KPAO by Dave Cortright

Letter sent to MIT Technology Review Editor-in-Chief, Gideon Lichfield RE: 2019 breakthrough technologies

Gideon,

 

I’m taking you up on your request for feedback on the 10 breakthrough technologies in 2019. I think the list is a great one, and as an ex-Microsoft employee, I was amused—but not surprised—to see that BillG had his own ideas about the list. 😊 As a vegan environmentalist, it’s great to see the “cow-free burger” on the list. The recent announcements of meat-free options by Red Robin, Carls Jr, and especially Burger King make this definitely a turning point year for meat alternatives. 

 

I do have a suggestion for an item that didn’t make your top 10 low tech solutions list: emotionally healthy face-to-face connections with loved ones. I was cleaning out some old papers and found a physical copy of James Surowiecki’s Technology and Happiness article from 2005 I had clipped and saved. He gets at a lot of the issues that still exist (and in some way even more amplified) in our increasingly technological society: it’s not making us any happier.

 

The data is finally coming into focus, and as crazy as it sounds, the only thing that truly matters to lead a happy, fulfilling life is having quality relationships with others.

1. “The clearest message that we get from this 75-year study is that good relationships keep us happier and healthier. Period.” 
   —Robert Waldinger, Director of the Harvard Study of Adult Development
2. “Contrary to the belief that happiness is hard to explain—or that it depends on having great wealth—researchers have identified the core factors in a happy life. The primary components are number of friends, closeness of friends, closeness of family, and relationships with co-workers and neighbors. Together these features explain about 70% of personal happiness.” 
   — David Niven, “The 100 Simple Secrets of Happy People”
3. “Love Someone. Commit to someone compatible with you who shares your interests and values and whose company you enjoy. Research shows that you’re more likely to be happy if you’re married or in a committed relationship. Loners are mostly unhappy… Create a circle of at least three friends with whom you can have meaningful conversations, who you can call on a bad day for help, and who are generally happy… For every new happy friend that enters your social network, your own happiness increases by about 15 percent.”
   —Dan Buettner, “The Blue Zones of Happiness.”

Dementia treatment is on your list of 10 big challenges tech could solve. But we already have a low-tech way to do so: healthy social connections with others. We also have a low-tech cure for myopia: sunlight.

 

I have an engineering, computer science, and design background so to use that as a metaphor—our own "operating system"—human DNA—got its last major upgrade 50k years ago, many millennia before the agricultural revolution and the rise of civilization as we know it. Our genes were optimized to survive and thrive and reproduce in a certain environment of evolutionary adaptedness (EEA). And that environment was a time when small close-knit bands of hunter/gatherers lived during the Pleistocene in Southern and Eastern Africa.

 

I know this is going to sound very crazy and controversial since we don’t yet know all of the specific mechanisms behind it, but from logical deduction: our bodies naturally have systems in place to keep us healthy and free from the common modern ailments: heart disease, diabetes, cancer, dementia... The further we stray from our EEA way of living, the less effective these systems are at keeping us healthy. Since we are social creatures, our genes select for hosts that do the best job at being social. I believe that the reason shamans and medicine men (and the placebo effect for that matter) work is because our bodies are positively responding to the validation of a respected member of our social group reaching out to us, connecting with us, and essentially saying: “You are an important and valued member of our social group. We want you to get better so you will stick around and continue to be part of the group.” And that validation triggers all of those defense and repair systems to kick into high gear.

 

Time on screens equals time away from healthy social connections. And while I understand that correlation does not imply causation, I think we have less socially connected people who then feel lonely, isolated, depressed and suicidal.

 

Of course I don’t mean to imply that all technology is bad; That would be a false dilemma. But I think we all need to recognize that we are first and foremost people that need to pay a bit more attention to maintaining a solid foundation of our core needs (e.g. Maslow’s Hierarchy) and then add in technology to build on top of that foundation.

 

Thanks for your attention and consideration. So maybe this can be on your 2020 list? 😊

·Dave

 

To fix toxic masculinity, we need to stop focusing on gender and instead focus on HUMAN needs

I just re-read Michael Ian Black’s Feb 2018 OpEd in the NY Times written in the wake of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School massacre. I think it’s great to even be having a conversation about this issue, but to focus too much on boys vs. girls and men vs. women just ends up distracting from the root problem: humans—male, female, or of any gender identity—are social creatures. We need to feel connected with others. Emotions are the levers that nature gave us to direct us toward connection. Yet we actively fight these natural urges due to societal pressures and norms.

If we can just all recognize that expressing emotions and sharing them with others is the normal, natural, healthy thing to do, we’d be well on the way to improving overall societal health. The evolutionary point of higher-order emotions (aka social emotions) is to more closely connect us with others. The only way to do that is to share them. There is no way to process these emotions and let them go by yourself. Any such tendencies by past ancestors were quickly weeded out of the gene pool as tight-knit societies were far more successful than lone individuals. 

To be clear, this is not a binary action; there is nuance involved. I previously wrote about Dunbar’s number and how that informs the level to which one opens up about their emotions. Boundaries are important, but it is also important to have different boundaries depending on the closeness of the relationship.

Important secondary findings from Dan Buettner’s “Blue Zones” research

Last Friday I had the privilege of attending Dan Buettner’s talk on “Blue Zones” at the Los Altos Celebrity Forum. (Turns out it was the very last event in that 51-year series, so a historic night as well.)

Dan talked about the overarching similarities among the 5 Blue Zones he found on the planet: their propensity to natural movement throughout the day; their mostly-vegan diet made up primarily of veggies, fruits, herbs and beans/legumes; but most especially their focus on their family, friends, and other social connections.

The Blue Zones results all reinforce my theory that humans were designed to optimally thrive in their EEA (environment of evolutionary adaptedness). Our EEA  was during the Pleistocene in Southern and Eastern Africa. During that time, we lived in bands of hunter/gatherers (30–50 max). Our survival depended on everyone in the band pulling together to help the group. It doesn’t surprise me that social connections are one of the strongest indicator of longevity. Only those who had the drive and ability to get along together through good times and bad survived to reproduce and pass along those genes.

But there are some important implications—as important if not more so than those Dan presented—that come out of the data.

The fact that there are five locations on the planet, and they are geographically dispersed with different cultures, climates and foods is important. There is no one magic place where the climate, food, and genetics favor people. While Dan talks specifically about Okinawan sweet potatoes, or the “three sisters” (squash, beans, and corn) in native American diets, there is no one specific diet or food that is required. It’s the overarching themes of whole, natural unprocessed ingredients of legumes, veggies, fruits, and some grains as the basis for the diet that is important. This makes logical sense as humans simply did not have the capacity to travel long distances or import specialty foods for the vast majority of our existence. Our bodies are extremely adept at making do with whatever fresh whole foods happen available locally.

Another important finding is what doesn’t appear on his list: money, fame, power, connections etc. All of the things that fall into what I label the achievement fallacy. Few of the people in these zones could be considered wealthy, and in fact many are poor. Despite the wealth these people are living long and happy lives. To connect it to my theory, our genes evolved before any of these modern civilization concepts existed. Our genes know nothing about money, or global interconnected communications. So it only makes logical sense that these things don't really have an influence on our well-being.

Speaking of which, the evidence shows that the overall baseline health of people in these zones is excellent. Things like heart disease, diabetes, cancer, dementia are rare if they even appear at all. In fact there is evidence that even these serious health problems can be reversed by switching to a Blue Zones lifestyle. This is probably the most controversial hidden finding since we don't yet know all of the specific mechanisms behind it but again from logical deduction: our bodies naturally have systems in place to keep us free of these diseases. The further we stray from the EEA way of living, the less effective these systems are at keeping us healthy. Since we are social creatures, our genes select for hosts that do the best job at being social. I'm confident that the reason shamans and medicine men (and the placebo effect for that matter) work is because our bodies are positively responding to the validation of a respected member of the social group reaching out to us, connecting with us, and essentially saying: ”you are a valuable member of this group. We want you to get better. We want you to stick around and continue to be a part of this.” And that validation triggers all of those defense and repair systems to kick into high gear.

Modern medicine is still in its infancy. Antibiotics are less than a century old, and the practical application of germ theory to combat cholera in London less than 2 centuries old. Yet somehow our ancestors were able to survive and thrive in this world before all of this. Our bodies are amazing machines that can maintain and repair themselves. It's simply a matter of ensuring the environment that they operate in is the one for which they were designed.

What our genes ‘want‘; the evolutionary biological reasons behind emotions and behaviors

In 1976, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins published The Selfish Gene. 35 years later (in 2011), Kevin Kelly (the original Wired Editor) wrote the book What Technology Wants. Merging the concept of the former with the pithy phrasing of the latter, we get “what genes want”, or more specifically what our (human) genes want. This post is a high-level attempt to answer that question.

I understand that there is no conscious awareness of genes, so the concept that a gene can “want” something is most certainly a poetic choice. But I choose it to convey the fact that in the process of evolution, genes that better enable their hosts to survive, thrive, and reproduce are the genes that get passed along, while the other less effective genes are weeded out. There is a force generated by the environment of evolutionary adaptedness (EEA) that creates the conditions whereby the more successful genes are selected and passed along and the others are weeded out to die off. 

I think the key concept that forms the basis for how we human work (or at least how our genes intend for us to work) is that we are social beings. While the exact mechanisms are currently elusive, empirical data shows that our genes reward us for our social behaviors. Yes for the most part organisms care about their own survival (what could be considered selfish behaviors). However even in non-social organisms, parents will take additional risks they wouldn’t otherwise in order to protect their immature offspring. So even in these non-social creatures, the genes are selecting for their own ongoing survival (in the offspring) over their host. Maybe it's better to think of many genes, some helping with individual survival at times, and some with genetic propagation at others. And they have worked out a delicate balance of optimizing for a power distribution that optimizes for both to be passed along.

In social organisms—like all of the primates, especially apes (of which humans are a member)—there exists genes that care about the well-being of others. It is literally hard-coded into us. Mirror neurons are but one example of this. During the tens (or more likely hundreds) of millions of years over which primates evolved, individuals that helped out others in their group were more successful and those genes were passed along. Individuals that were too solitary or selfish might have thrived in the short-term, but in the long-term through tough times, they fell whereas their social brethren survived and passed those genes along.

So it shouldn't be surprising that research (Blue Zones, Grant Study) shows that having healthy social connections is critical to health and happiness. One might even go so far as to say that our genes self-select out if a particular organism isn’t properly connecting socially. Loneliness kills.

Emotions are the motivational tool that our bodies use to help guide our behaviors in the direction that will optimize for survival and reproduction. Many of the emotions we feel are social emotions: embarrassment, guilt, shame, jealousy, envy, elevation, empathy, and pride. At the most basic level, every one of these social emotions has one primary purpose: to more closely connect individuals socially. The genes that trigger these emotions want individuals to be a member of a close-knit social group where every member of the group in some way and for most of the time is concerned with not only their own survival and well-being, but that of the group as well.

So what do our genes want? They want us to survive, thrive, and reproduce. And for social beings like us, that means they want us to be socially well-connected to a group of other people where everyone is contributing the success of the group. We have created a society where it is possible to survive without having these close-knit social connections, but your genes don't approve, and you mood and health will suffer for not going along with what your genes want.

Healthy emotional relationships analogy: they are like cars and drivers on the road

Healthy emotional management necessarily involves interactions with others. The vast majority of our emotional health is driven by having healthy relationships with others. It worls best when both people are in a good place emotionally and are doing the right things (like active listening). However the system can handle it if only one person isn't doing it ideally. Things really only break down when both sides of the interaction are getting it wrong.

It's a lot like how we've designed our roads and driving laws. If all the cars are well-maintained and working properly, and all the drivers are all following the rules of the road, everything runs smoothly. But the system is resilient. If only only person/car doesn't follow the rules, the healthy ones can usually spot that an accommodate it. They might get angry or frustrated about it but by paying attention and driving defensively, they can avoid most incidents.

However if two cars encounter one another and the drivers aren't following the rules, and/or the cars aren't properly maintained, it's practically inevitable something bad will end up happening.

The only thing you can control is your own social and emotional health. You will undoubtedly run into unhealthy people out there in the course of your life. But if you are in a good place yourself, you will be resilient and able to withstand their dysfunction.

What the Dunbar Number means for your healthy social interactions

The Dunbar Number states that we can really only maintain up to 150 people in our personal network. But there are other just as important implications of Dunbar’s work. I think this infographic from Boston University illustrates it nicely. A person with healthy relationships necessarily has them at various levels of intimacy. There can only ever be a handful (up to 5) in their closest circle (the support clique).

When we talk about accepting and embracing your emotions and connecting with a compassionate person about them in order to process them and let them go, it is primarily with the support clique (and to a lesser extent the support group) that this is done. Being open emotionally doesn't mean that you are open equally with everyone. It's not an all or nothing situation (pro tip: It so very rarely ever is).

 

Bill Burr nailed toxic masculinity a decade ago with his “What are you, a fag?!” routine

The best form of exercise is incorporating more physical movement of various intensities into your life

Going along with my last post of the simple handful of things necessary for a healthy and fulfilling life, this article reinforces #4—move our entire bodies in natural ways throughout the day, especially walking:

…Regular, incidental activity that gets you huffing and puffing is likely to produce health benefits, even if you do it in 30-second bursts, spread over the day.

In fact, incorporating more high-intensity activity into our daily routines—whether that’s by vacuuming the carpet with vigor or walking uphill to buy your lunch—could be the key to helping all of us get some high quality exercise each day. And that includes people who are overweight and unfit.

Overcomplexification of life in civilized society

Yes, that word is autotlogical by design. I do believe that we humans as a species have this amazing capacity to think and reason and that just ends up getting us into trouble. The true path to living a fulfilling life is actually quite simple, but it isn't easy, especially when we create environments with so many distractions and ways to do it wrong.

Maslow actually got it pretty well down with his hierarchy of needs. Dan Buettner also got it mostly right in his Blue Zones research. On a daily basis we need to:

1. Have our basic physiological needs taken care of: oxygen, temperature, shelter from weather, food, clean water, sunlight
2. Eat a moderate diet of whole foods: primarily vegetables, fruits, and legumes
3. Spend time outside in nature
4. Move our entire bodies in natural ways throughout the day, especially walking
5. Interact socially with the people close to us; working through our emotions (and those of others) in healthy ways
6. Getting a proper amount of sleep
7. Spending time being in the present moment experiencing sensory input and not thinking about anything else (some call this meditation, but I prefer “present sense”)

I think that’s the crux of it. The Blue Zones list of 9 items has has 3 for diet (although one is wine consumption which I suspect is specious) and 4 for socialization (which also includes "life purpose"). I suppose physiological needs could be split out into atomic components, and I did for a few of them: diet, sleep, outdoors in nature. But I did that because I feel those are the ones that we so easily get wrong.

I'm sure there are more refinements I could make to the list, but it's a good stake in the ground for the core things I think a human needs to live a healthy and fulfilling life. And note what isn't on there: money, possessions, fame, achievement… Everything we need for a fulfilling life was available to our ancestors 50,000 years ago. The only difference worth embracing is modern medicine. No point in dying from an easily prevented condition like an infection or disease.

We are conveniencing ourselves to death

The world is full of unintended consequences of the actions of humans, but one of the biggest one is modern civilization itself. If you look at the way our ancestors lived—and even our closest living relatives the bonobos and chimps—it’s much different from our current lifestyle.

They lived outside in nature pretty much all the time (save time spent in shelters or caves). They were active and moved their bodies all the time throughout the day. Occasionally they would strenuously exert themselves, but mostly it was just simply easy movements. They were extremely social, spending the vast majority of their time in the company of people living in their social band. They ate a diet of whole, natural foods.

Contrast to most modern information workers. We spend most of the day inside in man-made surroundings, sitting and rarely moving, mostly by ourselves staring at a screen or paper. We often eat processed foods. And when we do socialize, it is often superficial with a lot of different people. In many ways, it is exactly the opposite of how we were designed (by natural selection) to live.

It's ironic that we drive to the gym, take vacations to get into nature more than just tangentially, and primarily use text messaging or other digital mediums to socialize rather than in-person. I believe this is the root cause of a lot of the unwellness in our society, perhaps the most alarming indicator being the rising suicide rate. I’m optimistic this is a fixable problem, and the fix is to teach people how to have healthy emotional connections with one another. Once you satisfy your basic needs (food, water, sleep, shelter, safety, security), having good relationships is the number one factor in predicting overall health and happiness.