Program Archive - Capital District Humanist Society

Penny Higgins is a consulting geochemist. That’s a mash-up of chemistry and geology; using chemistry to tease out the processes that shape the planet, by studying rocks. Hence her talk’s title: Reading the Rock Record — Understanding Our future.

Higgins also runs a retirement home for cats, but that didn’t enter much, except parenthetically, into her talk.

Which was related to climate change. She explained the difference between weather and climate — weather determines what you wear on a given day, while climate dictates what you have in your closet.

The biggest climate factor is temperature of course. But to get a handle on it, how does one measure and compare global temperatures over time? One thing she spoke about in this context was heavier versus lighter Oxygen molecules, the former having more neutrons. Water contains some of both. But the heavier version has a greater tendency to fall as rain. And the difference then shows up in the teeth and bones of animals that drink the water; so studying them provides clues about the climate when they lived.

Her main focus was on the MECO — The Middle Eocene Climatic Optimum, a temperature spike about 40 million years ago. To understand what was going on there, and how it affected mammals, she’s been part of a project studying rocks from that time found mostly in a Utah geologic feature, the Uinta basin. Saying she’s “so excited to see the data that she’s losing her mind.” She also called this rock stratum the “Caffeine-Free Diet Pepsi layer.” However, it’s still not clear what caused the MECO.

What is clear, however, is that climate is now changing in ways that will pose massive problems for future humans. And cats.

Frank S. Robinson is a long-time member of CDHS, a professional coin dealer, and author. His topic, “AI and Our Future,” provided a summary of Yuval Noah Harari’s 2024 book, “Nexus: A Brief History of Information Networks From the Stone Age to AI” along with Frank’s own comments about this subject.

Frank noted that Harari’s book focuses on how artificial intelligence will shape the future. Harari’s book also explores the implications of AI for the future of democratic societies, contrasting it with more authoritarian modes of social organization.

The book uses the metaphor of The Sorcerer’s Apprentice as a cautionary tale about AI’s power. The book posited that our first information technology was the story, which can manipulate us regardless of truth or falsity. The danger of false information can be associated with the rise of populist political movements. Because humans have a tendency to summon powerful forces with unintended consequences, a potential concern is that the use of AI-based systems might lead to the rise of new totalitarian regimes.

Frank noted that Harari does have issues with AI systems, particularly their non-correction and lack of self-correcting capabilities. In addition, AI may be harder for humans to control and may lead to pervasive control. There is also a concern about political radicalization and the potential for spreading misinformation due to the influence of AI and algorithms.

Frank also noted Harari’s concerns about AI’s impact on social trust and society. Harari fears that AI-generated disinformation could erode people’s ability to trust anyone or anything, potentially leading to intrusive totalitarian regimes. Harari also noted the “alignment problem,” where AI’s decision-making may not align with human intentions due to its different way of thinking and an AI system not knowing what it doesn’t know. However, one of the potential benefits of AI is the convergence of biological and mechanistic components, leading to the evolution of future beings beyond their biological limitations, while still retaining human-like minds. Frank recognized that Harari’s pessimistic views on the future of AI are based on potential misuse and weaponization of AI technologies.

Frank stated that he believes that AI does offer potential benefits, especially in assisting differently-abled individuals. In order to conduct a personal assessment of the capabilities of AI systems that are currently available, Frank related that he had used Chat GPT to generate a Valentine’s Day poem for his wife, who is poet. Frank shared the poem during his presentation and his wife indicated that she enjoyed the poem.

Recap prepared by Don Porterfield with the assistance of Zoom’s AI Companion.

Dr. Mark Reimers is a quantitative neuroscientist at Michigan State University. His topic was “The Social Psychology of Group Delusions.”

He defined a “delusion” as a belief or impression firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument. This has usually been associated with disordered thinking — psychosis or mental illness.

Yet most people are deluded about some things, at some times. A good example is when one is “madly in love,” a fairly common phenomenon. Reimers noted that the brain activity there has been found to resemble that in the brains of addicts.

But he also discussed what he called “everyday delusions.” A basic one is self-importance. Most people believe they are above average (mathematically impossible). Such beliefs help us navigate through life. False memories are a part of it — we love to tell stories, and to embellish them, making ourselves more central, and our memories are actually continually rejiggered to comport with that.

Another topic was “dogmatic thinking,” with the key factor being not the content of a belief, but how one believes it. Dr. Reimers referenced an impatient cognitive style — jumping to conclusions, unwilling to consider nuance. And such cognitive and personality traits govern the likelihood of adopting an ideology, like QAnon.

Key indicators there include bold, sweeping language; considering other people not just wrong, but bad; insulting them. There’s a heavy use of abstract moral nouns like “necessity” and “freedom.”

Important in all this is not so much the validity of the beliefs, but rather keeping in good stead with your group. This is especially true with religion — also helping us deal with what some might see as the meaninglessness of existence. Countered by imagining there’s a God who loves us.

The social element is particularly important given how many people feel anxiety about their social connections. Feeling isolation, resentment, humiliation, and economic stress. All amplified socially. And Dr. Reimers noted that such stress itself alters our cognition style.

He opined that this is increasingly salient in America, with hollowed out opportunity for working class people. Who can’t think clearly about their life situation. There’s a breakdown in shared societal consensus. And while modern society disperses us, social media creates the equivalent of the mob.

So — how can we combat all this? Dr. Reimers pointed to two persuasion techniques that have been developed, which seem to have some success in changing at least some minds. “Street epistemology” employs the Socratic method, starting by asking people, for example, how confident they are in their beliefs. “Deep canvassing” begins by trying to connect with people as individuals, following up on concerns they express.

Recap prepared by Frank S. Robinson

Dr. Yotam Ophir is an Associate Professor of Communications at the State University, Buffalo. His talk was titled, “Misinformation, Conspiracy Theories, and Extremism in an Age of Political Mega-Identities.” Based on his studying thousands of years of misinformation, and his forthcoming book, Misinformation and Society. It’s a pretty bleak assessment.

He started off discussing the epidemic, noting inequality of impacts, surprise, horror, anxiety, distrust of experts and officials, widespread conspiracy theories, quack solutions, scapegoating, and violence. Of course he was not talking about Covid, but the 1854 cholera outbreak. With Covid, in contrast to earlier times when diseases’ causes were not understood, information was widely available and spread fast. Yet in America, it was politicized like no disease before.

Giving Ophir his Lesson #1 — Nothing is new, but nothing is the same.

We’re living in what’s been called the “Post-Truth” era, blamed on Trump and social media. Yet before that we did have JFK assassination conspiracy theories, the 1980s-’90s “Satanic Panic” (resembling QAnon), and even further back, literal witch hunts. Today’s “Great Replacement Theory” also had antecedents. But what differs now is ubiquity of tools to create visual misinformation, and our intimate relationship with our devices.

His Lesson #2 was that we did not evolve to be seekers of accurate information. Yet we’ve had a longtime preoccupation with assessing reality, going back at least to Plato’s cave allegory. What evolution did endow us with is pattern recognition. Seeing what might be a tiger in the bushes, running away fast preserved your genes to reproduce, while if you deliberated, you’d be eaten. But such quick judgments often disserve us.

Ophir discussed some examples, displaying a chart showing a seemingly strong correlation between Maine’s divorce rate and margarine consumption. But a key point is that correlation does not mean causation, a principle most people don’t instinctively apply. And feelings tend to trump facts; if people feel crime is rising [they always do — FSR] facts won’t sway them. Meantime, another thing evolution gave us was prioritizing tribal solidarity over facts. We feel it’s more important to be in good with our social groups, which was vital for group survival.

His Lesson #3 was that misinformation is growing more political. The group thing operates especially strongly here, with many people’s principal sense of identity being their politics. And, further, the misinformation problem is asymmetrical — much bigger on the right. Ophir cited Chris Mooney’s book, The Republican War on Science. Battling the scientific consensus about climate change; even about evolution. We saw this too regarding Covid, with Trump voting areas having higher infection rates (due to science rejectionism). And it’s not just science, but misinformation and fake news more generally, which the right is more prone to seek, see, and spread.

The other side is not somehow magically protected. However, on the right, leadership and elites actively working to push falsehoods is a much bigger phenomenon. And they do so with increasing impunity.

So Lesson #4: The price for spreading misinformation is in sharp decline. In fact, it’s rewarded, not punished. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s political clout keeps growing. And of course Trump goes from triumph to triumph the more he lies. Indeed, Ophir asserted his voters trust him more than their own families! [Says something about the character of those families — FSR.]

Lying, Ophir suggested, is actually a conscious strategy, quoting Trump’s sometime consigliere Steve Bannon’s “Flood the zone with excrement” (using a more graphic word which wouldn’t make it into a CDHS newsletter). And the media can’t turn away, because the public eats it up.

In the Q&A there was reference to “the marketplace of ideas.” A free marketplace, Ophir amended. Not what we have, when Facebook for example decides what you’ll see — based on trying to maximize “engagement” (and thus ad revenue).

Finally, Lesson #5: There’s no silver bullet solution. Ophir rounded up the usual obvious remedies, but said they really don’t seem to work; can even backfire, making people even more wedded to false beliefs. Instead we need big systemic changes — bolster democratic institutions; curb money in politics; restore the authority of party leaderships; rebuild journalism with perhaps public media; advance media literacy education. [And make pigs fly — FSR.]

But he ended by quoting Leonard Cohen: “There’s a crack in everything. That’s how the light gets in.”

Dr. Mindy Townsend is the Dudley Astronomer with Sienna College. She discussed the ways in which nighttime light pollution is impacting astronomy, nature, and humans.

Various types of light pollution, which include sky glow, glare, light trespass, and light clutter, are reducing the darkness of the night sky around the world. In the US, observations by citizen scientists have documented a 10.4% increase in light pollution per year on the Bortle scale, a ranking system for the darkness of a sky. This increase occurs primarily in urban areas, but has also been noted in rural areas.

Research has shown that sea turtles, particularly green sea turtles and flatback sea turtles, are attracted to artificial light. Artifical lights cause hatchlings to be vulnerable to predators and exhaustion because the young turtles don’t head for the ocean quickly. Artificial light also can affect the behavior of bats with different species responding differently to different wavelengths of light. Some species exhibit decreased activity under all lights, while others avoid orange, white, and green light, and yet other species showed more activity under artificial lights.

Artificial light can also alter the behavior of plants and trees. A 2016 study in the UK found the onset of budburst in various deciduous trees was affected by artificial light with early budding trees being less affected. The timing of budburst can have potential consequences on ecosystems. One example is the winter moth caterpillar’s relationship with the Penuncula oak. However, the effects of artificial light on plants and animals are not yet fully understood and requires further research.

Preserving dark skies is important for both environmental and cultural reasons. Light pollution has negative impacts on wildlife, particularly nocturnal animals. There are many challenges facing efforts to reduce light pollution and it’s not always easy or practical to make significant changes. Some simple actions that can reduce light pollution include turning off lights when not needed, directing lights to where they’re needed, and using warmer colored lighting. Some cities, such as Tuscon, and national parks are leading the way in reducing light pollution in order preserve dark skies for future generations.

Light pollution is a significant issue that needs advocacy and understanding from the community. Ways in which light pollution could be reduced or controlled include changing zoning codes and highlighting economic arguments for reducing light pollution that show it could save money for businesses.

Nikhil Goyal is a sociologist, who’s worked for Senator Bernie Sanders at the Senate Budget Committee.

He spoke about his book, Live to See the Day: Coming of Age in American Poverty.

Starting in 2015, he followed a number of youngsters growing up in Philadelphia’s Kensington neighborhood, of aging row houses, populated mostly by Latinos and African-Americans. Working class — or perhaps more accurately underclass, with poverty endemic. The housing crappy, the schools overcrowded, underfunded, and crumbling. Epitomizing the “school-to-prison” pipeline.

Ryan Rivera was not even 13 when a stupid prank, setting a fire in a trash can, resulted not merely in school disciplinary action, but bringing in the police. He would up detained, in court, then expelled from his school and sent to a “reform school” more like a prison. Run by a private for-profit company that also specializes in private prisons. Young Ryan was humiliated and profoundly frightened.

He scarcely even hoped to ever see adulthood, expecting to wind up either dead or incarcerated. Neighborhoods like his do suffer a crisis of gun violence and premature deaths. Their average lifespans are around 71 — on par with less developed countries like Egypt. Goyal suggested that all this dysfunctionality is not due to character deficiencies in people like Ryan and their families; it’s a consequence of the difficult environment they’re forced to navigate.

Ryan was actually fortunate enough to land up in a school that was good for him, and he clawed his way out of his daunting circumstances into a decent responsible adulthood. But hardly can we expect every such kid to achieve that.

So what is to be done? Important though schools are, Goyal posited that fixing schools is not enough, without fixing the urban environments in which they’re embedded. He pointed to the 1996 federal welfare reform as being a setback in that regard. He also discussed President Biden’s 2021 “Build Back Better” plan, an ambitious program for the kind of renewal he envisions; it did not pass, though some elements of it did find their way into the subsequent (mis-named) “Inflation Reduction Act.” Goyal spoke of measures like a living minimum wage, universal pre-K education, revitalizing trade unions, etc. While he considers the federal government politically paralyzed now in regard to such things, he does see some progress being made at the state level.

Dr. Lee Dugatkin’s presentation, Well-Connected Animals: Social Networks & the Complexity of Animal Societies, was based on research about the influence of social networks and information sharing on animal behavior. He believes this research can provide insights into the evolution of human social behavior. Dr. Dugatkin used the concept of social networks to emphasize their role in shaping animal behavior and the importance of understanding their structure. He discussed studies of three different species: Macaques monkeys on an isolated island near Puerto Rico; bottle-nose dolphins along the Brazilian coast; and chimpanzees in Uganda.

A troupe of Macaques monkeys were introduced to the deserted Cayo Santiago Island in the mid-20th century and have been the focus of on-going studies since then. Lee indicated that grooming behavior was a good indicator of the degree and strength of social connections within various subgroups of the monkeys. In general, these subgroups did not intermingle. He noted that Hurricane Maria in 2017 led to significant changes in the social grooming networks, with individuals forming more friendships post-hurricane. The study also found that the number of babies produced increased significantly after the hurricane. Lee emphasized the importance of understanding these dynamics, as they have implications for how both animals and humans deal with natural catastrophes.

Studies of dolphins near the Brazil coast found a unique system involving social networks within the dolphin population and how one of the dolphin networks interacts with local fishermen to the benefit of both. One of the dolphin networks would signal fishermen when their mutual prey (mullets) were in the area. The fisherman were able catch more fish because they had learned where the mullet were at and the dolphins were able to catch and eat more mullet as the fish fled the fisherman’s nets.

A researcher studying chimpanzees in the Boudango forest in Uganda witnessed the creation of a new tool, a moss sponge, by a dominant chimpanzee called Nick. The researcher noticed that after Nick created the sponge to collect water from shallow depressions, other chimps in his immediate social network began making their own moss sponges, presumably after they observed Nick’s behavior. Chimpanzees in other social networks, which did not observe Nick’s behavior, did not create or use moss sponges. However, a single chimpanzee outside of Nick’s social network, found a discarded moss sponge and learned how to make and use the tool after examining it.

Dr. Dugatkin noted that these three cases and the complexity of social networks in other animal species, including honeybees, crickets, kangaroos, and whales show how information is passed from one individual to others. Lee also suggested that someone’s propensity to join a particular political group can be illustrated, in part, by the behavior of house finches, where males with more red feathers tend to stay in their group, while those with less red plumage leave to find other groups where they can do better.

Ben Wang gave a presentation on emergency preparedness — noting that September is National Preparedness Month. This does not mean you needn’t be prepared in other months.

He called this a sobering topic, noting that most people are not prepared for emergencies or disasters until it’s too late.

Wang invoked his background as a member of New York City’s Community Emergency Response Team. Its function was to prepare and educate the public, and support First Responders in disaster events.

An example he discussed was the massive Northeast blackout in August 2003; he himself experienced lack of electric power for several days. Meantime, our local area can be subject to severe storms, flooding, snow, power outages, heat waves, fires, and toxic contamination from train derailments.

Wang said preparedness involves three questions: What should I do? What should I have? How will I communicate with others? A further question might be how can I profit? Leaving that aside, you are generally pretty safe in your own home, if Hannibal Lecter is not in residence. Among the needs Wang identified are water (a gallon per person per day), non-perishable food (requiring no refrigeration or cooking; cans are good but be sure to have a manual can-opener); a first-aid kit; a flashlight and batteries; and a full tank of gas in case you need to skedaddle. Also, something to keep you entertained, bearing in mind that online entertainments may be temporarily unavailable.

But in some cases you might have to evacuate, like in a flood or fire or alien invasion. Wang recommended having a “Go-bag,” a light sturdy portable case for stuff you’ll need to take along. Items suggested: First aid kit, PPE, medications, keys, flashlight, portable radio and/or walkie-talkie, a water collection device, water decontamination pills, non-perishable food, rain gear, extra clothes, a lightweight blanket, child care needs, pet items, copies of important documents, some cash (small bills preferred), and something like playing cards to keep you occupied while you are in unfamiliar surroundings.

Wang concluded with the dictum, “Failing to plan is planning to fail.”

Scott Forschler has a PhD in philosophy. His talk was titled “Morality Demystified: the Naturalistic Origin and Justification for Ethics.”

He began by speaking of using a hammer to drive a nail. We don’t have to think about where that idea comes from. But where does morality come from?

Some people see a supernatural answer. But that’s actually something to which (despite contrary claims) we have no access. Thus producing arbitrary moral claims.

The other alternative is to ground morality in natural facts. But Forschler cautioned that this can result in oversimplification, subjectivity, and harm. Yet he proposed we can explain morality in natural terms without sacrificing objectivity.

He differentiated values from beliefs, the latter pertaining to factual matters. But moral values are higher order things — meaning something that is about some other thing. Like a book about books. Indeed, he said higher order thinking is what distinguishes human animals from others.

One can ascend a hierarchy of higher order concepts — a feedback loop with increasing moral universalization. And it’s that universalization that imbues a moral value with authority. That is, moral precepts are not validated by their source but, rather, as potential objects of higher order valuations. This is what we call our conscience. Providing us with a self-approval we can’t otherwise get.

In this regard he referenced Kant’s “categorical imperative” — telling us to do something only if other people doing likewise would work okay. And Forschler cautioned that it’s not “if everybody did it,” but rather “if anybody else” did it, a more exacting standard. In this context he brought in the Golden Rule, though here too he cautioned that it has some ambiguities. However, he deemed it “self-correcting” if we frame it in terms of how we’d want others to apply it.

This being his take on where morality comes from, he offered logic showing why it can’t come from elsewhere. Getting it from a text (e.g., the Bible) begs the question of why one chooses that text, while others might choose different ones, at odds with yours. But if you counter that there’s a reason for choosing your text, now the basis for morality is no longer that text itself, but rather your reason for choosing it. And now we’re into a recursion — why did you pick that reason?

Forschler said the recursion must terminate on highest order principle. Which he identified as egalitarian altruism — valuing everyone’s consistent values equally.

A key problem raised by his presentation was the dichotomy between thought and action. Certain actions might be clearly immoral, but is it wrong to think about them? To wish someone dead without trying to cause it? The words “thought police” came up here. There was also much discussion of killing a dictator. Forschler cautioned that the consequences may be even worse; such questions can be complex; context is everything.

He finally suggested that perfection is unattainable, and it may be bad to seek it, as opposed to living with imperfection. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.