The Casual Blog

Tag: Robert Sapolsky

The Wild Swans at Pungo

Last week I drove to the Pungo Lake area of the Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge to look for tundra swans and other birds.  In the last couple of years I didn’t see too many swans there, but this time, there were a lot!  

Tundra swans are big birds (think 6 foot wingspans, 20 pounds) that  migrate thousands of miles every year between their breeding grounds in the Arctic and points south, of which eastern North Carolina is a major one.  They are sociable creatures that can form flocks of hundreds or thousands.   They’re very vocal, calling each other with loud honks, and large groups can sound like a stadium full of football fans.

The basic family unit includes a cob (male) and a pen (female) that mate for life.  Cygnets (the kids) may stay with their parents for up to a year.  The cygnets go through a brownish phase before getting their white adult plumage.   

The swans are strong, graceful flyers, and calm, stately swimmers.  But they have to work hard to get airborne!  From a seat on the water, they flap vigorously while running along the surface. 

One afternoon I watched and listened as dozens of them did this maneuver.  There were only a couple of other folks on the shore of the pond, who like me were trying to take pictures.  It was a little chilly, but sunny, and peaceful, at least for those of us who didn’t need to take off.  

“Their clamorous wings” as they climbed put me in mind of Yeats’s wonderful poem The Wild Swans at Coole.  It’s a meditation on aging and mortality, together with the consolation of nature’s lasting vigor.  Yeats lauds the beauty of the birds, and their independence from us, with their own passions and conquests.    

Speaking of mortality and the lessons animals teach us, I was saddened to hear today of the death at 73 of Steven Wise, a pioneering crusader for animal rights.  The NY Times obit is here

Wise brought lawsuits on behalf of chimpanzees and other animals arguing that they were legal persons entitled to certain rights.  His legal work, writing, and teaching brought increasing attention to the question of how we should treat non-human animals.  Although his approach seemed to me problematic, since it was centered on arguments about certain animals’ human-like abilities, I greatly admired his intelligence, courage, and passion.  

I finished a new book directed at the question of whether humans have free will:  Free Agents:  How Evolution Gave Us Free Will, by Kevin J. Mitchell.  Mitchell is a professor of genetics and neuroscience at Trinity College Dublin.  His book addresses deep questions around the meaning of life with a lot of information about the workings of the brain.

Mitchell has an answer for determinists like Robert Sapolsky, who hold that all our behavior is predetermined by physics, and that our impression of mental independence is an illusion.  Starting with the simplest forms of microbial life, Mitchell applies Darwin’s theory of evolution and argues that agency and purpose are fundamental characteristics of life.  

I didn’t get all Mitchell’s explanations of brain cell biology, but I think I got the basic ideas.  Animals evolve to survive, which requires that they learn to respond to an ever-changing environment.  The most complicated brains we know of (our own) not only make top down decisions related to survival, but are capable of changing our own more basic processes and thinking about our own thoughts.  

Mitchell notes that there are various ways of thinking about freedom, and every being is constrained by its environment, biology, inherited traits, memories, etc.  But within those constraints, Mitchell contends we make meaningful choices.  This makes sense. 

In addition to providing a persuasive framework for thinking about free will, Mitchell’s account emphasizes the interconnectedness of the world.  He suggests that we are not independent objects, but a large set of processes that are acted upon, and act upon, everything else.  The book is an encouraging integration of science and spirit.

More polar bears, and some comments on Trump, free will, Empire, and Life on Our Planet

I’m still processing my trip to northern Manitoba, and wanted to share a few more photographs from that extraordinary journey.  I also made a short YouTube slideshow of favorites. Recently I’ve been making a particular point of cultivating gratitude, having so much to be grateful for, and that expedition was especially worthy.

Alongside those good feelings, I’m feeling discombobulated about  what is happening in American politics.  At this point, it’s virtually certain that the Republican party, traditionally a cheerleader for conservatism, will nominate for President a most unconservative candidate:  Donald J. Trump.  And polls say there’s a reasonable possibility that Trump will win.  

This in spite of what by now it’s hard not to know about Trump:  his deep dishonesty, his ignorance, his cruelty, his contempt for others (other races, other nationalities, other gender identities), his indifference to the dire straits of our planet.  Plus his track record of crimes (including molesting women), inciting hatred, undermining the rule of law, encouraging thuggery, promoting deranged conspiracy theories, and threatening nuclear war.  Also, he made a determined attempt to overthrow the U.S. government and seize power.  Now he’s acknowledging his intention to act as a dictator and treat his opponents “like vermin.”  

A lot of people, including some that are dear to me, are not much put off by this appalling record.  This has given a hard shake to some of my long-held beliefs and assumptions.  What we take to be reality really seems to vary a lot from brain to brain.  There’s a lot less agreement than I thought about fundamental moral concepts like right and wrong.   

I am grateful, though, for this wake up call:  it’s good to reexamine our assumptions about how people work, individually and collectively.  We have a lot of deep-seated, pre-Trump systemic problems, such as inability to face up to climate change and the horrors of animal agribusiness, that suggest systematic brain malfunctions.  Maybe if we understood ourselves better, we could behave better.

Against this background I’ve been processing the ideas of Robert Sapolsky in his new book, Determined:  A Science of Life Without Free Will.  I read Sapolsky’s last book, Behave, but so far have only read reviews and listened to podcasts discussing Determined.  The most thought-provoking of these was Nikhil Krishnan writing in The New Yorker. 

Sapolsky contends that there is no such thing as free will, because our every action and thought is the result of causes outside of ourselves.  In his view, the only significant differences between people are physical and environmental.  Individuals deserve neither praise for their achievements nor blame for their failures, because both are the result of forces outside of themselves.  

Sapolsky recognizes that his view is hard to square with life as most of us live it.  It’s hard to imagine not being grateful for a kindness or resentful of a slight, and hard to think that serious crimes are not deserving of punishment.  But he marshals plenty of evidence for the position that we are at bottom the result of genes and environment, and our usual habits of mind fail to reckon with that reality.  

I’m a big proponent of trying to see our connectedness with everything – to each other, to animals, to sun, air, water, soil, and so on – and acknowledging that we can hardly exist as unconnected individuals.  I’m with Sapolsky as far as that.  But it seems paralyzing to hold that none of our decisions can fairly be called our own.  There wouldn’t be much point in trying to figure out the right thing to do and then doing it.  The very concept of the individual, which we seem to need in some contexts, seems to collapse.  

This is disturbing, and I’ve been struggling with what to make of it.  I don’t have a comprehensive response to Sapolsky, but I will note one big problem with his framework.  There’s plenty of evidence that human ideas, coming out of individual minds, affect the world.  

The way we think matters at every level, from how we care for ourselves to how we conduct our politics.  And guiding ideas change.  We’ve seen bad ideas that had terrible effects, and we’ve seen some of those get rejected and replaced over time.  We have good reasons for examining our own ideas, and those of others – including Sapolsky’s.

On a less philosophical note, I recently discovered a very fine history podcast called Empire.  The subject matter is various empires of history, with the initial episodes focussing on the British East India Company in (of course) India.  

The hosts are accomplished scholars but not at all stuffy.  Indeed, they are wonderfully human and quite witty.  Some of their subjects involve gruesome violence, but the hosts point up a better moral perspective than some of our forebears had.  A historical perspective can be helpful in these trying times.  

Finally, Sally and I just finished watching Life On Our Planet, a documentary series on Netflix, and I highly recommend it.  In eight episodes, it beautifully summarizes four billion years of evolution.  The dinosaur parts were especially impressive; the animations looked amazingly realistic.  Here again, when I worry about where we’re going, it’s helpful to get some perspective from the long history of life.  Species rise and fall, and new ones rise.