Cloud Atlas by David Mitchell: A Philosophical and Ethical Book Review

Cloud Atlas by David Mitchell is a spectacular novel. It is a tour-de-force through six stories, each story with its own genre, creating a multigenre whole unlike any work I’ve read before. (There may be other works out there like this, but I don’t know them – I’m an ethicist, not a lit guy – so if you have suggested readings, let me know!)

I picked up this book because I saw the trailer for the movie version by the Wachowskis (of “The Matrix” fame) that is coming out today. I could tell that the story was going to be fascinatingly intricate, and that a movie could not do it justice, so I wanted to read the novel first before seeing the movie. I won’t include the trailer here because it may affect your reading of the story; it did for me (while reading I kept thinking “I wonder who is going to play this character?”). I will review the movie in a few days and include the trailer then.

In this review I am going to try to avoid specific spoilers, however, the generalities of the work will come up and especially what I see as the moral and philosophical core of the work. If you read this review it may spoil the novel for you on that level, so if that concerns you, just go read the book instead, then come back.

But if you want to know anyway, come along. Here’s how we will go: 1) The story itself, its style and composition, 2) Its major themes, 3) Its similarities and differences with a few other works, and a few allusions I picked up, 4) Its movie potential.

Geoengineering Goes Rogue

It was only a matter of time, but I had no idea it would be this soon. Geoengineering has gone rogue.

An environmental entrepreneur whose plan to dump iron in a patch of the Pacific Ocean was shelved four years ago after a scientific outcry has gone ahead with a similar experiment without any academic or government oversight, startling and unnerving marine researchers.

My first reaction is “environmental entrepreneur”? And my second one is “wow, this is a completely new thing.” Never in human history has a small group of humans intentionally tried to manipulate the atmosphere, much less without any kind of oversight. A true ethical novum. Brought to us by our own scientific-technological power. The New York Times continues:

The entrepreneur, Russ George, said his team scattered 100 tons of iron dust in mid-July in the Pacific several hundred miles west of the islands of Haida Gwaii, in northern British Columbia, in a $2.5 million project financed by a native Canadian group.

The substance acted as a fertilizer, Mr. George said, fostering the growth of enormous amounts of plankton that were monitored by the team for several months. He said the result could help the project meet what it casts as its top goal: aiding the recovery of the salmon fishery for the native Haida people.

But marine scientists and other experts said the experiment, which they learned about only in news reports this week, was shoddy science, irresponsible and probably in violation of international agreements intended to prevent tampering with ocean ecosystems under the guise of trying to fight the effects of climate change.

While the environmental impact of Mr. George’s foray could well prove minimal, they said, it raises the specter of what they have long feared: rogue field experiments that could upend ecosystems one day put the planet at risk. Mark L. Wells, a marine scientist at the University of Maine, said that what Mr. George’s team did “could be described as ocean dumping.”

I have discussed geoengineering and the hubristic dangers that accompany it before, arguing that it might seem logical and yet still be, perhaps, a very bad choice. I really do have mixed feelings on it. But what I can say with certainty is that anybody just going out and deciding to do it on their own must be stopped and held responsible for some type of violation.  This is an issue concerning the common good, not just of all humanity, but for the entire ecosphere. We can’t just have individuals going out there and doing giant experiments with no supervision or legitimate authorization (even if this is, in fact, what we have already accidentally done with fossil fuels, chlorofluorocarbons, and so on – this is not a road to continue on).

This is a fascinating test case, and luckily, a rather minor one. Iron dumping for plankton fertilizer is a relatively small thing compared to, say, spewing tons of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight and cool the earth. But now that the threshold has been crossed, we can expect to see more of this, and perhaps states “going rogue” in major ways, and not just one guy and his friends.

Strange times we live in.

Did Jesus Just Say “My Wife…”? Wait… Was Jesus Married?!

The Nag Hammadi Gnostic codices (Wikipedia)

Was Jesus married? A new papyrus fragment seems to have Jesus discussing his wife, if interpreted literally. (Metaphorically, Jesus is married to his Church, so that’s no big deal.) But it is a fragment of unknown provenance, from an anonymous owner. And it’s even a little more suspicious than that.

Jim Davila at PaleoJudaica has a great post considering the new papyrus fragment.  In a word, he is: skeptical.

My take? I am … wait for it … skeptical. Professor King has done everything right and she is taking a very reasonable line of optimistic skepticism, but there’s one point that I’ve seen no one raise so far… this fragment is exactly, exactly, what the Zeitgeist of 2012 would want us to find in an ancient gospel. To my mind that weighs heavily against its authenticity… It is too perfect. As Larry Schiffman put it, “The most exciting things are the things most likely to be forged.” My working hypothesis at the moment is that someone who knew what they were doing went to a lot of effort using a piece of ancient papyrus to create a remarkable forgery.

Brilliant point. What a time for this specific piece of writing to appear. Kinda suspicious.

That’s not to say it’s not real, it may be ancient and truly reflect the beliefs of its writer. That doesn’t further mean that its writer was correct, though. After all, the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas has Jesus saying that Mary can go to heaven – if Jesus first turns her into a man  – and in another place Jesus kills and resurrects kids for fun. And if I didn’t have my Gnostic scriptures packed away in a box (too many books!) I could find a few more fun ones.

Anyway, back to PaleoJudaica:

Also, at a Nag Hammadi Facebook Group, Louis Painchaud, who is also at the Coptic Congress in Rome, has called for caution and indicated, as has Alin Suciu, that the script of the fragment doesn’t look real, nor does the way it is cut. And apparently others at the Congress are questioning its authenticity.

I agree the “cut” looks funny. An entirely new manuscript, and the ONLY piece of text we get from it are a few lines right from the center of a page, in a nice rectangle, that are highly topical to contemporary controversies? With the line breaks just were we would need them? Apparently the rest of the coptological community is skeptical too.

Over at Evangelical Textual Criticism, Christian Askeland, who is also in Rome at the Coptic Colloquium, reports on reactions to King’s paper:

During the course of the last several hours, I have attempted to understand the reaction of various persons within the coptological community here at the International Association of Coptic studies conference. My initial perception is that those who specialize in Nag Hammadi and early manuscripts are split with about four-fifths being extremely skeptical about the manuscript’s authenticity and one-fifth is fairly convinced that the fragment is a fake. I have not met anyone who supports its authenticity, although I do not doubt that there must be some.

He then goes on to explain in detail why he thinks the fragment is probably a forgery.

Yeah, it’s just too perfect. Still, it might be authentic, but even then, it’s no big deal. We have a bunch of alternate-universe Jesuses already, and they are fascinating. This would just be one more.

I have a post I’m working on considering “cognized” vs. “operational” models of the world. “Cognized” is how we think the world works, “operational” is how it really does. This fragment fits our cognized model – some people would like for the world to work this way. Operationally, it is rather unlikely to actually work this way. Wishful thinking. It’s possible, but highly improbable.

(h/t Ted Hand)

Cardinal Dolan and Stephen Colbert at Fordham

Despite a media blackout, the media have managed not to be blacked out from “The Cardinal and the Comedian” a Friday-night event at Fordham that drew a crowd of 3000 students. Humorist James Martin, S.J., moderated an evening conversation between New York Archbishop (and Cardinal) Timothy Dolan (also President of the USCCB) and Stephen Colbert, host of Comedy Central’s “The Colbert Report.”

By all accounts it was a terrifically funny evening. The New York Times, America Magazine, The Jesuit Post, CatholicMoralTheology.com, and the National Catholic Reporter have all had great coverage (and others, I’m sure – it was blurbed in my local paper), so read more about it there. NCR is particularly good for “Storifying” a lot of the social media that came out, so definitely look at that to see some direct accounts.

What I really like about this event is not only that one of my friends helped make it happen, not only that it had “real” authentic people speaking of their faith, not only that it allowed social media to shine… What I really like about it is that it gets to the core of the “Good News.”

The goal of our life is happiness, a natural happiness in this life and a supernatural happiness in the next. That is our endpoint, that is what is drawing us in – the happiness of God. Ask St. Thomas about it, Summa Theologiae I-II Q 1-5. That’s right, God made humanity for the sake of our happiness, for the sake of joy and delight. We weren’t put here as slaves or to act as monsters. We are capable of being those things, but we are here to LIVE! and live fully.

That is a beautiful thing, and ought to bring us to thinking about our lives and how to be better people. Because in becoming better people we become happier people, more who we are meant to be.

A bit has been made of this event as an example of “the new evangelization” that Pope John Paul II talked about. Well, I think it was better than that. Leave out the word “evangelization,” to some people that has overtones of instrumentalization, of using others to get yourself into heaven. And there is no need for big words anyway. Just call it life. Just call it real people being honest. Just call it Good News.

Yes, there was a media blackout on the Good News. But the Good News got out anyway. Somehow it does that. So good job to all involved. You made something that burst its way into the world despite the lid on it. Something so good that regular people just couldn’t contain themselves, they had to speak up. And that is something pretty amazing in itself.

My New Article: Teleology and Theology, Aristotle and Cognitive Science

From the abstract:

Recent research in cognitive science has shown that humans innately prefer teleological explanations. Children even go so far as to hypothesize the existence of a deity in order to justify teleological explanations. Aristotle also believed in the importance of teleology for human psychology. This paper investigates the convergence of ideas from the cognitive science of teleology with the Aristotelian understanding of teleology visible in the virtues of techne and wisdom. I argue that Aristotelian psychology and ethics is gaining empirical support, and that this could have important implications for science, philosophy, and theology.

So cut to the chase – what’s the point? Humans evolved to pick up teleology – the purposes of other humans, of tools, and of skilled behaviors. This same sensitivity allows us to ponder the purpose of our own existence and the purpose of the universe as a whole, as well as hypothesize a creator. In other words, this is a major part of what makes us capax Dei – capable of relating to God.

From a theistic perspective this is great – science has shown us part of the religious architecture of our minds, as aspect of what makes us homo religiosus. And equally, from an atheistic perspective this is great; theistically-inclined humans are just misapplying an otherwise perfectly useful cognitive bias – one used to figure out what another human is doing, their purpose, or the purpose of an object – to try to figure out something purposeless, the universe. But notice that the first move is a metaphysical one – the declaration that the universe is purposeful or purposeless. No scientific experiment can tell you the answer to that, it is an assumption, not a conclusion. The data can go either way, depending on the framework it is placed in.

I have to say, I really like this paper. I worked on it a long time. The peer reviewers said nice things about it. I could easily spend more time investigating this sort of work, and at some point I most likely will.

But, alas, one of my committee members always counsels me “Go for the deeper problem!” And so the deeper problem from the cognitive science of the virtues, at least from the standpoint of naturalistic ethics, is how to relate science and ethics – or, in more Humean terms, how to get “ought’ from “is.” So that is what I am doing now.

And then the deeper problem after that is how to let that knowledge make a positive difference in the world, both for the individual and everyone. Currently some of my applications are towards environmental ethics, bioethics and technological ethics more generally, and the ethics of space exploration.

All of this is because I want to know how humans ought to relate to technology. Technology is absolutely essential to our humanity. We lack hair (we need clothes) and our digestive systems are inadequate to eat many foods (we need to prepare and cook it). And yet technology can also be extremely dangerous. Human technology has now reached the point where it can begin to alter human nature itself.

To know what to do, we must first know who we are. Identity creates action. And then action creates identity. Transhumanists will argue that our nature is to transcend humanity. And bioconservatives will argue that that is impossible – that no matter what we may become we will always remain human. Natural law yields virtue and vice. What we think humans are will dictate what we think humans should do. We are manipulating creatures – what will we do when we finally come to target ourselves? In this century, we will find out.

-

For more info, see my Academia.edu page.

Is Geoengineering Now Inevitable? Or, Is the Only Solution to a Technological Problem More Technology?

Scaling the Heights of the Scala Naturae (Wikipedia)

Once a year I teach a course at Santa Clara University called “Energy, Climate Change, and Social Justice.” I love teaching it. The premise is to help engineering graduate students learn how to think ethically about the problems generated by global warming, with an eye towards coming up with innovative solutions. We look at conventional and renewable energy sources, vulnerabilities that different areas and people’s of the world face due to global warming, and potential policy solutions to help get the world on track towards carbon neutrality or negativity.

But this year a strange thought continually crossed my mind as I was teaching the course. Is active human control over the climate now inevitable?  A few months ago a friend of mine at another university had expressed to me the wish that humans would not be responsible for the Earth’s environment – not responsible for the climate, not responsible for the weather, not responsible for the deaths and destruction and rising oceans. To him it seemed much better that such events were not blameworthy, that things could just happen and they would not be anyone’s fault. The idea of filing a lawsuit over climate change just seemed very wrong. Shouldn’t there just be some things that no-one is responsible and guilty for? Would that not be a better world?

I was unsure how to respond, but the question remained on my mind. I agree that a world where humans were not responsible for the climate might be a better world, but I’m not sure we can ever go back. Here is my thinking.

Brian’s Links 2012 June 1: SpaceX and the Return of Adventure

SpaceX did it. Off the Earth, up to the ISS, and back again. The era of private spaceflight is really here. And what is SpaceX’s long range goal? Elon Musk wants to go to Mars. Not just his company – him, personally. And, while he’s at it, he’s going to save the world.

If you haven’t heard of Planetary Resources, you should. They’ve got billionaire backing. And they want to gobble up asteroids for their platinum. (Well, and their other elements too.) Between these guys and SpaceX, exploration is actually becoming really interesting again. And why should Christians or ethicists care? (go here to find out) Because, in the words of Alfred North Whitehead “Without adventure, civilization is in full decay.” And I think these folks are proving that we are not nearly dead yet.

Now, from air to water, literally. For areas with fresh water shortage this is brilliant: a wind turbine that condenses water from the air.  It would be perfect for the Marshall Islands, where is is windy, humid, and fresh water is unreliable. And if you were an ancient Greek, this could count as elemental transmutation.

And how about a new kind (not just a new use) of wind power while we are at it?

Every wonder about what the future was supposed to look like? Well here’s a funny one: kids carrying around computers in a museum. A cowboy using at what looks like an iPad. Kids using computers in school (wearing Atari helmets!). All from back in 1982.

Fascinating maps of America’s invisible borders. Like whether a soda is a “pop” or a “coke” (its a soda).

The USCCB’s and CDF’s document on the LCWR.

Ever wonder where ketchup came from? Wonder no longer.

Yes, Chinese medicine can be dangerous.  Lots of medicines can be dangerous. The early chemist and pharmacist Paracelsus (real name: Philippus Aureolus Theophrastus Bombastus von Hohenheim – you can see why he went by Paracelsus) is noted for his phrase “the dosage makes the poison.” But seeing as many forms of Chinese medicine have never actually been scientifically tested to see what they do – in any dosage – taking them can be especially dangerous.

It’s called “Blood Falls.” It’s a blood-red frozen waterfall in Antarctica. Now if only there were monstrous creatures at its source, the story would be complete. But wait! There are!

These next two stories are both from God and the Machine, my new favorite blog for theology and technology. First, a young man finds his lost home and family, a home he lost when he fell asleep on a train when he was 5. How did he find his way home? Google Earth!

Second, someday you will be able to buy your own tricorder, just like in Star Trek.  Seriously.  This guy is making them and they work!

And lastly, poor static dog. Cats have a reputation for getting all the lols, but dogs can do it too.

Christian/Atheist Turing Test at Unequally Yoked Round 2!

QUICK!!!

Get over to Unequally Yoked and start voting on the next round of Leah Libresco’s Christian/Atheist Turing Test.

Like the real Turing Test, where computers try to pass as human (but no humans try to pass as computers), the idea is for atheists to try to pass as Christians, and Christians to try to pass as atheists. Who knows the other’s worldview better? Who are better liars!? Who will win?

Last year I participated and I did fairly well, convincing both sides I was one of them, coming in 6th ranked for the Christian round (of 15) and 5th ranked for the atheist round (it helps to be pompous, so if you read my answers, keep in mind I was acting – don’t think I’m that big a jerk, please!) Last year was also a Christian blowout, with Christians taking 4 of the top 5 spots for impersonating atheists, and 3 of the top 5 spots for being believably Christian.

Three tests have already been posted, so get over and vote soon! The world needs your skills to judge who is real and who is an impostor.

I find the psychology of the test fascinating, and it is great to see how people attempt not only to fully articulate their own worldview, or that of another, but also what strategies they use in order to appear authentic. The test is also really fun. Last year I was the “boring” atheist. But I think if I were to attempt again I would try to be more extreme; boring got me to be believable, but I want to win!

What Kind of a World for Our Children?

Earth as the “Blue Marble” of Apollo 11, from NASA (via Wikipedia).

My father is a quiet man. Very smart, but not exactly philosophical. I once asked him if he had any wisdom to share with me after his long life and he said (in sum) “no.”

Which is why something he said to me many years before strikes me as all the more important. He said “I don’t think we’re leaving you a world as good as the one we were given.”

When you are a little kid that doesn’t really make sense. The world changes? The world gets better and worse? Why is it worse now? What happened to make it worse?

Now that I’m an adult it unfortunately makes perfect sense.

Brian’s Links 18 May 2012: Medicine, Crime, Climate Change, and Creatures

A cute little jumping robot.

This US wind map is really cool.

Conservation in the Age of Man – its not about protecting the wild anymore – its more like gardening… and using nature to protect people. An interesting shift in philosophy from the Nature Conservancy.

Mind over matter: paralyzed patients moving robotic arms with only their minds.  In the video, a locked-in patient uses her mind via the robotic arm to reach for her coffee and drink it for the first time in 15 years.

First it’s shocking and horrible (UC Davis) and then it’s normal, barely even news. From last month. Didn’t get enough coverage.

How to deal with psychopaths, using Girardian theory.  I especially like the “gray rock” strategy.

Brain injuries are very bad things. In this new study deceased US military veterans were autopsied and found to have similar brain damage to athletes such as football players.

This story is grotesquely unjust. An elderly man accidentally sets off his medic alarm. Cops come to man’s home.  He informs them it was an accident. Cops shoot man dead. Can you guess the victim’s skin color?

The dollar is being slowly, intentionally, steadily devalued, as anyone who has watched gas or gold (or any) prices might suspect. No conspiracy, just economics – its the best the Fed thinks they can do to keep the monetary system stable.

Yes, your dog does need plastic surgery. No, the starving children don’t need food.

Three fun climate-change-related links.  One on Washington D.C.’s warmest winter ever (I was there in late December, and it was quite pleasant), another on the record-breakingly warm March, and the last imagining San Francisco as an island after the sea level has risen. The time frame on SF Island is totally unrealistic (IPCC estimate is less than 3 feet in the next century, not 3 feet per year – see Wikipedia), but people like to imagine disasters.Interesting linked info too.

And one for any skeptics: the US military thinks climate change is real.

What bacteria can survive 1000 times more radiation than a human? Also known as Conan the Bacterium? Well Deinococcus radiodurans, of course. Luckily, its also friendly.

The RoboBonobo. Not only does it look freaky, it really just is. It’s basically an ape-controlled drone (well, humans are apes too… so it’s a non-human-ape-controlled drone…) armed with a squirt gun. Yeah, next we’ll have them invading and bombing foreign countries! Well, maybe we could just keep this one for fun, for now, at least.

Some very alien places on Earth. Very interesting pictures.

An enormously giant bunny. The world’s biggest. Bigger than small children. About four and a half feet and 50 pounds of bunny.

Lastly, happy bouncing cows.