I worked the Kennedy ‘80 campaign in Champaign-Urbana (I’ve forgotten what Congressional district that was then) and co-organized a campus campaign visit.  The campaign was rough and the visit was rougher as the Senator was stuck in Chicago by weather and a firemen’s strike.  He was almost two hours late and the crowd in the Auditorium got rowdier and worse.  It came close to recent town hall meetings and the Senator had a lousy cold.  But, he came on, after introduction by, I believe, Penny Severns, who was running as both a Kennedy delegate and for Congress.  After comments, he took questions.  The one I vividly remember was from some know-it-all grad student who asked something specific and technical about a bill from a committee hearing four years earlier.  Not only did Kennedy remember, but he corrected on the details and responded w/ a technical answer to the scientific point made.  Several others have made the same point today about his incredible memory for legislative details and how it made the difference in his ability to negotiate legislation.

Last night I had a lengthy debate with my very intelligent friend Robert after a concert. Our debate swirled around whether humans are making progress or whether we are creating a greater probability that we will destroy ourselves and our planet. I am a naive, heedless optimist and he is a depressing, Gulliver pessimist. I find it interesting that two people can view the world with such different colors painted over their lenses.

I believe that humans are becoming more intelligent, more educated, more moral, less violent, and more human. By more human, I mean that we have more leisure time to consume and to create art, politics, music, literature, etc. We also have more and more leisure time to help other humans or to heal the environment, as evidenced by the enormous number of NGOs and donors who fund them. Free trade and technological development are two primary factors that have allowed humans to escape the cruelties and monotony of the non-industrialized life and to become “more human.”

My friend and others who think as him (a significant portion of Prof. Freyfogle’s Individualism & its Critics class), often romanticize the non-industrialized, agrarian, hunter-gatherer world. I always find it curious that when I hear that romanticization and the denunciation of the industrialized world that it always comes from someone who lives in the industrialized world, but who visits nature. They visit nature during their leisure time as a vacation, but I have not yet met one who has had the courage to abandon civilized society to live an entire life on an isolated farm or in a forest with hunter-gatherer opportunities. A quick Google search reveals many such opportunities.

Regardless, the answer to the question asked in the title of this post is not obvious, even to a naive, heedless optimist. The amount of evil in the world is decreasing as humans become more educated and more connected through technology and the radii of our circles of empathy expand. Our humanity might be increasing, but the technologies of destruction that we develop are also increasing.

The equation would look something like this: (Proportion of Evil in the World) x (Ability of Existing Technology to Destroy Humanity) = Probability that Humans will Commit Mass Suicide. The existing technology could be nuclear power plants, nuclear bombs, the factors that cause global warming, a killer virus, or anything else. Therefore, the probability of mass suicide might be increasing. This equation serves as a general comment and also as a slight critique of Pinker’s presentation below.

I have posted two TED videos below that support my argument and I invite him to share material that supports his views. I maintain my optimism in the face of the arguments presented by Robert and myself. My thoughts on this subject are not well organized or articulated, but I am mostly curious what y’all think.

The following is my final product from Prof. Leon Dash’s Immersion Journalism class. Prof. Dash is a two time Pulitzer Prize winner, author of Rosa Lee and a great professor. Immersion Journalism allows journalists to conduct extensive, personal, in-depth interviews with a single person over multiple weeks, months, or years. Read more…

The Chicago Tribune recently reported Obama’s stance on US involvement in Iran, where currently many innocent civilians are being beaten or even killed for protesting an obviously unfair election. Many have questioned the president’s stance, saying that he has taken too neutral of an approach in dealing with the conflict. This opposition includes many republicans, such as Sen. John McCain, who commented that “You can’t seriously negotiate with a country that’s beating and killing their citizens, and I don’t think the president quite understands that.” However, President Obama contends that “I made it clear that the United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran and is not interfering with Iran’s affairs,” and continued, “But only I’m the president of the United States, and I’ve got responsibilities in making certain that we are continually advancing our national security interests and that we are not used as a tool to be exploited by other countries.” Read more…

At the risk of inflaming the Rainbow Panther brigade, Brian Pierce  should simmer down about Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, (”DADT”) at least for a little while. Even the most strident gay rights advocate should be able to see that the progressive cause is facing more pressing national priorities right now, like health care reform and the global economic crisis. Taking up DADT right now would be a distraction that would cost the Obama Administration too much political capital. Read more…