timing of the letter was unconscionable. It only elicited an avalanche of bad feeling from the Jewish community as well as others who took offense at the insensitivity.
   Mercifully, 5 student groups have retracted their support for the letter, coming close to an apology. The Harvard Islamic Society stated, “Our initial signature was never intended as an endorsement of violence”
B Signs were seen posted at various places on all three of these campuses. At Harvard one sign read. ’Jews are Nazis’. Whether the creators had some point in mind regarding how some Palestinians are being treated in the West Bank, these placards only increased the political and social stresses between the factions.

III Groups or individuals that do not care if their actions advance any cause, but whose goal is gratification under the guise of a popular struggle. A videotape surfaced several months after 9/11 of Osama bin Laden and his cohorts smirking and congratulating themselves on the attack. This was their olympics. It mattered not at all if it brought hatred from millions of muslims as well as non-muslims, and affected no advancement of any noble cause.This was like winning the superbowl. Yahya Sinewar and Mohammed Deif, apparent architechs of the Oct 7 attack, cared little that one of the murdered was a Jewish Israeli that took his daughter to an integrated school with Christian, Jewish, and Muslim students.

Aftermath: . Opinions were formed by the public about the efficacy of the 3 presidents based on soundbites from the Stefanik interogation seen on the evening news programs. Included in those influenced by the soundbites , with only a superficial understanding , were doners such as businessman Ross Stevens, who said he would rescind his $100 million gift to the college, ”absent a change in leadership” at Penn and several other doners.

Then came the resignation of McGill, insisted on by the Board of trustees.

Then came a letter composed by the Faculty Senate complaining about the undue influence of donors and the Board of Directors:
“Unelected billionaires without scholarly qualifications are now seeking to control academic decisions that must remain within the purview of faculty in order for research and teaching to have legitimacy and autonomy from private and partisan interests,”
It was signed by 900 educators – professors and staff – at the university.

End (for now)  
  

c

Wilson… murder in California. With that in mind and I say this respectfully to each of the university professors here today, without any explanation, I would like the answer, and it should be a percentage of conservatives, and that is you each rightfully promote diversity and inclusion of race and gender with percentages available that is available at your universities.What is the percentage of conservative professors at your institutions? I only want to know the percent of conservatives. What is the number, Dr. — President Gay?
CLAUDINE GAY: Thank you, Congressman. So, I can’t provide you that statistic because it’s not data that we collect. But I will say that we — we try to draw our talent to Harvard from —
JOE WILSON: Ok. I — we’ve got to race ahead, please. I want more. I just want to know. What is the percentage of conservative professors at Harvard?
CLAUDINE GAY: I do not have that statistic. We don’t collect that data.
JOE WILSON: Well, that concerns me. And President Magill, what are the percentage of conservative professors allowed to teach at your institution?
LIZ MAGILL: Representative, I strongly believe in a wide variety of perspectives. We do not track that information, so I can’t give that to you.
JOE WILSON: Ok. No, none. I got the message. And President Kornbluth, what is the percentage of conservative professors in — at MIT? 
SALLY KORNBLUTH: We do not document people’s political views, but conservatives are welcome to teach on our campus.
JOE WILSON: And I think this is so sadly and shamefully revealing that there is no diversity and inclusion of intellectual thought. And the result of that is antisemitism. And you can study with government money all you want to, Doctor, but it’s due to illiberalism that has taken over the country. And you might look into that when you get your next government grant.

NUMBER THREE

“Again the triumph of demagoguery. Elise Stefanik brought out her calculated weapon, the question: Does calling for the genocide of jews constitute harrassment or violate the by-laws of the institution? What was not questioned was what exactly means “calling for the genocide” If Alice, in her dorm room, says to her friend Betty, ”I think all the (Jews/Palestinians/Blacks/Rohingas) should be eliminated” And Carrie overhears and/or reports the conversation to the Dean, is this ‘harassment’ or against by-laws? This is nuance that the presidents, as academicians were trying to address, navigating between free speech and hate speech, expressing thoughts privately and public harassment, but were struggling to express it as Stefanic sought to increase her populist appeal by giving them the third degree. And emotional populist demagoguery beats measured rational thinking any day. At least currently in the US politics. “

MIT’s Sally Kornbluth did the best at defusing Stefanik’s accusations.
Stefanik: Does calling for…Yes or no.
Kornbluff: At targeted individuals. Not making public statements.
Stefanik: Yes or no? Calling for the genocide of Jews does not constitute bullying or
……………. harassment?
Kornbluff: I have not heard the calling for genocide of Jews on our campus.
Stefanik: But you’ve heard chants for antifada? Now, it seems, Stefanik is equating ”chants for antifada” to ”calls for the genocide of jews”
Kornbluth: I’ve heard chants which can be anti-semetic. depending on context, when ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,calling for the elimination of the Jewish people
Stefanic: So those would not be according to the MIT code of conduct or rules?
Kornbluff: Those would be investigated when pervasive or severe. (Kornbluff is, herself, Jewish.)

So Stefanik fails to nail a gotcha with MIT, and immediately goes to Liz McGill of Penn.
Stefanic: Does calling for… Yes or no?
McGill: If the speech turns into conduct, yes, it can be harassment.
Here McGill’s use of the word ‘conduct’ without qualifying it with more detail was a mistake.  She should have developed the idea further. She probably means raising the profile from words spoken in private meant to remain private to publicly asserting and intrusively repeating the views. Stefanic jumps on it.

KEVIN KILEY: If — would you say that a person who is an avowed neo-Nazi is someone that you would want to be part of the Harvard community?

CLAUDINE GAY: Those are not consistent with Harvard’s values, but at the same time we allow a wide berth for free expression on a variety of views.
7&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

KEVIN KILEY: The question was, would you want such a person, who was an avowed neo-Nazi, to be part of the Harvard community, yes or no?

CLAUDINE GAY: Those are not consistent with Harvard values.
KEVIN KILEY: So you would not want such a person to be part of the community?CLAUDINE GAY: Those are not consistent with Harvard values.
KEVIN KILEY: Would you want someone who has called for the eradication of the Jewish people to be part of the Harvard community?

Here Stefanik question
explanation of why becareful
EEEEENNNNNNDDDDDDDD OOOOOFFFFFF BBBBBLLLLLLOOOOOOOOOGGGGGGG

Magil 5 minutes opening

x, Ranking Member Scott, and distinguished members of this committee, for the opportunity to be here today. My name is Elizabeth Magill, and I am the president of the University of Pennsylvania. Let me begin by saying that I and the University of Pennsylvania are horrified by and condemn Hamas’s abhorrent and brutal terror attack on Israel on October 7th. There is no justification, none, for those heinous attacks.

The loss of life and suffering that are occurring in Israel and Gaza during the ensuing war are heartbreaking. This pain, sorrow, and fear extends to our campus and to our city of Philadelphia. This hearing this morning takes place just two days after the Philadelphia community witnessed, in horror, the hateful words and actions of protesters who marched through the city and then near our campus.

These protesters directly targeted a center city business that is Jewish and Israeli owned, a troubling and shameful act of antisemitism. Philadelphia Police and Penn Public Safety were present, and thankfully, no one was injured. But these events have understandably left many in our community upset and afraid.

Anti-Semitism, an old, viral and pernicious evil, has been steadily rising in our society and these world events have dramatically accelerated that surge. Few places have proven immune, including Philadelphia and campuses like ours. This is unacceptable. We are combating this hate on our campus with both immediate and comprehensive action.

I have condemned antisemitism publicly, regularly, and in the strongest possible terms. And today, let me reiterate my and Penn’s unyielding commitment to combating it. We immediately investigate any hateful act, cooperating with both law enforcement and the FBI, where we have identified individuals who have committed these acts in violation of either policy or law.

We initiate disciplinary proceedings and engage law enforcement. We have acted decisively to ensure safety throughout and near our campus, expanding the presence of public safety officers at our religious life centers and all across campus. On November 1st, just over a month ago, I announced Penn’s action plan to combat antisemitism.

Social scientists have long noted that cultural values in a given society are , to some extent, shaped by economic factors, Karl Marx being only one of them. By the time of the American Revolution, slavery had become a political issue, and after 1800 it was legal in the “slave states,” illegal in the ”free states”. The the acceptance of slavery in the south and its refutation in the north were not without economic factors. The northerners claimed slavery was contrary to the Bill of Rights . But the warmer climate in the south, with a long growing season, was conducive to large scale production of plantation crops, first rice and indigo, then king cotton. Slavery enabled a vastly greater crop production. The mass cognitive dissonance (in this case guilt) created by slavery in the south - was successfully relieved by the preaching that slavery was endorsed by Christianity, because whites were  acting to save the souls of the African captives by teaching them Christianity. Of course only a small percentage of Southerners ever owned slaves
because of the high cost, but the wealthy, who controlled the economy, also controlled cultural values. Just as the extensive wealth of the gun lobby, supported by 130,000 dues-paying gun dealers controls the distorted views about teenagers legally buying assault weapons.

In the second half of the 20th century a cultural and economic revolution took place. In the 1950’s highways were built, creating a vastly more mobile society. The fast food industry was born, reducing the time families ate together, but increasing the leisure time of millions. The economy was up, many could afford college, bringing more people together to broaden personal experience. And the sexual revolution.

Sex went from being a discreet means of reproduction to a means of recreation. The green light was given. And Madison Avenue and Hollywood made the most of it. Extra marrital sex was normalized to the point that it became de rigueur in some circles. A resulting phenomena was the increasing unwanted-pregnancy rate. And this presented the economic problem: the economy of time, money, unwanted motherhood, ‘illegitimate’ children, the social stigma. Abortion solved this sizable problem of cultural economics.  Before 1960, the illegal abortionist, as well as the woman, was considered a miscreant. But as more women were having the procedure, and it was increasingly viewed as preventing a disastrous fate, it became more and more accepted until it became mainstream by the Roe vs Wade decision of 1973.

Those who were against abortion slowly became the antagonist in the eyes of many.  An aquaintance of mine expressed that those opposed to abortion ”don’t need to push their religion on me.” Also laws against abortion were condemned as created by men with little input from women. Laws and religion – opponents of abortion.

But there’s more to consider. If a man runs down the street, knocks over and old woman, breaking her arm and runs away with her purse the most common reaction is NOT -”I think what that man did is against the law!! ”. The most common reaction is NOT – ”What that man did is against my religion.” No, the most common reaction is, that it is SIMPLY NOT RIGHT - forget religious rules and governing laws. My heart tells me – what the man did is simply not right. Humans cannot do that to other humans if any social contract is working among our species.

After the Roe vs Wade decision in 1973, two divided camps started to grow. The two sides of the abortion debate fashioned dictums to express their theses. The pro-abortion side says ”My body, my choice”. The anti-abortion side says ”Thou shall not kill”. It appears to me the only antagonists in the debate are those that don’t respect the others deep felt points of view. We must respect and understand both. The changing ‘economic’ factors in the American society have changed social norms and values and “Roe v Wade abortion” (That is, as Row v Wade stipulated- first trimester abortions) is accepted by many. Their response to ‘Thou shall not kill’ is that abortion is not killing, a fetus is not a human in the first trimester, and in humanitarian terms, it doesn’t cause pain. But I see no reason to refuse tolerance to those who still believe that abortion is SIMPLY NOT RIGHT, as the vast majority of the population did before 1960. And the vast majority still do in other countries.  Their response to My Body, My Choice is that life isn’t that simple, and they ask what about responsibility to human rights, and the responsibility of childbirth that will always burden womanhood.

Frontline presented a well-balanced show on the abortion issues in America, underlining what a deep and long-lived rift it has caused in this country. It presented impassioned opinions from both sides, but remained neutral in its attitude. And this is good instruction for we Americans. We must accept that we must respect the others’ right to opinion, even as we legally, peacefully work to change it.

A conundrum. Rachel Maddow condemned a law that “forced women” to carry a fetus to term after 24 weeks. (ie proscribed abortion).  lt can also be viewed as forcing a woman to make a decision – by 6 months into her pregnancy. But Kermit Gosner in his abortion clinic, terminated the lives of at least 3 fetuses/newborns after being born viable after 24 weeks from artificially induced labor. He was sentenced in 2011 to life in prison for murder. So it seems that if a fetus is aborted in the womb, it may be seen as ethical by some, but if labor is artificially induced, and the viable fetus is terminated outside the womb, it is murder. This idea should give pause. To some, this may be
an acceptable framework for law ; for others, not.

One more factor that must be included is the psychological effects from an abortion that some women, and maybe men suffer. It should be included in all abortion counseling and included for consideration in post-operant care.

Stephen Hawking died in 2018 and was rightfully celebrated as one of history’s greatest scientists. He constructed theories on quantum mechanics, black holes and gravitational physics. He collaborated with his daughter to write youth-oriented books to make his physics more accessible to more people. As early as 2002 he was voted as one of the top 100 Britons in history.

In his last years, however, he joined another group of luminaries: those who boldly went beyond the limits of their expertise, soared, and soon flopped back to Earth. As Michael Jordan in baseball, Sonny Bono in politics, and Newt Gingrych, another space traveler. Running for president in 2012, the former Speaker of the House promised that, if elected, he would establish a colony (presumably of humans) on the moon before he left office, which would become the 51st state. He apparently did not consult NASA regarding the technical possibility nor the international agreement of 1979 that no nation may claim territory on the moon.  His idea was so far removed from even the most remote of  possibilities it became the laughing stock of the year.

Hawking first stated that man’s days on Earth were numbered and we had to find another place to live in 2016. At that time, he said that man had 1000 years before extinction. In 2017 he revised it down to 100 years, and in November of that year the time before doomsday went up to 600 years.

He gave several reasons for the necessity of leaving Earth . First, “we are running out of space and the only place to go are other worlds.” Hmm, think about it. Then compare it to Yogi Berra: “Nobody goes to that place anymore. It’s too crowded.” Apparently lacking space, everyone would perish. Actually, we have a pretty good idea what humans do when they run out of space and/or resources. The super-isolated Easter Island is a typical example. Their population had grown to perhaps 18,000 and then they started to squander their resources, largely illiminating their pine forests. When the first Europeans found the island in 1722, there were only 3000 left. And if we run out of resources and space, so too would Earth’s population be reduced to a number which could be supported by the reduced resources. But why leave?

Another reason man will not last on Earth, Hawking continues, is because of an impending environmental armagedon. “We are close to a tipping point where global warming becomes irreversible. Trumps’s action [withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement] could push the Earth over the brink to become like Venus, with a temperature of 250 degrees and raining sulfuric acid.”  Wow. Who said Al Gore was an alarmist? The average surface temperature of the Earth has been within a range of 8 degrees for the last 2 million years. 12 degrees if you go back to 75 million years. The reason Venus is so hot is because it is 40 million kilometers closer to the sun. So an increase in surface temperature on Earth by 200 degrees in the next 600 years seems a bit of a reach.

There is no exact agreement on the worst case scenario for global warming among more credible scientists and organizations. But the National Climate Assessment, the one Trump doesn’t believe, sees temperatures increasing by 1.5 to 2 degrees “above pre-industrial levels”, and 1.5 meter rise in the sea level. “Multiple systems failure” would exacerbate climate effects, such as the power failures cutting off cooling systems. Elsewhere one scientist has said that if the Antarctic ice melted, the sea level could rise 5 meters. This would doom coastal cities and much of Florida, and certainly cause huge economic displacements. but we could all still fit on higher land.
It would be nice to believe man could and will solve the overpopulation problem and the global warming problem in a civilized global mobilization of resouces and co-operation. But they probably won’t. Disasters are very likely. The multiple systems failures could break down the world economic system. But even if wars, mass starvation, reduced the population from 8 billion to 1 billion, (the Earth’s population around the year 1800) , the idea that we could find planets which would provide a more hospitable habitat than earth, or even Mars, is a bit absurd. If coastal cities submerged below sea level, Denver would still be a mile above it, and most of earths surface would be remain dry. If the temperature rose 5 degrees, the Earth would still support human life. If there was a breakdown of the world economic system and starvation ensued, there would be nothing better in space.

“Man’s technology will get us to Proxima B” , the closest known exo-planet to be a candidate for our new home, said Hawkings. But at the speed of the space ships we send to Mars, 17,000 miles per hour, it would take 150 thousand years to get there. And in the unlikely event it had water, the right air pressure and temperature, breathable atmosphere and arable soil, it would have none of the affects of man’s 100,000 years of cultural evolution on Earth – pro baseball, elephants, vocational centers for the blind, root beer, symphony orchestras, the Greek Parthenon, Thai restaurants, square dancing, go carts, giant redwoods or history.

Besides climate science, Hawking seems to have had a modest aptitude in the science of public relations. It is fine to declare you are an atheist. No one will deny your rights, and many will agree with you. But Hawkings chastised the several billion people on Earth who are not atheists, calling religion “a fairy story” for people who were “afraid of the dark.” If Hawking turns out to be wrong about this, it wouldn’t be the first time. In 2016 he bet felllow scientist Gordon Kane that the search for the Higgs boson -a particle crucial to a theory of mass- would be in vain. It could not be discovered. But it was discovered, and Hawkings paid his 100 pounds and his respects. It is interesting that he was unconcerned about the end of his personal existence but rather compulsive about the extension of the life of our species. Everyone must find his cause, raison d’etre.

I love zoos, but I have, on occasion, seen an animal in a zoo which I thought would be better off dead. In one zoo, a Bengal tiger pacing and pacing around his small, barren cage. A giraffe in a Brooklyn zoo, the ceiling a few feet over his head, listlessly licking the paint off the wall.

If our species in, say 1000 years, did have to decide to either leave or slowly become extinct, it would be a tough call. But if I were to be making the decision, I know what it would be for me. I would choose to call it a good run. Thanks for the memories, Earth. All things must pass. All people, all species, and even all stars have a life span. Rather this than be removed from all vestiges of our nature, as the more unfortunate animals in the zoo.
I will never become one of the top 100 citizens of any country. But Stephen Hawking’s last testament, I believe, was quite uninspiring.