Program Archive - Capital District Humanist Society

Dr. Benjamin Wolozin is at Boston University School of Medicine. His talk was titled “The Latest ‘Word’ on Neurodegenerative Diseases,” focusing mainly in Alzheimer’s – its biology, diagnosis, and treatment.

He began by noting that normal aging entails a gradual decline in cognition; and while short term memory may suffer, long term memory remains intact. (He used the word “amnestic” as applicable to mild cognitive impairment.) Alzheimer’s is a pretty precipitate fall, with loss of “executive function” and complex thinking. But it involves physical brain changes detectable twenty years before such symptoms emerge.

Alzheimer’s is a source of dementia, characterized by formation of clumps or tangles of beta-amyloid plaques in the brain. But that’s not the whole story, and while beta-amyloids may start the process, other factors are quite important in the progression.

Wolozin went through them. Heart health, he said, equals brain health. “Vasculature” delivers oxygen to the brain, and beta-amyloids can accumulate in blood vessels, slowing blood flow. Blood pressure, cholesterol, and exercise levels are all part of the picture.

Good diet and a normal body mass index play a role; as do social relationships. Inflammation, said Wolozin, is “super important” too.

In short, people with overall healthy lifestyles are less vulnerable to Alzheimer’s. Some can have beta-amyloid plaques without ill effects. And then there’s genetics – if your parents had Alzheimer’s, watch out.

But there are various sources of dementia, it’s not all Alzheimer’s, with some varieties more treatable than others. And medicine is getting pretty good at such diagnosis, detecting brain etiologies like beta-amyloids using imaging techniques, and also blood or spinal fluid tests.

For several decades there have been medicines to treat the symptoms, but not very effectively, slowing cognitive decline only slightly. More recently there was a controversy about Aduhelm, FDA-approved, with questions about its likewise limited effectiveness in relation to its considerable cost. But Dr. Wolozin was more positive about an even newer medicine, lecanamab, which he thinks workers better.

He also spoke about Parkinson’s Disease – what accumulates in the brain there is alpha-synuclein. This makes dopamine neurons die. Treatment involves reducing alpha-synuclein and increasing dopamine.

Wolozin concluded with some remarks about aging in general, relating a conversation with his wife in which he suggested they just stop doing it. Surely sound medical advice.

Carol Quantock’s talk was for the birds – or, rather, “For the Birder: Identification, Observation, and Protection.” She’s been a longtime active birder herself.

A “bird” is a warm-blooded egg-laying vertebrate distinguished by having a beak, feathers, and (usually) the ability to fly. There are many different varieties. Quantock explained that one can see them at bird preserves, or one’s own backyard, especially if stocked with native plants or a bird feeder. She advocated buying only good bird seed, not the cheap stuff.

Quantock noted that bird activity varies during the day; she likes to go out really early. Dusk is another good time to see birds, especially owls. She deemed listening most important, because birds make distinctive sounds; and use of binoculars for a better view.

Most of the talk was about how to identify birds. Of course, the flying part is key, and birds are easily distinguished from other things that fly, like insects and airplanes. But many people like to identify the exact variety of bird. Timing is important, not just time of day, but time of year, since many birds vacation in distant places like Canada and Mexico (though “Moonbirds” do not travel to the Moon; bird wings only work in air).

Also, different habitats host different sorts of birds, giving one a clue for what to expect (though Quantock cautioned to “expect the unexpected”). For example, water birds might be expected on lakes; bluebirds like open woodlands; forests are good for thrushes, owls, and hawks – which, she noted, eat other birds, remarking, “That’s fine, it’s nature,” shocking some listeners.

Another point was that to determine what you’re seeing, size is important. Ostriches are bigger than sparrows; a downy woodpecker larger than a hairy woodpecker. But be mindful that a bird’s apparent size may vary depending on distance from the viewer; and binoculars do make them look bigger.

Color is important too. Most birds have some. A goldfinch differs in that respect from a bluebird, as the names imply. Though there are way too many birds sporting yellow-and-black color schemes. Males tend to be more showy, while females try to be less conspicuous, to avoid predators and catcalls.

Then there’s shape, and behavior. Quantock noted that robins mostly hop around on the ground, and are not seen clutching tree trunks like woodpeckers. She also pointed out that birds move rather than standing still, so that if you watch a bird for any length of time you will be able to see different aspects of it.

As to bird safety, a big threat is cats. Quantock recommended keeping cats indoors, making it harder for them to catch birds. But the biggest danger to birds is windows, which humans thoughtlessly incorporate into their dwellings. The problem is birds thinking they can fly through glass, which they cannot; resulting in fatal injury. Re-education efforts have failed. Quantock suggested instead various stratagems like keeping blinds partly closed.

Notwithstanding the preceding point about birds heedlessly smashing themselves against glass, it was asserted that “bird brained” is largely a misnomer, and that birds (even while their brains are in fact quite tiny) nevertheless somehow demonstrate a lot of intelligence. Very few birds voted for Trump.

Adam Neiblum has degrees in philosophy and religious thought, and has authored several books and articles. His talk was titled “Manufactured Need: What Capitalism Learned from Christianity.”

It bashed both, though with greater force vented upon religion. Christianity, he said, was the original “big business.” The parallels between the two are many: both are characterized by the “manufactured need” of his title, with religion providing the original model for how capitalism operates.

Neiblum sees a lot of the products sold in the capitalist consumer economy as not really needed by the buyers, hence the idea of manufactured need. He invoked the philosopher Immanuel Kant to draw a distinction between “intrinsic” and “instrumental” value, the latter being merely a means to an end. Kant saying that a human being should never be treated as a means; rather it’s a human life that’s the ultimate in “intrinsic” value. Neiblum considers capitalism a reversal of Kant’s doctrine, with almost everything sold being of (at best) instrumental, not intrinsic, value.

Its sale thus dependent on manipulation, deception, and indoctrination, playing upon people’s fears and insecurities. In that category he cited, for example, women being forced to think they have to use cosmetics, fearing social failure otherwise. Many products indeed being marketed not for their “intrinsic” value but to enhance one’s social status. Cars, for instance, seen as status symbols rather than merely modes of transportation.

The big fear that religion preys upon is death. Not an imaginary, or even exaggerated fear, but integral to the human condition. And Christianity ups the ante by threatening, in place of extinction, eternal torment, creating a need for absolution. While on the other hand promising the ultimate consumer good: eternal paradise. All together a perfect gambit for making people dependent upon the “product” of religion.

In this context Neiblum spoke of the “Seven Deadly Sins” – all of which are, in actuality, aspects of normal human life. Only in extremes are they a problem. He focused, for example, upon lust, and how truly screwed up it is for religion to make people feel guilty for it. Explaining how much of human culture would vanish if nobody experiences any lust. (Indeed, the species itself would vanish.)

This is just one way in which religion’s pretensions as a source of morality are awry. Neiblum presented polling data, asking people whether they believe God is needed for them to be moral. Results ranged from 90% of Swedes saying no, to only 2% in Indonesia. Narrow majorities in America, and worldwide, said no. Neiblum noted that the most thriving nations have the biggest “no” numbers, and obviously they’re none the worse for it.

He portrayed one’s development of moral ideas as a maturation process. It begins in childhood with punishment avoidance being key, rising (ideally) in adulthood to mature moral reasoning and agency. Along the way we make mistakes, and from them learn to be better. The religious, however, tend to confine themselves to the ladder’s lowest rungs, thus in effect remaining children – morally, psychologically, and socially.

Back to capitalism, Neiblum acknowledged that he didn’t have an alternative to replace it; in fact, he ultimately acknowledged that it “makes it happen” for us, and on the whole is “remarkably positive.” No such indulgence was vouchsafed for religion, which he likened to an albatross on the neck of humanity. We need to normalize atheism, and stress secular education and critical thinking. The good news is that people free of religious beliefs are on the upsurge.

What a shocker.

Corinne Carey is a Campaign Director for a New York organization called Compassion and Choices, who has been pushing for passage of Medical aid in dying legislation, since 2015. She spoke to this group on the subject some years back, and presented an update.

The legislation still has not passed; its latest iteration carried 72 legislative sponsors. But eleven other states, starting with Oregon, and including California and New Jersey, have enacted such policies. Republicans uniformly oppose it.

Carey quoted medical writer Atul Gawande, that life is meaningful because it’s a story, and in stories endings matter. People often idealize how theirs will end, a peaceful exit among loved ones. But given our medical-industrial complex, that’s not usually how it goes.

The legislation Carey advocates is aimed at giving people more options and control. The gist of it is to allow a mentally competent adult, diagnosed with less than 6 months to live, to receive life-ending medication for self-administration. There’s a list of 12 safeguards to prevent abuses. Carey noted that for all the “slippery slope” arguments against it, in fact, in all the years and in all the states where such programs have been in effect, there hasn’t been a single documented instance of abuse. (And in states with mature programs, fewer than 1% of those who die do so via this option.)

On the other hand, it does make dying at home a more realistic option; in fact, achieving this in almost 90% of cases. Whereas failing this option, people can be faced with the grislier one of “VSED” – voluntary stopping of eating and drinking. While others may resort to violence to end their lives – which doesn’t always work, often resulting in some pretty nasty situations.

Carey showed that public support for medical-aid-in-dying legislation, in all regions, tends to run at about two-thirds, even among religious people.

She spoke a lot about hospice and palliative care, which aims not at curing illnesses but, when that’s no longer possible, reducing suffering. She noted that “palliative sedation” puts the patient in a final coma – but it’s tricky to get the dose right.

Meantime, however, Christianity has a doctrine of “redemptive suffering” – an idea that suffering is actually a good thing (and hence shouldn’t be ameliorated). It supposedly compensates for sin, one’s own and that of others, and indeed somehow compensates for the suffering of Jesus on the cross, which he also took on to save humanity from sin. The word “sick” came up in discussion of these ideas.

Rosemary Armao is a veteran journalist and adjunct professor of journalism at SUNY and RPI; she also appears on WAMC radio panels. She led a discussion of the recent election results.

The main headline, of course, is that the expected “red wave” of Republican triumph didn’t happen. Armao said that a big factor was the abortion issue; while that was expected to help Democrats, it was widely thought that the impact had faded beside other issues like inflation and crime. But abortion proved to be a big factor after all, especially driving younger voters to the polls in unexpectedly large numbers. Armao noted that all referendums concerning abortion, even in Kentucky, were won by the pro-choice side.

Inflation and crime did work as issues for Republicans, but only up to a point. While Democrats have been critiqued as just playing reaction to the GOP on such stuff, a lot of voters noticed that for all their stress on those issues, Republicans never actually offered programs to tackle them. And the economy is not tanking, with the job picture actually being very strong. As to the crime issue, while New York’s bail reform was a Republican talking point, otherwise their attacks on Democrats were fake.

President Biden was criticized for making a big issue of democracy being threatened by Republican MAGA extremists, rather than focusing on the economy. But Armao opined that the (modern) conventional wisdom of “it’s the economy, stupid,” turned out to be wrong, for this election at least, and that democracy did prove to be a strong issue. And while Republicans tried to make it a referendum on Biden and his supposedly weak performance, with low approval ratings, no one could avoid the contrast with Trump, far more hated. Compared to Trumpers, Democrats look sane and reasonable.

Case in point: the Republican responses to the attack on Paul Pelosi, many of them joking about it, made them look bad. And while Trump campaigned for his chosen candidates, he made it all about himself and his “stolen election” lie. Candidates pushing that line did poorly. But Armao was skeptical that the Republican party would finally turn away from Trump. And she said they’re not really paying an electoral penalty for hypocrisy.

They do still seem (as of November 13) likely to win control of the House of Representatives – thanks more to gerrymandering than electoral strength. Armao noted that their whole margin of victory there is coming from just two states, heavily gerrymandered Florida, and New York where the Democrats attempted a brazen gerrymander but messed up and wound up with the Court of Appeals imposing a map that actually favored Republicans.

She did acknowledge that Republican control of the House will mean trumped up investigations and other such mischief, but hoped the Senate remaining in Democratic hands would prevent much damage. However, there is a real danger that the debt ceiling can’t be raised, which would have grave economic consequences.

There was discussion of 2024, and the question of Biden running again. Armao opined that anyone at his advanced age can’t be at the top of their game. And that Kamala Harris has been a “failure,” so far at least. But she thought Democrats do have some other promising prospects, naming Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, California’s Gavin Newsom, and Pennsylvania’s newly elected Josh Shapiro. Any of whom she felt would beat Trump-Stefanik or DeSantis-Haley.

On Sunday, October 9th, we were treated to an examination of the life of “Yellowstone Kit”, a showman who managed to travel to and become conspicuous in just about every state in the union. Named George Edwin Grant at his birth in 1850, Grant took the name of Yellowstone Kit as he created one of the most impressive medicine shows, mixing entertainment with the sales of tonics, such as “Kickapoo Indian Sagwa.”

Kit claimed that from an early age, he had been given great healing power. The ever-present medicine shows. Were elaborate spectacles, with often scores of performers, a variety of novel acts to attract and entertain the crowds and keep them buying his healing potions. He even brought in electric lighting and often ended shows with fireworks and engaged performers from various native tribes (although at least two of the “Indians” were natives of Ireland) and Japan.

His shows became exceedingly popular with Blacks. Thousands gathered every night to hear him. They referred to him as the “Second Messiah” and felt that he could cure any ill. Things did not always go well for him when he meddled in local politics. Kit was a “wet”, i.e., an anti-prohibitionist; Atlanta had banned the sale of alcohol two years before, and he was vocal in his opposition to that statute. In many cities on his performing route, he addressed local issues that he disagreed with, and laws introduced to curb the ever-present medicine shows. Blacks often congregated around his tents — the crowd often swelled until the number ran into the thousands.

Boy, did Bob Blaskiewicz do his homework! The discussion of Yosemite Kit is more than just the story of an interesting character in American history. Listening and seeing Blaskiewicz’s presentation is disturbing, haunting, in that we see in Kit the prototype of many of the politicians we have experienced in our most recent elections, especially those to the far to the right of center and those with bright orange complexions. KIt wore an ostentatious three-foot long watch chain and stayed in the most luxurious hotels – in Atlanta, it was the presidential suite of the best hotel. Nothing succeeds like success. Sound like someone you didn’t vote for?

In response to one very large gathering , one newspaperman remarked, “the scenes of yesterday must not be repeated. There’s a great danger in the gathering of an irresponsible class whose passions can be too easily roused.” – – Sound like January 6th?

Sonya Jakubec is a nursing professor at Mount Royal University in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Her talk was titled “Everyone belongs outside: a prescription for Nature across the lifespan.

For Jakubec, this all started when her career had her indoors a lot; to change things, she became a volunteer with Alberta Parks, specifically, its “Plan for Parks,” with the slogan “Everyone Belongs Outside.” Thus she took part in studies of just how exposure to Nature affects victims. That is, victims of much in life that’s sort of negative. Like depression, anxiety, disability, illness, social isolation, and dealing with death – both our own and of loved ones.

The basic thesis is that getting out in Nature helps with all that. It’s actually a movement – called “Healthy Parks/Healthy People.”

Jakubec noted that it’s actually hard to get outside when you’re unwell. And not all people have equal opportunities when it comes to Nature – those on the short end include not only those with health issues but also people of color, the elderly, the poor, and in fact children. But all can benefit.

A particular focus of attention was gaining comfort at the end of life. Jakubec said the studies showed high levels of physical, emotional, and spiritual comfort gained from Nature exposure. She indicated that for many people, “death is a place,” and that a park can be a “container for grief” – a place to go to grieve. Nature teaches us about life and death and loss, Nature itself being full of that. Thus it connects us with death.

Part of the program is not just getting people out into Nature but also bringing it to them. Jakubec spoke of bird feeders, bringing plants inside, and fruits and other Nature-based foods. She further spoke of art as a way to connect people to Nature. And of how adults can help children in making such connections.

During the question period, the phrase “tree hugging” came up. In response Jakubec took note of a Japanese idea of “forest bathing.” And, she said, the trees hug back.

Anthony Barnhart, Ph.D. is a cognitive scientist. Besides being the Chair of the Department of Psychological Science at Carthage College, where he regularly teaches a college course devoted to the cognitive science of magic, Tony is also a part-time professional magician. Tony starting his side gig as a magician at age 15, was a founding member of the Science of Magic Association, and frequently appears in national and international media.

Psychologists first took interest in the methods of magicians in the late 1800s and published several papers. Tony feels that this interest arose from the popularity of mesmerism (hypnosis) and spiritualism in America. The widespread paranormal beliefs lead to the creation of the foundation of the American Society for Psychical Research on 1884. Some members of this society focused on trying to understand the methods magicians used to “trick” their audiences. The behaviorist revolution in psychology in the early 1900s ended evaluation of research into the methods of magicians until the 1990s.

In the last 20 years there has been renewed interest in the methods of magicians by psychologists that has produced several publications. When trying to understand why magicians are able to convince their audiences magicians have an advantage over psychologists — magicians don’t have to understand and explain why an “illusion” works, they only have to know that the audience will accept the illusion. On the other hand, psychologists have to develop an understanding of how the brains of audience function when presented with an illusion, and the mechanisms that lead the audience to accept the illusion.

Magic is difficult to study in the lab because most magic tricks involve misdirection. The magician directs the audience away from the method by using narrative, focusing attention on something irrelevant, using motion or prediction, using humor, or complex language. These allow the magician to direct the audience to an effect. Tony’s studies in the lab have focused on exploiting our psychological and attentional limitations.

Because our perception is calibrated by experience, our systems are biased towards interpretations that are simple and likely. Our minds fill in the blanks when a portion of an object is obscured. Thus magicians are able to manipulate our perception by playing with what we see to fool us into seeing something we assume to be a whole when it actually disconnected pieces.

Another trait that magicians use to their advantage is the inattentional blindness exhibited by most of us. This is often accomplished through manipulation of our attention by making lots of gestures that are unrelated to the key point of the illusion or by conditioning the audience with the expected motion (i.e., moving a coin from hand to hand) before the magician does something else that is the crux of the illusion.

In summary, most magicians’ illusions confound their audiences because our brains are costly to run and we are cognitive misers (some might say lazy). Thus we latch onto the first thing that matches our prior experiences when we encounter something we haven’t seen before.

Dr. David Ray works at Albany Medical Center; he has specialized in treating HIV; and heads the Capital District Alliance for Universal Health Care. His talk was titled “Getting the Health Care Monkey Off Our Back: the Road to Health Care Equity in America.” Thus he likened our health care system to an addiction, that we can’t get free from, even while it does great harm.

His alternative is a “single payer” system whereby all health care bills would be paid for by the government (as with Medicare), cutting out private insurance. He said the 2010 Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) was seemingly a step toward that, but lamented that, bowing to the industry’s vested interests, a single payer option was never even on the table – a prescription for failure.

Other advanced nations generally have systems along the lines Ray advocates. In consequence they spend far less on health care than we do. And it doesn’t buy us better health. Our lifespans lag behind theirs; our maternal mortality is way higher.

The cost difference is due to our having far more middle-men, overheads, and administrative costs, which Ray reckoned at about 30% of health spending that actually does nothing to enhance health. “Too many drivers and too few horses,” he said. And the raison d’etre of insurance companies is to avoid actually paying for health care, to whatever extent they can get away with.

Ray addressed what he said are seven myths about a single payer system:

1. Its cost. (But two-thirds of health spending already comes from taxpayer pockets.)
2. It would eliminate free choice (to the contrary he said, you’d be able to use any provider) and the efficiencies of competition (whereas about half of Americans live so dispersed that local providers are effectively monopolies).
3. It’s socialism (but the state will not be a health care provider – it would only pay the bills).
4. Care would be delayed (Ray cited comparisons with single payer countries, finding no real differences vis-a-vis America in waits for care).
5. Doctors are opposed (Ray pointed to a poll where 68% support it).
6. Innovation will suffer (actually we’re not so great on innovation; pharmaceutical companies spend hugely on lobbying and marketing; and drug prices here are through the roof).
7. We have the world’s best health care (yet many Americans seek care in other countries, to get better deals).

Ray said a single payer system would be great for U.S. businesses, relieving them of huge costs and risks associated with their health care burdens, which would disappear, making them globally more competitive. He also said coverage for individuals would be much more comprehensive, as against the thicket of restrictions, limitations, deductibles and co-pays that encrust medical insurance. Ray touted a “Medicare for All” bill in Congress that would, basically, give everything to everybody.

He seemed to imagine that such a reform could actually pass in our broken political system.