Self-Motivation
David Goggins
Former Navy Seal
Career Development
Bryan Cranston
Actor
Critical Thinking
Liv Boeree
International Poker Champion
Emotional Intelligence
Amaryllis Fox
Former CIA Clandestine Operative
Management
Chris Hadfield
Retired Canadian Astronaut & Author
Learn
from the world's big
thinkers
Start Learningfrom the world's big
thinkers
Why is everyone so selfish? Science explains
The coronavirus pandemic has brought out the perception of selfishness among many.
05 July, 2020
Credit: Adobe Stock, Olivier Le Moal.
- Selfish behavior has been analyzed by philosophers and psychologists for centuries.
- New research shows people may be wired for altruistic behavior and get more benefits from it.
- Times of crisis tend to increase self-centered acts.
<p>Why do so many people seem so selfish these days, putting their needs first? The coronavirus has not only decimated our population and placed lives on anxious hold, it has also been a test of character. A test that, by and large, we appear to be failing. People are at each other's throats over wearing masks, the true facts of the pandemic, blatant racism, and old monuments, all the while appearing to be driven by pure selfishness to others – a feeling coming from all sides of the political spectrum. Where does this selfish behavior come from, exacerbated by a series of crises?</p><p>For starters, it is to some extent, natural to be self-oriented. After all, what else do we know? We are at the center of our own worlds, always looking to bolster the ego. Self-interest is the most fundamental human motivation, <a href="https://www.iep.utm.edu/hobmoral/" target="_blank">argued</a> English philosopher <strong>Thomas Hobbes</strong> all the way back in the 1600s. But acting out of self-interest is not necessarily the only thing on our minds. As research <a href="https://www.livescience.com/53533-women-prefer-altruism-over-looks.html" target="_blank">has shown</a>, human behavior can be motivated as much by altruism and moral considerations. So at what point does healthy self-care and the right amount of self-love become selfishness, a trait we judge negatively? </p>
<p><span style="background-color: initial;">Psychologists, like <strong>F. Diane Barth</strong>, <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-couch/201602/what-s-the-best-way-deal-rude-and-selfish-people" target="_blank">define selfishness</a> as having two primary pillars: "</span><span style="background-color: initial;">Being concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself" and "Having no regard for the needs or feelings of others." Of course, most of us probably live somewhere on a sliding scale of selfless to selfish moments. Still, in the public consciousness being selfish is erroneously associated with becoming more successful, even though the facts don't necessarily bear that out.</span></p><p>A 2020 <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2018-47966-001" target="_blank">study</a> published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology looked to figure out if people who prioritize self-oriented behavior did better in life. The team led by <strong>Kimmo Eriksson</strong> of Stockholm University compared such factors as the yearly income and number of biological children. They analyzed a large sample of responses by 5,294 Americans to the public opinion General Social Survey (GSS) between 2002 and 2014, as well as European responses to the European Social Survey (ESS). The scientists identified the more selfish people by their answers to various survey questions. Overall, while the researchers found that in public perception, 68 percent of the people believed selfishness was a common trait of those who made more money, in reality, people with selfless attitudes and behavior had higher incomes and also more children. "Generosity pays," as states the title of their <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2018-47966-001" target="_blank">study</a>.<br><br>Here Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist, speaks about the virtues of selfishness:</p>
<div class="rm-shortcode" data-media_id="7ZtAkm6C" data-player_id="FvQKszTI" data-rm-shortcode-id="828936bf6953080e9018307354c0c02b">
<div id="botr_7ZtAkm6C_FvQKszTI_div" class="jwplayer-media"
data-jwplayer-video-src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/7ZtAkm6C-FvQKszTI.js">
<img src="https://cdn.jwplayer.com/thumbs/7ZtAkm6C-1920.jpg" class="jwplayer-media-preview" />
</div>
<script src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/7ZtAkm6C-FvQKszTI.js"></script>
</div>
<p>.</p>
<p><span style="background-color: initial;">What's more, altruistic behavior may be the default option in our brains, suggests <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26942832/" target="_blank">research</a> carried out in 2016/2017 by a team led by </span><span style="background-color: initial;"><strong>Leonardo Christov-Moore</strong> from UCLA. They found an area of the prefrontal cortex that can be specifically affected to make people less giving.</span></p><p>So if selflessness is rooted in the brain, why do some people have such a hard time caring about the needs of others? The answer might lie in emotional intelligence, as pointed out psychologist Lisa Marie Bobby in an <a href="https://www.oprahmag.com/life/relationships-love/a29416336/dealing-selfish-people/" target="_blank">interview</a>. "Emotional intelligence exists on a spectrum, and some individuals are higher in emotional intelligence than others," she shared. "One symptom of low emotional intelligence is the tendency to be self-absorbed, or exclusively concerned about what <em>you're</em> thinking, feeling, needing and wanting, instead of the thoughts, feelings, needs and desires of others."</p>
Evolution is moving us away from selfishness. But where is it taking us?
<div class="rm-shortcode" data-media_id="cyeqmYCb" data-player_id="FvQKszTI" data-rm-shortcode-id="6c5efecb56456e9acc25cf36935b1826"> <div id="botr_cyeqmYCb_FvQKszTI_div" class="jwplayer-media" data-jwplayer-video-src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/cyeqmYCb-FvQKszTI.js"> <img src="https://cdn.jwplayer.com/thumbs/cyeqmYCb-1920.jpg" class="jwplayer-media-preview" /> </div> <script src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/cyeqmYCb-FvQKszTI.js"></script> </div><p><span style="background-color: initial;">Another unfortunate factor – </span><span style="background-color: initial;">many find it hard to detect selfishness in themselves. As a 2020 study from</span> Yale psychologists and economists at the University of Zurich found out, selfish people make adaptions to their memories to avoid feeling bad about their egotistical behavior. The research, <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-15602-4" target="_blank">published on April 29 in the journal Nature Communications</a><span style="background-color: initial;">, revealed that people tend to remember themselves being better to others than they actually were.</span></p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"When people behave in ways that fall short of their personal standards, one way they maintain their moral self-image is by misremembering their ethical lapses," <a href="https://news.yale.edu/2020/04/29/memory-misfires-help-selfish-maintain-their-self-image" target="_blank">explained</a> <strong>Molly Crockett</strong>, assistant professor of psychology at Yale University, and the study's senior author.</p><p>Fast-forward a few years from now, and certainly more than a few people will be remembering their actions of today with a very different slant from what actually happened. As it is, getting a better grasp on behavior that doesn't take others into consideration is everyone's personal responsibility. Where does one right end (let's say, the liberty not to wear masks) and the right of everyone else to good health begin? At what point does your right not to get infected outweigh the right of another to pursue economic prosperity? How much does my right to survive depend on the good will and cooperation from others? Answering these truthfully, without feeling attacked, can stem the tide of real and perceived selfishness that goes against our better natures and costs us lives and societal degradation. </p>
Philosopher Peter Singer discusses the state of global ethics
<div class="rm-shortcode" data-media_id="02eX1Cag" data-player_id="FvQKszTI" data-rm-shortcode-id="45cc6180db791f32683988fb52faff26"> <div id="botr_02eX1Cag_FvQKszTI_div" class="jwplayer-media" data-jwplayer-video-src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/02eX1Cag-FvQKszTI.js"> <img src="https://cdn.jwplayer.com/thumbs/02eX1Cag-1920.jpg" class="jwplayer-media-preview" /> </div> <script src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/02eX1Cag-FvQKszTI.js"></script> </div> <p>.</p>
Keep reading
Show less
R.P. Eddy wrote about a coming pandemic in 2017. Why didn't we listen?
In his book with Richard Clarke, "Warnings," Eddy made clear this was inevitable.
03 July, 2020
Photo by Buda Mendes/Getty Images
- In their 2017 book, "Warnings," R.P. Eddy and Richard Clarke warned about a coming pandemic.
- "You never get credit for correctly predicting an outbreak," says science journalist Laurie Garrett in the book.
- In this interview with Big Think, R.P. Eddy explains why people don't listen to warnings—and how to try to get them to listen.
<p>If only we had a warning.</p><p>Well, besides this <a href="https://cmr.asm.org/content/20/4/660?fbclid=IwAR2veUWlXE0ydoFEzl0PoHPPwcQQkNk1zTncJt4GleZ_whDZi9_xcCCHJyk" target="_blank">2007 review</a> from a team at the University of Hong Kong warning about a pandemic coming from a wet market in southern China. Or President Obama <a href="https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/04/10/barack-obama-2014-pandemic-comments-sot-ctn-vpx.cnn" target="_blank">warning</a> about the potential for a pandemic in 2014. Or journalist <a href="https://www.lauriegarrett.com/about" target="_blank">Laurie Garrett</a>, who has been covering diseases since reporting from Africa in the late 1970s, where she noticed that measles killed way more citizens than war. Her <a href="https://www.lauriegarrett.com/the-coming-plague" target="_blank">1994 book</a> was aptly titled "The Coming Plague."</p><p>Garrett is what Richard Clarke and R.P. Eddy call a "Cassandra" in their 2017 book, "Warnings." The term honors the Greek priestess who was cursed to utter prophecies that no one would believe. A Cassandra, they write, has "the ability to detect danger from warning signs before others see it." Their book covers seven warnings we should have seen—Hurricane Katrina, Bernie Madoff, Fukushima, ISIS—and seven that are coming. </p><p>Well, six. </p><p>True story: a few weeks ago, I finish reading Sam Quinones's exceptional reporting on the opioid epidemic, "Dreamland." The next book on my desk is "Warnings," which I planned on re-reading in order to cover the chapter on pandemics. I open Twitter to find a private message from R.P. Eddy randomly sharing their chapter on pandemics. Either my laptop is listening a little too closely or it's a fortunate coincidence. I choose the latter and request an interview with Eddy, which he <a href="https://www.earthrisepodcast.com/politics/92-with-r-p-eddy/" target="_blank">graciously accepts</a>. </p><p>If anyone knows how governments respond (or don't respond) to crises, it's Eddy. The CEO of global intelligence firm, Ergo, Eddy previously served as Chief of Staff to Richard Holbrooke, Senior Adviser to Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson, and Senior Policy Officer to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. He was an architect of the Global Fund to Prevent AIDS, TB, and Malaria. He's lived, breathed, and studied pandemics for decades. He is the man that, if we had a functional government, would be helping lead us through this mess right now. </p><p>When I mention COVID-19, his first reply is not reassuring: "We're at the most foreseeable catastrophe I can think of."</p>
EarthRise Podcast 92: Predicting the Pandemic (with R.P. Eddy)
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="c1ce45635344c89d8213291842d947db"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/tlcoXGNDlhE?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>Being a Cassandra isn't about assurance, but taking a broad look at the facts—he champions <a href="https://interactioninstitute.org/orthogonal-thinking-and-doing/#:~:text=Orthogonal%20thinking%20draws%20from%20a,to%20see%20what%20might%20emerge." target="_blank">orthogonal thinking</a> in "Warnings"—and piecing together a story. Eddy says it begins by noticing the "invisible obvious."</p><p>He mentions a 1970s-era conference designed to address the role of women on Wall St. The highly-touted gathering took months of planning. Hundreds of people were in attendance. It wasn't until everyone was on stage that someone noticed not a single woman was invited to speak. Once pointed out, no one could unsee it. </p><p>The invisible obvious. </p><p>In every "warning" chapter—the rise of AI, the challenge of sea-level rise, the dangers of gene editing—a Cassandra is detailed. Garrett fulfills that role for pandemics. She claims public health experts are placed in an impossible situation. "You never get credit for correctly predicting an outbreak." When they implement effective countermeasures that stop the spread of a virus, critics believe "that you exaggerated the threat." </p><p>Eddy is talking to me from Idaho, where his family is sheltering. He noticed something odd while driving across America. On the east coast, everyone was vigilant about distancing and masks. As the Eddys encroached upon the heartland, even they started loosening up the rules. No human is distinct from their environment. Eddy speaks about the pandemic daily—Ergo is behind the highly-regarded <a href="https://ergo.net/covid19" target="_blank">COVID-19 Intelligence Forum</a>—yet even he was being lulled into a false sense of security while stopping in communities that believe the coronavirus is a hoax, or at least not as dangerous as it is.</p><p>I ask why we're so prone to disbelieve the science behind public health efforts. </p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"Humans have 130,000-year-old computers stuck between our ears. We are designed for a world much less complex than the one in which we find ourselves, and we are driven by biases and heuristics. We make mistakes all the time because we use these shortcuts that worked really well 100,000 years ago, but don't work well now."</p><p>Shortcuts that served tribes, not nations. Shortcuts that cause us to rely on the quick satisfaction of hearsay, not the slow complexity of science. Shortcuts that cause people to believe an invisible god has a plan for everyone and disbelieve a visible virus is ravaging our nation's broken health care system. Shortcuts that cause tens of millions of Americans to vote the worst possible person to the presidency when a pandemic was inevitable. </p><img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzQzMzYwNC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyMDcwOTE5Mn0.9PjHYUzZKVnqJYs_G2v5rKfxpurCj18s1C7zdwRFUPo/img.jpg?width=1245&coordinates=0%2C73%2C0%2C23&height=700" id="60937" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="bf53d0adae6e8192e58165b18ca1ddef" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Eddy attends an event hosted by GLG to welcome Richard A. Clarke and R.P. Eddy, authors of "Warnings: Finding Cassandras To Stop Catastrophes" at GLG (Gerson Lehrman Group) on May 30, 2017 in New York City.
Photo by Craig Barritt/Getty Images for GLG
<p>I mention conspiracy theories. Eddy sighs—an appropriate response. We compare anti-maskers to anti-vaxxers, which are often cut from the same cloth. We both know plenty. He says it's best to first identify and acknowledge the base fear behind their "anti." Consider the idea that vaccines are a mechanism for microchipping the population.</p><p style="margin-left: 40px;">"Conspiracies are all based in some healthy place. These people are probably concerned about government surveillance and personal freedom. They believe every aspect of the Edward Snowden story; they believe this microchipping story is the next step. They're not wrong that we should watch and be aware, but they're wrong in thinking that we're falling for it right now."</p><p>Because we should be aware. Our government is corrupt to the bone. The challenge is distinguishing between incompetence and malfeasance. </p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"I don't believe in government conspiracy theories because I don't think government is that competent. I've had every security clearance anyone could ever want in the U.S. government. Way above top secret. We do not have the capacity to pull off a 9/11 conspiracy or to microchip people. Everything leaks, especially in this era." </p><p>We've reached this strange era of mass hypnosis, where elected officials like Rand Paul can actually <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommybeer/2020/06/30/rand-paul-to-federal-health-officials-we-shouldnt-presume-that-a-group-of-experts-somehow-knows-whats-best/" target="_blank">state</a> during congressional testimony, "We shouldn't presume that a group of experts somehow knows what's best." Then who to actually trust? An <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/rand-paul-ophthalmology-certification-scandal-why-it-matters" target="_blank">uncertified ophthalmologist</a> playing an epidemiologist on TV? </p><p>We're in serious trouble when people that have spent years studying and decades working in public health are usurped by charlatans at YouTube University. But here we are. </p><p>Sadly, optics matter. Cassandras aren't necessarily charismatic. They're concerned with data, not adoration. Then they run into animals with 130,000-year-old operating systems being exploited by captivating characters. Truth becomes secondary. Suddenly, <a href="https://www.nutritionist-resource.org.uk/memberarticles/germ-theory-vs-terrain-theory-in-relation-to-the-coronavirus" target="_blank">germ theory isn't real</a>, masks are a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/03/covid-19-masks-men-masculinity" target="_blank">sign of indoctrination</a>, and the virus will "<a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-still-believes-coronavirus-will-just-disappear-as-cases-rise-2020-7" target="_blank">magically disappear</a>." </p><p>Eddy's advice is important. </p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"You need to recognize when you're out of your depths and find an expert. It's not the blowhard on Fox News. It's probably, by the way, someone who probably does not have good presentation skills. But they likely have answers."</p><p>This is always true, especially during times of crisis. Times like now, when we need a unifying message and expert guidance, both of which America lacks. At least this much we know: we've been warned. </p><p>--</p><p><em>Stay in touch with Derek on <a href="http://www.twitter.com/derekberes" target="_blank">Twitter</a>, <a href="https://www.facebook.com/DerekBeresdotcom" target="_blank">Facebook</a> and <a href="https://derekberes.substack.com/" target="_blank">Substack</a>. His next book is</em> "<em>Hero's Dose: The Case For Psychedelics in Ritual and Therapy."</em></p>
Keep reading
Show less
How #Unity2020 plans to end the two-party system, bring back Andrew Yang
The proposal calls for the American public to draft two candidates to lead the executive branch: one from the center-left, the other from the center-right.
02 July, 2020
Photo by David Becker/Getty Images
- The #Unity2020 plan was recently outlined by Bret Weinstein, a former biology professor, on the Joe Rogan Experience.
- Weinstein suggested an independent ticket for the 2020 presidential election: Andrew Yang and former U.S. Navy Admiral William McRaven.
- Although details of the proposal are sparse, surveys suggest that many Americans are cynical and frustrated with the two-party system.
<p>Americans are rigidly divided on many issues, but the idea that national politics is corrupt is not one of them. In recent years, <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/244094/majority-say-third-party-needed.aspx" target="_blank">surveys</a> on Americans' views on political corruption and their trust in the federal government reveal that cynicism stretches across both parties, even though <a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/04/25/voters_rate_political_corruption_as_americas_biggest_crisis_140156.html" target="_blank">diagnoses may differ</a>.<br></p><p>This widespread frustration has a logical consequence: <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/195920/americans-desire-third-party-persists-election-year.aspx" target="_blank">distrust of the two-party system</a>. And now, Americans face an upcoming presidential election between, arguably, the most controversial president in history, and a challenger whose chief selling point is: who he is not. </p><p>Is there a way out? Consider Unity2020 — a proposal for a new format of federal governance that aims to replace cynicism and partisanship with compromise and cooperation. </p><p>The <a href="https://medium.com/@ArticlesOfUnity/the-articles-of-unity-f544f930d336" target="_blank">proposal</a> is spearheaded by Bret Weinstein, a biologist, evolutionary theorist and cultural commentator associated with the Intellectual Dark Web. Weinstein made headlines in 2017 after <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/01/opinion/when-the-left-turns-on-its-own.html" target="_blank">criticizing the demands</a> of student protesters at Evergreen State College, where he was formerly a professor of biology.</p>
<div id="9e158" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="63f950051e6bd3b9389dd650479f3589"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1278511477570166784" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">#Unity2020 is perhaps the most important political development in decades. It is urgently needed. The Exhausted Maj… https://t.co/Cn8X8jhx5J</div> — Brendan from Dharma (@Brendan from Dharma)<a href="https://twitter.com/brendan_dharma/statuses/1278511477570166784">1593655864.0</a></blockquote></div><p>Here's how the Unity2020 plan would work, according to a Medium <a href="https://medium.com/@ArticlesOfUnity/the-articles-of-unity-f544f930d336" target="_blank">post</a> titled "The Articles of Unity":</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"We the people draft two candidates: one from the center-left, one from the center-right. Once elected, they agree to govern as a team. All decisions and appointments will be made jointly in the interests of the American public. Only when they cannot reach agreement, or when a decision does not allow for consultation, does the President decide independently. A coin flip determines which candidate runs at the top of the ticket."</p><p>Each candidate must possess three qualities:</p><ol><li>They must be patriotic</li><li>They must be highly capable</li><li>They must be courageous</li></ol><p>The post doesn't mention how these qualities would be defined, or who would judge prospective candidates.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"After four years in office, the order reverses for the next election," the post reads. "This continues until the American public chooses an alternative administration or one of the members of the team cannot run for re-election, at which point a new patriot would replace them."</p>
<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="32de3db8c3344a17afcc9d7589ac5456"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/pRCzZp1J0v0?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>Who would fit the bill? On a recent <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRCzZp1J0v0&t=9413s" target="_blank">episode</a> of the Joe Rogan Experience, Weinstein suggested two potential center-ish draftees: former 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang, and retired U.S. Navy Admiral William Harry McRaven, who oversaw the special operations raid that killed Osama Bin Laden.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"Here we got two people, one of them, I think, will do so out of duty, the other one is crazy enough to want the job in the first place. And what are they? Well, they're both patriots, they're both courageous, and they're both highly capable. This is the road out."</p><p>Of course, many questions remain: How exactly would Americans go about drafting the two candidates? Do Americans actually want a coalition of two centrists? And are we really going to rely on a coin flip to determine who leads the executive branch for four years?</p>
<p>Logistical questions aside, the overall sentiment of the plan is something with which many Americans would likely agree.</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"The need for leadership has never been greater. Yet, the parties have never offered less."</p><p>The post continues:</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"We will not settle for the false choice presented to us. We demand better, in no uncertain terms. We propose a solution to unify our country such that it may deliver on its immense promise. We intend to use the available tools of American democracy in a new and galvanizing way. We are keenly aware of the full history of American third parties; we will not be a spoiler or be relegated to a footnote. We fully intend to seat an administration that represents the interests of a clear and overwhelming majority of Americans."</p>If you want to get involved with Unity2020, check out this Change.org <a href="https://www.change.org/p/american-citizens-draft-andrew-yang-admiral-william-mcraven-for-a-2020-independent-ticket-unity2020?original_footer_petition_id=20691936&algorithm=promoted&source_location=petition_footer&grid_position=8&pt=AVBldGl0aW9uALTvXQEAAAAAXvpQ7IFx%2B9szMzViZjYzZA%3D%3D" target="_blank">petition</a> that aims to put Yang and McRaven on a 2020 independent ticket.
Keep reading
Show less
Americans officially banned from entering EU, at least for now
The European Union agreed on a list of 15 countries that would be allowed to travel in its bloc. U.S. citizens were not on it.
30 June, 2020
photo by scaliger/ Adobe Stock.
- The European Union made an agreement on a list of 15 countries that could travel in its bloc from July 1st.
- Citizens of the United States, as well as Russia, Brazil, and India, are not on it.
- The exclusion of the U.S. reflects concerns over its coronavirus surge.
<p>From July 1st, when its external borders will re-open, American tourists won't be welcome in Europe, decrees a new agreement from the European Union. The bloc decided on a list of 15 safe countries whose residents would be allowed to travel in the EU. Why is the United States not on it? A tremendous surge of new COVID-19 cases, demonstrating that while the EU tackled the first wave of the coronavirus, the U.S has not. <a href="https://bigthink.com/coronavirus/europe-travel-ban" target="_blank">Previous reports </a>stated that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was in negotiations with the EU, but those must not have gone the way the U.S. planned.</p><p>This graphic shows vividly the very different directions the two regions are going:</p>
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzQyNzgxMC9vcmlnaW4ucG5nIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzOTM5OTg2NX0.-iz3XOfQ7TspkN4ijWXPk9DrzQtO9U1t33Lq2nY_Vbg/img.png?width=980" id="3afef" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="cdaae1893efc654e4792541f8492de70" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" />
Byron Manley/Henrik Pettersson, CNN
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/30/europe/european-union-travel-us-graphic-intl/index.html
<p>While new cases reached their peak in the EU around mid-March, they've been on an evident downward trajectory thanks to early lockdowns, mandated masks, and science-based cautious re-openings. The U.S., with inconsistent government messaging and actions as well as a divided public, has been <a href="https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/" target="_blank">adding about 40,000</a> cases every day. Dr. Fauci has been <a href="https://www.axios.com/fauci-senate-testimony-coronavirus-9d0204a8-f8e5-4deb-a8f7-07dcbd41d11c.html" target="_blank">warning</a> Congress that he wouldn't be surprised for this amount to reach <strong>100,000 </strong>if we don't get the situation under control, and he didn't sound very confident that we would.</p><p>The U.S. leads the world in overall cases (2.6 million) and deaths (at least 126,000). By comparison, the EU bloc has 116 million more people than the U.S., but <a href="https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/covid-19-pandemic" target="_blank">over a million fewer</a> cases. The head of the CDC also <a href="https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/06/26/883799638/u-s-sets-daily-record-for-new-covid-19-cases" target="_blank">thinks</a> that the official tally is severely undercounted, with the true number of infected in the U.S. being around <strong>20 million.</strong> </p>
<p>Other countries excluded by the EU include Brazil, India, and Russia, where cases are spiking as well. Who is on the list of allowed countries? China, with some conditions. Also allowed are citizens from Algeria, Australia, Canada, Georgia, Japan, Montenegro, Morocco, New Zealand, Rwanda, Serbia, South Korea, Thailand, Tunisia, and Uruguay.</p><p>The decision by the EU will be re-examined with relative frequency, up to every two weeks. But for now, Americans wishing to travel to Europe would have to wait.</p>
Keep reading
Show less
What did Hannah Arendt really mean by the banality of evil?
The banality-of-evil thesis was a flashpoint for controversy.
29 June, 2020
Can one do evil without being evil?
<p> This was the puzzling question that the philosopher Hannah Arendt grappled with when she reported for <em>The New Yorker</em> in 1961 on the war crimes trial of Adolph Eichmann, the Nazi operative responsible for organising the transportation of millions of Jews and others to various concentration camps in support of the Nazi's Final Solution.</p><p>Arendt found Eichmann an ordinary, rather bland, bureaucrat, who in her words, was 'neither perverted nor sadistic', but 'terrifyingly normal'. He acted without any motive other than to diligently advance his career in the Nazi bureaucracy. Eichmann was not an amoral monster, she concluded in her study of the case, <em>Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil</em> (1963). Instead, he performed evil deeds without evil intentions, a fact connected to his 'thoughtlessness', a disengagement from the reality of his evil acts. Eichmann 'never realised what he was doing' due to an 'inability… to think from the standpoint of somebody else'. Lacking this particular cognitive ability, he 'commit[ted] crimes under circumstances that made it well-nigh impossible for him to know or to feel that he [was] doing wrong'. </p><p>Arendt dubbed these collective characteristics of Eichmann 'the banality of evil': he was not inherently evil, but merely shallow and clueless, a 'joiner', in the words of one contemporary interpreter of Arendt's thesis: he was a man who drifted into the Nazi Party, in search of purpose and direction, not out of deep ideological belief. In Arendt's telling, Eichmann reminds us of the protagonist in Albert Camus's novel <em>The Stranger</em> (1942), who randomly and casually kills a man, but then afterwards feels no remorse. There was no particular intention or obvious evil motive: the deed just 'happened'.</p>
<p>This wasn't Arendt's first, somewhat superficial impression of Eichmann. Even 10 years after his trial in Israel, she wrote in 1971:</p><blockquote>I was struck by the manifest shallowness in the doer [ie Eichmann] which made it impossible to trace the uncontestable evil of his deeds to any deeper level of roots or motives. The deeds were monstrous, but the doer – at least the very effective one now on trial – was quite ordinary, commonplace, and neither demonic nor monstrous.</blockquote><p>The banality-of-evil thesis was a flashpoint for controversy. To Arendt's critics, it seemed absolutely inexplicable that Eichmann could have played a key role in the Nazi genocide yet have no evil intentions. Gershom Scholem, a fellow philosopher (and theologian), wrote to Arendt in 1963 that her banality-of-evil thesis was merely a slogan that 'does not impress me, certainly, as the product of profound analysis'. Mary McCarthy, a novelist and good friend of Arendt, <a href="http://archive.wilsonquarterly.com/essays/note-banality-evil" target="_blank">voiced</a> sheer incomprehension: '[I]t seems to me that what you are saying is that Eichmann lacks an inherent human quality: the capacity for thought, consciousness – conscience. But then isn't he a monster simply?'</p><p>The controversy continues to the present day. The philosopher Alan Wolfe, in <em>Political Evil: What It Is and How to Combat It</em> (2011), criticised Arendt for 'psychologising' – that is, avoiding – the issue of evil as evil by defining it in the limited context of Eichmann's humdrum existence. Wolfe argued that Arendt concentrated too much on <em>who</em> Eichmann was, rather than <em>what</em> Eichmann did. For Arendt's critics, this focus on Eichmann's insignificant, banal life seemed to be an 'absurd digression' from his evil deeds.</p>
<p>Other recent critics have documented Arendt's historical errors, which led her to miss a deeper evil in Eichmann, when she claimed that his evil was 'thought-defying', as Arendt wrote to the philosopher Karl Jaspers three years after the trial. The historian Deborah Lipstadt, the defendant in David Irving's Holocaust-denial libel trial, decided in 2000, cites documentation released by the Israeli government for use in the legal proceeding. It proves, Lipstadt asserts in <em>The Eichmann Trial</em> (2011), that Arendt's use of the term 'banal' was flawed:</p><blockquote>The memoir [by Eichmann] released by Israel for use in my trial reveals the degree to which Arendt was wrong about Eichmann. It is permeated with expressions of Nazi ideology… [Eichmann] accepted and espoused the idea of racial purity.</blockquote><p>Lipstadt further argues that Arendt failed to explain why Eichmann and his associates would have attempted to destroy evidence of their war crimes, if he was indeed unaware of his wrongdoing.</p><p>In <em>Eichmann Before Jerusalem</em> (2014), the German historian Bettina Stangneth reveals another side to him besides the banal, seemingly apolitical man, who was just acting like any other 'ordinary' career-oriented bureaucrat. Drawing on audiotapes of interviews with Eichmann by the Nazi journalist William Sassen, Stangneth shows Eichmann as a self-avowed, aggressive Nazi ideologue strongly committed to Nazi beliefs, who showed no remorse or guilt for his role in the Final Solution – a radically evil Third Reich operative living inside the deceptively normal shell of a bland bureaucrat. Far from being 'thoughtless', Eichmann had plenty of thoughts – thoughts of genocide, carried out on behalf of his beloved Nazi Party. On the tapes, Eichmann admitted to a sort of Jekyll-and-Hyde dualism:</p><blockquote>I, '[t]he cautious bureaucrat,' that was me, yes indeed. But … this cautious bureaucrat was attended by a … a fanatical [Nazi] warrior, fighting for the freedom of my blood, which is my birthright…</blockquote><p>Arendt completely missed this radically evil side of Eichmann when she wrote 10 years after the trial that there was 'no sign in him of firm ideological convictions or of specific evil motives'. This only underscores the banality – and falsity – of the banality-of-evil thesis. And though Arendt never said that Eichmann was just an innocent 'cog' in the Nazi bureaucracy<em>,</em> nor defended Eichmann as 'just following orders' – both common misunderstandings of her findings on Eichmann – her critics, including Wolfe and Lipstadt, remain unsatisfied.</p>
<p>So what should we conclude about Arendt's claim that Eichmann (as well as other Germans) <em>did</em> evil without <em>being</em> evil?</p><p>The question is a puzzle because Arendt missed an opportunity to investigate the larger meaning of Eichmann's particular evil by not expanding her study of him into a broader study of evil's nature. In <em>The Origins of Totalitarianism</em> (1951), published well before the Eichmann trial, Arendt said:</p><blockquote>It is inherent in our entire [Western] philosophical tradition that we cannot conceive of a 'radical evil'…</blockquote><p>Instead of using the Eichmann case as a way forward to advance the tradition's understanding of radical evil, Arendt decided that his evil was banal, that is, 'thought-defying'. By taking a narrow legalistic, formalistic approach to the trial – she emphasised that there were no deeper issues at stake beyond the legal facts of Eichmann's guilt or innocence – Arendt automatically set herself up for failure as to the deeper why of Eichmann's evil.</p><p>Yet in her writings before <em>Eichmann in Jerusalem</em>, she actually took an opposite position. In <em>The Origins of Totalitarianism</em>, she argued that the evil of the Nazis was absolute and inhuman, <em>not</em> shallow and incomprehensible, the metaphorical embodiment of hell itself: '[T]he reality of concentration camps resembles nothing so much as medieval pictures of Hell.'</p>
<p>By declaring in her pre-Eichmann trial writings that absolute evil, exemplified by the Nazis, was driven by an audacious, monstrous intention to abolish humanity itself, Arendt was echoing the spirit of philosophers such as F W J Schelling and Plato, who did not shy away from investigating the deeper, more demonic aspects of evil. But this view changed when Arendt met Eichmann, whose bureaucratic emptiness suggested no such diabolical profundity, but only prosaic careerism and the 'inability to think'. At that point, her earlier imaginative thinking about moral evil was distracted, and the 'banality of evil' slogan was born. Moreover, Arendt died in 1975: perhaps if she had lived longer she could have clarified the puzzles surrounding the banality-of-evil thesis, which still confound critics to this day. But this we shall never know.</p><p>Thus we are left with her original thesis as it stands. What is the basic confusion behind it? Arendt never did reconcile her impressions of Eichmann's bureaucratic banality with her earlier searing awareness of the evil, inhuman acts of the Third Reich. She saw the ordinary-looking functionary, but not the ideologically evil warrior. How Eichmann's humdrum life could co-exist with that 'other' monstrous evil puzzled her. Nevertheless, Arendt never downplayed Eichmann's guilt, repeatedly described him as a war criminal, and concurred with his death sentence as handed down by the Israeli court. Though Eichmann's motives were, for her, obscure and thought-defying, his genocidal acts were not. In the final analysis, Arendt <em>did</em> see the true horror of Eichmann's evil.<img src="https://metrics.aeon.co/count/ba78729b-0e36-4c5c-8ac3-580ef152cb42.gif" alt="Aeon counter – do not remove"></p><p>Thomas White</p><p>This article was originally published at <a href="https://aeon.co/?utm_campaign=republished-article" target="_blank">Aeon</a> and has been republished under Creative Commons. Read the <a href="https://aeon.co/ideas/what-did-hannah-arendt-really-mean-by-the-banality-of-evil" target="_blank">original article</a>.</p>
Keep reading
Show less
Popular
Featured Video
