Immortality

After talking about Death, it seemed natural to next discuss Immortality.

Not to debate the afterlife of religion, but rather to speculate on the impact of immortality (or at least, massively extended lifespan) on our temporal world. This may seem fanciful, but the aging phenomenon is one of the most fashionable fields of scientific research. Advances in DNA rejuvenation, cloning, cybernetics, neural interfaces and more may advance fast enough to keep pace with illnesses. Less than one year of scientific research may be required to keep our children alive each further year, thus granting them effective eternal life; “actuarial escape velocity”.

My generation could be the last to face death from old age.

If something close to physical immortality is possible, the impact on our societies will be immense. Firstly, to avoid a world of young, fit and healthy bodies with progressively vegetating minds, we will also need similar advances in understanding dementia and the general cognitive decline that accompanies aging. Assuming this can also be mitigated, what will happen to the world if we live forever?

On a prosaic level, personal finances will be transformed. The longer someone lives, the more wealth they tend to accrue. Without death, the next generation will never inherit wealth unless it is freely given during life. The older one is, the more likely they will be to be wealthier, with all the influence and power that large sums of capital offers. Gerontocracy beckons.

But the health care advances that offer such extended lifespans are likely to be very expensive, at least at first. Perhaps immortality will be bought at the cost of hundred-year loans at a time, to pay for the treatment? If so, modern socioeconomic inequalities are likely to be exaggerated and this may lead to significant social unrest. If people riot for religious, political and financial reasons now, how much disruption will they create when the cause is eternal life?

If by some chance these problems are solved, there is still an issue of population. With no death from old age, the population will grow dramatically, straining resources and delivery systems to breaking point. To avoid a drop in quality of life caused by the population growth, euthanasia and curbs on fertility (or forced abortions) may be employed. It may be that eternal life will go hand in hand with many more deliberate deaths. A more pleasant hope may be that longer life might encourage more to seek space elsewhere and colonisation of other worlds would be encouraged.

If the socioeconomic problems of immortality are solved, we would still be left with the more personal ones. What  would our lives be like if we lived forever? This is an important thought experiment, for if it reveals an area of life that would be unsatisfactory over the centuries, why should we subject ourselves to it just because we actually live for a much shorter period of time.

For instance, if long life makes indefinite monogamous relationships impossible, either through boredom or simply accumulated irritation over the years, then is it correct to expect such relationships to last now? Already, in a world with life expectancy only in the 80s, it is commonplace for marriages to end and remarriage, perhaps several, to occur.

Similarly, children may become of less importance to immortals. Would we feel as obliged to propagate the human race if we did not need to live through them once we died? And in a world of young immortals, where would we draw the line regarding incest? Great-great-grandmother may look 20, and rather fetching to her 25 year old great-great-grandson. How many generations of separation would be sufficient to maintain the taboo?

Finally, what would we do to keep busy in a world without end? Would the suicide booths of fiction become reality, to cater to the needs of a bored, anomic, populace? Or would we be able to find new interests to keep us motivated?

Immortality is one of mankind’s most cherished dreams. We still have lot of work to do to make it reality, but yet so much more to make it a pleasant one.

Death

“One can survive everything nowadays, except death, and live down anything, except a good reputation.”

- Oscar Wilde

Death remains our fiercest taboo.

Uniquely on this planet, humans are able to anticipate their own death. A friend recently asked if we think enough about it, so I felt obliged to offer my own thoughts.

Death lurks in the darkest recesses of our collective psyche. The major world religions have all devised strategies for side-stepping death. According to the Jewish Talmud, the soul maintains a relationship with the body for a year after death. The righteous then gain entrance to Paradise (Gan Eden) and the wicked are cast into Geihinnom (transliterated to Greek as Gehenna). At the coming of Messiah, Orthodox Jews believe the soul will return to the dust and the body resurrected.

Christianity incorporated this belief in a life after death, refining notions of Heaven and Hell and the concept of a Judgement Day where the worth of souls is weighed and measured to determine whether one is doomed to burn in Hell or live forever at God’s side. Islam also claims a reward of life after death if one lives according to that religion’s values during life. Hinduism and Buddhism don’t go that far. Instead they recycle mortal life until Moksha or Nirvana is reached, at which time unity with the universe itself (another form of life everlasting) is achieved.

The totalitarian political ideologies of the 20th century – communism and fascism – attempted to override our fear of death by creating greater fear of the State. Both failed to frighten us enough, and so failed as ideologies themselves. The ideology that survived the 20th century – capitalism – instead uses Money, as the key secondary reinforcer, to substitute for religious salvation. By chasing money, we forget to chase life’s meaning, and instead can live in a drug-addled haze of false hope.

If religion and politics have both failed to solve the problem of death, perhaps we should turn to philosophy. The Ancients focused on what made for a just or a happy life, in the belief that this would assuage the eventual pain of death. Epicurus bravely tried to define death out of existence as it being merely “the deprivation of sensation” and so not to be feared. More recent thinkers have welcomed death as freeing us from the burden of life (Schopenhauer) or that death is as meaninglessness and non-existent as life (nihilism and its postmodern variants).

Psychology also attempts to help us accept death. Erik Erikson suggested that human existence has eight stages, the last of which is characterised by a conflict between feelings of integrity at a life well-lived and despair at its imminent end. Acceptance is brought about by the wisdom to acknowledge that on balance the positive was enough. It is a hopeful thought, that in the end we will be able to sigh, smile and breathe our last with contentment. I like the idea, but wonder if it is possible.

Humanity also still yearns for something more. Science Fiction is full of tales of DNA rejuvenation, human/computer interfaces and other fantastical devices for indefinitely prolonging life. Barely a month goes by without a feature in one of the glossy Sunday supplements of age-defying new medical therapies just over the horizon that will allow mankind to live forever. Craig Ventner recently hit the headlines when he created a synthetic cell, and one of the first questions journalists asked was whether it was a way to eternal life. The Grail Myth and its Elixir of Eternal Youth never quite disappears…

But for all these attempts to understand or evade Death, we can forget something more vital. We are a Death Cult. Our awareness of death has forced mankind to think, to adapt, to evolve, to strive to outwit the Reaper. It is the ultimate mother of invention. Our lives are seen through the prism of our mortality. Fear of death has built modern civilisation.

Hell on Earth

This is one man’s Hell on Earth.

Click the above picture to open a larger version. This is what Francisco Goya, last of the Old Masters, saw as his own potential future, suffering from a mental breakdown (possibly some sort of paranoid illness) at the time of painting it. It depicts the state of the lunatic asylums of his era and the picture is shocking.

Bright sunshine dominates the top of the image, like the light of Heaven blinding viewers to what occurs there. Beneath massive black walls, like those protecting Dante’s City of Dis, the inhabitants of the asylum have expressions of sheer agony on their faces. Dressed in rags, mirroring the disorder of their minds, or naked and similarly totally bereft of their senses, they fight, grimace, contort and rage at the world around them. The character framed by the archway in the back raises his hands with a grin on his face like some mythical demon acting as the ringmaster orchestrating this agonising scene.

I find the woman on the floor in the front right of the painting, clutching her knees, and rocking back and forward, the most frightening player in this tragedy. She stares at us, features twisted into a mask of evil, daring us – willing us – to enter her domain and devour us.

Goya is equally torn. His mind is near breaking point, but he retains insight enough to know what lies in store for him should his final psychic defences shatter. He yearns to look upwards to the light, but morbidly suspects his future is in the netherworld of the shadows. This is the fear and stigma of mental illness in its purest form.

There has been much progress in the understanding and treatment of mental illness over the intervening centuries. But I wonder how many of the people I’ve treated over the years viewed the future with Goya’s all-pervasive terror?

How to retire at 30

OK, so the title is slightly misleading. Unless you have large amounts of inherited wealth or win the lottery, you won’t be able to sit back and do nothing at all from age 30.

But honestly, would you really want to do absolutely nothing at all?

Instead, this article is about doing the things you love. It is definitely possible to avoid having to work for someone else and to avoid doing work you dislike.  You can regain control over your life trajectory and do something you genuinely enjoy that just happens to earn you money. For as Seneca says in Letter 16 to Lucilius, when he quotes Epicurus:

“If you live according to nature, you will never be poor; if you live according to opinion, you will never be rich”

1. Figure out your passion and monetise it – everyone enjoys doing something. Identify what that is for you, and then work out what the core skills involved in that passion. For instance, if you love partying, what is it about partying that you love? Is it chatting to your friends, is it dancing, is it finding new and exciting places to visit? Each of those aspects has a skill set behind it that can be channeled into an income-generating project. For instance, enjoying chatting your friends involves communication skills, building rapport, and engaging an audience. Those are ideal skills for working with the general public and convincing them to buy a product or to work with you on a project. Dancing involves physical exercise and a sense of rhythm… perfect for someone who teaches aerobics or coaches a dance class of their own. Finding new and exciting places to party involves researching, planning and maybe even scouting out ahead of time. These are skills that could make you a great event organiser. You get the idea. Don’t think of retirement as doing nothing. That would be boring. Retirement is all about doing the things you love and not doing the things you hate. The things you love can earn you money. Think laterally.
2. Start planning early – most people lack motivation. They fantasise about leaving their job and doing what they love, but never get round to doing it. They will procrastinate indefinitely, and then realise they’re 50 and still stuck in a rut. Actively identify your goals and plan ahead. Check your progress regularly and refine your plans as you go along.
3. Save aggressively – you’re going to need a cash buffer. Setting up new revenue streams is rarely trouble-free and things often take a year or more to grow, especially if you let them grow organically. The more cash you can stockpile, the easier it will be to take the plunge. Work out how much cash you feel you need in order to leave the job you dislike.
4. Look for maximum cost-efficiency in everything you do – don’t waste money on extravagances that don’t actually contribute to your long-term happiness, but equally, don’t be afraid to spend money on things someone else can do better and more efficiently than you. This is all about maximising your efficiency and maintaining what economists would call a relative competitive advantage. Spending time on tasks that you’re bad at carries with it an opportunity cost; while you’re wasting time, you will not be doing things you’re better at (which will generate more cash than you save doing the original task yourself). Worse, you will feel too exhausted to do the things you’re good at afterwards
5. Don’t wait too long – once you have a family, and especially once you have children, it’s hard to convince yourself to take a chance. After all, it’s not just your own life at stake, it’s your dependents too. So make your move while you can.

By the way, I didn’t manage to get out of the rat-race at 30. I was a late bloomer; it took me until 32.

Gone in a flash

I now live in a speed camera-free county.

Thanks to a reduction in central funding, Oxfordshire County Council has ratified an earlier vote to turn off all the speed cameras within the county. Speed cameras are probably the most divisive road safety measure. Proponents argue that they save lives, and besides, the law is the law.

They also represent something far less pure in motive and more dangerously insidious. They are a bright yellow manifestation of the surveillance culture that we have been increasingly subjected to over the past 10-20 years, as well as a dereliction of the duty of the state to be just in its approach to law enforcement.

I would absolutely agree that it is imperative for motorists to drive at an appropriately safe speed on the roads. I would also argue that the speed that is appropriate varies according to weather, traffic, car, mood and a myriad of other factors. Speed cameras, with their one-size-fits-all approach to law enforcement, pay zero regard to this.

The unsafe driver going at 40mph in  a 50-zone in torrential rain, in a rustbucket of a car, tailgating the driver in front of him, receives no fine. The safe driver in a well-maintained car with upgraded brakes, going at 60mph in the same zone, in perfect weather with no traffic, gets penalised. That is both unfair and ridiculous. It is the mark of a state that does not think, and blindly enforces.

I hope the removal of the speed cameras encourages a more dynamic and truly fair approach to road safety.

Dancing into Oblivion

The painting above is Poussin‘s A Dance to the Music of Time, currently held by the Wallace Collection in London.

Notice the ecstasy of those dancing, as they lose themselves in the music and let the world drift by. They will dance from the very origin of the universe until its ultimate oblivion. Poverty, Labour, Wealth and Pleasure are trapped in an endless whirling dervish.

Similarly, most people spend their lives dancing to the inaudible, if discordant, music of their existence. The tempo is driven by expectations, both external and internal. Their need to keep dancing is a manic defence mechanism, preventing quieter contemplation and insight.

Sometimes you need to stop dancing to actually be able to listen to the music.

The problem with Science

Antoine-Laurent de Lavoisier typifies for me the archetypal great theoretical scientist. Born into wealth, he preserved his inheritance and devoted his life to extending knowledge rather than having to waste precious time and resources earning money.

He did not limit himself to any one narrow field. Rather than attempt to reinvent the wheel, he read widely, absorbing knowledge from many disciplines and his genius was in noting discrepancies and theorising solutions that solved those problems and filled in the gaps. He would then prove himself correct through careful experiment. He was first to recognise the law of conservation of mass, he identified oxygen and hydrogen, correctly theorised that respiration was a form of combustion, disproved phlogiston, devised the metric system, and wrote up the first attempt at classifying the elements as well as a system for naming compounds. He also dabbled in geology, civic engineering, and even invested in tax collection agencies. In his spare time, he also qualified as a lawyer and was admitted to the Bar.

He was eventually murdered by the guillotine during the French Revolution for a trumped-up charge. The judge at his trial declared: “The Republic needs neither scientists nor chemists…”

Lavoisier’s career is impressive not just for its polymathic qualities, but for its great drive to unify those disparate elements of the Sciences into one field. Sadly, it is much harder to achieve this today. With increasing complexity has come increasing specialisation. Scientists now spend entire research careers focusing on minutiae. Of course, this is important in some ways. We need capable technicians to perform this sort of experiment.

But the balkanisation of scientific research into a plethora of sub-speciality disciplines has gone hand in hand with a focus on obtaining funding (something Lavoisier never had to worry about). It is much simpler to obtain grants for narrow, focused experiments than for grand (if woolly at first) theories and this causes scientists to spend much of their time chasing intellectual blind alleys, simply because that pays the lab bills. What we need more than ever is the theoretical and synthetic approach to Science typified by Lavoisier, to attempt to unify advances in knowledge across many disciplines.

Perhaps the solution is encouraging more of the independently wealthy, like Lavoisier, into science? Sadly, Enlightenment values only rarely inspire people these days. Perhaps the best solution is to encourage them to fund more of this “blue sky” scientific research, out of philanthropic motives? Messrs Gates, Buffett and Allen have all set up charitable foundations that should go some way towards supporting this sort of work. Let us hope more join them.

Interview Technique: Part II – All the Right Answers

Yesterday I discussed how to be a good interviewer. Today I want to discuss some of the key elements of how to impress as an interviewee.

• Research - Little annoys interviewers more than candidates who haven’t the faintest idea about the organisation they want to join or the role they would be expected to do. There’s no excuse for it these days – the internet is a goldmine of information, including the company’s own website. Depending on the role, you may want to make contact with someone in the organisation before the interview, for an informal chat about the job (remember that the content of that discussion may feed back to those interviewing you, so don’t let yourself be too informal!)
• Evaluate - Compare your CV/resume with the person specification for the job and think how your skills and track record match up to the spec. Think of a few situations in your past career where you had to apply those skills; it’s likely you will be asked about this. There are a number of mnemonics you can use to remember how to structure these anecdotes into a logical, coherent narrative, but I like the STAR format (define in turn each of: Situation, Task, Action, Result) and then explain how you would do even better in a similar situation in the future.
• Prepare - As well as the above, there are certain other questions it’s almost a given that you will be asked – the basics like summarising your career, your experience, what you understand about the job, and why you want to do it. Think about the key points you want to make to answer these questions, but my strong advice is to NOT memorise full answers. You want to sound natural and expressive in the interview. Closely memorised scripts are dangerous because you can sound bored, and also because if the question is phrased differently to your expectations, you won’t be able to improvise. Know the bullet points you want to make, and talk around them.
• Attire - Dress professionally. This doesn’t always mean full business attire, but unless you know for sure otherwise, it’s usually a safe bet. Keep it conservative and seemly. Remember to be well-groomed and keep jewellery, accessories, and unconventional hair to a discreet minimum. I’d also suggest avoiding the cologne/perfume, but remembering the antiperspirant! Talking of sweat, most people are nervous before an interview, especially if they haven’t done many before. Expect the anxiety, acknowledge it to yourself and prepare for it. Simple relaxation techniques can help, such as deep controlled breathing, as can reminding yourself that the interviewers are no better than you, simply that they are at a different stage of their career and so have commensurately more experience.
• Body Language – Most communication in a conversation is non-verbal. Controlling that element of the conversation will go a long way to creating a good impression. Simple things matter. When entering the interview room, shake hands if offered (a single, firm handshake – avoid being limpwristed or crushing them), make eye contact and smile. Take the seat offered to you and be aware of your body language and tone of voice throughout the interview. Avoid fidgeting, scratching, excessively closed posture (crossed arms/legs), looking anywhere but at the interviewer, and sounding bored or irritated by the questions. Especially if the questions are boring or irritating! It can help to practice your interview technique before, but try to get someone experienced at interviewing to do the mock interview, or it can be less than helpful or even counterproductive. Some people often find it helpful to video themselves during a mock interview, so they can look back at the tape and notice all the little quirks, vocal tics and distracting mannerisms they may have and iron them out.
• Any other questions? – This is often the last question you’re asked. You’re allowed to say “no, thank you” to this question. If you do ask one, make sure it’s relevant, focused and appropriate
• Danger, Danger! – Sometimes you may also be asked to negotiate on salary/benefits. This is very, very dangerous territory in an interview. I would suggest that if things get to this stage you have a good chance of being offered the job but it can still go horribly wrong. Be clear on what you will accept, but realistic, and it helps to give a sensible reason for each request and to mitigate the request with compromise elsewhere or with a clear expression of how much you want to work for the organisation.

Many times, even if they like you, you won’t be offered the post on the spot and be told that they will be in touch. This is common, and not necessarily a brush-off, so don’t be discouraged! And if you don’t get the job, ask for feedback and become a better candidate for the next interview.

I hope these basic tips help you next time you have to go for an interview. Good luck!

Interview Technique: Part I – All the Right Questions

I thought some readers might be interested in a two part series on interview technique.

Today’s post will focus on how to be a good interviewer, and the second part will be about how to impress as an interviewee. Obviously short blog posts can’t cover much detail, but even a few key points might be useful, if only as jumping-off points for your own research.

My background to this is that I teach interview skills as part of a programme of lectures and practical workshops I’ve been running with a colleague for some years now. In my experience, probably the most consistent feature of the interview process is fear.

What candidates often don’t realise is that for inexperienced interviewers, the process of conducting fair, but revealing, interviews can be just as nerve-wracking for them as for the candidate. This post should therefore not only be helpful to interviewers, but also might just give interviewees a reassuring glimpse of life on the other side of the table!

• Prepare - a good interviewer should have a crystal clear understanding of the key skills and aptitudes a successful candidate has to demonstrate to you in order to fulfil the role you’re interviewing for.
• Engage - a tense interviewee cannot demonstrate those skills to you, so be humane and natural with them. Smile, shake hands, ask a few easy general questions to start off with, maybe offer them a glass of water or cup of coffee.
• Observe - be aware of the emotions and interactions in the room. Monitor their tone of voice, their body language and other non-verbal cues. Interviews can be pressure cookers but work can be too, so a good candidate should still be able to retain their poise and manage their nerves without appearing angry, bored or irritated.
• Ask - aim to use open unbiased questions that allow the interviewee scope to answer fruitfully. Try to use similar questions with all the candidates so you have a good reference base to compare answers. The questions need not be identical, but they should test the same areas of knowledge or aptitude, and this should be congruent with the skills required for the job. Typically, they will cover both past performance and future plans.
• Fallback - have a few more testing questions to distinguish between equally well-prepared candidates. These can be particularly powerful discriminators if they test applied knowledge or an ability to work through a difficult problem the candidate is likely to face in the position they’re interviewing for.
• Trust - trust your instincts. Many candidates have similar backgrounds and CVs/resumes, and may answer questions fairly similarly. You know your team and your organisation best. If in doubt, trust your instincts.

Next time I’ll cover some of the basics of being a good interviewee. But here’s a sneak preview hint: now you know how to be a good interviewer, you should have a head start in how to be a good interviewee as well.

A game of chance? Not the way I play it…

This is Caravaggio’s early masterpiece, The Cardsharps.

It (or rather, sadly, a mere print of it) hangs in my dining room, looming large over guests as they eat. Some would consider it a strange choice for a dining room, but I’ve never been too worried about being thought a little eccentric. The Cardsharps bears closer study, both for the psychological insight on display, and for the clothes on show.

The narrative can be grasped instantly – the young man on the left is being systematically cheated by the other two players – but the detail is immense. Our dupe has an almost angelic innocent expression, more akin to cherub than Roman. His clothes are new, luxurious and well-fitting, speaking volumes for his wealth and naivety. The young rascal opposite him is tense and furtive, mouth slightly agape, as he reaches towards the hidden cards in tucked into his waistband. His clothes are bright and new, but also flashy, and I think it no coincidence that the yellow and black striped doublet echoes the warning colours of a wasp. The drooping feather in his cap symbolises a soul already bending in the winds of fate.

The older cardsharp in the middle of the picture has an air of desperation about him. His eyes are wide as he cranes over to see the cards of the dupe and the holes in his glove could be interpreted as either a sign of poverty, or of a practised cheat who uses his fingertips to feel the indentations of a marked deck. He also wears warning yellow and black, and his left hand on the table is inching ever closer to the hilt of his younger accomplice’s short dagger.

The painting masterfully demonstrates Caravaggio’s understanding of body language, understanding of the symbolism of clothing, and his sense of theatricality and black humour. The eye does not, cannot, rest on any one character, but darts around the scene, drinking in the narrative and filling in any psychological gaps. It is an exercise in Theory of Mind; the ability to put oneself in another’s shoes.

Both delicate and menacing, The Cardsharps captures a scene of life on the edge, where one false move will result in blood being spilt.