Flat Earth, Belief and Your Mom Looks Like Bigfoot

“Yes.  I’ve left everything to the Flat Earth Society.  But don’t worry about it.  I’m forted up here with plenty of firepower.” – Hopscotch

DSC00328

A trip flying from Seattle at night to Fairbanks in the summertime.  You leave in darkness, and then arrive at 2AM in a perfect daylight.  Proof of a flat Earth!

I really enjoy a good conspiracy theory.  The very best ones make claims that are entirely consistent with agreed-upon facts, and that you can’t disprove.  The JFK assassination theories are an amazing treasure trove of paranoia, and so are a thousand others – from ancient aliens to “we knew the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor,” to the theory that your Mom is bigfoot (that would explain her back hair).

The conspiracy theory that’s currently ascendant is “Flat Earth Theory.”

Yes.

Flat Earth theory says the Earth is, well, flat.  And this theory has been gaining followers globally.

Did you see that, globally?  Heh.  I crack myself up.

Anyway.

And here I thought that Bugs Bunny® had solved the issue once and for all.

The idea is that the North Pole is center of a disk – and the Sun is only 32 miles in diameter, and 1,500 miles away.  Likewise, the Moon is only 32 miles in diameter and 1,500 miles away.  Seems legit!  What about the South Pole?  The South Pole isn’t.  It’s the edge of a pancake, with a 150’ ice wall that surrounds the disk of the flat Earth.  And, while vague, it sounds like there’s a dome about 700 miles up.

So how do we explain the International Space Station (ISS)?  The ISS is either a secret NASA spy plane, or maybe a secret NASA hologram projection to make us think there’s an ISS.  And satellites?  Totally fake.  There’s no way that your DirecTV© technician could possibly aim at a spot 22,000 miles away moving at 7,000 miles per hour!

Of course, that means the Moon landings were fake (its own conspiracy theory by itself).  And O.J. Simpson had to go to prison for starring in Capricorn One® (a movie that showed a fake Mars landing) because that would totally have stopped NASA.

capricorn_one

Like I said – these theories are fascinating.  Most of them are hard to refute, but Flat Earthers are so very easy to refute, it’s like placing a kitten in a room full of velociraptors.  Not really sporting.

I’m not going to get into the energy flux that would have to be created by a 32 mile diameter Sun to warm the Earth, even if only 1500 miles away.  But we’ve been sending people to Antarctica for over 100 years.  The first people to reach it was Roald Amundsen back in 1911.

To believe in the Flat Earth, one would have to believe in a conspiracy heading back over 100 years.  To add further problems for the Flat Earthers – the differing constellations south of the equator should be visible from a flat Earth (which I can personally attest to), Polaris being at different positions in the sky based on latitude (personally verified by me during my Alaska days), and Johnny Depp having a career.  Johnny Depp would never have a career on a Flat Earth.

But NASA would also have had to flawlessly fake all of the Moon Landings, all of the satellite launches, a shuttle program, and Elon Musk’s ego.  Not possible for a group that wanted to inject water into the Yellowstone Caldera to cool the magma chamber and (probably) trigger a volcano – I wish I were making this up, but I wrote about it here (LINK).  Large swaths of NASA are hopelessly inept and stupid.  They couldn’t keep an afternoon nap secret.

Oh, and sending O.J. to prison for murder to keep him quiet about “faking the Moon landing”?  Capricorn One was a movie that had been out 18 years by the time O.J. was arrested.  If so, their punishment of James Brolin was even worse – they made him marry Barbra Streisand.

And as for a technician being able to point a dish at a satellite that’s moving at thousands of miles per hour?  Well, it has to move at thousands of miles per hour, since it’s in stationary orbit around the Earth.  It’s easy to point an antenna at something that’s not moving (relative to you).

Geostationaryjava3D

See, they are moving fast to stay stationary!  If they want to go anywhere, they’d have to move faster still.

Francisco Esquembre, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia

The question isn’t if the Flat Earth theory is correct.  It obviously isn’t.  But the question is why would someone believe in something (and I believe that the believers in the Flat Earth are sincere) that is observably disprovable?  In today’s world, you’d have to really make an effort to ignore/come up with complicated alternative answers to data clearly visible around you daily.

(By my count, there can’t be more than a few thousand of these believers in the Western world, but they make a lot of YouTube videos.)

So, why?  In some cases faith.  The idea of a flat Earth is based on (some) interpretations of Biblical passages.  In some cases reasoning.  The main proponent of the Flat Earth Society® for decades mentioned that he felt that way from when he was young – and that his teacher in second grade was lying to him.  He reasoned that the simplest thing was a flat Earth.  Other writings (some guy who named himself Koresh – not from Waco but this time from Illinois) explicitly called for a flat Earth, such that teaching normal geography was banned in the local schools around Zion, Illinois until the 1920’s when they disbanded.

But the rumor is that bigfoot your Mom scared them away.

King Arthur, Holger Danske, Buck Rogers, Cyronics and Corpsicles

“The year is 1987, and NASA launches the last of America’s deep space probes. In a freak mishap, Ranger 3 and its pilot, Captain William “Buck” Rogers, are blown out of their trajectory into an orbit which freezes his life support systems, and returns Buck Rogers to Earth.  500 years later.” – Buck Rogers in the 25th Century

kirkbuck

No comment required.

There is a theme in legend, called “The King in the Mountain.”  In this theme, a hero from history awaits.  The hero, though wounded, or old, or with a bad case of the sniffles, waits.  Generally the hero is awaiting a future time when he will be needed to save the nation he is associated with.  One example of this is the legend of King Arthur.  Arthur is said not to have died, but to be resting in Avalon for when he is needed by Britain, and then he will emerge from his sleep, his sword Excalibur in his hand, to save Britain.  One would assume he has a good mattress for a sleep this long.  Whenever I go longer than about 8 hours my back lets me know about it . . .

arthurarrest

Since Britain has now outlawed all weapons, up to and including dull butter knives, I’m thinking Arthur would face this fate upon his return.  The Royal Navy now has fewer ships than at any point in the last 370 years, so if he avoids arrest he might have his work cut out for him if a group of toddlers decide to take over the UK.

Arthur’s legend dates back at least to 600 A.D., but other regions have similar tales, such as the legend of Holger Danske, a big Danish guy who sleeps and will come to the aid of Denmark when it’s in peril.  Like Arthur, he’s asleep in Avalon, and also like Arthur, he’s spent some time (wink-wink) with Morgan le Fey.

holgerdanske

Here’s Holger.  He looks like he’s pretty buff.  I bet he deadlifts like 500 pounds, bro.   CC BY SA 3.0, from Wikimedia.

So the concept of suspended animation has been with us for centuries, and most of the time the “suspended animation” has been just your garden variety of time-stopping sleep which lasts centuries and is susceptible to interruption only by current events.  Buck Rogers (who went from the 1920’s to the 2400’s fell asleep due to radioactive gas in a mine (in the original story published in 1928).

But I think that Clarence Birdseye® was the real inspiration for those that spend time dreaming about suspended animation.  Birdseye™ invented a way to quickly freeze food (in about 1924) so that it retained flavor, texture, and nutrition better.  Soon enough, the first frozen dinner was in stores.  And in 1931 a young boy named Robert Ettinger read the short story, “Jameson’s Brain” about a gentleman named Jameson that was frozen in orbit.  Jameson was frozen for about a million years, and some robots put his thawed brain into a robot.  As attractive as the whole “human brain in a robot body” goes, I mean, who wouldn’t be attracted to that?

Ettinger from that moment was fixated on a science he dubbed Cryonics.  He even wrote about it in a short science fiction story that was published in Startling Stories in 1948 (it’s pretty rough, but it’s also pretty short).  In 1962 Ettinger wrote a book called The Prospect of Immortality.  You can find it for free online.  His book was pivotal in getting attention to Cryonics, and in 1967 the first corpse patient was frozen.  That was one of Ettinger’s ideas – death should be looked at not as a final state (in some cases).  Where there was sufficient medical equipment and know-how, he reasoned, death could be considered to be a temporary condition, a setback that could be cured.  Die in the Amazon (not Jeff Bezo’s place, the actual jungle) and you’re dead.  Die in a modern city near modern medical equipment?  Maybe you and Buck Rogers can swap stories about Wilma Deering.

The basic theory is that your brain stores information in such a manner that it’s retrievable after you die.  It retains your personality and memory.  The basis for this (according to Ettinger’s book) is that rats, nearly frozen, no circulation for hours, were revived.  The rats had been taught tricks, like how to vote on a bill in Congress.  After being thawed out, the rats remembered the tricks they had been taught.  It might be a stretch to say that the personality and memory would be the same, but at least Ettinger had some evidence that it might work.

So, after thawing you might get a new cloned body to put your brain into.  That would be cool if we knew how to do any of that.  Or we could scan the brain and put your memories and personality into a computer.  If we did either of these, we wouldn’t need to store the whole body – we could just store the head.  And storing the head is one option if you’re on a budget and not wedded to the “I need my body” thought process.

Or we could fix the original body, if we had a cure for whatever killed you and you weren’t a cheapskate.

Hey, maybe you could have a robot body, too.

robocoporig

How could this possibly go wrong?  Peter Weller is our friend, right?

So death goes from being the end to being a temporary stop along the way to the future.  But the problem is that people really don’t like being frozen.  And their organs like it even less.  Freezing cells dehydrate.  I had thought that ice crystals formed inside the cells, but my research for this post says that the cells dehydrate, ice crystals form outside the cell walls, and then the resulting salty sludge left in the cell couldn’t support life.  Freezing is pretty destructive.  Frostbite seems to come to mind . . . .

In the 1980’s, a scientist had an idea:  inject antifreeze into the cells and cool them down in such a fashion that ice crystals don’t form and the frozen body becomes like glass:

kidney

Don’t dwell on it . . . (I think this image was originated from Alcor, a cryonics firm)

The problem is the “antifreeze” that gets pumped into the organ/body is . . . toxic, which implies that in order to freeze the organs, you have to poison them.  And getting the antifreeze into and around the brain (which is pretty dense) is rough – there’s some speculation that the amount of pumping and pressure required to get the antifreeze into the brain might just damage it to the point that it’s useless.

The bet for the future is that we’ll have “new technology” (Nanotechnology?  Better beer bongs? High Definition rubber bands?) that will solve the problems associated with freezing the corpses patients in the first place.  Also, I give Ettinger credit:  he’s frozen at -140˚C (room temperature in Canada) along with both his first wife and his second wife, which might cause all sorts of complications upon thawing.

worldoutoftime

I first learned about cryonics through science fiction.  The noted fiction author Larry Niven referred to frozen people as corpsicles, and his novel A World Out of Time is based upon a thawed corpsicle working as a slave to a totalitarian future government.  Which gives him a space ship, for some reason.  They gave the corpsicles jobs that Future Serfs won’t do.  Maybe they can give corpsicles the job that future people won’t do . . . like . . . saving Britain?

Machiavelli, Business Advice, and You

“Among other evils that being unarmed brings you, it causes you to be despised.  That’s Niccolò Machiavelli.  Now get!  I need to use your bathroom.” – The Return of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre

 MachiavelloHistorico

LOOK AT THE SIZE OF THAT NOSE!  You could park a jet airliner under that thing!

Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli, better known to us today as simply Machiavelli, died in 1527.  I know, I know, these posts seem to be stuck in the 1500’s recently – but what better place to study the economic effects of an empire built on plundered gold (LINK), genetics of the amazingly inbred Hapsburgs (LINK) and now . . . political philosophy and business.

Machiavelli, besides having his name turned into a word for amoral behaviors used to get power (Machiavellian) was also a great-great-great-great-grandfather of Madonna, Cher, and Meatloaf which is why they use only one name.

I kid.

Machiavelli’s best known work is The Prince.  Reportedly, he wrote this political philosophy book for Lorenzo de’ Medici.  Niccolò had recently been fired from his job as a diplomat when he wrote The Prince, and back in 1516, being fired didn’t mean “here’s your crap and two weeks’ wages,” it meant, “we just might torture you and imprison you – just because.”  And Machiavelli was tortured by the Medici family – merely because they thought he might have once known a group of people who might have been plotting against Medici rule.

So what does Machiavelli do?  He writes an entire book and dedicates it to one member of the family that tortured him.  Yeah – I guess he missed that job he got fired from.

Note:  All quotes in this post are directly from The Prince.

The Prince has been written about a zillion times.  Heck, I had to write a paper on it when I was in college.  So what’s my take with this post?

Machiavelli wrote the book with an eye to a ruler in 16th Century Italy.  Does it have applicability in today’s business world?  Let’s see.  Yes.

“Everyone sees what you appear to be, few experience what you really are.” 

I’ll mostly skip chapters 1-5.  Although there is some applicability, I’ll leave you with these notes:

Machiavelli writes about differing kinds of states – including conquered states.  His advice?  Kill off all of the old rulers after you take over a place.  I’ve seen this in business – one factory I knew about was bought by a new company.  Step one?  Fire all of the leadership.  Not some.  All.  Every department head except one was immediately fired and replaced.

To quote Niccolo:

“If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared.” 

So, if you think you’re not replaceable?  We replace our President every four or eight years.  A business can do without you.  And if you’re bought out?  Getting rid of the leadership is a great way to immediately change the culture of a company.  No mixed loyalties.

If a company or department was ruled by a tyrant, a new leader will find it pretty easy to start out in the department/division/company.  If the previous leader allowed or encouraged a large amount of autonomy and freedom?  You’re going to have problems.  This type of business might be a tough one to lead after you take it over.

“He who wishes to be obeyed must know how to command.” 

Chapter 6:  Conquest by Virtue

When looking at rising to the top, Machiavelli strongly favored doing it based on your own skill and cunning.  This type of power, he felt, was quite durable.  This is the company you built from the ground up – the company you bought with cash, the department manager role you won through years of hard work and dedication.

“The lion cannot protect himself from traps, and the fox cannot defend himself from wolves. One must therefore be a fox to recognize traps, and a lion to frighten wolves.” 

The major danger of this type of power was the idea that you could reform the system after conquering it.  It is difficult to do so:  the people who liked the old systems will fight hard to keep them – those that might benefit from the new system often won’t fight, since the benefits are in the future, and vague.  Machiavelli favored the use of force to make change happen.  And by force, Machiavelli meant swords and such.  Since running down the hallway cutting down poorly performing employees with swords might be a bad idea, you might want to consider firing them instead.

Chapter 7:  Conquest by Fortune

This is the power that you get when you’re appointed – you have powerful backers that want you to have the job/company.  Whereas when you take a business over due to virtue (above), here you have to make the people that put you into power happy, as well as deal with the people in the company or department.  If you’re lucky, and very, very good, you can keep the job after your father-in-law retires.  But it’s not likely.

“A prudent man should always follow in the path trodden by great men and imitate those who are most excellent, so that if he does not attain to their greatness, at any rate he will get some tinge of it.” 

Chapter 8:  Conquest by Criminal Virtue

If you’re going to take over a place via immoral means, Machiavelli says to do all of the evil up front.  If done completely enough, then you can (over time) make people forget your cruel and wicked actions over time.  The worst of all possible immoral takeovers is one where the cruelty and evil continue over time.

I don’t really recommend this, but we see it all of the time, and the people who do it are amazingly rich.

Hmmm, maybe I should consider evil?

“The promise given was a necessity of the past: the word broken is a necessity of the present.” 

Chapter 15:  Reputation of A Prince

Machiavelli didn’t think much of the common man:

“How we live is so different from how we ought to live that he who studies what ought to be done rather than what is done will learn the way to his downfall rather than to his preservation.” 

But that’s plain enough.  As a manager, what do you think your reputation should be?  Here, Niccolo cuts to the quick:

“And here comes in the question whether it is better to be loved rather than feared, or feared rather than loved. It might perhaps be answered that we should wish to be both; but since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved.” 

Ouch!

But he’s right.  If people love you, they can discount that feeling, especially at times when they feel joy.  But if they fear you?  They will be vigilant every minute of every day.  Fear is a much more potent motivator than love – just ask Maslow (LINK).

How does this apply at work?  Sadly, as a manager you have to remove yourself from the after work drinks.  You have to remove yourself from the “work parties.”  You have to be above and beyond that.  If you are just another person in the group?  Your authority means nothing.  And you have to use your authority – quickly and suddenly, but with complete justification every so often.  Why?  Because theory would say you should know more than your employees – at least occasionally.  Unless you use it – it won’t exist.

Chapter 16:  Generosity vs. Parsimony

It’s a sad state of affairs – if you’re generous, people don’t appreciate it – they simply want more.

“Of mankind we may say in general they are fickle, hypocritical, and greedy of gain.” 

And if you’re generous with your employees?  Oddly, it makes them respect you less.  Yes.  Less.  If you have to pick a reputation, being cheap is better than generosity.  People understand cheap.  Your employees understand cheap.  They have to make choices everyday with their money.  Being generous just means you’ve got so much money that your generosity means nothing . . . .

Chapter 17:  Cruelty vs. Mercy

“Men worry less about doing an injury to one who makes himself loved than to one who makes himself feared.”

Machiavelli is pretty simple in this chapter.  Create fear if it helps you – the idea is that fear should help your business.  But if it’s excessive?  Eventually people will leave you.

I’m sad to say that being cruel is a much better way to create loyalty than being nice – it seems that’s just how humanity works.   A strong man who is justifiably cruel gets our respect over someone who loves us.  Every time.

Chapter 18:  Keeping A Prince’s Word

“He should appear to be compassionate, faithful to his word, guileless, and devout. And indeed he should be so. But his disposition should be such that, if he needs to be the opposite, he knows how.”

A Prince should be virtuous.  A Prince should look virtuous.  A Prince knows when not to be virtuous.  Your team, your group, your company will look the other way when you decide the company is more important than your compassion.  Oddly?  They will love you for it.

Chapter 22:  Nobles and Staff

Get good people to work for you.  Make them loyal to you.  Value competence over cool tee-shirts.

“Because there are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, the third is useless.” 

Don’t have idiots on your staff.  And understand the differences between intellects.

Chapter 23:  Avoid Flatterers

This might be the most powerful quote by Machiavelli, well, ever:

“There is no other way to guard yourself against flattery than by making men understand that telling you the truth will not offend you.” 

If you hide yourself from the actual truth, and punish those that would tell the truth to you?  Well, the game is over.

“Men are so happily absorbed in their own affairs and indulge in such self-deception that it is difficult for them not to fall victim to this plague; and some efforts to protect oneself from flatterers involve the risk of becoming despised.”

If you’re a leader?  Being despised is the end.

Chapter 25:  Fortune

Here Machiavelli starts looking at risk.  Here’s a rough passage, if you’re a feminist:

“It is better to be impetuous than cautious, because fortune is a woman; and it is necessary, if one wants to hold her down, to beat her and strike her down.”

Well.

Anyhow – Machiavelli makes a great point:  risk is not an enemy.  Risk is risk.  And when you’re in a risky situation at work, why not take it up a notch?

Actual story:  I knew that my boss had interviewed (don’t ask me how) someone for my position.  At the next available opportunity, I asked him about it.

I’ve never enjoyed a work situation more.  “How did you know?”

My response:  “If I told you, would you ever trust me with a secret?”

The look on his face was priceless.

When you have nothing to lose?  Doubling down is for sissies.  Go all in.

Remember this:

“If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared.” 

‘nuff said.