December 4 2015. Yet another truly electrifying flying-machine

AN AIRCRAFT DOESN’T HAVE TO BE EITHER FIXED WING OR A HELICOPTER

IT CAN BE BOTH

CRAZY? MAYBE NOT

As I comment fairly frequently, much of life is a battle between the status quo and the innovators (with most people just going with the flow). The status quo do just fine out of the world being the way it is—and resist change with some ferocity—whereas the innovators want to change things (and tend to be tiresome, troublesome people who seem to take a positive delight in wrecking comfort zones). Some are even writers.

When considered this way, it is hard not to sympathize with the status quo. After all, who wants to leave the comfort of a perfectly good cave and go to all that bother to build something out of trees, stones, mud, and things which is probably not nearly as waterproof—let alone likely to be trampled on by some absent-minded dinosaur with no respect for private property? Damned troublemakers!

One even suggested burning food using that fire stuff that lightning makes! What’s wrong with raw rabbit anyway. Natural has to be better.

Where flying is concerned—scarcely a natural occupation if you are a human—but fascinating unless you are using an airline—I have long held to certain beliefs.

• Long runways are a pain. They make flying much more of a hassle than it need be. You should be able to take off and land vertically (or in very short distances).
• Wings are long, bulky things—but really cool and energy efficient. They even work pretty well without engines (though finding a place to land can be tricky).
• Biplanes are astonishingly efficient as long as you don’t want to go very fast. We need to look at them again. You can take of and land in very short distances with them.
• Helicopters are marvelous but spend their time trying to shake themselves to pieces. Vibration is a serious problem. They are also incredibly complex, hard to maintain, expensive, and they suffer from speed limitations. There has to be a better way. That said, I love helicopters. There is something particularly cool about just hovering
• Airships are wonderful—but a whole separate subject.
• Aircraft engines, as a rule, are far too noisy. I don’t mind a little noise (but too much disturbs my writing).
• Electric motors strike me as being the way to go for low speed flying. They are quiet, are mechanically simpler, and tend to have unusually powerful torque. They also lend themselves to mass production. Add in a better battery or some hybrid option (both wouldn’t hurt)—and what’s not to like.

Clearly serial entrepreneur JoeBen Bevirt is telepathic.  The following story from the ever inspirational www.gizmag.com is food for the soul.

 Joby's wild 16-rotor convertible aircraft for long-range, high-speed, electric VTOL commuting

• Loz Blain
• December 1, 2015

Personal electric VTOL (vertical take off and landing) commuting may not be far off, thanks to accelerating improvements in battery technology. Joby Aviation has put forward an incredible two-seater plane concept that uses 12 tilting electric propellers to provide multirotor-style balanced VTOL capabilities. Once it reaches cruising speeds, these rotors fold away into aerodynamic bullet shapes, and the aircraft can reach speeds of up to 200 mph (322 km/h) and ranges of up to 200 miles using four additional cruise-optimized props on the backs of the wings and tail fins.

Serial entrepreneur JoeBen Bevirt made his name selling innovative bendy camera accessories under the Joby brand. Nifty jiggers, I've got a Gorillapod myself. In 2008, he branched out into renewable energy with a focus on airborne wind turbines under the Joby Energy brand.

The control systems and electric generators required to get the flying wind generators running produced a lot of technology relevant to another rapidly developing field – electric aviation – so Joby Aviation and Joby Motors were born.

The aviation company's first aircraft concept is an absolute cracker in the form of an electric twin-seat tilt-rotor capable of VTOL as well as high speed, long-range flight.

Taking advantage of the speed, responsiveness and efficiency of electric motors, the Joby S2 features no less than 16 propellers along its thin, forward-swept wings and V-shaped tail. Because electric motors are so quick and torquey, they're fixed-pitch propellers requiring no collective or cyclic control like that used by helicopters.

Twelve of those props are tilting designs that can face upwards to provide balanced, multirotor-styled vertical lift for takeoff and landing, then tilt forward to develop forward thrust and get you moving. They're also designed for low tip speeds to keep takeoff as quiet as possible, and having 12 of them on board gives you plenty of redundancy if a motor or two fails.

This kind of tilting electric multirotor action has recently been proven by NASA's GL-10 "Greased Lightning" prototype, but once you reach cruising speed, the Joby S2 has another trick up its sleeve; all 12 tilting props fold away into bullet-shaped pods for minimal drag, and four thinner rotors take over. These are cruise-optimized fixed-pitch propellers located on the backs of the wingtips and tailfins.

In cruise configuration, the S2 is designed for a 200 mph (322 km/h) top speed, which is much higher than, for example, the 120 mph (193 km/h) a Robinson R22 helicopter can manage, and some 60 mph (97 km/h) quicker than the cruising speed of a Cessna 172, the most common fixed-wing aircraft in production.

Running on lithium nickel cobalt manganese oxide batteries, the range would be around 200 miles (322 km) before you hit the 45-minute reserve mandated by the FAA. Range can be boosted by taking off and landing runway-style instead of VTOL, and since every prop on the plane is connected to an electric motor, there's some possibility of using ambient wind to put some power back into the battery when the aircraft is on the ground.

Joby believes it can produce the S2 for a price around the US$200,000 mark, and due to its fully electric operation, running costs should be a fraction of what a typical helicopter requires.

So what you've got is a two-seater with the convenience of a helicopter, the redundancy, stability and reduced noise of a 12-prop multirotor, the efficiency and low maintenance of an electric, and top speed figures closer to what fixed wings can achieve. A remarkable design that's only possible because of the rise and rise of lithium battery technology and high power electric motors.

It's an extraordinary design, by a true innovator with a well documented knack for starting very successful companies, so we wouldn't be surprised if the Joby Aviation team gets this one off the ground, so to speak. We sure hope so.

Check out some computer animation of the concept in the video below.

Source: Joby Aviation

---

 

December 3 2015. “The uniqueness of Reaction’s brainchild is largely founded on an ability to accommodate both space and air modes of travel in one engine.”

SOME TRULY ASTONISHING DEVELOPMENTS ARE TAKING PLACE IN AVIATION RIGHT NOW.

THE UK’S REACTION ENGINES MAY BE ONE OF THEM. BAE HAVE JUST BOUGHT INTO THEM. THEIR ENGINE SOUNDS TOO FANTASTIC TO BE TRUE—BUT, IF IT WORKS…HYPERSONIC, HERE WE COME!

I retain a great interest in aviation matters for a variety of related reasons:

• Many of the books I read while growing up were aviation based—starting off with Biggles. They were exciting and inspirational—terrific stuff.
• I’m seriously interested in military matters generally—and aviation is of key importance there.
• I have my own strong views about military aviation—particularly in relation to land warfare—and plan to incorporate them in a novel in the future.
• I have had quite a few aviation based adventures—with the high point being flown in an Apache AH-64 attack helicopter—both by day and by night. It was a life-changing experience for a whole host of reasons—and I met some very special people through it.
• I was involved with a completely fascinating project based upon using a supergun to fire supplies and other material into space—as an alternative to using rockets—in the 90s. It never happened but it still could. The supergun was my first introduction to the concept of hypersonic speed (and SCRAMJETS! We authors get around!
• I love technology—and some of the most exciting developments are happening in aviation technology.
• I’m always on the prowl for a good story.

Let me quote from the Daily Telegraph of November 29 2015.

British technology company to 'transform' air and space travel with pioneering new engine design

Reaction Engines says its invention will allow airliners to fly at five times the speed of sound

For a small technology company trying to revolutionise low-cost commercial space travel, the sale of a minority stake to aerospace giant BAE Systems could turn out to be the defining moment in its quest.

Its Sabre engines for commercial air travel can go from zero to five times the speed of sound, and up to 25 times the speed of sound for space travel.

Experts believe hypersonic air travel could enable people to one day journey anywhere in the world within four hours. At Reaction Engines, based in Oxfordshire, they think this could be a reality within 10 to 15 years.

However, before last month’s deal, Reaction was a highly respected research business, but with limited funding had been effectively stuck as a start-up since its foundation in 1989.

Now, with the backing of a major strategic partner, the 75-employee company and its team of rocket scientists should be course to expand their orbit.

With BAE’s backing and an additional government funding commitment of £60m, Reaction will be able to move to the next critical engineering development stage, while remaining an independent company.

Guiding its “unique” Sabre engine concept towards a seminal breakthrough has been an evolutionary experience.

Recently-installed managing director Mark Thomas admits the deal took time. “They [BAE Systems] have put in £21m, which implies the company is valued at £100m,” he says.

“I spent much of the five months I’ve been here working on that process. It was very clear to me that we needed a big industrial aerospace company and one of the key capabilities we were looking for was systems integration.

“It’s a combination of jet engine technologies and rocket technologies, so actually it’s a complex system (requiring everything to function as one unit). When we looked at organisations with that ability, BAE Systems were top of the list.”

With hindsight, his arrival in May was ideally timed. A Cambridge engineering graduate, Thomas has spent a quarter of a century working in the defence and civil aerospace divisions of Rolls-Royce.

His previous position was as a chief engineer in the industrial giant’s civil aerospace arm, making engines for super-jumbo jets. Prior to that, he held similar posts working on the Typhoon fighter and the Trent 900 jet engine that powers the world’s largest passenger airliner, the Airbus A380.

Mark Thomas, of Reaction Engines, says the company's Sabre rocket engine will enable airliners to fly at five times the speed of sound 

The uniqueness of Reaction’s brainchild is largely founded on an ability to accommodate both space and air modes of travel in one engine.

Thomas describes the company’s Sabre – or Synergetic Air-Breathing Rocket Engine – as “the next big thing”. When might it become reality?

“I think we are at the start of a fantastic ride. It really is the start of something very big.”

The intent is to double in size in the next two years. Even with 150 highly qualified people, Reaction will probably need to stretch that figure to complete the programme, something Thomas is content to admit.

I think we are at the start of a fantastic ride. It really is the start of something very big

Mark Thomas, CEO, Reaction Engines

It remains a business without a product, yet it has no immediate funding requirement beyond its faithful private and institutional investors, the Government’s pledge, revenue from two fabrication subsidiaries and its new partner’s stake-holding. There was a key turning point in 2012, when the company demonstrated the enabling technology that is the key to its concept.

“Many people – and I would say Rolls-Royce included – did not believe that would be possible,” Thomas reveals. “That triggered the government interest and the work that’s been done since, not just by the company but also with (validation from) the European Space Agency and the US Air Force Research Laboratory. That has given BAE Systems the confidence to join.

“If we can get the Sabre engine demonstrated, then there is no end to the possibilities – and we are not able, here and now, to predict all of those things – but there’s a hell of a lot to look forward to.”

Ultimately, Reaction Engines will need to the viability of Sabre’s possible applications, whether for traditional airlines or those trying to conquer space travel such as SpaceX, the US spacecraft designer headed by business magnate Elon Musk, which Thomas views as a potential customer.

Given the slower than expected uptake of the A380 super-jumbo, what sort of customers will be in the market for hypersonic engines that propel planes at five times the speed of sound?

“The A380 example is a great one,” Thomas counters. “It was an extremely bold step for Airbus to take. In contemplating an aircraft like an A380 they clearly saw a market opportunity, and it’s not sold as quickly as perhaps predicted.

“But if you look at an airline like Emirates, it is clearly showing how you can build almost an entire airline around a product like the A380. They’ve changed the long-haul concept through that product.

“Time is critical. What we’ll see with hypersonic air travel, and it’s clearly a long way out there, is that it gives people that option of travelling anywhere in the world within four hours. That would be a fantastic offering and we believe there is a market for that.

“This is a really versatile propulsion system that we’re developing. It is an air-breathing rocket engine that can go from zero to five times the speed of sound and for the space-access variant, 25 times the speed of sound, and has a huge range of operation. The other advantage of this engine is that it’s highly scaleable.”

The ability to up or down-size the concept is undoubtedly a trump card. Reaction has already studied a large “civil high-speed air transport vehicle”. It seats 300 people, on a par with larger versions of Boeing’s twin engine 787 Dreamliner.

“There would be a business case for a vehicle of that nature,” Thomas contends. “It doesn’t preclude you doing something that could be a step towards that. I think really the defining moment is going to be when we test the first engine. We’re planning to do that by the end of this decade.”

Thomas estimates that the world is 10-15 years away from commercial space flight. Returning to comparisons with SpaceX and other rocket engineers, he acknowledges Musk’s ultimate goal of enabling people to live on other planets, but points to a key differentiator.

“We don’t see them as competitors because they’re working with the current generation of rocket technologies. They’re doing great things, I have huge admiration for SpaceX. But what we are doing is pitching ourselves as the next generation.

“I actually look at those guys and say they will be our customers one day. They will come to us for an engine or we will work with them to help deliver a vehicle concept.

“We don’t see anybody working on anything like Sabre. To do something with a single propulsion system is the dream ticket.

“We are in a prime position at the moment and we have to exploit that for us, for UK industry, for the next generation of engineers and scientists.”

Does the sheer magnitude of the opportunity mean the company is likely to end up being fully acquired by a much larger enterprise in the future?

“We haven’t written the script for how this is going to go,” he says. “But we do know that to develop the entirety of this engine, and certainly a product that it’s going to power is not going to be done by Reaction Engines as an independent company.

“We see us being in some form of bigger industry collaboration and/or another company. But it’s way too early for us to be making predictions on that,” says Thomas.

---

December 2 2015. We need to subject the injured to much misery in order to save them. It’s the American way.

I HAVE LONG BEEN SCEPTICAL OF THE RAPID EVACUATION OF THE WOUNDED—OFTEN OVER VERY CONSIDERABLE DISTANCES—BY AIR

It suits the system—and makes for good public relations—but does it suit the patient?

WHY SO? BECAUSE FLYING (as most of us know first-hand) EVEN WHEN YOU ARE FIT AND WELL, IS PHYSICALLY STRESSFUL—JUST IN ITSELF.

Read and sweat. How many have been harmed in this macho, thoughtless, way? It is a very large number.

Why evacuating wounded troops by air might do more harm than good

By Thomas Gibbons-Neff November 30 at 12:01 AM

Over the last 15 years, the United States has flown its wounded troops out of combat zones to hospitals around the globe. The logic: get those hurt in places where medical supplies are limited to places where they are not. The fastest way to do this? By air.

Yet according to a new, first-of-its-kind study conducted by the University of Maryland School of Medicine, rapid air evacuation has the potential to cause more damage to those patients suffering from an extremely prevalent battlefield affliction–traumatic brain injury.

More than 330,000 U.S. service members have suffered from traumatic brain injuries, one of the leading causes of death and disability for those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, according to the study that was published Monday in The Journal of Neurotrama.

[In Afghanistan, a series of attacks on Americans in ‘non-combat’ operations]

The study, funded by a $2.5 million U.S. Air Force grant, was helmed by Alan Faden, a professor of anesthesiology at the University of Maryland School of Medicine.

---

December 1 2015. Intelligence is a fine thing—but it is very far from enough

WRITING IS HUGELY ABOUT DEALING WITH FAILURE—BECAUSE YOU RARELY WRITE QUITE AS WELL AS YOU FEEL YOU COULD—IF ONLY YOU COULD PUSH YOURSELF A LITTLE MORE!

ON TOP OF THAT, WRITERS (MOST OF US ANYWAY) HAVE TO DEAL WITH REJECTION—AND A GREAT DEAL OF IT AT THAT.

According to Dweck, success in life is all about how you deal with failure. She describes the approach to failure of people with the growth mindset this way,

“Failure is information—we label it failure, but it’s more like, ‘This didn’t work, and I’m a problem solver, so I’ll try something else.’”

As if all of that wasn’t enough, it’s a financially insecure and generally badly paid occupation—and it can take years, if not decades, to become really professional at it.

So why do we do it?

Because, if you are a writer, it is the most satisfying occupation in the world—and virtually impossible to explain to someone who isn’t a fellow writer (in which case you don’t have to).

You need a very particular mindset to make it as an author—and the stoicism of Marcus Aurelius. The following piece describes it well.

Truly successful mass-market writers (a remarkably small group) make a great deal of money, but most writers—even those of us who make a living out of it—live on a relative pittance.

Money is not the point. Like any normal human being, we would like reasonable lives,but money is not the objective.

Writing is. It is sheer, visceral, high-octane joy.

 

Why Attitude Is More Important Than Intelligence

entrepreneur.com

Travis Bradberry

Contributor & Co-author of Emotional Intelligence 2.0 and President at TalentSmart

When it comes to success, it’s easy to think that people blessed with brains are inevitably going to leave the rest of us in the dust. But new research from Stanford University will change your mind (and your attitude).

Psychologist Carol Dweck has spent her entire career studying attitude and performance, and her latest study shows that your attitude is a better predictor of your success than your IQ.

Dweck found that people’s core attitudes fall into one of two categories: a fixed mindset or a growth mindset.

With a fixed mindset, you believe you are who you are and you cannot change. This creates problems when you’re challenged because anything that appears to be more than you can handle is bound to make you feel hopeless and overwhelmed.

People with a growth mindset believe that they can improve with effort. They outperform those with a fixed mindset, even when they have a lower IQ, because they embrace challenges, treating them as opportunities to learn something new. 

Common sense would suggest that having ability, like being smart, inspires confidence. It does, but only while the going is easy. The deciding factor in life is how you handle setbacks and challenges. People with a growth mindset welcome setbacks with open arms. 

According to Dweck, success in life is all about how you deal with failure. She describes the approach to failure of people with the growth mindset this way,

“Failure is information—we label it failure, but it’s more like, ‘This didn’t work, and I’m a problem solver, so I’ll try something else.’”

Regardless of which side of the chart you fall on, you can make changes and develop a growth mindset. What follows are some strategies that will fine-tune your mindset and help you make certain it’s as growth oriented as possible.

 

Don’t stay helpless.

We all hit moments when we feel helpless. The test is how we react to that feeling. We can either learn from it and move forward or let it drag us down. There are countless successful people who would have never made it if they had succumbed to feelings of helplessness: Walt Disney was fired from the Kansas City Star because he “lacked imagination and had no good ideas,” Oprah Winfrey was fired from her job as a TV anchor in Baltimore for being “too emotionally invested in her stories,” Henry Ford had two failed car companies prior to succeeding with Ford, and Steven Spielberg was rejected by USC’s Cinematic Arts School multiple times. Imagine what would have happened if any of these people had a fixed mindset. They would have succumbed to the rejection and given up hope. People with a growth mindset don’t feel helpless because they know that in order to be successful, you need to be willing to fail hard and then bounce right back.

 

Be passionate.

Empowered people pursue their passions relentlessly. There’s always going to be someone who’s more naturally talented than you are, but what you lack in talent, you can make up for in passion. Empowered people’s passion is what drives their unrelenting pursuit of excellence. Warren Buffet recommends finding your truest passions using, what he calls, the 5/25 technique: Write down the 25 things that you care about the most. Then, cross out the bottom 20. The remaining 5 are your true passions. Everything else is merely a distraction.

 

Take action.

It’s not that people with a growth mindset are able to overcome their fears because they are braver than the rest of us; it’s just that they know fear and anxiety are paralyzing emotions and that the best way to overcome this paralysis is to take action. People with a growth mindset are empowered, and empowered people know that there’s no such thing as a truly perfect moment to move forward. So why wait for one? Taking action turns all your worry and concern about failure into positive, focused energy.

 

Then go the extra mile (or two).

Empowered people give it their all, even on their worst days. They’re always pushing themselves to go the extra mile. One of Bruce Lee’s pupils ran three miles every day with him. One day, they were about to hit the three-mile mark when Bruce said, “Let’s do two more.” His pupil was tired and said, “I’ll die if I run two more.” Bruce’s response? “Then do it.” His pupil became so angry that he finished the full five miles. Exhausted and furious, he confronted Bruce about his comment, and Bruce explained it this way: “Quit and you might as well be dead. If you always put limits on what you can do, physical or anything else, it’ll spread over into the rest of your life. It’ll spread into your work, into your morality, into your entire being. There are no limits. There are plateaus, but you must not stay there; you must go beyond them. If it kills you, it kills you. A man must constantly exceed his level.”

If you aren’t getting a little bit better each day, then you’re most likely getting a little worse—and what kind of life is that?

 

Expect results.

People with a growth mindset know that they’re going to fail from time to time, but they never let that keep them from expecting results. Expecting results keeps you motivated and feeds the cycle of empowerment. After all, if you don’t think you’re going to succeed, then why bother?

 

Be flexible.

Everyone encounters unanticipated adversity. People with an empowered, growth-oriented mindset embrace adversity as a means for improvement, as opposed to something that holds them back. When an unexpected situation challenges an empowered person, they flex until they get results.

 

Don’t complain when things don’t go your way.

Complaining is an obvious sign of a fixed mindset. A growth mindset looks for opportunity in everything, so there’s no room for complaints.

 

Bringing it all together

By keeping track of how you respond to the little things, you can work every day to keep yourself on the right side of the chart above.

December 2 2015. Mirror, mirror, on the wall—where do the richest take it all? The U.S,, it would appear.

THE MOST INTERESTING CHART BELOW IS THE BOTTOM ONE WHICH SHOWS MEDIAN WEALTH PER ADULT.

IT DEMONSTRATES THE ABSOLUTE FAILURE OF THE ‘WINNER-TAKES-ALL’  AMERICAN BUSINESS MODEL

USA $49,787

NETHERLANDS $74,659

CANADA $74,750

FRANCE $86,156

JAPAN $96,071

NORWAY $119,634

UK $126,472

BELGIUM $150,348

I’m not arguing in favor of income equality or against capitalism. I am arguing, pragmatically rather than ideologically, in favor of what works for most people financially, seems like a reasonable and fair balance of interests, and promotes—as a minimum—an adequate quality of life for all concerned (with a little progress thrown in for good measure).

The American Business Model (Crony Capitalism) doesn’t do that. The Northern European Business Model (Social Capitalism) largely does.

The more data I collect, the clearer the picture becomes. The plight of the typical American is becoming increasingly serious. Roughly two-thirds are living paycheck to paycheck—with no reserves available in case of some setback. Costs are going up—pay is static or in decline. Personal debt and economic risk are ever increasing. The prospect of poverty hovers.

Americans, on average, live sicker, and die about two years sooner. The life-span of poorer Americans is actually diminishing.

Such growth as there is goes to the ultra-rich.

But does anything change in the U.S?

Remarkably little where the ABM is concerned. And the Republican promotes more tax breaks for the rich.

Let me introduce some data from Paul Krugman.

Many wealthy white conservative males believe that hard work is the reason for their great fortunes. But for every ONE DOLLAR in safety net programs, SIX DOLLARS goes to tax expenditures, tax underpayments, tax havens, and corporate nonpayment. For many privileged Americans, denial is easier than facing the fact that the hardest workers are those who have to fight their way up from the bottom.

The American Tragedy continues.

---

November 30 2015. What do you think—or do you? Instinct or education?Words or pictures? Rationality or emotion? Where are we heading in a world of informational overload, emotional visual short-cuts, and an inability to focus?

WORDS ARE MY BUSINESS SO I REGARD THIS INFOGRAM WITH SOME HORROR (though it is fascinating)

My god—we’re back to drawings on cave walls!

I WORRY GREATLY ABOUT OUR ABILITY TO REASON RATIONALLY. WE THINK WE KNOW HOW TO THINK, BUT DO WE? I AM FAR FROM CONVINCED.

I will admit that I am strongly biased in favor of the following.

• Verbal communication—particularly when the discussion is fact-based, reasoned, two-way, and leads to some kind of conclusion with the parties concerned being wiser,
• Written communication because it allows for focus, detail, context, complexity, nuance, reflection, full use of the imagination, consideration over time, depth, perspective, and can constitute, if required, a permanent record. While giving full credit to the power and efficacy of shorter pieces, I believe writing is at its very best in the form of a book.

But—being a book-writer—I would say that, wouldn’t I?

Very true—but, not only am I admitting my biases up front, but, let me be clear, I was a reader before I became a writer so my sentiments are genuine. I regard books as absolutely extraordinary, and like the creativity which drives the writer, a force of truly remarkable power—though, sadly, much under-utilized.

I have a strong suspicion that the answers to most of the issues that plague the human condition are already out there in written form.

I admire and enjoy the visual also, but find it more emotional (unless balanced by text)—so less suitable for explaining or developing the logic of the argument (whatever that my be). As a consequence I see the current trend to skim rather than read the written word, but rely much more on graphics, as disturbing.

What worries me about this trend towards the visual, against a backdrop of the internet and social media, is that we may be diminishing our ability to think rationally and in the necessary depth that the complexities of this world require.

I regard images as marvelous and fascinating—but, all too frequently, inadequate.

The issues involved are so serious that I would love to be proven wrong.

November 29 2015. “"Some of our questions are missing—so is our knowledge of history and philosophy.

AS I KEEP ON SAYING, THE ANSWERS ARE OUT THERE –IF YOU CARE TO LOOK (and if you know where, how, and why to look)

BUT TO LOOK, YOU HAVE TO BE INTELLECTUALLY CURIOUS.

There is a shortfall of this quality in the U.S.

A great deal of life makes no sense at all—unless you know the context—and a great deal of context is in history.

In turn, history is surprisingly hard to understand unless you have some knowledge of, and training in, philosophy. The latter discipline is what underpins how a rational person should think to best advantage. Of course, it is much more than that, but merely to know how to think in a disciplined, focused, open-minded, creative way is hugely beneficial.

Are most of us capable of such clarity of mind?

Is the commonsense of the largely uninformed population adequate for the operation of an effective democracy? Many would argue that it is—because such is the make-up of a typical society, and human nature is immutable.

I take a different view—certainly in the U.S. context. Here are my reasons (and, as always, I am certainly open to counter-argument).

• Propaganda, largely because it is virtually unconstrained in the U.S. (unlike most other developed nations) has reached a level of sophistication whereby it is distorting the process of democracy severely. ‘Freedom of speech’—a praiseworthy principle, that is inherent to the constitution, is being interpreted in absolute terms—especially where the ultra-rich, corporate power, and money is concerned.
• Wealthy and income inequality are now such  that one dollar one vote has now, in practice, become the norm
• The U.S. media, owned by the ultra-rich, have done an unusually poor job of informing American about developments in other countries(let alone their histories).
• The myth of American exceptionalism combined with a long tradition of isolationism, and a notoriously poor education system, have combined to produce an excessively ill-informed electorate.

What should be done about all this (assuming my premise is accepted, either in whole or in part)?

The answers would take too long to incorporate in this blog, but let me draw attention to two.

• An awareness of the problem.
• The need to update, quite substantially, the U.S. constitution.

Incidentally, I’m not a great fan of Kissinger—through, undoubtedly, he is a remarkable man—but I do think he is entirely right about history. I further believe that Neil Ferguson’s comments sum up the U.S. situation with commendable accuracy.

Read them and shudder—particularly as this dreadful situation continues.

“In researching the life and times of Henry Kissinger, I have come to realize that my approach was unsubtle. In particular, I had missed the crucial importance in American foreign policy of the history deficit: The fact that key decision-makers know almost nothing not just of other countries’ pasts but also of their own. Worse, they often do not see what is wrong with their ignorance.”

 

The Key to Henry Kissinger’s Success: Applied History

The Atlantic · by Graham Allison

In his new biography of Henry Kissinger, the historian Niall Ferguson recalls that halfway through what became an eight-year research project, he had an epiphany. Tracing the story of how a young man from Nazi Germany became America’s greatest living statesman, he discovered not only the essence of Kissinger’s statecraft, but the missing gene in modern American diplomacy: an understanding of history.

For Ferguson, it was a humbling revelation. As he confesses in the introduction to Kissinger: “In researching the life and times of Henry Kissinger, I have come to realize that my approach was unsubtle. In particular, I had missed the crucial importance in American foreign policy of the history deficit: The fact that key decision-makers know almost nothing not just of other countries’ pasts but also of their own. Worse, they often do not see what is wrong with their ignorance.”

Ferguson’s observation reminded me of an occasion three years ago when, after an absence of four decades, Kissinger returned to Harvard. Asked by a student what someone hoping for a career like his should study, Kissinger answered: “history and philosophy”—two subjects notable for their absence in most American schools of public policy.

How did Kissinger prepare for his first major job in the U.S. government as national security advisor to President Richard Nixon? In his words, “When I entered office, I brought with me a philosophy formed by two decades of the study of history.” Ferguson uncovered a fascinating fragment from one of Kissinger’s contemporaries when they were both first-year graduate students at Harvard. John Stoessinger recalled Kissinger arguing “forcefully for the abiding importance of history.” In these conversations, Stoessinger said, Kissinger would cite the assertion by the ancient Greek historian Thucydides that “The present, while never repeating the past exactly, must inevitably resemble it. Hence, so must the future.”

“More than ever,” Kissinger urged, “one should study history in order to see why nations and men succeeded and why they failed.”