One of the great perks of a faculty career was learning from people whose abilities exceeded mine.  One popular professor who qualifies is Jordan Peterson – it isn’t that he expresses thoughts that are beyond my abilities.  He often describes the things that I know but can’t articulate – he clarifies things that I normally leave vague and undescribed.

Joseph Tainter isn’t so well known – but he carries Robert Merton’s thesis on unanticipated consequences into an approach that shows where to look for the things we do not anticipate.  Thirty years ago, Tainter published The Collapse of Complex Societies.  A review and presentation of his hypothesis is available at https://www.peakprosperity.com/joseph-tainter-the-collapse-of-complex-societies/  and it’s worth looking at.  Tainter’s hypothesis suggests that socially we are well past the spot where increased complexity can yield increased productivity.

Here’s a quote from Dr. Tainter, that will hopefully get you to click the link and listen to more of his thoughts: 

“Sustainability requires that people have the ability and the inclination to think broadly in terms of time and space. In other words, to think broadly in a geographical sense about the world around them, as well as the state of the world as a whole. And also, to think broadly in time in terms of the near and distant future and what resources will be available to our children and our grandchildren and our great grandchildren.

One of the major problems in sustainability and in this whole question of resources and collapse is that we did not evolve as a species to have this ability to think broadly in time and space. Instead, our ancestors who lived as hunter-gatherers never confronted any challenges that required them to think beyond their locality and the near term(…)

We have developed the most complex society humanity has ever known. And we have maintained it up to this point. I have argued that technological innovation and other kinds of innovation evolve like any other aspect of complexity. The investments in research and development grow increasingly complex and reach diminishing returns. We cannot forever continue to spend more and more on technological innovation when we’ve reached the point of diminishing returns, which I argue we have reached.

Our system of innovation is going to change very significantly over the next twenty to thirty to fifty years or so. By the end of the century, our system of innovation will not be anything like what we know today. It will have to be very different. And it’s likely that innovation is not going to be able to solve our problems as readily as it has done to this point.

The technological optimists have assumed that the productivity of innovation is either constant or increasing. And in fact, what I think my colleagues and I can show is that the productivity of innovation is actually decreasing. What that means is that we will not forever be able to solve resource problems through innovation(…)

And so individuals need to take responsibility for their own ignorance. As I said, our species did not evolve to think broadly in terms of time and space and if we’re going to maintain our way of life, people have to learn to do so. People have to take responsibility for knowing and understanding the predicament that we’re facing. I have argued over the last few years that we need to start teaching early school age children in K to 12 to think differently, to think broadly in terms of time and space – to think historically, to think long-term about the future, to think broadly about what’s going on in the world around us instead of the narrow way – the narrow, local way – that most people live and think. So I put responsibility on individuals to broaden their knowledge.”

As with gym membership provided my university, there is an argument to be made that nothing the government hands out is free. The gym membership wasn’t either- it was part of an activity fee that wasn’t optional. So in the strictest sense, the covid tests aren’t free. You paid for them, at least in some part, if you payed taxes.

Of course, like that activity fee, you’ve already paid it. So you might as well, if you’re interested, have some sent to you.

You can get four- that’s per household, not per person. So, if you live alone, that’s four for you. If you live with your parents, young children, and additional family members, the ratio goes down considerably.

The tests were, in theory, going to be available earlier, but they should at least start shipping via the US postal service sometime around the end of this month. Of course, no system the government implements is without flaws. This one has a few glaring ones.

The first issue had to do with the one per address. Apartment dwellers have the same physical address (or at least, mostly the same), so that became a bit problematic. We can use our PO Boxes, which, if only one household is using the PO Box will work out well enough.

It’s not going to be equal distribution, far from it. It will send proportionally more to those who have more physical addresses, or fewer people in a household. Large families and multi-generation households will receive proportionally less.

Well, I’ve rejoined the modern world. Which is to say that I finally replaced the cell phone that only works (sometimes) when plugged into an outlet. In some ways, a fairly easy process (removing simcards is far simpler than the unfamiliar might expect, but requires fine motor skills and reasonably good eyesight). In others, it was an excellent demonstration on just how dependent we are on the darned things.

You need a cell phone to activate a cell phone. Two factor authentication: When did I decide that was a good idea. When doing the initial setup, I was prompted to login to my account. Username? Check. Password? Check. Text Message Confirmation? Shoot.

No, I couldn’t get text messages on the phone I was setting up, while setting it up. No, I wasn’t near my computer to respond to a confirmation email (fool that I was, I’d been relying on the phone to check the email as well!). Once I (finally) logged in, all of the subsequent accounts proceeded in much the same way.

Suffice to say, it was an interesting experience, and really drove home the point that we are extraordinarily reliant upon cell phones to prove our identity. Is this really you? Type in this code within ten minutes.

It turns out this has a lot to do with mobile identity software. Essentially, your cell phone is used as a proxy to determine if you are a real person (and the person you say you are). Mobile phones have a number of advantages. The ability to take pictures means that they can be used for facial recognition (take a selfie with your government issued ID), or to recognize your fingerprints.

The major reason for using the two-factor identification is fraud prevention. Essentially username/password combinations are, as a rule, not particularly secure. You have a whole identity associated with your phone. The time you’ve had the number, the calls, the contacts, the places you’ve made those calls from. A huge amount of records that prove you are a real person, living within an approximate area: Your “Phone Centric Identity“.

This neatly explains why your cell phone can become so important to figuring out who you are- but doesn’t do a whole lot for helping you if you don’t have one (or have access to yours).

Yesterday, the ophthalmologist shared the news that I have the beginnings of macular degeneration.  My first response was a stab of fear – macular degeneration took Dad’s sight, so I have some familiarity with what it can do.  The second response was the same as I had for colon cancer – I’ll get home, pull out the statistics, and figure out where I am.  The third response was a sense of gratitude. 

Gratitude.  I was in the 7th grade when I wound up with glasses – Dr. Yamamoto explained my vision was better than 20-15, not quite 20-10.  20-10 means that what the hypothetical normal person could distinguish at 10 feet, I could see at 20.  From age 12 on, I wore glasses to achieve better than normal vision.  My reading speed went to 800 words per minute, then 1,300.  Normal reading speed is around 300 wpm.  Tests are much easier for fast readers – particularly multiple choice tests.  The astigmatism that showed up in my undergrad years took a couple of years before it stabilized and the optometrist could prescribe the right correction – but gratitude is the best word I have.  In the academy, the fast readers have the real privilege.  The glasses kept me using iron sights through my 50’s.

Between 45 and 50, I went through the challenges of bifocals – finally listening to an optometrist explain that most people got them 5 or 10 years earlier.  The message I internalized was “Quit sniveling.”  He wasn’t rude enough to put it that way – but I had nearly 40 years of corrected vision that was well above average, during my working years.  It has finally dropped to the bottom edge of 20-20 at 72.  Gratitude for the privilege.  In my late 50’s I wound up with a blepharoplasty – sagging eyelids had taken part of my field of vision.  A morning’s surgery on the upper eyelids and the field of vision was back.

My physician sent me to the ophthalmologist to be tested for diabetic retinopathy.  The good news was that there’s no sign of that.  The bad news was the beginnings of macular degeneration.  Those two words brought the half-minute of fear – it was macular degeneration that brought blindness to my father.  But the bright side is that, at 72, his shooting and reading was behind him (and his driving should have been).  I still have 20-20 vision at 72 (though it scares me to realize I share the road with folks who have 20-40). 

Dad got his cataract surgery after macular degeneration had done its worst.  I’m scheduling mine soon, to get the most out of it.  I’m hoping for a recovery that brings back the ability to focus on the front sight of the 1903A3 rifle – and if I don’t get it, there are better scopes available than I added for Dad.

The percentages for macular degeneration don’t seem to be as easy to extrapolate as they were for colon cancer.  With colon cancer, I had the oncologist’s prediction of survival to 2012 – but I am better at stats than he.  My calculations obviously were also better – in June, I’m 10 years past his designated life expectancy.

So what data is available on macular degeneration?  I’ll be doing a couple months research on the topic to find out what to expect.  I’ve had a lifetime of outstanding vision because of corrective lenses.  I’m grateful the diagnosis came at 72 – and it’s just the first caution sign on the road.