Flight Risks

It seems like FAA officials are going to have to step up their game-theory perspectives as we grapple with the cascading effects of flight risks and counter-measures. There is no way to make self-reporting more attractive to pilots when risk-aversion would have any issue lead to grounding; there is no way to lock out the bad guys from the cockpit without also running the risk of locking out the good guys; there is no way to address the asymmetrical risk of armed pilots without arming the rest of the flight crew, thereby creating the distributed risk of firearms on aircraft; and, ultimately, there is no way to balance the risk between actors if two or more of them are in collusion. Ultimately, we have to accept that we put our lives in the hands of others, and no amount of screening or monitoring or other, clever counter-measures can replace an instilled sense of morality that would have caused Andreas Lubitz to overdose on sleeping pills to end his suffering rather than taking the lives of 150 people along with his. This apparent, growing trend of murder-suicide (sometimes, killing to be killed) is quite disturbing. It is as if people want to be remembered, no matter how.

Fundamentally Similar, Systematically Different

Every time I spend time with a curious mind in an outdoor setting, I eventually point out how people, monkeys, dogs, cats, mice, etc, are basically the same pattern with different implementations - i.e. same skeletal structure, same organs, same major functions, implemented at different scales with other, systematic differences that are essential for the survival of the mammal in question. The similarities extend down to the most fundamental building blocks of life, DNA, where humans have a 100% overlap amongst themselves, with differences only in the sequence of genes, a 98% overlap with chimpanzees, a 92% overlap with mice, and, at the further end of the spectrum, an 18% overlap with the common garden weed! The similarities extend down to the very building blocks of matter, where the only difference between elements in the periodic table is the number and configuration of subatomic particles (protons, neutrons and electrons) in their atoms, where these subatomic particles can be broken down into sub-particles (quarks, leptons, etc), and where, I would imagine, these sub-particles can be broken down into even smaller particles - where does it end?!?! Very nearly all of the elements in the universe owe their existence to the nuclear transmutation of hydrogen and helium by different types of stars, where helium and hydrogen originated from the big bang and account for 98% of the mass of ordinary matter in the universe today. How is that for common? We can all easily conceptualize how 2 identical computers, made of identical components, running identical operating systems, can play uniquely different roles in the world based on their software, but the analogy is a bit more perplexing once it is extended to human beings versus the rest of the animal kingdom, and sometimes versus other human beings - i.e. if not for the single, lethal bit set in Jeffrey Dahmer's software, he was, otherwise, just like the rest of us. But the reality is that, from the smallest particles of matter, to the fundamental building blocks of life, to more observable manifestations, most everything is fundamentally similar and only systematically different, and this is true across a wide range of more abstract instincts, behaviors, ecosystems and organizations. This should not detract from one's assessment of their uniqueness in the world, because it is the soul over the software over the hardware that makes all living things unique: the spark of life that turns elements into compounds into a living being; the ethereal force that cannot be decomposed into particles. Understanding our non-uniqueness at an atomic, chemical and biological level is, indeed, the most salient way to grasp our uniqueness at a more fundamental level beyond the purview of science. This is precisely why philosophy embraces science and spirituality: the former can only take you so far, and the good news is that the latter is completely up to you in terms of choice, interpretation and positivity. 

Teachers

They say “those who cannot do, teach”, but, on the flip side, when the expert (or prodigy) is unable to teach their field of expertise to someone, it may be due to the very thing that makes them the expert to begin with: they have assimilated the foundation to the point where they no longer need to think about it, and, therefore, are unable to decompose it into its original, teachable parts. You may experience this if you ever have to teach or write about your own expertise, and you may experience this is a more negative way if you ever have to learn from an expert that has not grappled with this beforehand. So we could say “those who cannot teach, do”, which sounds unfair, very much like the first quote.

Marking the Passage of Time

I recently had dinner with a good friend of mine, who just purchased a fitness watch of sorts that tracks his daily activity (number of steps, sedentary time, etc). He told me that, according to his perception, when he is engrossed in one activity or another, the watch beeps every 15 minutes to remind him to get up and move around, whereas, in reality, the watch is actually beeping every hour. I can relate to this perceived versus actual passage of time, and it occurs to me that the difference can be very useful, in terms of maximizing or minimizing the passage of time, all depending on the objective. For example, during the day, when I am working, I take a sip of water every 15 minutes to create an awareness of the passage of time, thereby maximizing my use of it. On the other hand, at the gym, on the treadmill, I take a sip of water every 5 minutes to convert my own internal accounting of time from seconds or minutes to 5 minute intervals to minimize how long it 'feels' like I am walking. This is just a restatement of several old adages - specifically, preserving time, as in "time lost is never found" from Benjamin Franklin, and preserving experience, as in "the time you enjoyed wasting is not wasted time" by Bertrand Russell - but I wonder how many of us actually devise appropriate, self-directed units of time to either slow things down or speed things up. You can be present in the moment to savor every second, or you can track broader milestones to fold the time in between. In The Thin Red Line, Private Witt (Jim Caviezel's character) lives in the second-by-second beauty of nature (flowers, birds, etc) that surrounds him on the battlefield; in Cast Away, Chuck Noland (Tom Hanks' character) lives in the day-by-day activity required to feed his body and stay alive; in The Shawshank Redemption, Andy Dufresne (Tim Robbins' character) lives in the month-by-month activity to feed his soul and truly live. There is a case for savoring every second no matter what your circumstance, so I am not suggesting an outright folding of time, ala the movie Click, where Michael Newman (Adam Sandler's character) transports himself into the future through a magical remote control, and ends up missing the majority of his life. That being said, being aware of and influencing your perception of time can be a great way to be savor beautiful seconds or withstand challenging moments, which can offer a modicum of comfort where there is none.

Incredible, Simultaneous, Reciprocity

Unless you are a Physicist, and a Quantum Physicist at that, you are probably unfamiliar with 'entangled particles', which are particles that remain connected so that actions performed on one affect the other, even when separated by great distances. As one particle enters a downward spin, the other particle enters an upward swing, and this is said to occur at 10,000 times the speed of light (i.e. instantaneously) regardless of the distance. I believe this behavior extends beyond particles to the hearts and minds and souls of two people. When one is about to send a message and is preemptively messaged; when one is about to call and is preemptively called; when one is about to express an inner-most thought that is preemptively expressed; when one is about to kiss and is preemptively kissed; when one falls in love and is preemptively loved. To the extent that entangled particles defy our understanding of the world, I see no reason to doubt the existence of entangled souls: Two souls that spin for each other and maintain a balance in the universe that goes beyond the purview of the world we see, into the world we feel. Look for it in your life. It might already be there.

Love

It comes from many sources, but the one I covet the most is the one that two strangers happen upon and are swept away by. Why? Because there are no genetic predispositions or built-in bonds of affection. Because it is a matter of choice, right up until it is no longer a matter of choice but a matter of 'need'. To choose to need. This is the pinnacle of Love, because it exposes one to a risk that was not there in the past, need not be here in the present, and may be there in the future: To lose the one you need. What greater risk than to lose the one you love, the one you need? Perhaps, a better question: What greater risk than to not love this way at all?

Fast, Efficient and Correct ... Still, Something is Missing

When I am working in New York City, I frequent a fairly large, 24/7, eatery and grocery for breakfast, and am utterly amazed by the speed and efficiency with which the place and its people operate. I place my order for an omelette at the grill, where the short-order cook appears to be juggling 15 other orders, and within 5 minutes I am presented with my to-go box. I get in line to pay behind 25 other people, and within 5 minutes I am at the register being handed a receipt while, simultaneously, the cashier is already raising her hand for the next person to approach. As I exit, I am struck by the army of people exiting with me (a veritable exodus, you might say), and the army of entering through the adjacent door. The whole thing is a satisfactory model of efficiency. A model that only requires a modicum of queuing theory knowledge to appreciate that, given the inflow of people, anything less would result in exceeding the 'fire code' threshold number of occupants. 

And yet, this model of efficiency still leaves something to be desired. 

It lacks a fundamental aspect of what you might encounter (at least, what I infer you might encounter) at a similar venue in Japan: delight, or, in Japanese, 'yorokobi' (I think). 

While I am duly impressed by the efficiency of the place, it is this very efficiency that gives me pause, as there is nary a smile, "hello", "how are you doing?" that comes your way as you are shuffled down the assembly line. I imagine that a type-A / Wall Street-type might actually be annoyed with salutations and rhetorical questions as they rush towards the rush, so I imagine that this is learned, if not imparted, behavior, which cannot be blamed on the establishment itself. It is, however, an interesting question to grapple with as we strive towards ever-greater efficiency: 

Where do we draw the line between efficiency (getting things done fast) and expediency (being efficient at the expense of other, important things). 

Should we optimize humanity subject to efficiency? 

Or should we optimize efficiency subject to humanity?