Captain Obvious

As many of you know, Susan and I spend a lot of time aboard our boat in Marina Jack, Sarasota, Florida over the winters. This year I noticed we are getting usually large swarms of crows at first light … I mean sky-blackening swarms … straight out of a horror film.  I shot a video of them coming into swarm: take a look.

The Birds was a 1963 American horror film produced and directed by Alfred Hitchcock, loosely based on the 1952 short story of the same name by Daphne du Maurier.  It centers on a series of sudden, unexplained, violent bird attacks on the people of Bodega Bay, California, over a few days.

It is interesting that these swarms are called a murder of crows.  Our situation on the boats in the marina poses no risks, but it is really spooky to watch.  The term “murder” derives from historical folklore and cultural superstitions rather than science.

With their dark plumage and eerie caw, crows were often associated with omens, foreboding, dead bodies, battlefields, and graveyards. Crows are social animals and gather for a variety of reasons: it is more efficient foraging in a group, there is safety from predators in numbers, and to find prospective mates outside of the immediate family group.  Perhaps most important, there is social learning and information transfer (Hey, there is good stuff at the KFC dumpster…).

As you probably know, crows are exceptionally intelligent, with cognitive abilities often compared to those of a 6-year-old human child. They possess remarkable problem-solving skills, use and create complex tools, recognize individual human faces, and can plan for the future. Their brains are densely packed with neurons, enabling advanced reasoning, self-control, and memory, allowing them to pass on information about opportunities and threats. 

Well, then, perhaps they have something to teach us all in our modern societies.  There is much to be gained from visiting with each other … in person.  Yes, the collective din of the conversation can be annoying, just like the squawking of the crows … but it is good for each of us to gather in groups, share information, and learn from one another.  It’s good for our social fabric.

Perhaps we should pay more attention to what crows can teach us.

If you accept the Old Testament as the inspired testimony of the ancient Jews, you probably know it says God formed humans out of the dust of the earth (Genesis 2:7).  Funerals often include the phrase “ashes to ashes and dust to dust” to remind us that we started this way and to dust we will return.

It isn’t fun parlor talk … frankly we want to avoid the subject even when we contemplate our own life.  But it is a fact of life.  And, throughout history, civilizations have sought to assure some future possibilities … often by mummifying bodies as a way to preserve them for the afterlife. But to be truthful and relevant, most faith traditions believe our bodies only serve as a temporary house for our spirit. They do not last forever.

And I guess it makes sense for entrepreneurs to view this as a business opportunity, especially since graveyards are filling up, reducing our choices for our “ultimate resting place.”  

This is far from a new challenge, and many solutions have been implemented, most notably catacombs. And, when the water table prohibits that, you get above-ground burial chambers that you see in New Orleans.

Major cities, such as New York, have long faced the challenge of limited space.  So, perhaps it is not surprising to see creativity there around burial beyond cremation, which seems to be the obvious choice to most of us … well, most of us who are OK with cremation.

After all, we all have enough space for a few more shoe boxes of remains, if we didn’t want to spread them at sea, on scatter in our gardens, or do as my father requested in his will: Put the remains in the tops of firecrackers and light them off to that song made famous when sung by Frank Sinatra, Fly Me to the Moon, … which my brother and I did along with our loved ones.  It was fitting.

Our church created a dedicated area for those who seek a different kind of sacred space.  Called a columbarium, it seems to work for many in our congregation.  But, as with all of life these days, there are others who are looking for an environmentally sustainable answer to their minds and hearts.  So, that brings us to composting.  Read it for yourself here: From Dust to Dust – Literally

The cemetery plans to start with around 18 composting vessels from Berlin-based startup, Meine Erde—translation, My Earth. While similar human-compost companies are sprinkled around the U.S., Pablo Metz, the 45-year-old founder of Meine Erde, hopes to spread the practice to more Americans, starting in Brooklyn.

“We’re looking at the idea of dedicating certain areas that would be just for these remembrances,” said Meera Joshi, cemetery president and a former deputy mayor of New York City. “The idea of getting in on the ground floor, especially in a beautiful place like Green-Wood, is a little irresistible.”

Baby boomers, the West’s most affluent cohort, have been enthusiastic disrupters of cultural norms. As they reach old age, the burial business is poised for an influx of money and new ideas, including biodegradable coffins and holograms of the deceased to display as digital memorials.

While I applaud creativity, anyone with more than a third-grade math ability can point to the absurdity of this approach.  It can take months and years to compost human remains, and the number of deaths each day (150-200) makes this absurd.

After all, with 150-200 deaths per day and at best a 40 day use of the composting machine, there would be a backlog of 6000 dead bodies waiting for those 18 bathtubs in the first cycle.  You load 18 more and 40 days later you now have a backlog of 11,982.  Why didn’t anyone in the comments point this out???

So, is this business idea going to fail?  You decide for yourself after reading this summary:

How does MEINE ERDE solve the burial problem?

In the words of someone who has chosen the now-available third option; reerdigung (human composting): “This concept is just so coherent for me: I was born into this world after 40 weeks in my mother’s womb, and I am leaving it with 40 days in a beautiful cocoon, and the circle closes by me becoming part of Earth again.”

I am still ok with urns and shoe boxes.  Oh, and by the way, where are you going to store all these dead bodies waiting for a proper burial?

You probably are thinking this blog is related to the title song by Linda Ronstadt: Somewhere Out, but no.  This blog is about what we used to call UFOs which have now been renamed UAPs according to a Washington Post article by Michael Shermer (the publisher of Skeptic magazine and author of the newly published book “Truth: What It Is, How to Find It, and Why It Still Matters.”)

On Jan. 13, Vermont legislator Troy Headrick (I) proposed creating a state task force that would get to the bottom of “unidentified anomalous phenomena,” or UAPs, that appeared to be buzzing about U.S. military air bases. Days later, Helen McCaw, a former senior analyst in financial security at the Bank of England, urged the bank’s governor to prepare for possible financial collapse should the White House disclose the existence of alien intelligence.

The author reported UFO and UAP sightings naturally fall into three categories: 1. ordinary terrestrial (balloons, camera/lens effects, visual illusions, etc.), 2. extraordinary terrestrial (Russian or Chinese spy planes or drones capable of feats unheard of in the U.S.) and 3. extraordinary extraterrestrial (alien presence).

Michael strongly suspects that all UAP sightings fall into the first category, but other commentators suggest the second, noting that they could represent Russian or Chinese assets using technology as yet unknown to American scientists, capable of speeds and turns that seemingly defy all their physics and aerodynamics.

That hypothesis is highly unlikely. It is simply not possible that some nation, corporation or lone individual — no matter how smart and creative — could have created an aircraft of any sort that would be centuries ahead of the West’s present technologies. It would be as if the United States were flying biplanes while the Russians or Chinese were flying Stealth fighter jets, or we were still experimenting with captured German V-2 rockets while they were testing SpaceX-level rocketry. Impossible. We would likely know about all the steps leading to such technological wizardry.

Finally, could UAPs really be space aliens? Michael emphasizes it’s not impossible, but it is highly improbable. While intelligent life is probably out there somewhere, the distances between the stars are so vast that it is extremely unlikely that any have come here, and what little evidence is offered by UAP believers comes in the form of highly questionable grainy photographs, blurry videos and stories about strange lights in the night sky.

Faithful readers of my blogs will attest to the illogic simply due to the distances.

What the author thinks is actually going on is a deep, religious-like impulse to believe that there is a godlike, omnipotent intelligence out there who 1. knows we’re here, 2. is monitoring us and is concerned for our well-being and 3. will save us if we’re good. Researchers have found, for example, an inverse relationship between religiosity, meaning and belief in aliens; that is, those who report low levels of religious belief but high desire for meaning show greater belief in extraterrestrials. They also found that people who self-identified as either atheist or agnostic were more likely to report believing in ETIs than those who reported being religious (primarily Christian).

From this research, and his own on the existential function served by belief in aliens, the author came to the conclusion that aliens are sky gods for skeptics, deities for atheists and a secular alternative to replace the rapidly declining religiosity in the West — particularly the United States and the United Kingdom, where, not coincidentally, most UAP sightings are made.

I have played in church orchestras where they allowed choir and even instrumentalists to participate who couldn’t carry a tune.  One flute player I met played all pieces of music in the key of C … no sharps or flats.  Needless to say, this did ruin the ensemble. 

So, how would it be if there was a choir specifically composed of people who can’t carry a tune?  Read about it for yourself: https://wapo.st/49KU7zu   And read the comments before you make up your mind.

The answer seems to be that there is a place for a choir that can’t carry a tune and for an audience that is also tone deaf.  The joy of music doesn’t always depend on symphonic tonal qualities.  There is also clearly a need for a choir like this for situations like the Developmental Disabilities Ministry (DDM) here in Georgia where the residents can enjoy the sense of community and not experience criticisms that would exist otherwise.

However, and therefore, as inclusive as this might be for some, is it a model for the masses?  Does it help us see diversity differently?  Does it soften our hearts and minds to those who can’t communicate the way you and I do?  Or does it “ruin it for everyone,” as most of these individuals were told?  It stopped them from singing.

If you check any online resources, you will see singing releases endorphins, which are natural mood lifters, and reduces stress by lowering cortisol levels in the body.  It enhances breathing and oxygen flow, promoting relaxation. boosts self-esteem and confidence through self-expression and fosters social connections when done in groups or choirs.

The root of its success and failure therefore rests in expectations.  Once we know it is a tuneless choir, we can just enjoy it for what it is.  As a musician, I hear wrong notes in any concert performance I attend, and if they are frequent, it ruins the experience for me … because I expected to hear beautiful symphonic harmony.

Today’s DEI perspectives seem to imply we are wrong to prefer symphonic excellence.  No, we can enjoy a tuneless choir occasionally to honor their practice and enthusiasm, especially if we have a loved one in that group and see the joy on their faces as they perform.  There is also the joy of watching our youngsters first perform … we admire their courage and hard work to perform what they do.

But, when we are expecting excellence, and perhaps even paying to hear it, this is not right. As in all things, the pendulum is swinging back toward expecting excellence and rewarding merit in most of life … and it’s about time.

An article by Chang W. Lee of the New York Times recently had a wonderful summary of the state of consumer robotics which is summarized here in key takeaway learnings:

Scientists and entrepreneurs are working tirelessly toward a strange goal: robots that look like us. Why, if we just want them to unburden our lives, do we need that? It’s a question for philosophers as much as for inventors. But you can see the market appeal.

Humanoid robots can already do some humanlike things, of course. They can dance and run. They can play household concierge. Some can almost load a dishwasher. But they’re clumsy right now. They’re also hard to instruct. Think about that hair appointment. The work requires a lot of manual dexterity on the part of the stylist. But as Tim Fernholz reported recently, dexterity is difficult to teach. “Humans don’t have a language for gathering, storing and communicating data about touch, the way we do for language and imagery,” he wrote. “Our fingers’ remarkable sensing ability collects all kinds of information that we can’t easily translate for machines.”

None of which has stopped China from trying to use the robots to drive economic growth. “Public and private investors spent over $5 billion this year on start-ups making humanoid robots” in China, my colleagues Meaghan Tobin and Xinyun Wu report today — “the same amount spent in the last five years combined.”

They have advantages over their competitors in the West. With the backing of the government, they can draw on China’s gigantic manufacturers to fabricate top-quality parts. They can build a lot of robots.

But those robots are not about to revolutionize your life, Meaghan and Xinyun write.

For one thing, there are too many players — more than 150 Chinese companies are jockeying to lead the market. The Chinese government warned last month of a robot bubble, noting a lot of “highly repetitive products.”

And while those products can act somewhat like humans and even perform a few basic tasks, they are not yet anything like skilled human workers. Humanoid robots don’t react well to unpredictable situations.

OK, now following in the spirit of last week’s blog, let’s take a look at the end game … the delivery device.  How many realistic tasks do you want a robot to actually do for you? 

If we define the role as a household companion, how much further does an Alexa device have to go?  We use ours constantly for timers, recipes, units conversions, weather updates, etc. Setting aside the creepy idea that it is always listening, it works very well.

It is sobering for me to replay my innovation professor’s words in my head on this.  Business success always rests on defense and porn with defense bringing the technology into existence and porn driving the business case for commercial success.  I found that a bit disgusting back in graduate school, but alarmingly accurate in the real world of business.

AI and robotic answers are already here and do not require the kind of robots discussed here.  The combination of VR headsets plus some almost toylike devices can offer immersive sex experiences that rival anything one would imagine. 

But they don’t offer relationships quite yet.  That is where the movie Her (2013 – yes 13 years ago) offers insights into the virtual world.  This Spike Jonze’s film became one of the most discussed works about virtual relationships. The main character, Theodore, going through a divorce and struggling with loneliness, installs a new operating system with artificial intelligence. The program, calling itself Samantha, has a female voice, humor, and the ability to learn. Gradually, a genuine relationship develops between man and machine, filled with joy, doubt, and jealousy.

What makes Her unique is the absence of a visual image of AI — only a voice and a personality emerging through interaction. This emphasizes the idea that emotional support and constant attention may be enough for a person to perceive AI as a “real partner.”

The film raises key questions: can love be genuine without physical presence; how does a personality created by algorithms evolve; and what happens when the AI’s growth outpaces human capabilities. Samantha’s final arc suggests that emotional bonds with AI can be as powerful as with humans yet remain vulnerable due to asymmetry.

Her is not only a drama about the future of technology but also a philosophical story about how flexible the boundaries of human feelings can be.

Couple AI like this, which is largely available now, with the immersive sensory opportunities and we have a potentially toxic soup that can and will further erode the societal structures of marriage and childbearing. We are already in a bad place.

Let me remind you … none of this requires the robotic nonsense dominating the startups.  The end game is not a machine in our home that looks like a human.