Welcome the World's Seven Billionth Person

Demographers estimate the seven billionth person was born yesterday. This is wonderful news.  People are great.  People are one of the very best parts of Creation.

CBS news estimates that the typical person - the one with the most common features on several measures - is a 28-year-old, Mandarin-speaking, Han Chinese, Christian man.

The UN estimates that the seven billionth person was probably born in India.

Some lament our growth to seven billion people.  They think more people just means more problems. And of course there are problems in the world, which we should keep working to solve. But our economy, political system, culture, and even-the human-shaped environment all exist to serve people - not the other way around.

Some worry that we will run out of resources.  I do not.  This has never happened, and is never likely to.  We are a problem-solving species.  We respond to challenges with ingenuity. 

Moreover, population growth in the world is slowing down.  In the developed world we are already looking at population decline, and decline in world population is not far behind.  I might live to see the peak world population.

Cherish the seven billionth person.  Cherish the average person. Cherish your own people.

Wisdom is Best Taught in a Small Liberal Arts College

The final fruit of the "Wisdom and the Liberal Arts Conference" at Baylor University for me is that wisdom is best taught when a small group of students work with a wiser guide through great texts and with great examples to develop in themselves habits of wise judgment.

The several plenary speakers from large research universities lamented the "crisis of the humanities" which prevented "the academy" from doing this anymore. Several were famous and got invited to speak because they had written books about this crisis. Others, less famous and from less august universities, lamented how professional and vocational training was driving out the inculcation of wisdom through the liberal arts.

Yet what they described as the ideal circumstance for teaching wisdom sounded to me like the ordinary condition of a small liberal arts college.

And the irony was that the speakers issuing these laments did not have time to teach that way themselves because they had to spend all their time writing books - including the ones lamenting the decline of teaching wisdom.

Once again, I go home to Centre College thinking that the grass in greener in Danville.

Images Fill Up Our Working Memory Faster Than Words Do

This was an unexpected thing I learned at the "Wisdom and the Liberal Arts" conference today.

The session was about why it is hard for people (students especially) to concentrate on deep ideas when they spend much of their day looking at moving images on a screen. There were several elements to this argument, but this was the one that struck me the most.

I spend hours a day looking at a screen. However, when I spend those hours reading words, I can learn more and longer than when I spend those hours watching moving images.

I think I will build an exercise into my next class: go a day without watching any moving images, and see what it does to your concentration and the depth of your understanding of what you read.

Prophets Are Enemies of Happiness

This is what I realized listening to Walter Brueggemann at the "Wisdom and the Liberal Arts" conference. Brueggemann is a brilliant scholar of the church, and he gave, as usual, a fine prophet's indictment. At this university conference on wisdom he indicted the university for unfaithfulness by pursuing worldly wisdom. Once again, though, I found that Brueggemann leaves me cold, though I appreciate the excellence of his work.

Today I realized why. Prophets are enemies of happiness. They cannot be satisfied. If you solve the problem they are on about today, they have plenty more.

The problems that real prophets name are real problems. We should try to solve them. Prophets are necessary in the ecology of the church. But they cannot be the whole of the church. In fact, they cannot be the leading element of the church or of any institution.

As we try to make happy lives and happy societies, we have to be able to admit that we are happy sometimes. Nay, we have to proclaim that we are happy sometimes, and that we are happy about some things all the time.

"Without a telos, there is no understanding."

This was said by my friend Scott Moore, a Baylor philosopher, at the Baylor University conference on "Wisdom and the Liberal Arts."

I think this is exactly right. If we believe that existence has an end that draws it on, we can hope to understand what it all means. If there is no telos, though, I don't see how any science, scholarship, philosophy, any manner of knowing at all can understand why existence, exists.

A good down payment on wisdom on day one of the conference.

Honoring Diane Sollee

I believe in honoring prophets in their own time, so let me add to the praise of Diane Sollee for creating Smartmarriages and promoting marriage education. This article by Susan Heitler is not driven by any particular event or anniversary in the marriage movement, just an appreciation for Diane's work.

Which is as it should be.

Moderate Islamic Party Leading in Tunisia Elections Will Keep Democracy, and Not Make an Islamic State

For those who worry that any election victory by an Islamic party spells the end of democracy, there is good news from Tunisia.  The first fruits of the Arab Spring - or what I think will turn out to be the North African Spring - show Ennahda, a moderate Islamic party, leading in early returns.  The BBC reports this crucial fact:

The party's leader, Rachid Ghannouchi, has pledged not to set up an Islamist state and to respect multi-party democracy.

Ennadha is in talks with secular parties as coalition partners.

Three Cheers for the Church that Gives Free Weddings to Cohabiting Parents

I think couples with children who want to marry "someday" should just do it.  I think "marry your baby daddy days" are a wonderful idea.

The Parkcrest Christian Church in Long Beach, CA offered to the several cohabiting parents in the congregation that the church would give them a free wedding.  Four couples took them up on it in a joint ceremony.

The advantage that Parkcrest had in promoting these marriages is that the couples were already part of the church.  If a couple are that far along - cohabiting, with children, attending church -  all they need is a little nudge.

I believe that church and state could work together on promoting "marriage now" for cohabiting parents.

Most Abortions Are By Moms Who Think the Next Kid Will Costs Too Much

More than 2/3rds of women who have abortions are already mothers.  The main reason they give for their abortion is that they want to give more to the children they already have.

Bryan Caplan points out in Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids that much of the huge effort and expense that middle-class parents think they have to put into each child is unnecessary.

This suggests to me that if middle-class parents could reduce their anxiety about what another child would cost them, we would significantly reduce the abortion rate.

Supporting Democracy is the Foreign Policy Aim That Does Not Come Back to Bite Us

I think the one reliable pillar of a centrist foreign policy for the United States is to support democracy.

This means supporting democracy even when people we don't like get elected. Our long-term interests are best served by supporting democracy as a framework, which is the best help and hope we can give to the factions that will, when elected, support us.

This means we do not support dictators even if they are, temporarily, the enemies of our enemies.

This means we do not make war simply for our own economic interests. That is actually more craven than supporting dictators against other dictators. War for profit reaps us justified opposition all over the world.

This means we do not invade other countries on our own, ever. Sometimes armed intervention is necessary in an emergency to prevent genocide or repel aggression. That is what the UN or NATO or our other security alliances are for. When we invade on our own, colonialism follows almost every time.

And this means that sometimes we can't do enough to support democrats in other countries. There are limits to the power of even the world's greatest superpower. But we should keep pressing diplomatically for democracy in the most oppressive places.

Most of the world's people like the American people. They like our culture. If the doors were wide open, we would have 100 million immigrants, I expect, as fast as transport could be arranged.

When the United States supports democracy in their countries, we justify that good feeling and earn legitimate admiration. When we base our foreign policy on the realipolitik of the Great Game against this year's enemy, or, worse, on what is profitable to U.S.-based multinational corporations, we undermine that good feeling and destroy that admiration.

Finally, when we do support dictators, or do make war for profit, it comes back to bite us. Every time.

Oldest Siblings are the Most Persuasive Models

Oldest siblings are the most persuasive models for or against delinquency for adolescents.

In a study of Latina teens, if a girl's mother had been a teen mother, she was only .2 times more likely to be a teen mother herself. However, if a girl's older sister had been a teen mother, she was 4.8 times as more likely to become a teen mother herself.

Drinking, smoking, drug use, and crime are almost as contagious from older to younger siblings. The effect is stronger among sisters than among brothers.

These findings are reported in Jeffrey Kluger's The Sibling Effect.

This suggests to me that interventions and ministries with at-risk youth should focus on the eldest children in a family most of all.

The Arab Spring Was a Revolt Against the Dictator's Sons

With the death of Muammar Gaddafi and his sons, the long generation of North African dictators comes to an end.

I think what made the time ripe for a successful revolt in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya was that the nations that had put up with dictators since independence, were not willing to stomach the even more brutal and corrupt sons of the dictators as they threatened to come to power.

This is also, I think, why the time has not been as ripe in Yemen, Bahrain, or, saddest of all, Syria. The Syrians missed their moment when the current dictator succeeded his father. I wish all three nations well in replacing their tyrants. Yemen might pull it off still.

On the whole, though, I think the "Arab Spring" will turn out to be the "North African Spring" as the post-independence autocrats get replaced by a broader ruling group. This is still a great achievement. But democracy in the Arabian peninsula will probably have to wait another season.

Most Americans Want to Legalize Marijuana. Do It.

Let me make clear that my position is not personal. I have no interest in using pot. I do think, though, that marijuana is no worse for society than bourbon. I think we should legalize, regulate, and tax marijuana production the same way we do alcohol. I have maintained this position for some years.

What is new now is that 50% of Americans agree. Moreover, only old people are strongly against it. Coming generations are clearly in favor, as this list of the percent supporting marijuana legalization by age group shows:

65+: 31%
50 - 64: 49% (this is my age group)
30 - 49: 56%
18 - 29: 62%

I saw we tax pot to fight crack.

Materialism Undermines Your Marriage

A common finding of happiness research is that, once your basic needs are met, more money does not reliably bring more happiness.

Another finding is that good marriages do reliably bring more happiness.

So what happens when money-oriented people marry?

A new Brigham Young University study found that couples who put a high priority on getting and spending money have less satisfying and less stable marriages. Lead research Jason Carroll said:

Our study found that materialism was associated with spouses having lower levels of responsiveness and less emotional maturity. Materialism was also linked to less effective communication, higher levels of negative conflict, lower relationship satisfaction, and less marriage stability.

Mitt Romney's Mormonism is the Best Thing About Him

The New York Times has a substantial article about Mitt Romney's days as head of the Latter Day Saints in Boston. He comes across as solid in his faith, walking the talk, helping those in need, and serving as a low-key liaison between the Mormon church and a sometimes suspicious surrounding community.  He seems especially strong as a traditional Mormon husband and father - and the LDS is a church that makes something of a specialty of family life.

He also comes across as stiff and reserved, which matches his political persona.  That seems to be the way he is, which is no real criticism.

This article has been helpful to me, because Romney has changed his political positions so often that I was wondering if he really believed in anything.  I am glad to see that on the core issues of faith and family, he is consistent and reliable.  His faith is not mine, but I honor his fidelity to it.

"Social Decline Panic" Creates Social Decline

The other day I argued that "The only thing we have to fear are fearmongers themselves." Loyal reader Brendan sent me the appropriate xkcd strip (the favorite comic of the knowledge class).  This hits the nail on the head:

The Tea Party is for a Less-Intrusive State

Yesterday I wrote about the Occupy Wall Street movement.  I was asked, reasonably, by an anonymous reader to offer an equally even-handed treatment of the Tea Party.

The Tea Party movement, like Occupy Wall Street, began as street theater.  I don't care for political street theater, but I am glad that in a free country the people who like to do that sort of thing can do so.

The main thing the Tea Partiers are mad about is the government telling them what to do and taxing them to do things they did not approve of.  I read the core of the tea party movement as libertarian, rather than social conservative, though there is clearly overlap.  This is not a movement to limit abortion, for example.  Nor is it a movement that is against large government expenditures or even deficits as such.

The "tea baggers," as they originally called themselves, did not mobilize when the federal government ran up giant deficits to pay for the wars of the 2000s.  Instead, they mobilized against the expenditures to cover the costs of poor-risk mortgage holders and people with no health insurance - people the tea party regards as feckless, irresponsible, and not their problem.

Some of my liberal friends regard the tea partiers as simply selfish.  I think this view is mistaken.  Of course there are some people who are opposed to social responsibility as a whole, and naturally some of them will be drawn to an anti-government protest. I do not think, though, that social irresponsibility is the core of what the protest is about.

The Tea Party wants the government to take less and tell citizens what to do less on behalf of irresponsible people. I think this position is not sufficient to make a good social order.  But the Tea Party position is a legitimate part of the argument about how to make a better society.

Occupy Wall Street is for Better Capitalism

The Occupy Wall Street movement is mostly theater.  I don't care for street theater myself, but in a free country I appreciate that the people who like that sort of thing should be able to engage in it.

The main thing they are mad about is that Wall Street traders were the main cause of the collapse of the world economy in 2008.  They were able to do that because they had increasing pressure to make short-term profits, and because the agencies that were supposed to keep an eye on them to prevent exactly this type of collapse were feckless and timid.  In the years following the actions of government regulators have improved somewhat, but the actions of the Wall Street traders show that they have learned little from their mistakes.

I believe these criticisms are true and just.  I see the core of the Wall Street protests as against corporate greed and for greater regulation.  I agree with that.

A friend thought it was hilarious that the Wall Street occupiers stopped for a moment of silence for Steve Jobs.  In his mind, the Wall Street occupation is against capitalism, and therefore it was ironic for them to honor a capitalist.  I think this view is mistaken.  Of course there are some people who are opposed to capitalism as a whole, and naturally some of them will be drawn to an anti-Wall Street protest.  I do not, though, think that anti-capitalism is the core of what the protest is about.

Occupy Wall Street wants more responsible and better-regulated capitalism. So do I.

The Long Arc of Mainline Protestantism and Print

At my Yale Divinity School reunion today, Rev. Henry Brinton, pastor of Fairfax Presbyterian Church, drew an interesting parallel.

As is well known, printed books and Protestant religion were born together.

Now, Mainline Protestantism and print journalism seem to be declining together.  Both are primarily the province of educated old people who like to get their information by reading.

This parallel was offered half seriously, but the group agreed there might be some meat in it.

Sociology needs a proportionate focus on improvement

I made a trip to Storrs to visit with University of Connecticut sociologist Brad Wright.  Brad wrote a gruntled book, Upside: Surprising Good News About the State of Our World.

We had a fruitful conversation about the state of the world and the presumptions of sociology - which seem to go in opposite directions.  In many ways, as Brad demonstrates in his book, the state of the world is improving.

Yet there is no sociology of how things get better.  Sociology is best at criticism. When some area of social life starts getting better, sociology either focuses on how that practice still falls short of utopia, or moves on to another problem.

Focusing on problems is a defensible strategy if your aim is solely to solve problems. But seeing only the problems gives you a distorted view of reality - and surely no science wants that.

Focusing on problems is not simply erroneous and one-sided.  Thinking only of problems and fears undermines happiness. A happy society needs a science that appreciates improvements and our ability to solve problems, too.

Now, as you can see, I am offering a criticism of sociology's tendency to criticize.  So that this observation is not simply fussing (and ironic), let me point out that sociology is, at its deepest level, committed to truth.

Sociology needs a proportionate focus on improvement, as well as on problems.