Der gröbste Prüfungsstress ist vorbei, und ich vergnüge mich mit meinen virtuellen Zeitungsstapeln. Gut, dass die nicht verstauben können …

Ein NYTimes Op-Ed vom März beschäftigt sich mit Antibiotika-resistenten Bakterienstämmen. Zum einen ist das mal wieder eine Gesundheitsbedrohung, die all die gehypten Erreger in den Schatten stellt — z.B. sterben anscheinend jährlich 18.000 Amerikaner an MRSA, mehr als an AIDS.

Zur Entstehung des Problems tragen Ärzte bei, die zu leichtfertig Antibiotika verschreiben. Aber vor allem die Massentierhaltung:

A study by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that in the United States, 70 percent of antibiotics are used to feed healthy livestock, with 14 percent more used to treat sick livestock. Only about 16 percent are used to treat humans and their pets, the study found.

Die resistenten Erreger an Tieren stehen in regem Gentausch mit für Menschen gefährlichen Mikroben. Es wäre natürlich möglich, mindestens der präventiven Verwendung von Antibiotika in der Tierhaltung politisch einen Riegel vorzuschieben. Ein entsprechender Vorstoß in Amerika ist aber an den Lobbyisten gescheitert, und nicht mal die Obama-Regierung traut sich ran.

Zum Abschluss kann ich mir ein weiteres Zitat nicht verkneifen, weil es so schön weltuntergangsmäßig klingt:

[…]

A NYTimes article about New York’s Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg supporting candidates of both parties across the country is worthy reading for the insights into two opposing political currents that are facing off right now. And that’s not the two parties — it’s a reconciliatory, bipartisan note versus a radical, partisan idea, incorporated most strongly by the Tea Party movement. And I think it’s outcome (partly to be decided already in the upcoming primaries and elections) will be quite influential for the American political climate of the next decade or so. But apart from recommending that read, what I wanted to share here is a quote from Bloomberg, depicting his (and assumedly many of his wealthy Wall Street friends‘) judgement of Obama’s financial politics:

[…]

In the debates about the association between Islam and terror, moderate Muslims are frequently asked to take a stance against the militant extremists sharing their faith. NYTimes Op-Ed contributor Nicholas D. Kristof has taken this message home, by doing just that — apologizing for the freakish stuff directed at Muslims by his fellow American Christians:

Many Americans have suggested that more moderate Muslims should stand up to extremists, speak out for tolerance, and apologize for sins committed by their brethren.

That’s reasonable advice, and as a moderate myself, I’m going to take it. (Throat clearing.) I hereby apologize to Muslims for the wave of bigotry and simple nuttiness that has lately been directed at you. The venom on the airwaves, equating Muslims with terrorists, should embarrass us more than you. Muslims are one of the last minorities in the United States that it is still possible to demean openly, and I apologize for the slurs.

The article goes on with interesting examples of how hypocritical these demands towards Muslims can be. Which doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be made, but — in good Christian practice — you shouldn’t fail to begin with yourself …

Again following pointers by Greg Mankiw, I found an economist criticizing the ideal of efficiency in a NYTimes „Economix“ blog post, and a critical (i.e., pro-efficiency) reply by another economist. So, what do economists traditionally recommend as good public policies?

[…]

I enjoy a read of Greg Mankiw’s blog every now and then, staying aware that his views are an interesting and helpful perspective on the world, but have to be complemented by other, differing views…

In a recent post he wrote about how rent-controlled houses in New York basically help universities evading taxes, by using the (forcedly) cheap rent apartments as additional tax-free benefits for senior staff. A sign of warning, how well-intended laws can backfire. From which I don’t think one should conclude that laws are always bad…

Nachdem ich heute in der ersten Prüfung des letzten Diplomblocks schon viel über eine systemisch-konstruktivistische Bewertung von ADHS-Diagnosen reden durfte, juckt es, auf eine schon ältere, aber immer noch heiße Debatte der jüngeren deutschen Vergangenheit aus der gleichen Perspektive zu schauen. Das heißt: weniger darüber nachzudenken, wie „wahr“ seine Aussagen sind und den Fokus stärker darauf zu richten, welche pragmatischen Implikationen sie haben, und dabei insbesondere, ob sie den „Möglichkeitsraum“ eher erweitern oder verengen.

Und da komme ich klar zu dem Schluss, dass das, was er sagt, besser nicht gesagt würde. Was passiert, wenn in einem Atemzug der genetische Einfluss auf Intelligenz, weniger intelligente „Migrantenkinder“, höherer „Fortpflanzungsraten“ von Menschen mit niedrigem sozioökonomischem Status (und Migranten) und dessen Beeinflussung durch die Intelligenz propagiert werden? Es werden zunächst Unterschiede betont und anschließend negativ konnotiert, es wird Angst geschürt, und es wird durch die genetische Festlegung des Ganzen Hilflosigkeit erzeugt. Ich denke, es ist unschwer zu erkennen, dass eine andere Art, die Komplexität unserer sozialen Welt zu reduzieren und greifbar zu machen zu mehr Handlungsspielraum führt.

Bei aller Kritik muss man dem Herrn allerdings lassen, dass er eine aggressive Streitkultur wiederbelebt, die wohl einigen Menschen in der öffentlichen Debatte oft fehlt. Hier zum Abschluss noch ein schönes Beispiel (aus einem Interview mit dem Handelsblatt):

[…]

A NYTimes book review of „Through the Language Glass“ by Guy Deutscher touches on the interesting topic of how languages shape our thoughts (the book itself might or might not be worth reading, according to the review the anecdotes are more convincing then the theory the author wants to prove with them).

Here is an interesting example of how that could happen:

[…] the Amazonian language Matses, whose arsenal of verb forms obliges you not only to explicitly indicate the kind of evidence — personal experience, inference, conjecture or hearsay — on which every statement you make is based, but also to distinguish recent inferences from older ones and say whether the interval between inference and event was long or short. If you choose the wrong verb form, you are treated as a liar. But the distinctions that must be expressed by verbal inflections in Matses, Deutscher argues, can all be easily understood by English speakers and easily expressed in English by means of circumlocutions.

Now, the information is indeed very fascinating to me, and I also don’t quite follow his conclusion. First, to make the point that languages shape our thoughts, you don’t have to prove that certain things cannot be expressed in some languages — it is enough to show that speakers of different languages habitually use certain concepts more than others. And here you can say that the degree of evidence backing a statement seems to have much more everyday importance to Matses speakers than to us. Second, if you assume there is something that cannot be expressed in English — how do you think you could talk (and think) about that in an English book, review, or even mind? Almost by definition, this part of reality would get lost in translation…

Which brings us to another example: colors.

Although the strange sequence in which color terms appear in the world’s languages over time — first black and white, then red, then either green or yellow, with blue appearing only after the first five are in place — still has no full explanation, Deutscher’s suggestion that the development of dyes and other forms of artificial coloring may be involved is as convincing as any other, making color terms the likeliest candidate for a culture-induced linguistic phenomenon.

Other explanations are also possible, of course, and have been made, like here by the British statesman and Greek scholar William Gladstone, who

noting among other things the surprising absence of any term for “blue” in classical Greek texts, theorized that full-color vision had not yet developed in humans when those texts were composed?

Along with psychological experiments, this backs up one of the basic constructivist claims (as put forth, for instance, by Maturana and Varela), that there is hardly any connection between physical spectra of light and the colors we see.

I think if you don’t view languages as static objects, but as systems of thought and expression that keep evolving, and provide an enormous space for creativity and new thoughts, you won’t be too interested in what can and cannot be said (and consequently thought). And from my experience, there are many areas where different languages focus on different aspects of life, and make you more inclined to view reality in a different way. Like, for instance, I’m amazed by how the elaborate linguistic system that has evolved around „dating“ in English in my opinion makes you more likely to view the whole thing as some sort of game, with certain rules, and more importantly, with certain conflicting goals for the participants. And I would argue that while the relative lack of established expressions for this in German makes it harder to communicate with outsiders about what is going on, it leaves more freedom to the individuals involved.

The NYTimes reports on a new development in both scientific and everyday thinking about happiness. Partly accelerated by the recent depression, there seems to be a movement of people discovering that earning money did not actually make them happy, but that „downsizing“ their material life did, sometimes even though it was forced by loss of income.

Websites like RowdyKittens are popping up, sharing advice on simple living (I personally like The Only Guide to Happiness You’ll Ever Need that it links to a lot, I think my next important step is slowing down …). And Roko Belic made a Documentary called „Happy“ that I can’t wait to see, the trailer looks amazing. His bottom line seems to be:

The one single trait that’s common among every single person who is happy is strong relationships.

On the other hand, science has taken on the task of happiness again. The mission can be summed up by the introductory paragraph from a paper titled „If Money Doesn’t Make You Happy Then You Probably Aren’t Spending It Right“ (supposedly forthcoming in The Journal of Consumer Psychology):

Scientists have studied the relationship between money and happiness for decades and their conclusion is clear: Money buys happiness, but it buys less than most people think (Aknin, Norton, & Dunn, 2009; Diener & Biswas-Diener, 2002; Frey & Stutzer, 2000). The correlation between income and happiness is positive but modest, and this fact should puzzle us more than it does. After all, money allows people to do what they please, so shouldn’t they be pleased when they spend it? Why doesn’t a whole lot more money make us a whole lot more happy? One answer to this question is that the things that bring happiness simply aren’t for sale. This sentiment is lovely, popular, and almost certainly wrong. Money allows people to live longer and healthier lives, to buffer themselves against worry and harm, to have leisure time to spend with friends and family, and to control the nature of their daily activities—all of which are sources of happiness (Smith, Langa, Kabeto, & Ubel, 2005). Wealthy people don’t just have better toys; they have better nutrition and better medical care, more free time and more meaningful labor—more of just about every ingredient in the recipe for a happy life. And yet, they aren’t that much happier than those who have less. If money can buy happiness, then why doesn’t it?

Because people don’t spend it right.

And while they provide some reasonable and non-trivial advice („Principle 3: Buy Many Small Pleasures Instead of Few Big Ones“, e.g., or „Principle 5: Pay Now and Consume Later“ [!]), there’s something about that approach that worries me. I think two of the other recommendations illustrate that: „Principle 1: Buy Experiences Instead of Things“ and „Principle 2: Help Others Instead of Yourself“.

I follow the notion that experiencing something ultimately contributes more to our life than having something, and that a central part of our happiness is relatedness. I just doubt that money is the right frame to discuss these issues in. There are much simpler ways of both experiencing something and connecting with other people than spending money on either. And they both are prone to leading right into the next consumption wave, this time not about big TV sets, but amazing massage spas and, ahm, massage vouchers for our partners and friends?! Why not give that massage yourself?

On top of that, the „spend your money wisely“-approach keeps people working long hours, which for most people will tend to decrease happiness.

So the new talk about happiness seems to go right over the divide between a materialistic and spiritualistic view of life, and I’m quite excited to see how it will evolve.

In a special post for my English-speaking friends and followers — I think my first English post ever, wohooo! — I want to point to an interesting video by Barack Obama. He is talking about a recent Supreme Court decision to allow (as far as I understand) unlimited and basically anonymous (!) ads targeting the electorate.

I already read and wrote about this more than a year ago (for something like an English version try Google Translate). Well, here is what Obama says:

[…]

In einem ZEIT Geschichte Heft zum Thema Aufklärung wird Lessings schöne Ringparabel aufgegriffen und von verschiedenen Literaten kommentiert, darunter auch Hilal Sezgin, türkischstämmige deutsche Schrifstellerin.

Zunächst vollzieht sie sehr schöne eine Interpretation der Parabel als Religionsgeschichte nach — im Sinne der Erziehung des Menschen durch Gott war die Offenbarung der „einen Wahrheit“ (Selbstverständnis der meisten Religionen) ein Versuch, bzw. war für eine Zeit nötig und richtig. Doch diese Zeit geht oder ist vorbei, und der Wahrheitsglaube hat schon viel Unheil gestiftet. In der Begegnung relativiert sich nun dieser Wahrheitsanspruch, mit Lessing:

Wie kann ich meinen Vätern weniger / Als du den deinen glauben? Oder umgekehrt.

Spannend wird es für mich, wenn Sezgin nun behauptet und mit Koranstellen belegt, dass diese Erkenntnis im Islam nicht nur Platz findet, sondern für ihn gewissermaßen schon zur Entstehungszeit fundamental war. Sie schreibt:

Dieses Paradox wiederum ist mir aus dem Koran äußerst vertraut. Es ist geradezu ein Kernthema des Islams, der sich ja als jüngstes Geschwister anderer Religionen begreift, also einerseits als wahre und andererseits als nur eine unter vielen Religionen. Gott sandte seine Propheten zu allen Völkern. Zu allen! Man sollte das ruhig einmal wörtlich nehmen. Demnach sprach Gott auch zu den früheren Schamanen, zu Hindus und Buddhisten. Auch sie besitzen also Zugang zur ewigen göttlichen Wahrheit. Was lehrt uns das darüber, was es heißt, Gott ergeben zu sein?

Eine beeindruckende Koranstelle dazu ist:

Jedem von euch gaben Wir ein Gesetz und einen Weg. Wenn Allah gewollt hätte, hätte er euch zu einer einzigen Gemeinde gemacht. Doch Er will euch in dem Prüfen, was er euch gegeben hat. Wetteifert darum im Guten. (Koran 5:47)

Und hiermit unterstreicht Sezgin, dass die Vielfalt sogar als positive Aufgabe verstanden werden kann:

O ihr Menschen! Wir erschufen euch aus einem Mann und einer Frau und machten euch zu Völkern und Stämmen, damit ihr einander kennen lernt. (Koran 49:13)