Digesting Ideas

You know those foods you enjoy so much while you're eating them, only to regret them later when your digestive system starts protesting?

As I get older, that list seems to grow longer. But I'm not writing about my current dietary challenges.

I'm writing because ideas can work the same way. Some go down so easily when you first hear them that they feel undeniably true. Then, given a little time to digest them, you realize they don't make nearly as much sense as they first appeared to.

Often, it's all in the delivery.

Yuval Noah Harari is a master communicator. He expresses himself clearly, concisely and compellingly. He has a remarkable gift for making something fairly obvious—for example, that human beings are storytelling animals—feel profound and revelatory. I suspect that's a large part of why his books have been so successful and why he's become such a fixture on the podcast circuit.

Lately, though, I've found myself growing skeptical of some of his most appealing ideas—the ones that go down easiest at first. I've started taking more time to reflect on what he's actually saying.

That happened recently while listening to his interview with Ezra Klein on The New York Times podcast.

The moment that stuck with me was Harari's comparison between religion and liberalism. Paraphrasing, he argued that religion promises redemption, whether in this life or the next, whereas liberalism does not. Liberalism, he said, accepts that human beings are inherently flawed and that conflict, tension and mistakes are permanent features of society. Rather than seeking redemption, liberalism invests in mechanisms that allow societies to correct themselves. Elections, he suggested, are one of the clearest examples of a 'self-correcting' mechanism.

It's an attractive argument. Liberalism sounds humble, realistic and practical. It doesn't promise perfection; it simply promises a way of correcting mistakes.

But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that the argument was built on a series of false or mischaracterized understandings.

The first problem is that it compares two fundamentally different kinds of things.

Liberalism is primarily a political philosophy. It concerns itself with how societies should organize power, rights and institutions. Religion, by contrast, is principally concerned with questions of meaning, morality and humanity's relationship to the divine. Certainly, religions contain laws governing communal life—Judaism, for example, has extensive legal traditions covering everything from commerce to civil disputes—but even those laws are ultimately understood as serving the spiritual development of individuals and communities.

In Judaism, tradition identifies 613 commandments in the Torah, yet more than a third relate specifically to Temple worship in Jerusalem. Since the destruction of the Second Temple, only around half remain practically applicable. That alone illustrates that religion has never simply been a political system.

Liberalism and religious identity are not mutually exclusive, quite the opposite.

Someone can quite comfortably describe themselves as both a liberal and a Jew, or a liberal and a Christian. I certainly describe myself as a liberal Jew, and I suspect Harari would as well. Liberalism, properly understood, accommodates people of many different religious convictions precisely because it operates in a different sphere.

Second, Harari's understanding of redemption, at least the way he is using it here, is incorrect.

He seems to treat redemption as if it means arriving at perfection. But that's not how most religious traditions understand it. For practicing believers, redemption is not a final state of flawless existence. It is the ongoing work of self-examination, repentance, learning and moral growth. In other words, redemption is itself a self-correcting process.

My third objection is to describe elections as "self-correcting."

Elections don't inherently correct anything. They simply measure the preferences of a population at a particular moment in time. Sometimes those preferences lead to better outcomes; sometimes they don't. Elections provide peaceful accountability and adaptability, which are enormous strengths, but calling them "self-correcting" gives them more credit than they deserve. They are mechanisms for expressing collective will, certainly not guarantees of progress.

Harari, like every public intellectual, approaches the world with his own assumptions and preferences. As someone who has often criticized traditional religious authority, it's hardly surprising that he's drawn to philosophies that maximize individual freedom and remain skeptical of inherited dogma.

The rest of us have our own biases too. I certainly have mine.

What concerns me is how easily we can be seduced by attractive rhetoric at the expense of logic and coherence. There's something larger at stake than whether one agrees with Harari about liberalism or religion. It's the habit of intellectual honesty—the willingness to examine arguments carefully, even when they flatter our instincts or confirm our existing beliefs.

In an age of information silos and algorithmically curated worldviews, we all have reason to cultivate a healthy skepticism—not cynicism, but the discipline of questioning ideas before embracing them.

The ideas we consume deserve the same scrutiny as the food we eat. Some are nourishing. Some simply taste good in the moment.

It's worth taking the time to digest them before deciding whether they're actually good for us.

Time Travelling

I've written before about how I'm not much of a fan of travelling these days. Well, that's not entirely true. I'm not a fan of travelling in space, but I'm a great fan of travelling in time. I do it almost every weekend.

Here's what I mean.

I spend my summer weekends at our small cottage on the shore of Lake Champlain, on the Quebec side of the border. We're only about ten kilometres from Vermont, and much as I love that state, I can't bring myself to cross the border while Canada remains under continuous attack from trump.

Incidentally, my wife doesn't hold trump against Vermont the way I do. She rarely lets a weekend pass without driving over to hunt for collectibles and vintage treasures for her hobby business. This past weekend, when she returned to Canada, the customs officer asked, "So how have we contributed to trump's economy today?"

Gotta love border agents.

Back to time travel.

The bay—which is what my wife's family has called it since her grandfather bought the property in the early 1940s—has always felt to me as though it exists in another era.

Her grandparents discovered the area on their honeymoon. Back then it was known as Kirkland Beach, now part of the town of Venise-en-Québec. They were so enchanted by the place that they bought several acres along Missisquoi Bay, with three hundred feet of lakefront. The property itself is actually in the neighbouring municipality of Saint-Georges-de-Clarenceville.

Over the years, the family built five cottages on the land, starting with one for her grandparents and one for each of her two great-uncles and their families. Each family enjoyed about a hundred feet of shoreline.

The area also became a favourite summer destination for my wife's grandparents' circle of friends from the city. So many of them bought neighbouring properties that their little corner of the bay became known as "La Palestine." It's still identified by that name on Google Maps.

My wife's father spent the summers of his youth there, fishing and boating. Later, my wife and her siblings spent their childhood summers there as well. When I married into the family and we had children of our own, we continued the tradition. About a decade ago, I bought the cottage that had been built for my wife's family from my father-in-law.

I'm not entirely sure why, but I've always associated going to the bay with travelling back in time. Perhaps it's because the cottage itself has changed very little since it was built in the early 1970s. Even the kitchen stove we still use dates from that era.

The surrounding area, however, has changed dramatically. Property values have soared, and sprawling waterfront homes have replaced many of the modest cottages. The town of Venise-en-Québec has exploded with condominium and spa developments over the past decade.

Yet in my mind, the bay still belongs to another era, when life moved more slowly. Somehow the memories of my wife's childhood, her father's childhood, and her grandparents' generation remain alive there. The stories are still told: fishing derbies on the lake; trophy-sized largemouth bass, bowfin (they call beaverfish), pike and walleye; bonfires and scavenger hunts for the children; fathers teaching them to water-ski; grandparents playing gin rummy on the lawn, drinking whisky and smoking cigars.

My wife remembers arriving in June, putting on a bathing suit, and not taking it off until the end of August.

For her, the bay is about family memory and history.

For me, it's about finding refuge in myself.

Only an hour's drive from Montreal, the cottage became a sanctuary during the most stressful years of my life. Whenever I needed to escape, I'd steal away for a weekend alone. Somehow that simple retreat helped me recover myself and put life back into perspective.

When we got Sirius Satellite Radio in the car about a decade ago, the journey itself became part of the ritual. I'd tune into the 40s station and be transported even before I arrived. Glenn Miller, Benny Goodman, Woody Herman, Tommy Dorsey, Duke Ellington, Sinatra and Dick Haymes, Anita O'Day, Helen Forrest, and the Andrews Sisters—they became the soundtrack of my escape from the city and, for a little while, from my own life.

Crossing the Champlain Bridge, I felt myself slipping back into the postwar years—a time when the world could finally exhale after holding its breath for five long years. Somehow that music reflected how I was feeling as I struggled to keep our young family afloat while searching for moments of peace.

The music of the 40s was, ironically, swinging and joyful, filled with love songs and hopeful melodies. It wasn't an escape from hardship so much as an antidote to it. After years of pain and destruction, it celebrated the simple possibility of happiness again.

I'd arrive at the cottage after dark and leave the lights off, letting my eyes adjust to the lakeside landscape. The moonlight, reflected off the lake, filled the cottage through the gallery windows with a soft, ethereal glow. The tiny lights of distant cottages around the bay blended almost seamlessly with the stars scattered across the black sky.

In those early years, there was no television and no internet. All we had was a radio.

On Saturday nights I'd listen to Vermont Public Radio: the old-time music programs, American Routes with Nick Spitzer, My Place with Joel Najman, and, approaching the witching hour, Hearts of Space, Stephen Hill's hour of ambient music. It was the closest thing I knew to meditation—a quiet reunion with something timeless inside me, and with the universe as a whole.

A few years ago we finally got internet access, thanks to the cousins next door. I'm not unhappy about it, although it does mean I don't read books the way I used to. Over the years we've amassed a pretty extensive library at the cottage, and I regret that it's somewhat neglected now.

The internet, however, has enabled a different kind of time travel. This summer I've been binging film noir from the 1940s and 50s. This past weekend I watched Kiss of Death (1947), Road House (1948), The Hitch-Hiker (1953), and The Scarlet Hour (1956).

I love the pace of the storytelling and the dramatic lighting of those old black-and-white films. I love the way people dressed, the elegance and beauty of the actresses, and the dialogue—the more period slang, the better. I even enjoy all the smoking, despite knowing that it shortened the lives of so many of the actors.

Back then Hollywood released a new movie almost every week. I find myself looking up the prolific careers of the actors, directors, and screenwriters, wanting to know their stories.

Today's movies are relentlessly fast-paced. Every frame is filled with action; every scene cuts to the next before it has a chance to breathe. While the old films were built on performance and character development, the real star of many modern films seems to be the technology used to make them.

Sometimes I wonder if it's nostalgia that I crave. Can I really be nostalgic for a time that predates my birth?

The postwar films were ultimately human stories about love, jealousy, greed, loyalty, and betrayal. They were dark, but almost always redemptive. Many portrayed men struggling to fit in after returning from the service, trying to rebuild their lives and find their place in a changed society. What they found when they got home were women who had developed a new sense of their own power and independence. The femme fatale emerged from that cultural shift.

Many of those films revolve around gender conflict. The parallels with today's changing gender roles—and with men's continuing struggle to redefine themselves—are hard to miss.

I don't think what draws me to those movies is nostalgia. It's authenticity.

The films of that period feel authentic and human-centred in a way that many of today's films simply don't. They reflect the fears, uncertainties, hopes, and aspirations of ordinary people. They were made by artists who had lived through depression and war, many of them immigrants remaking themselves. Their stories are grounded in life's enduring struggles: rebuilding, falling in love, raising families, and carrying on.

It's sort of what the cottage at the bay represents to me too.

The Blessing of Inconvenience

Some of you might remember the book The Blessing of a Skinned Knee. We still have a copy on our bookshelf. My wife bought it when our children were young and we were struggling with that bewildering new experience called parenthood. Like most new parents, we were hungry for advice.

Back then, a new phrase was entering the cultural vocabulary: helicopter parenting. It described parents who hovered constantly over their children, overprotecting them, overindulging them, and over-managing every aspect of their lives. Childhood became a carefully curated schedule of lessons, sports, and supervised activities. Children were rarely allowed to be bored, rarely given the freedom to explore their own curiosity, solve their own problems, make mistakes, or develop resilience.

The book argued that this well-intentioned approach was producing emotionally fragile children—kids who had never learned how to cope with disappointment, adversity, or failure. It warned against raising a generation of snowflakes.

At the time, that seemed like a cautionary tale. Looking back, though, helicopter parenting wasn't simply a response to irrational fear. It was a remarkably logical adaptation to the world that was already taking shape.

Parents weren't just preparing their children for life. They were preparing them for a culture increasingly built around comfort, convenience, and the elimination of friction. Every inconvenience was becoming a problem to be solved. Every discomfort, something to be avoided.

And isn't that, after all, what parents are supposed to do? Prepare their children to fit into the world they will inherit?

The playgrounds themselves reflected the change. Hard-packed earth and sand gave way to thick rubber safety mats. Risk was engineered out wherever possible.

Today, even that seems quaint.

Forget the playground altogether. Many children are more likely to be "playing" Roblox or Minecraft on a smartphone than hanging upside down from monkey bars. A skinned knee has become the least of their parents' concerns.

When The Blessing of a Skinned Knee was published in 2001, smartphones didn't exist. The danger parents worried about was that children, left to their own devices—in the original sense of the phrase—might wander the neighbourhood, get into mischief with friends, or come home late for dinner.

Compared with today's digital world, those fears seem almost nostalgic.

Now parents must contend with online predators, algorithmic manipulation, pornography, gambling, cyberbullying, endless social comparison, and a torrent of violent and disturbing content delivered directly into their children's pockets. These are dangers no amount of hovering can fully prevent.

But even those are only the visible threats.

The smartphone's most profound influence is subtler. It trains us to expect that every desire should be satisfied instantly. Need an answer? Google it. Hungry? Tap a screen. Lonely? Scroll. Bored? Swipe. We no longer simply enjoy convenience; we come to depend on it.

Convenience may be the most addictive drug our civilization has ever invented. And the more complex and technologically confounding the world becomes, the more we seek escape—ironically, through technology itself.

Unlike other addictions, it doesn't intoxicate us. It quietly rewires our expectations. It lowers our tolerance for waiting, struggling, persisting, or doing without. It makes friction feel like failure.

In hindsight, perhaps helicopter parenting wasn't creating children who were too delicate for the world. It was creating children perfectly adapted to a world that was becoming addicted to convenience.

The tragedy is that while the world has become more convenient than ever, life itself has not. It's more complex than ever, precisely because of all the effort at greater convenience. 

Relationships still require patience. Character is still forged through hardship. Wisdom still grows through failure. Kindness and generosity still demands effort.

The Homebody Trait

Are you an adventurous type, or a homebody? And is that simply a matter of personality, or could it also be a matter of genetics?

I've always been a homebody. I never cared much for travelling.

The only time I ever lived away from home was for a year in Geneva, Switzerland, while completing my graduate studies. I could have stayed another year to write my thesis, but I couldn't wait to get home.

I attended university in my hometown. The only period of extensive travel in my youth was the obligatory post-high school backpacking trip through Europe. In thirteen weeks I visited twelve countries, from Scandinavia to Yugoslavia.

There were a handful of shorter sojourns after that. The most memorable came while I was studying Russian at university. Our department organized a ten-day trip to the Soviet Union over Christmas break, and I found myself standing in Red Square on New Year's Eve, welcoming 1986.

I've travelled to Israel three times, including a month-long family trip during which we rented a car and explored the country from the Lebanese border in the north to the Negev Desert in the south.

When our children were young, we escaped winter with a few all-inclusive vacations in Cuba, though those hardly count as travelling in my books. Our last real family trip was about ten years ago, to Vienna and Budapest.

I've only taken two trips alone with my wife: one to Israel before we were married, and another to Utah for a hiking vacation.

That's about it.

I'm not counting the trips of my childhood. My grandparents spent every winter in Florida, so we flew down twice a year. In those days, flying still felt like an occasion. We dressed up to board the plane, and there were smoking sections.

We also took several road trips into the United States. Over the years I've probably visited thirty states, every Canadian province except Newfoundland and Labrador, and none of the territories.

Ironically, my children have already travelled more extensively than I ever have. They've been to Europe, Asia, South America, and throughout the Middle East.

Perhaps that's simply because travel is more accessible today than it was for my generation. Airfare is relatively cheaper, flights are more frequent, and crossing continents has become almost routine.

For most of human history, however, the opposite was true. Most people spent their entire lives within twenty miles of where they were born. Today, crossing an ocean can feel almost as ordinary as running an errand.

Since our children left home, home is exactly where I want to be.

My wife, on the other hand, has discovered a new freedom. In the past year alone she's travelled to Mexico, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Austria, and Italy. This fall she's planning a trip to Portugal.

She goes without me. Usually she travels with one or two of our adult children.

When her friends learn she's travelling without her husband, they inevitably ask whether I'm depressed or whether there's trouble in paradise.

There isn't.

I simply don't enjoy travelling very much.

Part of that is age. My body no longer adapts easily to unfamiliar beds, unfamiliar food, or changing time zones. I've also become a nervous flyer ever since a harrowing approach into Toronto a few years ago. We were literally seconds from touching down when the aircraft suddenly pitched sharply upward and aborted the landing. The pilot later explained we'd encountered severe wind shear.

Flying itself has also become an increasingly unpleasant experience. I'm taller than average, and I'm convinced airline seats have become smaller over the years. Everything about flying seems worse than it once was: the delays, the uncertainty, the endless fees. Passengers used to be treated like customers. Now we're treated more like cargo.

By the time I arrive somewhere overseas, it takes me two days just to recover from getting there.

Yet I often feel as though I have to justify not wanting to travel.

Somehow we've come to equate travel with living life to the fullest. If you aren't posting selfies from exotic destinations, people wonder whether you've somehow given up on life itself.

Recently, though, I've begun to wonder whether there's something deeper going on.

As my mother grew older, she became a homebody too.

So did her parents.

My grandfather retired relatively young after building a successful business. He could easily have spent his retirement travelling the world in five-star luxury.

He had absolutely no interest.

Instead, he rode his bicycle every day for exercise and spent countless happy hours painting in his studio.

His daughter—my mother—was much the same. She had every opportunity to travel but rarely did. She wasn't a recluse. She was active in her neighbourhood, but seldom ventured beyond it. When she sold her house, she moved into a condominium down the street. When she decided condo living wasn't for her, she bought another house around the corner.

That got me thinking.

We know that genetics influence everything from eye colour and body type to the risk of diabetes, Alzheimer's disease, and depression. Personality traits themselves are partly inherited.

Why not this?

Perhaps some people are simply wired to seek novelty while others are wired to find deep satisfaction in familiar surroundings.

Perhaps being a homebody is every bit as much a part of one's nature as being an introvert or an extrovert.

I think we're fortunate to live in an age when travel is largely a matter of choice. In many ways, the ability to move freely around the world has become a symbol of prosperity. Owning a private jet has become the ultimate status symbol.

Not very long ago, however, crossing continents usually meant something entirely different. It meant you were fleeing war, persecution, famine, or poverty in the hope of giving your children a better future.

Seen from that perspective, perhaps staying home is the greater luxury. Maybe the greatest privilege isn't having the freedom to leave.

It's having the freedom to stay home.

5786

I watched a five-hour YouTube video this weekend.

I didn't think that was possible. My attention span usually taps out after about 45 minutes. But once I started, I couldn't stop. Thank goodness I had nothing important planned. Vacuuming the carpets and cleaning the bathrooms will have to wait another week.

The marathon video was by an Australian named Stevie Baskin. It's essentially a five-hour debunking of American mentalist Oz Pearlman.

If you don't know who Pearlman is, look him up. His popularity has skyrocketed over the last few years through television appearances and social media, where he performs astonishing feats of apparent mind reading and divination.

Pearlman is an entertainer—a magician in the tradition of David Copperfield or David Blaine. The difference is that he doesn't describe what he does as magic or illusion.

You may ask, if he's a magician, why would he need to be debunked?

Because Pearlman says that what he does involves skills he has spent decades learning. He reads subliminal cues—tiny, unconscious signals that people unknowingly reveal—and it is these highly developed observational abilities that allow him to "read people" and make astonishingly accurate deductions. He has even written a book claiming to teach others how to develop these abilities.

What bothers Baskin is that these abilities, at least in the form Pearlman presents them, simply do not exist.

Certainly, people communicate non-verbally, and psychology has much to say about body language and unconscious behaviour. But those phenomena bear little resemblance to what Pearlman actually does on stage or on television. 

Baskin spends five hours painstakingly dissecting Pearlman's performances, replaying footage from his best-known television and podcast appearances frame by frame, exposing the sleight of hand, gimmicks, audience management, backstage shenanigans (he calls it 'meta-deception') and classic methods that magicians have relied on for generations.

His argument is not that Pearlman lacks talent. Quite the opposite, Pearlman is extraordinarily skilled. The problem, Baskin says, is that Pearlman attributes those skills to something they are not, which matters.

Baskin suggests Pearlman's marketing may even stray into deceptive advertising by using claims about psychological abilities to sell books. But his deeper concern is philosophical rather than legal.

It's one thing to watch an entertainer knowing you're being fooled. Quite another to be persuaded that the impossible is actually possible.

Baskin says he chose to focus on Pearlman because of the comments he kept reading online. Many viewers genuinely believed Pearlman possessed superhuman perceptual abilities. They weren't enjoying the illusion; they had mistaken it for reality.

We live in an age saturated with deception. The music we hear is digitally perfected. Our online appearances are filtered. Our social media lives are carefully curated performances. Conspiracy theories circulate more quickly than facts. Political leaders lie with astonishing frequency, and millions willingly accept those lies.

Increasingly, we lose track of where the performance ends and reality begins. It often seems like we  prefer the performance over the reality. I suspect that's what really troubles Baskin.

I appreciate a good magician as much as anyone. In fact, I practised the art of prestidigitation myself as a kid. I spent my weekly allowance buying magic tricks, took sleight-of-hand lessons, and even performed at a few children's birthday parties. My parents hired the local magician Henry Gordon to perform at my bar mitzvah.

Magic, when honestly presented as an artform, is wonderful.

On one hand, perhaps Baskin goes a little overboard. Pearlman is undeniably an exceptional performer and entertainer.

On the other hand, there is no denying that he walks a fine ethical line by presenting his performances as demonstrations of psychological mastery rather than theatrical illusion. It becomes uncomfortable listening to interview after interview in which he distances himself from traditional magicians, implying that what he does belongs to a different category.

He does this because he wants to leverage his skills to appeal to other lucrative markets, namely self-improvement. In that sense, he resembles countless online influencers, selling mental fitness the way others sell physical fitness and personal optimization.

Here is where I make a left turn.

Listening to Baskin reminded me of a conversation I had two weeks ago with my regular Friday Lubavitch visitors, whose weekly mission is to persuade me to wrap tefillin.

I asked one of them how old the universe was.

Without hesitation, Menachem answered, "Five thousand seven hundred and eighty-six years."

"According to cosmologists," I replied, "it's closer to 14 billion years."

They simply stared at me as though I had lost my mind.

I didn't pursue the discussion. There was nowhere for it to go. We weren't disagreeing over a fact. We were inhabiting different conceptions of reality. For them, the universe cannot exist outside the boundaries established by Torah. Anything beyond those boundaries simply isn't part of the world they understand.

What does this have to do with Oz Pearlman? In my mind, quite a bit.

The question isn't whether magic is real. It's about the limits of reality itself.

If you understand the Bible as a profound collection of stories conveying moral insight and human wisdom, it can be appreciated in much the same way we appreciate a magician's performance. We know we're experiencing something symbolic, imaginative, and meaningful. We may even glean lessons about psychology, perception and the human condition.

But once symbolism becomes literal history, something changes. Evidence begins yielding to belief. And once we become comfortable placing doctrine above evidence, there is no obvious principle limiting what else we might come to accept. In a way, if you believe the universe is 5768 years old you are susceptible to believing almost anything. 

That, I think, is the self-deception Baskin fears.

Not merely believing that someone can read minds from subliminal cues, but gradually losing the habit of distinguishing between performance and reality. He isn't attacking magic. He's actually defending it.

If you're going to deceive your audience, then be honest about the deception. Let people marvel at the craft without misleading them about the nature of the world. Because dishonesty has a way of justifying itself.

Pearlman's most famous routine involved correctly revealing people's bank PIN numbers on television. He famously performed it with Joe Rogan and later with a co-host of The View.

Later, that co-host disclosed that Pearlman had privately "prepped" her before filming. During that conversation he persuaded her to enter her real PIN into her phone's calculator, assuring her that the televised performance would use a fake number. Instead, during the broadcast, he revealed her actual PIN. She was stunned and later said she felt violated.

Baskin demonstrates how Pearlman almost certainly obtained the number. The effect was brilliant, but the method was deeply unethical. It isn't all that different from a scammer tricking someone into revealing confidential information through social engineering.

Near the end of his video, Baskin quotes magicians Penn & Teller: "The best lie is one that the audience tells itself."  

I've been thinking about that line ever since. Perhaps that's what Pearlman is really selling. Not mind reading, but permission to suspend your critical faculties. And perhaps that's what every successful deception ultimately sells. Not the lie itself. The desire to believe it.

Maybe 5786 is just another PIN code. Four digits that unlock a particular picture of reality.

Once entered, everything on the other side begins to make sense—not because it is true, but because you've accepted the assumptions that make it true.

That's what worries Baskin. And perhaps it should worry the rest of us as well.

Information

I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.

That's the famous paraphrase of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's 1964 attempt to define obscenity.

It's what came to mind when I started thinking about information.

Most of us never stop to ask what information actually is. We take it so much for granted because it surrounds us constantly. It is so pervasive, and appears in so many different forms, that defining it is far more difficult than it first seems.

There is written and spoken information, conveyed through language and symbols. There is biological information, encoded chemically within living cells and passed from one generation to the next. There is computational information, represented by the ones and zeros of digital computers, and at an even smaller scale, by the qubits of quantum computing.

What could these seemingly different things possibly have in common?

The clue may lie hidden in the word itself. Information in-forms. It gives form within. Once received, it reshapes us. It influences what we know, how we think, what we perceive, what we feel, and ultimately how we understand and act upon the world.

Perhaps information cannot be defined by what it is made of any more than music can be defined by the material of the instruments that produce it. Music is not wood, brass or vibrating strings; it is a pattern expressed through them. Likewise, information is not ink, sound waves, electrical impulses or molecules. These are merely the media through which it travels. Information is better understood by what it does than by what it is made of.

It can be transmitted, stored, received, transformed, interpreted, encoded, compressed and copied. Yet none of those properties quite captures its essence.

I'm hardly the first person to wrestle with the question. Scholars have debated the nature of information for decades across mathematics, computer science, physics, biology, psychology, philosophy and many other disciplines. The subject has become so influential that some regard Information Theory as one of the defining intellectual achievements of the modern age.

Yet information does not require consciousness. Plants process information. Immune systems process information. Even a thermostat responds to information. As anthropologist Gregory Bateson famously suggested, information may simply be "a difference capable of making a difference."

That insight points toward something deeper. Information is not defined by the material that carries it, but by its capacity to produce change. Data becomes information only when it informs—when it alters the state of whatever receives it. It may teach us something new, confirm a suspicion, correct a misunderstanding, trigger a response, or reveal a pattern that was previously invisible. Therefore, information is less a thing than an event: the act of one system changing another.

Similarly, thinkers are also still grappling with a definition of life itself. Is it a 'thing' or a 'process'? Maybe life itself is nothing more—or less—than the continual gathering, interpreting and acting upon information. Every living organism survives by sensing differences in its environment and responding to them.

What about computers? They gather, store and process information too. Does that make them alive? Of course not. Computers manipulate symbols according to formal rules, but the symbols have no intrinsic meaning for the machine itself. The computer's internal state changes, but nothing is 'understood'. 

Data (stored as a pattern of ones and zeros, for example) has no meaning. Meaning is what information provides.

Which brings us back to Justice Stewart.

"I know it when I see it."

He wasn't really offering a definition. He was describing a transformation. Seeing something altered the state of his understanding.

Perhaps that is the closest we can come to defining information. It is whatever has the capacity to make a meaningful difference in the recipient. The means of conveyance doesn't matter. The material it's made from doesn't matter. All that matters is that it leaves us differently formed than we were before we encountered it. It's the receiver, the viewer, the perceiver, the mind, that determines whether it's information not the transmitter.  

That means anything can be information, or not. 

We may have arrived at a definition of consciousness as the process of turning data into information, and information into awareness.

Hoping Brazil Wins

He was sitting in the lounge of the Empire Hotel

He was drinking for diversion, he was thinking for himself

A little money riding on the Maple Leafs

Along comes a lady in lacy sleeves...

- Raised on Robbery, Joni Mitchell

It wasn't the Empire Hotel, they weren't the Maple Leafs, and she didn't have lacy sleeves. But I was watching a FIFA World Cup soccer match in the lunchroom at work the other day when a co-worker came in to check the score.

She is an accounting clerk. A young, petite, impeccably coiffed Chinese woman with an outgoing personality who collects Hello Kitty merchandise. Not someone you would instinctively picture as a sports fan.

Brazil was playing Norway.

"Who's winning?" she asked.

"It's tied," I said.

"I hope Brazil wins," she said.

"Why? I didn't know you followed soccer."

"I don't," she replied. "I put a bet on the game."

I was genuinely surprised.

"You gamble?"

She looked at me defensively.

"Are you judging me?"

"No," I said. "You can do whatever you want with your money. I just didn't take you for a gambler."

Then I asked her something rhetorical.

"Why can't people just enjoy the beauty of the game? Isn't that enough?"

The conversation stayed with me.

Because my co-worker had taken an interest in something she otherwise had no interest in, and didn't know much about. She was only interested because she had a few bucks riding on the result. It wasn't about soccer it was about gambling.

She appeared to have simply absorbed an activity that has become remarkably pervasive in our society. I imagined this was how people took up cigarettes decades ago. 

That's what unsettled me.

Gambling has assumed an historically unprecedented place in our culture. Driven by the explosive growth of mobile sports betting apps, online casinos, and digital prediction markets, the industry is breaking financial records year after year.

The commercial gaming industry has posted four consecutive years of record revenues. The global gambling market is expected to exceed $650 billion, while unregulated online gambling accounts for trillions of dollars in wagers annually. Prediction markets, once a niche curiosity, have exploded into a multi-billion-dollar industry of their own.

The economic costs are staggering. The human costs are greater.

Millions of Americans are estimated to suffer from gambling addiction, and young people appear especially vulnerable. Their brains are still developing while algorithms, personalized advertising, and frictionless betting apps train them to associate excitement, uncertainty, and reward with placing a wager.

Some people undoubtedly possess a biological predisposition toward addiction. But addiction is also learned. Brains are remarkably adaptable. The neural pathways that connect anticipation with reward become stronger through repetition. Habits become compulsions. What begins as entertainment gradually becomes necessity.

But all the pervasive gambling, in so many facets of our daily lives, reveals something even more troubling than addiction.

It changes the way we experience the world.

A soccer match ceases to be simply twenty-two athletes displaying extraordinary skill, discipline, and creativity. It becomes a financial instrument. Every pass, every foul, every goal is filtered through the question: How does this affect my bet?

The game itself becomes secondary. What matters is the payout.

This is what I found so striking about my co-worker's answer. Brazil and Norway meant nothing to her. She wasn't captivated by the beauty of the passing, the tactics, the athleticism, or the drama.

She wanted Brazil to win because she had money riding on the outcome. Increasingly, this seems to be how we engage with the world. We don't simply watch. We speculate. We don't merely appreciate. We monetize.

We don't experience events for their intrinsic worth. We seek an external stake that makes them feel important.

That strikes me as a profound cultural loss. And it tells us something about what we feel constitutes importance.

The greatest works of art, the finest athletic performances, have always possessed value in themselves. They required nothing beyond our attention and our capacity for wonder.

If we now need the additional stimulus of financial risk to become emotionally invested, what does that say about us?

Perhaps the greatest danger of the gambling boom isn't simply addiction. It's that we're slowly losing the ability to value things for their own sake. If the beauty of the game is no longer enough, maybe the problem isn't gambling, or rather it's not the cause so much as a contributing factor of a sort of widespread malaise.

Perhaps the real problem is that we're forgetting how to be interested in life.

Brazil lost.

Interesting People

Lately I've had the uneasy sense that I'm in danger of becoming a dullard.

When people I haven't seen for a while ask how I'm doing, I almost invariably answer, "Not much." Which isn't true. There's always plenty going on in my life. As there is in everyone else's.

Maybe too much has happened to distill into a single anecdote on the spot, so "not much" becomes the easiest way to move the conversation along.

Or maybe I've begun to assume that real life happens online, posted somewhere—on Facebook, Instagram, or whatever feed we've curated for one another. Note: I don't have Facebook or Instagram accounts.

I've been thinking about this since hearing Alain de Botton in conversation with Sam Harris. They were discussing self-reflection and, more broadly, the ways people lower their emotional barriers and come to know themselves.

At one point De Botton asks a deceptively simple question: Why are people boring?

His answer surprised me. Human beings, he argues, all lead immensely complex inner lives. Yet we've all met people around whom our own minds seem to go blank. We know we have things to say, but somehow nothing comes.

He suggests this has less to do with intelligence or experience than with self-exploration. A genuinely interesting person is someone who has spent time opening the doors of their own mind—not in an egotistical way, but with curiosity. Other people unconsciously sense that curiosity, and it invites their own. Conversation flourishes because both people are interested in making sense of experience rather than merely reporting it.

I've certainly experienced that. There are people who make you feel more articulate simply by listening. They ask how you are because they genuinely want to know. Their interest gives you permission to think out loud.

And then there are the opposite encounters. People ask the same question, but only as social lubrication. The exchange is transactional. According to De Botton, these are often people who haven't cultivated much curiosity about themselves either. They may travel widely, collect accomplishments, and accumulate experiences, but those experiences become content to upload rather than material to reflect upon. The outer life expands while the inner one remains largely unexplored.

When I answered "not much" the other day, I immediately regretted it. It felt dismissive, almost disrespectful.

Part of me suspected the other person wasn't really looking for an honest answer. Few people seem to be anymore.

But another part of me wondered whether I'd become complicit in exactly the habit De Botton was describing. Maybe "not much" wasn't simply an efficient reply. Maybe it was evidence that I hadn't done the work of turning experience into thought.

After all, something is always happening. The question is whether we've spent enough time with our own lives to know what it means.

Once we begin to think of ourselves principally as online personas, and experiences as 'content', it not only drains our real-life exchanges of vitality; it drains our own lives of meaning and interest—even to ourselves.

Belonging

I’ve been watching, along with billions of others around the world, the greatest sporting event on the planet: the FIFA World Cup.

I’ve enjoyed the spectacle as much as anyone—the millions of spectators filling stadiums across North America, the colourful clothing, painted faces and thunderous chants. The anticipation (because, let’s face it, soccer is mostly anticipation), and then the explosion of joy—bordering on hysteria—that follows every goal and even every near miss.

And for what, exactly?

Twenty-two players dressed in tight shirts and shorts, running around an open field, trying to kick a sewn hunk of inflated leather into the opposing team's mesh. A skill for which many of them are among the highest-paid professionals in the world.

So why does this tournament captivate billions? Why is it the greatest spectacle on Earth?

It's not simply because we are privileged to witness the extraordinary talent of ball-kicking.

The answer, I think, is that the World Cup satisfies, better than any other mass-spectacle we have, our deepest human need: belonging.

Belonging lies at the heart of almost everything we value. It shapes our families, our friendships, our religions, our nations and our communities. It is woven into our survival instinct because, throughout most of human history, those who belonged to a group stood a far better chance of surviving than those who stood alone.

The worst punishments - spiritual ones like excommunication and physical ones like banishment and imprisonment - were based on being separated from the group.

We tell stories because they enhance our sense of belonging. We embrace religions, philosophies and ideologies because they give us a shared identity. We celebrate holidays, citizenship and traditions because they remind us that we are part of something larger than ourselves. We gather for concerts and sporting events for the same reason—not merely to be entertained, but to experience belonging.

We are born into a world we did not choose, knowing neither why we are here nor what awaits us. In that uncertainty, connecting with others satisfies more than our physical need for food and shelter. It fulfils our emotional need for companionship and our intellectual search for purpose and meaning.

The need is so powerful, so fundamental, that we sometimes carry it to extraordinary—even absurd—extremes. Every time I watch fans in makeup and colourful t-shirts, waving flags and blowing horns and generally losing their shit because a ball crosses a goal line, I'm reminded of just how profoundly we need to feel like we belong.

Part of me admires it. Another part wonders what might be possible if we channelled even a fraction of that passion into causes that shape our shared future: peace, human rights, democracy and individual freedom.

If even a bit of the mass sadness and disappointment felt when our preferred team loses a soccer match could be channeled into outrage at the poverty, suffering and injustices affecting so many people around the world. 

The capacity for collective commitment is clearly there. The World Cup proves it every four years. The real question is what else we might accomplish if our sense of belonging extended beyond our teams to our common humanity.

Eno

There's a moment in the wonderful 2024 documentary film Eno that shows archival footage of a television interview with the artist and musician Brian Eno in the 1980s. He is demonstrating how he replaced the paper diaphragm of an audio speaker with latex because it was more flexible and he wanted to experiment with how it would sound. He inserts a cassette, presses play, and the speaker immediately malfunctions and blows out.

A total disaster, right?

At first Eno reacts with alarm but then, listening to the muffled, thumping noise now coming from the broken speaker, he says, "Wait, listen to that."

It's a moment that perfectly captures the spirit of the documentary. For Eno, there are no mistakes or disasters in the creative process—only changing and unexpected conditions that create new opportunities.

The film is an affectionate portrait of the British artist, musician, and record producer. Eno first came to prominence in the early 1970s as a founding member of the glam-rock band Roxy Music and later became the producer of some of the most influential artists of the modern era, including David Bowie, Talking Heads, and U2. He is also known as a pioneer of ambient music—a term he coined and, as he admits in the film, eventually grew tired of.

Ironically, Eno was never formally trained as a musician. In Roxy Music he 'played' an early synthesizer, generating textures and electronic sounds that embellished the group's songs. His training was in visual art, and he says that the recording studio is his true instrument. He thinks less in terms of writing songs than of painting landscapes with sound. Ideas begin as notes, sketches, and diagrams in notebooks before being translated into music and other artistic projects.

As a producer, Eno developed a boundary-pushing philosophy that encouraged experimentation and created an environment in which musicians often discovered possibilities they would never have found on their own. Asked what made Eno so effective, Bowie responds in the film with characteristic amusement: "I have no idea."

Art-school graduates and dropouts who became successful musicians are not uncommon in Britain. Among them are John Lennon, Pete Townshend, David Bowie, Eric Clapton, and Freddie Mercury. They seem less common in the United States, though David Byrne is a notable exception.

I've never been a particular fan of Eno's solo music. I love Roxy Music, and I think Bowie's finest work emerged from his collaboration with Eno on the celebrated Berlin trilogy of albums Low, Heroes, and Lodger. 

What I appreciate most about Eno is his approach to the creative process and philosophy of life.

Increasingly rare today is his authenticity, the openness of his thought process and the way he joyfully embraces risk. He embodies a kind of intellectual freedom that pushes boundaries, not by imposing rigid control, but by welcoming chance, uncertainty, and complexity. If we choose to impose structure on the creative process, Eno argues, we must also leave room for the unexpected—for accidents, interruptions, in order to create a space for what the listener brings to the work.

For Eno, creativity resembles the organic processes of the natural world. An idea is like a planted seed that grows in directions that cannot be fully predicted as it encounters new conditions and influences.

To understand that philosophy in practice, look up Eno's creative tool Oblique Strategies: a deck of cards containing prompts designed to disrupt habitual thinking and invite unexpected solutions. Like the broken speaker in the documentary, the point is not to avoid accidents, but to recognize the accident as the beginning of something more interesting.

Watching Eno, I found myself thinking about the fertile cultural milieu in which someone like him could flourish creatively: the 1970s and 80s. In the film, Eno argues that great art is not the product of isolated genius so much as the convergence of historical, political, economic, and social forces that create an environment in which creativity can thrive. In other words, art is inextricable from the cultural scene, just as flowers and lichen are inextricable from their soil, or fish from their river. 

It's understandable that this is one of his major concerns today.

Eno views artistic creativity as environmentalists view the natural world—not as an inexhaustible resource, but as a fragile ecosystem. Just as biodiversity depends on conditions that allow life to flourish, creative breakthroughs depend on conditions that encourage experimentation, risk-taking, and even failure. It's part and parcel of the process.

What worries him is not that people will stop creating. Human beings are irrepressibly creative. Rather, it is that we may be eroding the cultural conditions that make genuine innovation possible. A society increasingly organized around efficiency, predictability, metrics, and optimization can still produce an endless stream of content. But content is not the same thing as creativity.

The question raised by Eno is whether we still value the kinds of environments that produce unexpected ideas, strange experiments, and beautiful failures. Because once those environments disappear, we may not immediately notice what has been lost. We will only discover it years later, in the absence of the works that were never given the chance to exist.

The Bible vs. UFO

From an evidentiary perspective, does it make more sense to believe in UFOs or the Bible?

I decided to ask AI. Here is the response:

From a strict perspective of formal logic and modern evidentiary standards, your argument highlights a major strength of the UFO/UAP phenomenon: the freshness, volume, and modern verifiability of its data.

 

If your definition of what "makes more sense to believe" is based strictly on empiricism—meaning data that can be tested, measured, and cross-examined using modern scientific instruments and living witnesses—then your logic is sound.

Here is how that specific logical comparison breaks down, along with the counter-perspective that keeps the debate alive.

The Logical Case for UFOs (Empirical Priority)

If you prioritize modern, empirical evidence, the logic leans heavily toward UFOs for several reasons:

The Nature of the Claim: Believing in UFOs (defined strictly as Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena) only requires believing that there are physical objects in the sky that we cannot currently identify. It does not inherently require a leap into the supernatural. 

The Living Chain of Custody: As you noted, there are thousands of modern accounts. Many come from radar operators, commercial pilots, and military personnel whose jobs depend on accurate observation. They can be cross-examined today. 

 

Instrument Data: UFOs are backed by physical sensors—radar tracks, forward-looking infrared (FLIR) cameras, and satellite data. This is data created by machines, not human imagination. 

The Logical Case for the Bible (Historical-Textual Priority)

Scholars who argue that the Bible presents a highly rational case use a different logical framework, prioritizing historical-textual consistency and circumstantial fit:

The Nature of the Claim: The Bible claims that a single, intelligent God interacted with human history over thousands of years.

The Explanatory Power: For believers, the logical strength of the Bible isn't found in a laboratory, but in how it explains human nature, the origin of the universe, objective morality, and the rise of historical movements (like the sudden spread of the early Church). 

The Archaeological Footprint: While you cannot record a biblical miracle on a FLIR camera, archaeology routinely verifies that the Bible’s historical framework (kings, battles, cities, and dates) is remarkably accurate compared to other ancient myths.

The Logical Friction Point

The reason this remains a debate is that both options carry a significant logical "gap" that requires a form of belief:

   1. The UFO Gap: The data proves something unidentified is there, but it cannot yet logically prove what it is (e.g., secret human technology, atmospheric anomalies, or extraterrestrial life). To leap from "unidentified object" to "alien spaceship" requires a step beyond the hard evidence.

   2. The Bible Gap: The historical texts prove ancient people believed miracles happened and recorded them with high textual fidelity, but history cannot logically prove the supernatural cause. To leap from "historically accurate text" to "divine intervention" requires faith. 

Conclusion

Your logic is entirely consistent if your standard of evidence requires living witnesses and physical sensor data. By that modern standard, UFOs provide a more immediate, testable dataset than any ancient text can offer.

Love More, Laugh A Lot, Expect Less

People always want to get what they expect. When they don't, they become disappointed. And when they direct that disappointment toward someone else, they become resentful. Countless marriages have ended in divorce because partners carried expectations that went unfulfilled and they harbored resentment until the breaking point.

Expectation, resentment and blame are so powerful they are the basis of political movements.

Having expectations feels as natural to us as breathing. It almost feels like 'a right'. Our relationship to expectation is something we contend with throughout our lives: what we expect from ourselves, what we expect from others—especially those closest to us—and what we feel others should expect from us. 

When we're young, expectations seem to be at their peak. It's why Charles Dickens titled his coming-of-age novel Great Expectations, the story of the orphan Pip and his education in the realities of life. Like Pip, our lives are often shaped by learning to expect less, or at least differently. Adulthood is, in part, defined by discovering what we can and cannot reasonably expect from the rest of our lives, and by how we learn to reconcile with that emotionally.

I once came across a gravestone in a cemetery in Bennington, Vermont (incidentally where the novelist Saul Bellow is buried, I was on a sort of pilgrimage). It was a final message to the living: "Love More, Laugh A Lot, Don't Expect."

The problem of expectations, at least in the way we understand it today, is relatively modern. It emerged alongside the expanding opportunities of the nineteenth century, around the same time Dickens wrote Great Expectations. For most of human history, people certainly had hopes and fears, but expectations weren't much of a consideration.

Life was largely prescribed, preordained, and predetermined. I don't mean that in a spiritual sense, although many people believed that too. I mean it in a practical one. The circumstances of your birth determined almost everything that followed: your wealth, your education, your occupation, your marriage prospects, and your social status. Social mobility was limited, economic opportunity scarce, and political freedom restricted. If expectations existed, they were often focused on avoiding misfortune rather than achieving personal fulfillment.

We often hear it said that having children reflects optimism about the future. It's a measure of expectation. A completely contemporary concept. In the past, having many children more often reflected something closer to necessity. Infant mortality was high, and surviving children provided a measure of economic security in old age.

The rise of expectations—made possible by prosperity, freedom, and choice—has created an unexpected challenge in the pursuit of happiness.

In their book Engineering Happiness, Rakesh Sarin and Manel Baucells offer a simple formula: Reality minus Expectations equals Happiness.

Therefore, if you want to be happier, they argue, find ways to narrow the gap between expectations and reality. Since altering reality is a heavy lift, it is usually the more sensible approach to modify our expectations.

But that's the rub.

The moment we begin lowering or changing our expectations, we worry that we're settling. We tell ourselves we're not getting what we deserve. We fear we're rationalizing failure. We feel ashamed, incompetent, or insufficiently ambitious. Social media, with its endless parade of curated perfection,  amplifies those feelings exponentially.

It seems to me we should consider having expectations at all as a privilege.

I'm not saying you shouldn't aim high in life. By all means, pursue ambitious goals. Just don't expect the outcome. If reality happens to match your expectations, you might consider yourself 'successful'. The hard work paid off.

But if reality turns out to be something you never expected, consider yourself luckier still. Expectations confirm what you already know. The unexpected, for better or worse, teaches you something new.

Skeptical of Skepticism: By The Numbers

The Universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old.

The Earth formed around 4.5 billion years ago.

Doing the math (13.8 - 4.5 = 9.3), the universe existed for about 9.3 billion years before Earth arrived. 

That means roughly 67% of cosmic history had already passed by the time our planet was born. 

The earliest undisputed evidence of microbial life on Earth dates about 3.5-3.7 billion years ago.

The Milky Way is just one local drop in the ocean. There are an estimated 2 trillion galaxies in the observable universe.

When you multiply billions of habitable planets per galaxy by trillions of galaxies, the sheer probability of life existing elsewhere seems almost certain.

It took roughly 4 billion years for that primitive microbial life on Earth to evolve into intelligent, technologically advanced civilization. 

In the Milky Way alone, there are an estimated 100 billion to 400 billion stars. Roughly 10% to 20% of them are sun-like (G-type stars), meaning there are tens of billions of solar cousins out there.

Current estimates suggest that a significant fraction of those sun-like stars host planets in the "Goldilocks zone" where liquid water can exist. We are talking billions of potentially habitable planets in our galaxy alone.

Conclusion: The chances that intelligent life predating Earth by billions of years exists in the universe are extremely high. And if true they are likely to be far more technologically advanced than we are.

Skeptical of Skepticism

Can I trust my skepticism?

It's a question I've been asking myself lately because of UFOs.

They aren't called UFOs (Unidentified Flying Objects) these days. They're called UAPs (Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena). Perhaps the name was changed to distance the subject from the "flying saucer" imagery that dominated popular culture since the late 1940s.

One thing is certain: the phenomenon is being taken more seriously than it once was. There have been televised Congressional hearings in the United States, along with the ongoing release of government materials and testimony from military personnel.

For most of my life, I've regarded UFOs as a subcategory of Cold War kitsch. Even if the phenomenon is entirely fictional, it remains worthy of interest. Like any enduring cultural artifact, it tells us something about who we are and what preoccupies us. It is, in its own way, another form of storytelling.

That's why I'm a sucker for eyewitness accounts, which forms the vast majority of 'evidence'. I've tried to avoid the more sensational material, but I've read a number of books by reporters who strike me as credible. I've watched fighter pilots testify before Congress about encounters they cannot explain, and followed the release of government videos with genuine interest.

Even more tantalizing is the archival material, much of which is now easily accessible online. Yes, there is an enormous amount of garbage out there. But if you know where to look, some of what you find is remarkably compelling, particularly the older eyewitness reports, interview recordings and photographs, before the existence of iPhone filters.

What becomes difficult to dismiss is the sheer volume of accounts. Thousands upon thousands of documented reports spanning decades, continents, cultures, and social classes. The witnesses include fighter pilots and police officers, scientists and teachers, farmers and businesspeople, children and grandparents. They come from every conceivable background. 

Even if one were to presume that the vast majority of the reports are hoaxes, the remaining percentage would constitute a very large number of encounters. 

Some cases, in particular, resist easy explanation. The most persuasive to me involve multiple sources of corroboration, large groups of people observing the same phenomenon. And of those (there are many dozens) some are especially compelling because they involve children who report having the same experience. One such event happened at Westall School in Melbourne, Australia, in 1966 in which there were reportedly as many as 300 first-hand eye witnesses. Another more recent event took place at Ariel School near Harare, Zimbabwe in 1994, where 62 children aged 6-12 described a remarkably similar encounter with a craft and unusual beings.

At what point does the cumulative weight of evidence begin to outweigh lingering doubt? When the tables turn, and it's the skeptics who start looking like the ones pulling at loose threads to preserve a conclusion. That's when skepticism begins to resemble a belief system rather than a method of inquiry.

We live in a strangely incongruous time. We are surrounded by technologies that would have seemed like magic only a generation ago. Smartphones, artificial intelligence, self-driving vehicles—each would once have belonged to the realm of science fiction. Reality seems to be melding with the imagination.

At the same time, this is an era of manipulation and deception, where images can be fabricated and videos altered convincingly with your personal device, making trust ever more difficult. Even believing your own eyes comes into question.

The obvious recent example is how the assault on the Capitol in Washington on January 6, 2021, became questioned, despite millions (perhaps billions) of witnesses on TV, countless hours of video footage, and extensive testimony and documentation.

It seems that today, more than at any other time, if an alien spacecraft landed in the middle of Central Park, was witnessed by thousands of people and filmed from every angle, most people would refuse to believe it. More likely they would find reason to call it a hoax and dismiss it as some kind of conspiracy. 

Check out the dark satire Don't Look Up. It's a film about a comet on a collision course with Earth and how easily we are manipulated and lulled into a state of collective denial.  

But human beings are fundamentally believing creatures. The battle is always over what we believe and, as Orwell documented, who controls that belief. 

Belief makes ordinary life livable. Every morning you head out to the driveway because you believe your car will start. Or you wait for the metro or the bus because you believe it will arrive. You believe you'll arrive at work safely. You make plans for next week, next month, and next year based on belief.

None of these things is certain, it's solely based on past experience. Plus, verifiable facts take us only so far. Beyond them lies a vast territory of assumptions, expectations, probabilities, and trust.

Even deeper, the aspects of life that give existence meaning—creativity, invention, ambition, hope—are all rooted, to some degree, in belief. We make decisions based on assumptions we believe to be true and commit ourselves to futures that do not yet exist.

Which is why I've started becoming skeptical of my skepticism. After all, skepticism relies on a set of beliefs too.

Not in UFOs, ghosts, or miracles, but belief in the reliability of certain methods for knowing anything at all. Belief that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Belief that human perception is flawed. Belief that simpler explanations are usually preferable to more complicated ones.

These are reasonable assumptions. They are probably indispensable assumptions. But they are assumptions nonetheless.

At some point, every worldview rests upon foundations that cannot themselves be proven, even skepticism.

I'm not ready to entirely abandon my skepticism. Just a little more prepared to be open to possibility.   

Self-Worth

When I was growing up there was a lot of talk about self-worth, or self-esteem. It was the pop-psychological buzzword of the 1970s. Books were written on how to raise children with a healthy sense of self-worth because low self-worth was thought to be the root of almost every problem. Violent criminals had low self-worth. Moral degenerates had low self-worth. Losers had low self-worth. Self-worth seemed to explain everything.

It was defined as the feeling that you had value. Parents were told they had to make their children feel wanted and cherished so they would grow up believing they were valuable. Conversely, emotional neglect was said to lead inevitably to a lifetime of pain and unhappiness.

My parents were very preoccupied by this. At least my mother was. An avid reader of pop psychology, she seemed convinced that her own struggles stemmed from a lack of self-worth. Her parents had come of age during the Depression. Their priorities were making money and climbing the social ladder. They succeeded. My mother grew up with the proverbial silver spoon in her mouth, so material deprivation could hardly explain her unhappiness.

The discovery that her problems were rooted in low self-worth was a revelation. The emotional neglect, ignorance, and occasional cruelty of her parents suddenly became the obvious culprit.

I sometimes wonder if previous generations of the past blamed their parents for their personal shortcomings. I suspect that before the earned affluence of the postwar era, most families were too busy trying to put food on the table to spend much time analyzing their emotional wounds.

They didn't turn out so badly.

Which raises the question: is self-worth really a thing, or is it just another piece of pop-psychological mythology?

I think self-worth is largely a fiction. A convenient explanation that transformed unhappiness into grievance and gave people somewhere to hang the blame for lives that had not turned out as they hoped.

That is not to say that a structured and supportive family life is unimportant. Of course it matters. It is to a child what water, sunlight, and fertile soil are to a plant. But it is not destiny.

History is filled with people who emerged from deprivation, neglect, and dysfunction to accomplish remarkable things and live extremely fulfilling lives.

Worth works psychologically much as it does economically. You may believe something has value, but unless someone else is willing to pay for it, that value remains purely theoretical. There is no such thing as self-worth. Worth is actually determined by others.

And that's a good thing, because it means worth is not intrinsic—it is earned.

To have value, you must be useful. Productive. Capable of contributing something that others need, want or at least respect.

This is where family life matters. A supportive upbringing does not instill worth; it cultivates empowerment, independence, and resilience. A child who learns to navigate the world, solve problems, and recover from setbacks develops the capacity to become useful and productive. And from that, a sense of one's self-worth naturally follows.

One of the great lies modern parents have told their children is that they are perfect just as they are. And related to that is the idea that love means smothering their children with attention and affirmation.

The result is often not confidence but learned helplessness.

Children do not become strong because they are told they are valued. They become valued because they are taught how to become strong.

Beaufort

News today that Israeli forces have crossed the Litani River in southern Lebanon and recaptured the medieval Crusader castle called Beaufort. 

I say recaptured and not captured because it’s not the first time. The story of the last time Israel held Beaufort is fictionalized in the acclaimed 2005 novel of the same name (originally entitled in Hebrew ‘If There Is A Heaven') by Ron Leshem which later became a harrowing Academy Award nominated film.

I reviewed the novel for The Gazette, and also had the privilege of introducing Ron at a reading at the JPL.

If you haven’t read the novel, now may be a good time. Suffice to say, the story - which is essentially about the futility of war and the sacrifice of a generation - does not end well.

The Saad Truth About Self-Promotion

Ordinarily I wouldn’t pay much attention to Gad Saad. But his announcement this week illustrates something larger about life lived through social media.

If you haven't heard about him, there's very little reason that you would. Saad is an undistinguished marketing professor specializing in something called Behavioral Sciences and Darwinian Consumption at Concordia University in Montreal. On Rate My Professor Saad scores a barely passing grade average of 2.7 out of 5 from 96 student ratings.

He may not excel in academia, but he certainly does in marketing himself, particularly online. 

He has a popular podcast and YouTube channel called The Saad Truth. His online career really took off when he started appearing on Joe Rogan's podcast in 2015. He's made almost annual appearances since, most recently just last week. Saad has built a significant online following with 1.3 million followers on X and over 360,000 subscribers on YouTube.

He's published a number of books, veering away from academic audiences and toward a popular conservative-oriented readership. His most recent book "Suicidal Empathy: Dying to Be Kind" has really taken off, thanks to recommendations by Rogan and Elon Musk, and television appearances on Fox News. 

The book is essentially an anti-woke screed, arguing that we in the west are too kind, empathetic and tolerant for our own good. That message has been Saad's ticket to fortune and fame over the last decade. One that's been wholeheartedly embraced by right-wing broadcast media and the online manosphere. 

Saad made mainstream headlines this week by announcing that Canada has become too woke and antisemitic for him. He is taking a position at the University of Mississippi, and will apply for permanent residency and eventually U.S. citizenship.  

Saad, who is Jewish, says he has not felt safe at Concordia for a while. It is true that since October 7th 2023 especially, the university - which is decidedly more progressive and diverse than its crosstown rival McGill (my alma mater) - has been a hotbed of pro-Palestine political activity.

I guess Saad is unaware that on January 10, 2026 the venerable Beth Israel congregation in Jackson Mississippi was firebombed. The assailant allegedly used an axe to break into the synagogue, douse the lobby and library with gasoline, and set it ablaze. Fortunately no one was hurt. They sure do have a tradition of embracing their ethnic minorities down in Ole Miss.  

So if you've been keeping score, Saad and Jordan Petersen have left Canada for refuge in the US, and two well known highly respected Yale University scholars, Jason Stanley and Timothy Snyder, have taken up residency in Toronto. As we hockey fans say, we got the better of that trade. 

I think it's pretty clear that Stanley and Snyder made their moves on the basis of principle, arguably taking a step down in prestige by coming to the University of Toronto. For Saad the move is academically-speaking lateral at worst, and a big step up self-marketing and money-wise. 

Antisemitism is inarguably on the rise, not just in Canada, but in the United States, Australia, Europe and everywhere else. Saying you are moving to the US to escape antisemitism is on the face of it absurd. So take Saad's talk of feeling unsafe in this woke country with a giant bushel of salt.   

But there's a bigger point. This is what happens when your online existence eclipses your real-world one. And it doesn't matter if the bubble you live in leans right or left. Your worldview gets warped either way. If you're Jewish you think armed Pro-Palestine activists or neo-Nazis plotting to kill you lurk around every corner. 

I've seen it over and over again with friends and acquaintances. Their paranoia and fear is directly proportionate to the amount of time they spend on social media. 

The Saad truth, as Gad would put it, isn't that he can't distinguish Montreal from Mississippi. Mississippi, in fact, has the most permissive gun laws, open and concealed carry, in the U.S. It's that life lived primarily through algorithmic outrage eventually makes everywhere look like a war zone.  

The bottom line is that Gad's big announcement is really just a Saad and cynical ploy for self-promotion.  

The Message of Blue

It seems that the ancient Greeks didn't see blue. Odd thing to say when you consider that the most distinctive feature of the Greek Islands is their beautiful white-washed houses with bright blue roofs.

This idea that the ancient Greeks didn't see the colour blue was posited in the mid-1800s by the British scholar and politician William Gladstone. Gladstone literally thought the ancient Greeks were colour blind when he noticed that Homer’s epic poems (The Iliad and The Odyssey) heavily featured references to black, white, and red but never used the word "blue", famously describing the sea as "wine-dark." 

What we call blue was likely understood by the ancient Greeks as a variation of black, sort of the way the colour we call pink is actually a variation of red.   

Blue is, in fact, the rarest colour in nature. Think of how rare blue fruit or blue animals are. Actually the animals we unmistakably see as blue, like the common blue jay, don't carry blue pigment in their feathers. The blue we perceive is created by shifts in the angle of light as it bounces off the structure of the feather. It's an optical illusion. That's why when you see blue the tint tends to shift as you move.

With the exception of the ancient Egyptians who did have a word for blue, references to blue in the cultural record around the world are chronologically the last to appear. Some cultures still don't have a word for blue. 

The Indian guru Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj often spoke of our mind working like a movie projector on a white screen. Reality, he said, is a projection of the Self. Yes, there is a physical world. But what we actually see is selective, a function of what we devote our attention to. We order, construct and prioritize it perceptually, and there is a feedback loop. Our brains get wired and trained by both the stimuli of the physical world and enhanced, or de-prioritized, by what we learn to notice. 

The message of blue is pretty clear. What we so confidently think of as reality is, at least in part, a cultural agreement about what we think deserves to be seen.

The Greeks could obviously perceive the wavelengths we call blue. Their eyes worked perfectly well. But perception is not just biological, it is linguistic and cultural. We don't simply see the world. We learn how to divide it up. Language carves reality at its joints, telling us which distinctions matter and which can be safely ignored.

Once a culture isolates a colour concept and gives it a name, people begin noticing it everywhere. Before that, the distinction can remain strangely blurry, folded into other categories. Blue lingered for centuries at the edge of human attention, hiding in plain sight in oceans, skies, shadows and distance.

That should make us a little humble about our own certainty.

If an entire civilization could sail across the Aegean beneath endless blue skies without fully abstracting "blue" into consciousness the way we do now, what are we currently failing to see? What emotional states, social assumptions, political myths, or dimensions of experience remain invisible simply because we have not yet developed the language or framework to perceive them clearly?

Attention is not neutral. It is a spotlight. And whatever falls outside its beam can remain effectively invisible, even when it is staring us directly in the face.

The universe doesn't give a damn

The universe doesn't give a damn. That's why we're here. To give a damn.

It's a simple, powerful philosophy of life.

No God necessary. No saviour who loves you. No inherent meaning. 

This philosophy accepts the cold realities of known existence. It tempers nihilism with purpose by placing life — and especially consciousness, with its unlikely capacity to care — at the center.

One of my kids' favourite cassettes was Really Rosie by Carole King, based on stories by Maurice Sendak. We played it constantly in the car, and later watched the animated film version at home. It’s the whimsical story of a group of inner-city kids singing, dancing, dressing up, and play-acting — what children used to do before cellphones colonized boredom. Flamboyant, imaginative Rosie leads the gang through their small urban adventures.

My favourite song was Pierre, about an obstinate little boy whose answer to everything is: “I don’t care.” His loving, bewildered parents ask him to do things. Pierre shrugs and answers, “I don’t care.”

Then one day, while his parents are out, a hungry lion arrives and asks Pierre if he wants to die. “I don’t care,” Pierre replies. So the lion eats him.

When Pierre’s parents return home, they find the lion sick in Pierre’s bed. They ask him, "Where is Pierre?" The lion opens his mouth and Pierre’s trademark phrase comes out: “I don’t care.” Realizing what happened, they rush the lion to the doctor, who eventually extracts Pierre intact. By the end of the story, the ordeal has transformed him. Pierre finally learns that he must care.

I find the story shocking, funny, touching, and oddly profound all at once. The best children’s stories often are. Think of Grimm’s fairy tales.

Pierre struck me as emotionally detached — a child so disconnected he cannot even recognize obvious danger when it presents itself. I used to wonder how a child becomes that numb. His parents seem loving enough, merely confused and exasperated, like most parents are.

Pierre’s indifference feels less like stubbornness than emotional self-protection. Caring makes you vulnerable, to disappointment, rejection, grief, embarrassment, dependence.

But the story’s moral is that ultimately not caring is even more dangerous.

The risks of not caring may at first look like safety. Emotional detachment can protect you from pain. But it also isolates you from the very thing that gives life meaning: connection to other people.

The rewards of caring are never guaranteed, but they include friendship, love, family, community — and the possibility of being cared for in return. The qualities that nurture life.

Caring is simply the acknowledgement of life's interdependence.

The universe is mostly airless, empty, dark and inert. 

It doesn’t give a damn. 

That’s why we have to.

The Last Review

In the past two weeks I've been following with interest the online controversy over The New York Times recent list of the 30 Greatest Living American Songwriters.  

I'm a sucker for 'Best Of' lists, and especially when it comes to music. The NYT list is justifiably being eviscerated for both inclusions and omissions. Particularly by some very knowledgeable and influential music YouTubers. 

There are many reasons these lists fascinate us in this cultural moment. It's partly because of the overwhelming amount of unfiltered creative content now available — far too much for anyone to properly evaluate. And it's partly because of the abundance of public opinion, informed and uninformed alike, which further erodes trust in expertise.

The controversy made me think about my own brief career as a literary critic.

Well, not really a critic. A reviewer. I reviewed fiction, non-fiction, and poetry back when newspapers still had Saturday book sections. Mostly for the Montreal Gazette, and occasionally for trade publications like Books in Canada.

I got the gig almost by accident. For a time I was program director at the Jewish Public Library in Montreal and was often invited to speak at afternoon book clubs and “study groups,” usually made up of women gathering over tea and cookies to discuss a book every month or two. They would hire reviewers to present the book and lead discussion, and I became a regular on that circuit.

Around the same time I began attending synagogue regularly, where, purely by chance, I met the editor of the Gazette’s books section who was also a regular attendee. One day she asked me if I’d be interested in reviewing books with Jewish content, especially Israeli literature. I always found this amusing because I had no special qualifications beyond general interest and being reasonably well-read.

A Gazette review paid between $150 and $250, depending on length. That sounds decent for 800 to 1500 words until you consider the work involved. I’m a slow, careful reader. A 300-page book could take me a week. I took notes, filled gaps in my knowledge with research — this was still the era of dial-up internet — and then spent hours writing and rewriting the review.

As an added bonus, we got to keep the book.

At first I loved seeing my opinions in print. The newspaper had granted me authority, and I quickly began to believe I deserved it. If the Gazette thought I knew what I was talking about, maybe I did.

I reviewed a few dozen books, mostly but not exclusively with Jewish themes.

Then two things happened. The Saturday review section steadily shrank, and with it the number of assignments. Six pages became four, then one. Monthly reviews became occasional ones.

At the same time, I began to feel like a phony — and worse, a potentially harmful one.

I generally tried to stay positive, even about books I felt lukewarm toward. When I disliked a book, I aimed for neutrality. I was always conscious of the years of labor, hope, and emotional investment behind what I was reviewing. Especially the small press books written by local authors.

But another part of me felt I owed readers honesty.

The problem was that I increasingly doubted what my judgments were actually based on. I had no academic training in literature. I was simply a reasonably intelligent, fairly well-read person capable of expressing opinions clearly.

And I began to realize that my reactions to books were often deeply idiosyncratic — shaped as much by mood, temperament, and whatever psychological knots I happened to be wrestling with as by the quality of the writing itself.

Eventually the conflict came to a head. I was assigned a debut novel by an Israeli-Canadian writer whose earlier short story collections I had loved and enthusiastically praised in print. I expected the review to be easy. Positive reviews usually are.

Instead, I hated the novel. Not mildly disliked it. Hated it.

So I wrote an excoriating review. I convinced myself I had a duty to be unsparingly honest.

The moment I submitted it, I regretted it. I immediately asked the editor to kill the piece. There was no reason to publicly skewer the book. I didn’t need to prove I had taste, authority, or intelligence by dismantling someone else’s work.

I could make a persuasive case that the novel was bad. And I could make it sound authoritative.

But maybe I reacted so viscerally because I had loved the writer’s earlier work so much. Or maybe the review had less to do with the book than with whatever personal tensions I happened to be working out at the time.

That was the moment I realized I was never going to write another newspaper review. I decided it was more important to be honest with myself than with the readers of my reviews.