Tag Archives: Culture

Culture, Essays, Philosophy, Technology

ABOVE ALL PRICE

Leave a comment

On a hospital administrator’s hesitation, a hypothesis about scalar reward, and what Kant meant by a thing raised above all price

Machines learn by making a single number larger. Kant described something that cannot be set against any sum, and the engineers, asking what a number can carry, found the same edge from the other side.

By Michael Cummins, Editor, October 4, 2026

In a study published in 2000, the psychologist Philip Tetlock and four colleagues asked participants to judge a man named Robert. Robert ran a hospital, and he had a decision to make. A five-year-old boy, Johnny, needed a liver transplant that would cost a million dollars. The same money could buy the hospital better equipment and pay salaries high enough to recruit talented doctors. It could not do both.

Different participants were told different stories about how Robert chose. In some, the decision came to him easily and quickly. In others, it was agonising, and he reached it only after a long time and much thought. Then they were asked what they made of him.

Tetlock calls a choice that sets a sacred value against a secular one a taboo trade-off. Judging this one, the participants were hardest on the Robert who thought longest, whichever way he decided. The slow administrator who chose the hospital was judged most harshly of all, and the quick one who saved Johnny most gently. In other versions, Robert had to choose between Johnny and an equally sick six-year-old: a tragic trade-off, one sacred value against another. There the finding turned over, and the administrator who agonised was judged the better man.

By the arithmetic of optimisation, this is backwards. Deliberation is how good choices get made: weigh the costs, compare the outcomes, take the time to get the sum right. Tetlock’s participants saw something else. Between one child and another, weighing was a duty. Between a child and a budget, the weighing was the offence.

Whether that reaction is a failure of reason or one of its oldest achievements is a question the newest machines have made a matter of specification.

I

A Received Scalar Signal

Before a machine of this kind can learn anything, someone has to tell it what counts as doing well. In reinforcement learning, the answer takes the form of a number. Richard Sutton, co-author with Andrew Barto of Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction, set it down in a single sentence, on a web page whose stated ambition was to “promote discussion” of what he called a scientific hypothesis. The page is signed 10 September 2004. The reward hypothesis, in his words, is:

That all of what we mean by goals and purposes can be well thought of as maximization of the expected value of the cumulative sum of a received scalar signal (reward).

The word that carries the weight is “scalar.” A scalar is a single number: one point on one line. Whatever the goal — a game won, a conversation held, a car driven without hitting anyone — the hypothesis says it can be stated as more or less of one quantity, and the system’s whole task is to make that quantity as large as it can.

Sasha Mudd, writing in Aeon, recalls a celebrated computer scientist telling an auditorium that systems which optimise are intelligent: “That, he said with a smile, is intelligence.” He was defining intelligence. Sutton, more carefully, was describing goals, and offering the description for argument. Two different claims, with one commitment underneath: a single quantity, made larger.

Mudd traces the view back to David Hume, and the lineage is half right. In the Treatise of Human Nature Hume wrote that “Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them.” Reason, on this view, does not choose ends; it finds the way to ends that desire has already chosen. Hume pressed the point to its limit: “’Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger.”

But the servant model and the scalar model are not the same, and running them together gives the reward hypothesis a pedigree it has not earned. Hume’s passions are many, and nothing in his account requires that they share a measure. A person can want quiet, and glory, and revenge, without possessing any table that converts one into another. Read one way, the sentence about the finger makes the same point: reason has no common unit in which to find the preference absurd. Read more widely, it makes a larger one, that reason has no say over ends at all; and on that reading Hume stands further still from the scalar, because he is not in the business of ranking ends in the first place.

If the passions are the goals, then the reward hypothesis asks for more than Hume ever did. It does not only put reason in service to what we want. It requires every goal and purpose to be stated in a single currency, so that every difference between outcomes becomes a difference of amount. Kant had a word for what is measured that way. He called it price.

II

Above All Price

The passage comes from the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, published in Riga in 1785. Its first sentence, in Kant’s German:

Im Reiche der Zwecke hat alles entweder einen Preis, oder eine Würde.

In the kingdom of ends everything has either a price or a dignity. Anything with a price can be exchanged: put something of equal worth in its place, and nothing has been lost. Anything with a dignity has no substitute. Nothing can stand in for it, because it is, in Kant’s phrase, über allen Preis erhaben, raised above all price. So defined, a price is a matter of exchange alone, which is the merchant’s sense of the word. Dignity, Kant goes on, belongs to morality, and to human beings only so far as they are capable of it.

Read one way, Kant’s claim is about status: a person may not be traded, used up or replaced, whatever is offered. That is a claim of right.

Read as a structure, it says something else, and Kant did not put it this way. A choice that honours dignity has a particular shape. One consideration outranks another absolutely, so that no quantity of the lesser makes up for any loss of the greater. Such an ordering is called lexical, or lexicographic, after the dictionary, where a difference in the first letter settles the order, whatever follows. On this reading, a life raised above all price is a life that no sum, however large, could be set against.

The objection to that step goes deep, and it can be drawn from the passage itself. What has no equivalent is not a thing to be ranked against other things. Persons, on this view, constrain the will rather than entering its rankings, so to place them anywhere in an ordering, top or bottom, is already to put them in the wrong place. A claim of right does not become a fact about orderings just because it can be drawn as one.

Robert had to act, and the million dollars had to go somewhere. The lexical reading describes what a right looks like from outside, in conduct: what an observer would see in someone who holds it. If he held the claim of right, it could only show itself in the shape of what he did: there was no amount on the other side that he would take. A right is not a preference. But a right acted on under a budget shows up as a refusal to trade, and a refusal to trade is what a lexical ordering describes. Tetlock’s participants were never asked to name a price for Johnny. What they punished was the appearance of looking for one.

Whether anything has the status Kant describes is a question for moral philosophy. What arithmetic can settle is narrower: whether conduct with that shape can be written down as a single number. In 2023, four researchers answered that question for the reward hypothesis.

III

What the Arithmetic Found

The paper is called “Settling the Reward Hypothesis,” and its authors, Michael Bowling and three colleagues, set out to say exactly when Sutton’s sentence is true. Their answer is a theorem. A system’s ordering of possible outcomes can be represented by a scalar reward if and only if the ordering obeys five conditions. Four are the conditions of the von Neumann–Morgenstern utility theorem, the classic result in the theory of rational choice under risk, which the authors cite as their starting point; the fifth concerns time. One of the four is called continuity.

Continuity says that if you prefer A to B and B to C, there is some probability at which a gamble between A and C is exactly as good as B for certain. If A is Johnny saved and the equipment bought as well, B is Johnny saved without it, and C is Johnny lost and the equipment bought, then some probability of losing the child, traded against some gain, would have to be exactly as good as saving him.

A lexical ordering refuses every such gamble. Any chance of losing him, however small, makes the gamble worse than the sure rescue, and no chance at all makes it simply better. There is no probability at which the two balance. So the ordering breaks continuity, and by the theorem no reward signal can carry it in the way the hypothesis requires: as an expected value. A list of outcomes can be numbered in any order one likes. What cannot be done is what Sutton’s sentence asks, to maximise “the expected value of the cumulative sum,” and get this ordering out. The paper never uses the word lexicographic; the word, and the reading of Kant that leads to it, are not the authors’. But the condition their theorem requires is precisely the one such an ordering fails.

Tetlock and his colleagues framed the offence they were testing as weighing “a sacred value on a secular scale.” The phrase is their theory, not their finding; the finding is that people punished the weighing. Read this way, the two conditions of the experiment fall into place. In the tragic version, Johnny against another child, the trade lay within a single rank, and weighing was what a conscientious man owed. In the taboo version, it crossed ranks, and the weighing itself was the fault. Tetlock’s own discussion points to a simpler explanation: the participants believed Robert had lingered, and lingering looks like temptation, evidence about the man rather than about the structure of value. Both readings survive the tragic reversal. But the simpler one leans on the other. It cannot say why lingering over money looks like temptation while lingering over a second child looks like care, except by saying that one trade crosses a line the other does not.

None of this proves that anything has dignity. A theorem about representation says what a number can hold; it says nothing about what the world contains. What there is instead is a convergence. Kant described something that cannot be set against any sum. Tetlock’s participants judged as though some things are like that. And the engineers, asking from the other side what a scalar can encode, found that this is a shape it cannot take.

IV

The Case for the Number

The trade-offs happen whether anyone names them or not. A hospital that will not price a life still spends its budget, and the money that saves one patient does not save another. The question is whether the exchange is made in the open, by a rule anyone can inspect, or in the dark, by whoever has the most photogenic case. On that view the number is not an insult to the person. It protects everyone the unpriced claim would otherwise displace.

Two governments have taken that view. The United States Department of Transportation values a statistical life at $14.2 million, for analyses using a 2025 base year. In England, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence weighs treatments against a range of £25,000 to £35,000 for each year of life in full health they buy, the range now in force. Neither figure says what a person is worth; a statistical life is an anonymous risk spread across many people, not a named one. Each says what a public body will spend for a given benefit, consistently and in the open.

The American figure carries a further point. The Department bases it only on studies of wages: on the extra pay that workers accept for jobs that carry a higher risk of death. People trade a small chance of dying for money every day. The continuity axiom is not an engineer’s fiction. It describes how people who take dangerous work for higher pay actually choose.

But the two cases are not the same act. A wage premium is a small risk to oneself, accepted in a market, for pay. Robert’s choice was a named child’s whole life, decided on the child’s behalf by someone else. The asymmetry is between choosing and being chosen for.

The engineers’ answer is the hardest to meet. They do not put dignity into the scalar; they take it out. A system can be told to maximise its reward subject to a rule it may never break, whatever the reward on offer: a constraint, not a cost. The field studies such constrained problems in their own right. The number ranks what may be traded, and what may not be traded is put beyond its reach. The arithmetic’s objection is met by not asking a number to carry what a number cannot.

V

Who Sets the Scalar

Bowling and his colleagues take up exactly this answer. In a section on constrained problems, they show that an objective with a hard limit breaks two of their conditions, independence and continuity: between an outcome that respects the limit and a gamble with any chance at all of breaking it, “there is no break even point,” because the gamble is ruled out at every probability. The engineers’ fix is the lexical structure, reached from inside the field, and so not an escape from the boundary but a way of living with it.

In a stone vault, a brass machine’s mechanical arm reaches for a small pair of child’s boots and stops at a hand-drawn chalk circle around them. A worn stub of chalk lies on the floor nearby.
A line the machine did not draw, made for this essay.

But a constraint has to be written by someone. An optimiser can maximise a reward inside a boundary; it cannot say where the boundary should run, or what the reward should count. That choice is made outside the arithmetic, and it is not itself an optimisation. A reader from the field will reply that objectives can be learned, from human comparisons and demonstrations. They can; but each is learned against a further criterion, and someone chose that. The choosing recedes; it does not disappear. Every objective has an author, and so does every line drawn around one.

The anthropologist Marilyn Strathern, writing in 1997 about the auditing of British universities, put a neighbouring point in one sentence, the formulation usually known as Goodhart’s law: “When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.” Her subject was a grade that loses its power to tell students apart once everyone aims at it, not the question of who sets the aim. But the two belong together. A number chosen to stand for a purpose, once it is pursued for its own sake, begins to replace the purpose it stood for, and the person who chose it is no longer in view. Mudd makes the point about authorship from the other side: the question of ends, she writes, “passes unnoticed into the hands of whoever – or whatever – controls the objective function.”

None of this tells anyone where the lines should go. The economists are right that refusing to name a price can hide one. The engineers are right that a constraint is a working answer.

Which leaves Robert, deliberating. Tetlock’s participants saw a man tempted to put a child on a scale. It is also possible to see a man doing what no reward signal does: stopping to ask what the number is for before deciding whether to obey it. The study cannot say which he was, and nothing in the arithmetic can either.

⁂

Written in full collaboration with the machine, and the ledger requires the names be exact: drafted with Claude Opus 5.5; literary editing by Claude Opus 5; copy editing by Gemini. No quotation in this essay was recalled; each was checked against a text of its source, the original or a reproduction of it.

The occasion is Sasha Mudd, “Reason is more than a tool,” Aeon; it is quoted twice, each time in fewer than fifteen words, a deliberate exception to the house’s one-quotation rule for a source in copyright, made because her essay is the one this one answers. The study of Robert and Johnny is Experiment 2 of Philip E. Tetlock, Orie V. Kristel, S. Beth Elson, Melanie C. Green and Jennifer S. Lerner, “The Psychology of the Unthinkable,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 78 (2000), read in a scan of the published article; no figures from it are cited. Richard Sutton’s hypothesis is quoted from his page “The reward hypothesis,” signed 10 September 2004. Hume is quoted from A Treatise of Human Nature, 2.3.3, in two reproductions. The theorem and the constrained example are from Michael Bowling, John D. Martin, David Abel and Will Dabney, “Settling the Reward Hypothesis,” Proceedings of the 40th International Conference on Machine Learning (2023), §§3, 4 and 7.2.

Kant’s first sentence is quoted in German from the public-domain text of the Groundwork (Riga, 1785). The English that follows it is the house’s paraphrase, not a translation; its rendering of that first sentence is word for word the one in Mary Gregor’s Cambridge translation, because the sentence admits no other, and is kept knowingly. “Above all price,” the title, is the common rendering of über allen Preis erhaben, shared with Gregor and with H. J. Paton. Marilyn Strathern’s sentence is from “‘Improving ratings’: audit in the British University system,” European Review 5 (1997), read in a scanned reproduction; no page is given because the witnesses disagree. The American figure is the Department of Transportation’s value of a statistical life for analyses using a 2025 base year, whose basis the Department gives as hedonic wage studies alone; the English range is the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence’s current cost-effectiveness range.

The header and interior images were generated with Gemini for this essay; they illustrate its argument and depict no real place or event. In the interior image the chalk circle was erased and redrawn by hand afterwards, so that the machine stops at the line rather than crossing it.

On the collaboration → “The Third Thing”

Culture, Essays, History, Philosophy, Politics

THE REPUBLIC OF VOICES

At the height of its power in 1364, Venice was a republic where eloquence was currency and every piazza a stage.

By Michael Cummins, Editor, August 24, 2025

The bells began before sunrise. Their iron tongues tolled across the lagoon, vibrating against the damp November air, carrying from the Campanile of San Marco to the Arsenal’s yards and into the canals of Cannaregio. This was Venice in 1364—at the height of its power, its fleets unrivaled in the Mediterranean, its markets setting the prices of silk and spice across Europe. The city sat at the hinge of East and West, commanding trade routes between Byzantium, the Mamluk Sultanate, and Western Christendom. Venetian galleys, sleek and maneuverable, patrolled waters thick with pirates, their timbers assembled in the Arsenale di Venezia, a proto-industrial marvel capable of producing a galley in a single day. Venice was wood, stone, and gold, but above all, it was sound. “The city is never silent,” one German pilgrim marveled, “every tongue of Christendom and beyond seems to shout at once.”

Venice’s supremacy was not abstract. Its colonies in Crete and Cyprus served as staging posts; its consulates dotted the Dalmatian coast. In Constantinople and Alexandria, Venetians lived in fortified fondaci—walled compounds where merchants traded under their own laws. The wealth of Murano’s glassmakers, Rialto’s bankers, and San Polo’s textile dyers depended on this vast maritime lattice. Even the Doge—Venice’s elected head of state, chosen for life from among the patrician class, part monarch, part magistrate but hemmed in by councils—was more merchant than monarch. Venetian nobility was not feudal but commercial: a patrician might chair the Senate one year and finance a convoy to the Levant the next. Bills of exchange, maritime insurance, joint-stock ventures—all pioneered here—reduced risk and turned uncertainty into empire.

Yet the republic was also built on voices. Speech was its second currency, flowing through churches, palaces, markets, and courts. Treaties were sealed with words before they were inked; rumors shifted markets as much as cargoes; sermons inflamed consciences long before decrees reached the streets.

In San Marco, the Basilica of mosaics and incense, the preacher’s voice dominated. On feast days friars addressed audiences that blurred patrician and plebeian, women and sailors, artisans and merchants. A Franciscan, recalling the Black Death, likened Venetian greed to “a contagion that spreads from house to house.” Andrea Dandolo, the Doge who also wrote a chronicle of his age, noted the murmurs of unease that followed. A parable about false shepherds might by nightfall become tavern gossip, retooled as an attack on patrician governors.

In 1364, Venice granted Petrarch a palazzo on the Riva degli Schiavoni in exchange for his library, a collection that would become the foundation of the Biblioteca Marciana. Known as the father of Humanism and now often called the father of the Italian Renaissance, he was among Europe’s most influential figures—poet of the Canzoniere, rediscoverer of Cicero’s letters, and advocate for the revival of classical eloquence. From his Venetian residence, he praised the city as “a republic not only of ships and laws, but of eloquence itself, where voices, raised in harmony or dissent, bind the state together.” For him, Venice was not only a naval empire but also a theater of speech.

Across the piazza in the Doge’s Palace, words carried a different weight. The cavernous Sala del Maggior Consiglio could hold a thousand patricians, their decisions shaping treaties and wars. The Doge spoke little, his ritual response to petitions—“Si vedrà”, “It will be seen”—an eloquence of restraint. More dramatic were the relazioni, oral reports of ambassadors returning from Constantinople or Cairo. Though later transcribed, in the fourteenth century they were performances. An envoy describing the Byzantine emperor’s throne gestured so vividly that senators felt transported to the imperial court.

Yet it was in the Rialto that Venice’s speech was most raw, where chatter became commerce and gossip became power. By day, the wooden bridge creaked under merchants and beggars, its planks worn smooth by boots from every corner of Europe. Below, spices from Alexandria, silk from Cathay, and pepper from India changed hands, but so too did stories. “The Rialto is a world itself,” wrote the chronicler Marino Sanudo, “where the news of all Christendom and beyond is traded swifter than spices.” Rumors of Ottoman fleets could shift the price of cinnamon. Satirical verses, recited sotto voce, mocked the deafness of patricians: “A house of nodding heads, deaf to its people.”

And when night fell, the Rialto became something else entirely. Carnival transformed it into a stage where anonymity and satire thrived. Masked singers, some of them patrician youths disguised as artisans, improvised verses lampooning senators and guild leaders. One chronicler described young nobles in Greek disguise singing ballads about the Senate’s obsession with ceremony. The laughter echoed across the Grand Canal, tolerated because, as Venetians said, “the republic breathes satire as easily as air.”

The Grand Canal itself was Venice’s liquid stage. By day it was an artery of commerce, alive with the slap of oars, the curses of gondoliers, the hammering of crates. By dusk the atmosphere shifted. Lanterns swayed from boats, their reflections shimmering across the black water. Gondoliers sang what would one day evolve into the barcarolle. Noble families staged boat processions with lutes and trumpets, music drifting across the canal in competing layers of sound. Commerce by day, serenade by night—the same canal a bazaar and a ballroom.

And then there was the Piazza San Marco, the great stage of the republic. On feast days, choirs filled the basilica, their plainsong swelling into polyphony that ricocheted off Byzantine domes. Trumpeters announced the Doge, banners unfurled, and processions wound through the square until, as Dandolo wrote, “the piazza shone with gold and sounded with voices and trumpets.” During Carnival, the sacred gave way to the profane: jugglers, acrobats, and improvisatori recited comic verses in dialect. A fire-breather might draw crowds near the bronze horses while a masked singer mocked senators. It was noisy, unruly, profoundly Venetian—a place where art, politics, and voice collided.

Artisans, too, had their stages. The scuole, confraternities of tradesmen, were gatherings where chants gave way to orations. Statutes might be inscribed, but obligations were enforced aloud. A shoemakers’ statute from 1360 commanded that “each master shall stand and speak before his fellows, giving account not only of his work but of his conduct.” Eloquence was honor; to falter was to risk shame.

The courts offered a harsher stage. Justice, too, was spoken. The Statuta Veneta emphasized testimony over parchment: “testimony is judged not by parchment but by voice.” In 1362, a fisherman accused of theft protested, “Non rubai, ma trovai.”—“I did not steal, I found.” His trembling voice, the notary observed, betrayed him. Eloquence could acquit; faltering speech could condemn.

And words could also damn. After the plague, prophets thundered in piazzas, sailors cursed saints in taverns, women repeated visions too vividly. One inquisitorial record recalls a woman accused of declaring, “the plague is God’s punishment for the pride of merchants.” Whether prophecy or lament, her words were evidence of heresy.

To live in Venice was to live in a polyphony of languages. From Dalmatia to Crete, Cyprus to Trebizond, the city’s empire infused it with voices. The pilgrim Ludolf of Sudheim marveled that in one square he heard “Latin, Greek, Saracen, and Hebrew, all arguing.” Translators ferried not only goods but ideas—fragments of Averroes, Byzantine theology, Jewish philosophy. Did a spice-seller at the Rialto know he was transmitting the seeds of the Renaissance?

In patrician libraries and monastic scriptoria, another kind of voice was taking shape: Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas, arriving in Latin translation, read aloud in candlelit chambers. By 1364, copies of Aristotle’s Politics and Nicomachean Ethics were circulating among patricians. What did it mean to live a life of virtue? Could the common good outweigh private interest? Such debates mattered in a republic balancing mercantile ambition with civic restraint.

Thomas Aquinas, too, was debated in Dominican houses. His Summa Theologica offered a scaffolding that united reason and faith. Did divine law supersede human law, or did the latter participate in the former? A friar might thunder against usury on Sunday while echoing Aquinas’s careful distinctions on just exchange.

What is striking is that these scholastic voices did not remain confined to cloisters. They mingled with guild disputations, senatorial deliberations, carnival satire. And just beyond the horizon, Humanism was stirring. Petrarch, uneasy yet pivotal, urged Venetians to recover eloquence from Cicero and Livy. The republic was poised between worlds: the scholastic synthesis of Aquinas and the humanist insistence that civic life could be ennobled by rhetoric and classical virtue. Venice in 1364 was thus not only a theater of speech but also a laboratory of ideas.

At dusk, the bells tolled once more. Gondoliers sang across the black canal, masked youths mocked senators in the Rialto, choirs rehearsed in San Marco. Senators lingered in debate, artisans rehearsed speeches, children recited prayers before sleep. Venice in 1364 was not only a republic of ships, coins, and statutes. It was a republic of voices. Andrea Dandolo wrote that “our city is a harmony of voices, discordant yet united, a choir upon the waters.”

Perhaps that is the truest way to understand the city at its zenith. Its power lay not only in fleets or treaties, but in the ceaseless interplay of sound and sense: the preacher stirring unease, the envoy swaying senators, the gondolier echoing Aristotle, the satirist mocking the elite. The same city that hammered out galleys in the Arsenale was also hammering out philosophies in its libraries, rhythms in its shipyards, and laughter in its carnivals. To live in Venice in 1364 was to inhabit a world where speech, spectacle, and speculation were indivisible, where every bridge or piazza might become a stage. The republic endured not because it silenced discord but because it orchestrated it—turning sermon, satire, and song into the polyphony of civic life. Venice was, and remains, a choir upon the waters.

THIS ESSAY WAS WRITTEN AND EDITED UTILIZING AI

Culture, Essays, History

Beyond A Gender Binary: Its History And Humanity

By Sue Passacantilli, August 2, 2025

Gender diversity is as old as humanity itself, woven into the fabric of cultures, religions, and eras long before modern debates framed it as a new or threatening concept. Yet, the intertwined forces of colonialism, certain interpretations of Christianity, and rigid social structures have worked to erase or punish those who defy binary norms. This essay restores what has been forgotten: the rich history of gender diversity, the powerful forces that attempted to erase it, and the urgent need for compassion and inclusion today.

Gender non-conformity is not a lifestyle experiment or a fleeting cultural trend; it’s a fundamental and authentic expression of human identity. It isn’t a choice made on a whim or a rebellious phase to be outgrown, but rather a deep, internal truth that often emerges early in life. Decades of research in neuroscience, endocrinology, and psychology reveal that gender identity is shaped by a complex interplay of genetic influences, hormonal exposures during prenatal development, and brain structure. These forces operate beneath conscious awareness, forming the foundation of a person’s sense of self. To reduce gender non-conformity to a “choice” is to ignore both science and the lived experiences of millions. It is not a deviation from nature; it is a variation within it.

People living beyond traditional gender norms have always been part of our world. They prayed in ancient temples, tended fires in Indigenous villages, danced on European stages, and lived quiet lives in small homes where language could not even name who they were. They loved, grieved, and dreamed like anyone else. But they were often misunderstood, feared, or erased. History remembers kings and conquerors, wars and revolutions, and empires that rose and fell. Yet, woven silently between these grand narratives are countless untold stories—stories of people who dared to live outside society’s rigid lines. As author Leslie Feinberg once wrote, “My right to be me is tied with a thousand threads to your right to be you.” The struggle of gender-nonconforming people is a reflection of humanity’s larger fight for freedom—to live authentically, without shame or fear.

A Timeless Tapestry: Gender Diversity Across Cultures

Gender variance is not a modern phenomenon—it’s woven into the fabric of ancient societies across continents. In Mesopotamia, as early as 2100 BCE, gala priests—assigned male at birth—served in feminine roles and were respected for their ability to communicate with the goddess Inanna. Myths told of Inanna herself possessing the divine power to “change a man into a woman and a woman into a man,” reflecting an understanding of gender as mutable and sacred.

This fluidity wasn’t confined to the Near East. In Ancient Greece, myths celebrated fluid identities, like the story of Hermaphroditus, who merged male and female traits into a single divine being. Roman history offers one of the earliest known examples of a gender-variant ruler: Emperor Elagabalus, who ruled Rome from 218–222 CE. At just fourteen, Elagabalus openly defied gender norms, preferring feminine pronouns and even declaring, “Call me not Lord, for I am a Lady.” Though hostile historians often portrayed Elagabalus as scandalous, their life reflects a complex truth: gender non-conformity has existed even at the pinnacle of imperial power.

Outside Europe, gender diversity flourished openly. Many Native nations in North America recognized Two-Spirit people, individuals embodying both masculine and feminine spirits. One notable figure, Ozaawindib (c. 1797–1832) of the Ojibwe nation, lived as a woman, had multiple husbands, and was respected for her courage and spiritual insight. Another early 19th-century leader, Kaúxuma Núpika, a Ktunaxa prophet, lived as a man, took wives, and was revered as a shaman and visionary. These individuals exemplify a long-standing understanding of gender beyond binaries, deeply embedded in Indigenous spiritual and communal life.

In the Pacific Islands, Hawaiian māhū served as teachers and cultural keepers, blending masculine and feminine traits in roles considered vital to their communities. In Samoa, fa’afafine were recognized as a natural and valued part of society. In South Asia, Hijra communities held respected ceremonial roles for centuries, appearing in royal courts and religious rituals as bearers of blessings and fertility. Their existence is recorded as early as the 4th century BCE, long before European colonizers imposed rigid gender codes. Across continents and millennia, gender non-conforming people were present, visible, and often honored—until intolerance began rewriting their stories.

Colonialism, Christianity, and the Rise of Gender Binaries

If gender diversity has always existed, why do so many modern societies insist on strict binaries? The answer lies in the intertwined forces of colonialism and Christianity, which imposed narrow gender definitions as moral and divine law across much of the globe.

In Europe, Christian theology framed gender as fixed and divinely ordained, rooted in literal interpretations of Genesis: “Male and female He created them.” These words were weaponized to declare that only two genders existed and that deviation from this binary was rebellion against God. Early Church councils codified these interpretations into laws punishing gender variance and same-sex love. Gender roles became part of a “natural order,” leaving no space for complexity or authenticity.

As European empires expanded, missionaries carried these doctrines into colonized lands, enforcing binary gender roles where none had existed before. Two-Spirit traditions in North America were condemned as sinful. Indigenous children were taken to Christian boarding schools, stripped of language, culture, and identity. Hijra communities in India, once celebrated, were criminalized under British colonial law in 1871 through the Criminal Tribes Act, influenced by Victorian biblical morality. The spiritual and social roles of gender-diverse people across Africa, Asia, and the Pacific were dismantled under colonial pressure to conform to European Christian norms.

The fusion of scripture and empire transformed biblical interpretation into a weapon of social control. Gender diversity, once sacred, was reframed as sin, deviance, or criminality. This legacy lingers in laws and religious teachings today, where intolerance is still cloaked in divine sanction.

Yet, Christianity is not monolithic. Today, denominations like the United Church of Christ, the Episcopal Church, and numerous Methodist and Lutheran congregations advocate for LGBTQ+ rights. Many re-read scripture as a call to radical love and justice, rejecting its weaponization as a tool of oppression. These voices remind us that faith and gender diversity need not be in conflict—and that spiritual conviction can drive inclusion rather than exclusion.

Modern History and Resistance

Despite centuries of oppression, gender-nonconforming people have persisted, resisting systems that sought to erase them. In 1952, Christine Jorgensen, a U.S. Army veteran, became one of the first transgender women to gain international visibility after undergoing gender-affirming surgery. Her decision to live openly challenged mid-20th-century gender norms and sparked a global conversation about identity.

The 1969 Stonewall Uprising in New York City, led in part by trans women of color like Marsha P. Johnson and Sylvia Rivera, marked a turning point in LGBTQ+ activism. Their courage set the stage for decades of organizing and advocacy aimed at dismantling legal and social barriers to equality.

Recent decades have brought new waves of activism—and backlash. By 2025, more than 25 U.S. states had passed laws banning gender-affirming care for transgender youth. Civil rights groups have filed dozens of lawsuits challenging these bans as unconstitutional. At the federal level, Executive Order 14168 (January 2025) redefined gender as strictly binary and rolled back non-binary passport options. While several parts of the order have been temporarily blocked by courts, its chilling effect on rights is undeniable.

At the same time, grassroots activism is creating change. In Colorado, the Kelly Loving Act—named after a transgender woman murdered in 2022—was enacted in May 2025, strengthening anti-discrimination protections. In Iowa, the repeal of gender identity protections sparked immediate lawsuits, including Finnegan Meadows v. Iowa City Community School District, challenging restroom restrictions for transgender students.

Globally, progress and setbacks coexist. In Hong Kong, activist Henry Edward Tse won a landmark case in 2023 striking down a law requiring surgery for transgender men to update their legal gender. In Scotland, the 2025 case For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers restricted the recognition of trans women under the Equality Act, prompting mass protests. In the U.S., upcoming Supreme Court hearings will determine whether states can ban transgender girls from school sports—a decision likely to affect millions of students. Even within sport, battles continue: in 2025, the U.S. Olympic & Paralympic Committee banned trans women from women’s competitions, sparking anticipated First Amendment and discrimination lawsuits.

As Laverne Cox says, “It is revolutionary for any trans person to choose to be seen and visible in a world that tells us we should not exist.” Every act of resistance—from legal battles to quiet moments of authenticity—is part of a centuries-long movement to reclaim humanity from the forces of erasure.

The Cost of Intolerance

The erasure of gender diversity has never been passive—it has inflicted profound harm on individuals and societies alike. Intolerance manifests in violence, systemic oppression, and emotional trauma that ripple far beyond personal suffering, representing a failure of humanity to honor its own diversity.

Globally, around 1% of adults identify as gender-diverse, rising to nearly 4% among Gen Z. In the United States, an estimated 1.6 million people aged 13 and older identify as transgender. These millions of people live in a world that too often treats their existence as debate material rather than human reality.

For many, safety is never guaranteed. Trans women of color face disproportionate rates of harassment, assault, and murder. Laws rooted in biblical interpretations still deny rights to gender-diverse people—from bathroom access to legal recognition—perpetuating danger and marginalization. The psychological toll is staggering: surveys consistently show higher rates of depression, anxiety, and suicide attempts among gender-diverse populations, not because of their identities, but because living authentically often means surviving relentless hostility.

Even those who avoid overt violence face systemic barriers. Healthcare access is limited, IDs often cannot be changed legally, and discrimination in housing, employment, and education persists worldwide. Societies lose creativity, wisdom, and potential when people are forced to hide who they are, weakening humanity’s collective strength.

Addressing Counterarguments

Debates about gender identity often center on two concerns: whether children are making irreversible decisions too young and whether allowing trans women into women’s spaces threatens safety.

Medical interventions for transgender youth are approached with extreme caution. Most early treatments, like puberty blockers, are reversible, providing time for exploration under professional guidance. Surgeries for minors are exceedingly rare and only proceed under strict medical review. Leading medical organizations worldwide, including the American Academy of Pediatrics and the World Health Organization, support gender-affirming care as life-saving, reducing depression and suicide risks significantly.

Regarding safety in women’s spaces, decades of data from places with trans-inclusive policies show no increase in harm to cisgender women. Criminal behavior remains illegal regardless of gender identity. In fact, transgender people are often at greater risk of violence in public facilities. Exclusionary laws protect no one—they only add to the vulnerability of marginalized communities. Compassionate inclusion doesn’t ignore these concerns; it addresses them with facts, empathy, and policies that protect everyone’s dignity.

A Call for Compassion and Inclusion

The history of gender diversity tells us one thing clearly: gender-nonconforming people are not a problem to be solved. They are part of the rich tapestry of humanity, present in every culture and every era. What needs to change is not them—it’s the systems, ideologies, and choices that make their lives unsafe and invisible.

Compassion must move beyond sentiment into action. It means listening and believing people when they tell you who they are. It means refusing to stay silent when dignity is stripped away and challenging discriminatory laws and rhetoric wherever they arise. It’s showing up to school board meetings, voting for leaders who protect rights, and holding institutions accountable when they harm rather than heal.

Governments can enact and enforce robust non-discrimination laws. Schools can teach accurate history, replacing ignorance with understanding. Faith communities can choose inclusion, living out teachings of love and justice instead of exclusion. Businesses can create workplaces where gender-diverse employees are safe and supported. Inclusion is not charity—it is justice. Freedom loses meaning when it applies to some and not others. A society that polices authenticity cannot claim to value liberty.

Conclusion: Returning to Humanity

Gender diversity is not new, unnatural, or dangerous. What is dangerous is ignorance—the deliberate forgetting of history, the weaponization of scripture to control bodies and identities, and the refusal to see humanity in those who live differently. For thousands of years, gender-nonconforming people like Elagabalus, Ozaawindib, Kaúxuma Núpika, Christine Jorgensen, Marsha P. Johnson, Henry Edward Tse, and countless others have persisted, offering new ways of loving, knowing, and being. Their resilience reveals what freedom truly means.

Maya Angelou once wrote, “We are more alike, my friends, than we are unalike.” This truth cuts through centuries of prejudice and fear. At our core, we all want the same things: to live authentically, to love and be loved, to belong. This is not a radical demand but a fundamental human need. The fight for gender diversity is a fight for a more just and humane world for all. It is a call to build a society where every person can exist without fear, where authenticity is celebrated as a strength rather than condemned as a flaw. It’s time to move beyond the binaries of the past and return to the shared humanity that connects us all.

*This essay was written by Sue Passacantilli and edited by Intellicurean utilizing AI.

Essays

Reclaiming Intellectual Life Within Motherhood

By Renee Dellar, Founder, The Learning Studio, Newport Beach, CA

In homes filled with toy-strewn floors, half-read bedtime stories, and the quiet rituals of care, another kind of cultivation is quietly unfolding: a woman tending both her children and her own mind. For centuries, motherhood has been framed as noble sacrifice—an often invisible labor etched into the margins of cultural discourse. But in 2025, a growing chorus of voices is reviving a different vision. One in which caregiving is not a detour from intellectual life, but its fertile ground.

Two works lead this revival: Karen Andreola’s Mother Culture and Laura Fabrycky’s Motherhood and the Intellectual Life. Each, in their own way, reshapes how we understand the maternal vocation—not as a trade-off between thought and nurture, but as a textured synthesis of both. The intellect, they argue, can live among the ordinary. It can thrive there.

The Domestic as Intellectual Soil

Andreola’s Mother Culture is a quiet revolution disguised as a homemaking guide. Rooted in the Charlotte Mason tradition, an educational philosophy that relies on living stories, literature and engaging with nature, the book encourages mothers to nurture their spiritual and intellectual lives alongside the children they raise. The term “mother culture” describes this practice of personal cultivation within caregiving: reading short chapters, journaling reflections, taking time for beauty and prayer—not as indulgence, but as daily nourishment.

Fabrycky’s Motherhood and the Intellectual Life deepens and broadens the premise. Drawing inspiration from A.G. Sertillanges’s The Intellectual Life, she proposes that intellectual formation is not incompatible with diapers and dinner prep—it may, in fact, be refined by them. Maternal knowing, she argues, is less linear and more contemplative: “a slow epistemology,” where insight emerges through relational rhythms, interruptions, and quiet repetition.

Taken together, these texts offer a radical proposition: that raising children can coexist with the pursuit of meaningful thought—and even become its crucible.

Growth Through the Tension

This vision is not utopian. Fabrycky grapples openly with the fragmented time, emotional exhaustion, and cultural myths that haunt modern motherhood. The notion that one must be endlessly available and self-effacing to be “good” creates a psychic double bind—especially for those who also feel called to write, study, or lead.

A 2025 GBH essay titled “What Does It Mean to Be a Good Mom in 2025?” critiques these cultural pressures and calls for relational authenticity over performative self-sacrifice. Similarly, Amy Shoenthal, writing in Forbes, identifies five emerging trends in maternal identity, including the recognition of unpaid caregiving and the reframing of “career pauses” as formative, not deficient. Both voices echo Andreola’s and Fabrycky’s reframing of homemaking and child-rearing as reflective, generative domains.

Matthew Crawford, in The Hedgehog Review, adds philosophical weight by critiquing the hyper-individualism that isolates mothers from communal meaning. He exposes the autonomy trap—a false promise of liberation that, in practice, leaves caregivers unsupported and intellectually adrift.

Andreola’s response to this fragmentation is practical and merciful. She doesn’t ask for hours of solitude, but twenty minutes a day—a chapter read, a line copied, a prayer whispered. Her method is cumulative, not competitive. Fabrycky reinforces this by insisting that intellectual life shaped by interruptions isn’t inferior—it’s simply different. Perhaps even deeper. A mind accustomed to chaos may grow uniquely capable of synthesis, perception, and grace.

Maternal Knowledge As Intellect

Both authors offer a profound challenge to prevailing epistemologies. Motherhood, in their telling, is not only a form of care, but a form of knowledge—a way of seeing, sensing, and interpreting the world through embodied, relational experience.

Fabrycky names this “maternal knowing,” a quiet but potent resistance to systems that privilege abstraction, quantification, and speed. It is its own category of intellect.

This view finds broader support. In The Journal of Futures Studies, the 2025 essay “Mother, Motherhood, Mothering” uses the Futures Triangle framework to propose mothering as a disruptive force within systems of power. It highlights interdependence, memory, and ancestral wisdom, and calls for “care-full academic spaces” that honor the knowledge generated in relationship.

Andreola, while less overtly political, participates in this resistance through recovery. Her invitation to read poetry, observe nature, and write in stolen moments is not escapism—it is restoration. She sees the home not merely as a workplace, but as a sanctuary of moral imagination.

Kate Lucky’s Comment essay, “Consider the Zoo,” resonates deeply here. Reflecting on containment and longing, Lucky honors domestic life as sacred terrain. Through metaphor and meditation, she illustrates how the architecture of the home—though often confining—can also be spiritually expansive. She, like Andreola, affirms that a richly cultivated mother begets a richly cultivated home.

Motherhood And The Technological Bind

In 2025, new tools offer both hope and hazard. AI tutors, digital reading groups, and remote learning platforms create flexible ways for mothers to remain intellectually engaged. But they also threaten to erode the quiet margins in which thought can truly root.

Editorialge’s “Motherhood in 2025” outlines this double bind. Technology promises convenience, but also expects omnipresence. It can enable, but it can also overwhelm. The modern mother may feel pressure not only to mother well, but to optimize the experience—socially, intellectually, emotionally, and aesthetically.

Andreola responds with a counter-rhythm. Her practice of “mother culture” requires no devices, no tracking apps, no metrics—just twenty minutes and an open soul. Fabrycky, too, advocates what she calls “sacred margins”: spaces where rest and contemplation are guarded from digital encroachment. Whether reading a psalm or journaling in twilight, these acts reclaim time not as commodity, but as communion.

This is an intellectual life that resists acceleration. One rooted not in productivity, but in attention.

Theological Embodiment

Beneath both texts lies a theological current. Andreola’s work is explicitly faith-based, casting motherhood as a sacramental calling. She ties personal growth to spiritual rhythms, blending domesticity with liturgy. Fabrycky’s theology is more implicit, but no less rich. She draws on incarnational motifs—suggesting that just as Christ entered time, mothers enter it fully, redemptively, lovingly.

Paul Kingsnorth, writing in First Things, critiques empire-building models of Christianity and calls instead for mystical humility. It is a useful lens for understanding maternal life. In resisting the culture of achievement, mothers enact a kind of mysticism: the shaping of souls not through acclaim, but through sandwiches and lullabies.

Plough Quarterly’s “Autonomy Trap” extends this idea. The essay argues that liberal autonomy undermines moral formation and calls for renewed celebration of dependency and mutual obligation. Mothers, whose daily lives revolve around interdependence, know this deeply. Their labor is not a retreat from intellectual life—it is its lived expression.

Even empirical research backs this. A 2025 study published by the APA, titled “Nurturing Now, Thriving Later,” found that maternal warmth fosters personality traits associated with intellectual openness and conscientiousness. Far from being anti-intellectual, caregiving becomes a crucible of human formation—for both parent and child.

Reimagining Flourishing

The question, then, is not whether mothers can be intellectuals. It is whether society can reimagine what intellectual life actually looks like.

Both Andreola and Fabrycky challenge the false binary between academic scholarship and domesticity. Intellectual flourishing, they argue, need not wear robes or require citations. It can live in a threadbare armchair, beside a half-finished sketch, or in a whispered poem before lights-out.

Joseph Keegin, writing in Point Magazine, coined the term “commit lit” to describe literature that shapes the soul—not just the intellect. This is the literature of mothers: clarifying, sustaining, quietly transformative. It is what Andreola asks women to read—not for utility, but for delight and reflection. The habit itself becomes a philosophy.

Andreola’s readers praise her for practicality: short chapters, gentle prompts, and the conviction that the inner life matters—even if cultivated between errands and lunchboxes. Fabrycky echoes this, calling us to reject the tired binaries of ambition versus nurture, head versus heart. In doing so, she articulates a vision of womanhood that is fully integrated—thinking, feeling, forming, and formed.

Conclusion

To speak of motherhood as intellectually fruitful is not to romanticize its trials. It is to honor its inherent generativity.

A mother tends more than bodies and schedules. She tends minds, questions, values, and souls. Her daily life is strewn with philosophical inquiry: What does love require when exhausted? How should justice look between siblings? What is the rhythm of truth-telling in a bedtime ritual?

This is not incidental. It is profound.

Karen Andreola’s Mother Culture affirms the mother not only as caregiver, but as curator of wisdom. Through short chapters and gentle urgings, she equips women to reclaim the interior life—to read, think, pray, and study amidst the hum of the washing machine and the chaos of toddler negotiations. It is philosophy shelved among the laundry. Theology scribbled between school pick-ups.

Laura Fabrycky extends this sacred motif, framing motherhood as epistemology itself. In her vision, maternal knowledge is slow and embodied—shaped by noise, honed through disruption. It is knowledge with fingerprints, and fingerprints with knowledge.

Culture often demands a choice: between ambition and nurture, visibility and devotion. But this is a false binary. The intellectually vibrant mother is not the exception—she is the mirror. Her search for meaning, amid fractured time, is no less rigorous than that of the cloistered scholar. It may, in fact, be more so.

With new tools, communal voices, and literary recoveries blooming in 2025, the conditions are ripe for reframing. Writers, theologians, educators, and artists are clearing space for caregiving not as an interruption of intellect, but as its generative soil.

The mother who lights a candle for evening reading, who sketches thoughts between lessons, who whispers poetry over lunch—is not delaying her intellectual life. She is living it. And in doing so, she is cultivating a garden of wisdom whose fruits will shape families, culture, and the age to come.

She is, in every way, a thinker.

And the home—far from a site of confinement—is one of the most intellectually fertile landscapes of all.

THIS ESSAY WAS WRITTEN BY RENEE DELLAR UTILIZING AI

Culture, Essays

The Evils Of Rationalism

COMMENTARY MAGAZINE (March 14, 2025):

Late last year, when Luigi Mangione was arrested and charged with the murder of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson, something unexpected happened: A lot of people praised him for his actions, elevating Mangione to the status of secular saint for gunning down a man in cold blood. Both on social-media platforms, where he was hailed as a folk hero, and in person outside the New York City courthouse where dozens if not hundreds of supporters waved “Free Luigi” signs, a disturbingly large number of people seemed to be in agreement with Mangione’s claim, in the three-page manifesto found among his belongings, that “frankly, these parasites simply had it coming.”

Mangione’s views aren’t simply run-of-the-mill anti-capitalist rantings. They are grounded in part in the principles of the so-called Rationalist movement. Like many Rationalist (also called Gray Tribe) enthusiasts, Mangione is from a wealthy family, has an advanced degree, and has worked in the tech industry. He shares with the Gray Tribe an obsession with AI and some of ideas that the progression of artificial intelligence has brought to the fore.

————————————

Similarly, a culture that embraces the idea that anything is fluid—even one’s own physical body or biological sex or even one’s reality—has a hard time making the case for limits. What comes to take the place of that case is an understanding of the world that says a man can become a hero for fatally shooting someone he doesn’t even know on a New York City street corner. Right now, it may go by the name of Rationalism, but it’s something older and deeper and more terrifying.

READ MORE

Christine Rosen is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

Culture, Essays, Social Media

Social Media: Instagram – Is Life Online Real?

YALE REVIEW (March 10, 2025)

Reality is a medium, and I’m thumbing through it. I’m on Instagram, where a video is a “Reel.” I land on an influencer who eats upsetting amounts of food and then runs until he has burned off all the calories. In this video, he eats eleven thousand calories of Taco Bell and then runs eighty-plus miles across thirteen-plus hours, posting a screenshot of his fitness tracker to prove it. He intersperses footage of himself on the toilet, audio included. He has posted dozens of videos using this formula. More than 140,000 people follow him.

What, exactly, is happening to me, my self, and my reality when I scroll on Instagram?

Without Instagram, I never would have seen something like this happen; in fact, it never would have happened at all. It’s a performance conducted by an individual but also the product of billions of human inputs. Our participation on social media as both creators and viewers trains the algorithms that organize their content, and these algorithms shape our tastes in turn. The influencers and the feeds they populate evolve together, recursively.

In the digital, reality, like scroll, becomes more verb than noun.

We are not even two decades into a vast, largely unregulated experiment in human psychology. This blur of experience, a composite of varied partial glimpses, is not something I or any of us evolved to digest. All these people, all these loops. I think of my baby nephew. Even in our one-to-one conversations on FaceTime, we inevitably shape his expectations of the real, setting a baseline for his neuroplastic brain that’s so tremendously different than mine. In the digital, reality, like scroll, becomes more verb than noun. Reality doesn’t merely exist; reality reels. My nephew will never know otherwise.

I’m haunted by that video of the runner. I thumb back up to find it, pop over to his profile. I see that in his more recent videos, he has begun challenging friends and strangers to eat-offs: a new shape for the performance. I’m grossed out and keep watching. I should know better, but I can’t help myself.

Jesse Damiani is a writer, curator, and foresight strategist. He hosts the Urgent Futures podcast and writes the Reality Studies newsletter.

Essays, History, Politics

Politics & History: ‘The Gilded Age Never Ended’

THE NEW YORKER MAGAZINE (February 24, 2025):

When, in the nineteen-nineties, people decided that we were living in a new Gilded Age, the meaning was plain. The term, borrowed from the 1873 Mark Twain novel of the same name—a mediocre book by a great writer with a memorable title, like Anthony Trollope’s “The Way We Live Now”—indicated an efflorescence of wealth and display, of overabundance and nouveau-riche excess. It referred mostly to the Veblenian side of American life: status competition through showy objects, from the cloud-level duplexes of the New York skyline to the Met Gala. Perhaps not enough attention was paid to the original concept, which implied a contrast between the truly golden and the merely gilded.

Hierarchies of power are intrinsic to human societies, no doubt, and sometimes the best we can hope for is that those on top become devoted to a higher ideal of education or common welfare or simple beauty.

What we didn’t anticipate was that our new Gilded Age would become even more like its precursor—not only in the seeming concentration of overwhelming wealth into fewer and fewer hands but in the gravitation toward a plutocracy. In the industrial age, the totemic figures were Frick and Morgan and Rockefeller; in our post-industrial era, they are Bezos and Musk and Zuckerberg. During that first Gilded Age—if we imagine it running from the eighteen-seventies to 1910—a counter cast of characters had a glamorous appeal of their own. These were the anarchists, whose isolated but highly publicized acts of individual retaliation were intended as inspirational melodramatic theatre rather than as actual revolutionary politics. In these years, anarchists claimed the lives of a French President, an American President, an Italian king, and a Russian tsar, and threw bombs at several American tycoons. Whether or not Luigi Mangione’s recent alleged murder of a helpless insurance executive on a cold New York morning belongs to this tradition, its affect and effect certainly evoke the past, with the curly-haired Ivy-educated youth conferring, in the realm of social media, an improbable aura of martyrdom and purpose on what otherwise would have seemed a sordid act.

READ MORE

Culture, Essays

‘The Commitment To Collaborate’ (Essay)

AEON (February 22, 2025): Every week at the office, you and your fellow employees have meetings to discuss progress on group projects and to divide tasks efficiently. Perhaps in the evening, you go home and cook dinner with your partner. At least once in your life, you might have seen a team of firefighters work together to extinguish a fire at a burning house and rescue those inside. You have probably also witnessed or participated in political demonstrations aimed at bettering the treatment of those in need. These are all examples of human cooperation toward a mutually beneficial end. Some of them seem so commonplace that we rarely think of them as anything special. Yet they are. It is not obvious that any of the other great ape species cooperate in such a way – spontaneously and with individuals they have never before met. Though there has been some evidence of cooperation in other great apes, the interpretation of studies on ape cooperation has also been contested. In the human case, cooperation is unequivocal.

One crafts a spear head, the other crafts a shaft. To do so, they need some means of communicating

The evolution of cooperation has been of interest to biologists, philosophers and anthropologists for centuries. If natural selection favours self-interest, why would we cooperate at an apparent cost to ourselves? You might say that none of these examples is costly; they all benefit the person cooperating as well as the recipient of the cooperation. This is true, but there is still a puzzle to solve. If I can reduce the cost of cooperating by deception – pretending to pull my weight in the group project or in the rescue mission – and still reap the benefits, why would I not do so? This is known as the ‘free-rider’ problem.

READ MORE

Saira Khan is a research associate in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Bristol in the UK, working on Samir Okasha’s Representing Evolution project.

Culture, Essays, Social Media

‘Americans Are Trapped In An Algorithmic Cage’

THE ATLANTIC MAGAZINE (February 7, 2025): Shortly before President George W. Bush was reelected, in 2004, an anonymous Bush-administration source told The New York Times, “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.” Those in what the adviser called “the reality-based community” would be left “studying that reality—judiciously, as you will.” Then “we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out.”

The private companies in control of social-media networks possess an unprecedented ability to manipulate and control the populace.

Arrogant as this declaration was, I now wonder whether it was merely premature. Although Bush won the 2004 election, reality came crashing down rather rapidly—Bush’s agenda failed in Congress, the American people came to view the war in Iraq as needless folly, Republicans lost control of Congress in 2006, and the economy tumbled into the Great Recession in 2008, after which Democrats recaptured control of the White House.

READ MORE