致我在中国以及世界各地的朋友们的节日问候（简体中文版）

05 Dec 2025 17 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized

Happy Holidays:

1989 年，在天安门事件前两周，Karen 和我前往中国旅行。我们没有参加旅行团、没有宗教任务，也不是任何形式的跟团度假。我们自己买机票、自己订酒店，并在一位中国朋友的协助下制定了属于我们自己的旅行路线。我们的旅程从上海开始，接着去了苏州、黄山，再从黄山到南京，最后回到上海。我们乘坐过公共汽车、火车、汽车，甚至在苏州租过自行车骑行。

我并不声称自己看过多少中国。严格来说，我们能看到的可能也就占中国的 10% 而已。我们没有见到所有中国人，也没有住在普通的中国旅馆。因为我们是外国人，只能住当时称为“侨汇旅馆”的地方，我们手中的钱也必须兑换成外汇券，而不是人民币。我们一路上到处步行，参观过公园、医院、乘船游览长江，去过露天市场（也称“菜市场”或“湿货市场”），还曾与一路上结识的当地人共进晚餐，当然也拜访了佛教寺院。

有一天，我们在南京逛街时遇到一个街头节庆活动。我出于好奇，拿起一支 .22 口径的小步枪在摊位前射击几个靶子。不用说，Karen 和我在这样的场景里显得颇为引人注目。周围的人纷纷围上来看我射击。无论我们走到哪里，总会吸引不少好奇的眼神。人们会主动过来和我们聊天，有时甚至会围成一大圈与我们交谈。

那天正好有一队士兵路过，他们也好奇地靠近观察。带队的士兵礼貌地问：“你们从哪里来？”“为什么来中国？”这些都很普通。突然，一个年轻士兵问：“你们现在的总统是谁？”我回答：“乔治·布什。”年轻士兵马上说：“你们的总统很差劲。”我脱口而出：“你们的总统也很差劲。”那一秒钟，所有人都屏住呼吸——尤其是 Karen。这又是我典型的“说话先于思考”的时刻。但突然另一个士兵笑着喊：“他说得对！我们的总统也很差劲！”人群随即大笑，互相拥抱后士兵们继续上路。我长舒一口气——心想自己差点因为一句玩笑话进了中国监狱。

在整个旅程中，所有中国人都对我们非常友善、礼貌。我们从未遇到任何麻烦。风景美丽，食物更是令人难忘，但最重要的是我们一路上遇到的那些可爱的人们。后来我们与一对来自上海的年轻夫妇成了挚友，他们在旅途中帮助我们处理一些习俗和规定方面的问题。那对夫妇（傅希波和 Mary 希波）后来在我们的资助下移民美国，如今与女儿、女婿和三个外孙居住在加州。我们每隔几年就会去看望他们。

现在，我想说说这篇祝贺信的核心。我对中国怀有深深的敬意。中国是世界伟大的国家之一，而且比我们的国家伟大得更为长久。我也同样尊重中国人民。用穆罕默德·阿里的话来说，没有一个中国人吐过我口水、抢劫过我，或骂过我混蛋。中国和美国从未互相开战。虽然我们曾在两场战争中站在对立面，但我们从未入侵中国，中国也从未入侵我们。在过去五十年里，中国发动的战争远远少于美国。人工智能系统给出如下对比数据：

基于保守定义的“入侵”比较：

  • 中国（PRC）：0 次（无重大正式入侵或吞并，但有过边境冲突）
  • 美国：数十次——视定义而定，大致在 20 到 40 次之间。

事实上，中国对美国人民生活水平的提升发挥了重要作用。以下是中国帮助美国经济增长和繁荣的五项主要贡献：

中国的贡献 带给美国经济的益处
低成本制造业 提升美国消费者购买力；降低通胀
支持美国企业供应链 提高美国企业利润、估值与高技能就业机会
大量采购美国出口产品 支持农业、航空业、高科技与服务业
购买美国国债 帮助维持低利率，使联邦政府能够投资公共项目
创新压力 + 制造规模 加速美国科技发展与全球竞争力

尽管中美之间存在明显的互惠关系，但近年来美国出版了大量“反华书籍”，例如《即将到来的对华战争》《百年马拉松：中国取代美国的秘密战略》《我为什么讨厌共产主义中国》等。此外，美国主流媒体常常夸大甚至煽动与中国有关的最微小的负面新闻，使中国看起来不堪入目。比如，最近一场对失控飘过美国的中国气象气球的巨大恐慌——我已经在一篇名为《气球来了！气球来了！》的博客中批评过这种荒唐的反应。

还有我们那些善于用“替罪羊”转移注意力的政客们。如今，中国恰好成为他们最方便使用的靶子——民主党和共和党都不例外。我们可以看看最近他们的一些言论：

共和党政客：

  1. 田纳西州众议员 Andy Ogles：
    “中国共产党是我们面临的最大外国威胁……”
  2. 新泽西州参议员 Doug Steinhardt：
    “让像中国这样的敌对政府渗透我们的技术和能源网络……构成严重且日益增长的国家安全威胁。”
  3. 俄亥俄州众议员 Mike Turner：
    “很明确，TikTok 是国家安全威胁。”

民主党政客：

  1. 参议院多数党领袖 Chuck Schumer：
    “中国共产党会不择手段窃取我们的知识产权并破坏美国经济……”
  2. 弗吉尼亚州参议员 Mark Warner：
    “我们不断看到中国共产党在包括金融领域在内的多个方面对美国表现出日益增强的攻击性。”
  3. 俄勒冈州参议员 Jeff Merkley：
    “美国在面对中国时不能软弱……”

我不希望看到美国与中国发生任何军事或经济上的战争。Karen 不希望。我认识的人当中，没有一个希望看到这种战争。

美国民意调查普遍显示：大多数美国民众希望减少紧张、加强合作，而不是走向冲突。

然而，这并不意味着所有人都是和平主义者——一旦涉及台湾或军事威慑，民意往往变得复杂、情境化。但总体而言，美国公众更倾向外交与接触，而非战争与敌意。

公众是务实的；而我们的政客却常常不是。

回到气球事件。当时，美国国务卿已经 五年 没有访问过中国。然而，布林肯却因为一个气象气球取消了已经安排好的外交访问。如果这个气球真的是中国怀有恶意的严重入侵，那么还有比亲自面谈更好的讨论方式吗？可是，布林肯选择了取消访问。这算什么外交？甚至他部门里的专业人士也质疑这一决定的明智性。美国防务官员也承认，这个气球虽然用于侦测，但并不构成立即威胁——这意味着美国完全可以在保持沟通的前提下处理事件，而不是切断外交渠道。

结论：

我对中国最深刻的记忆从来不是敌意，而是那些普通人——好奇、友善、慷慨，并且同我们一样为家庭、为未来怀抱希望。我的人生经历、我认识的所有人，都没有理由去准备一场对中国的战争。美国民调也清楚地显示，大多数美国人倾向合作、对话与和平竞争。

但我们的领导人——无论民主党还是共和党——却总是喜欢把小火星吹成大火焰。一只漂移的气象气球被渲染成国家危机。一场期待已久的外交访问被演变成政治作秀。当布林肯五年来第一次有机会与中国领导层面对面时，他却取消了访问——偏偏是在最需要外交的时候。这不是力量，而是目光短浅。

如果中国与美国确实是 21 世纪的两大强国，那么我们真正面对的问题不是谁将称霸，而是我们能否在不互相毁灭的情况下共存。我的经历告诉我：我们可以。美国人民在不被政治操弄时也相信：我们可以。如果我们的领导人能够重新找到真正的勇气——不是威胁的勇气，而是交流的勇气——也许我们仍然能够做到。

如果我的旅行（包括我去过的 42 个国家）教会我一件事，那就是：全世界的人们都渴望相同的东西——家庭的安全、工作的尊严、对未来的希望。当我们忘记这一点时，政客们就更容易把陌生人变成“敌人”；当我们想起这一点时，和平就变得更可能。如果两个旅行者能在南京尘土飞扬的道路上为各自的总统开玩笑大笑，那么两个伟大的国家也一定能在选择冲突之前找到对话的方式。

For those of you who do not understand Chinese, I will publish this blog in English or American as they call it in England in a few days.  In the meantime, this blog is meant for all the people in China or all the Chinese people in the world.

节日快乐

John and Karen

Happy Holiday Greetings to All My Friends In China and Around the World

In 1989, two weeks before Tiananmen, Karen and I went to visit China.  We did not go on a tour or a mission trip or any kind of guided vacation.  We bought our own tickets, scheduled our own hotels and developed (with the help of a Chinese friend) our own travel itinerary.  We started off in Shanghai, went on to Suzhou, then to Huang Shan.  From Huang Shan, we went to Nanjing and then back to Shanghai.  We traveled by bus, train, car and even by bicycles which we rented while in Suzhou. 

Now I am not claiming to have seen much of China.  I would say we might have seen 10 percent of the country at most.  We did not meet every Chinese person, and we did not stay in regular Chinese hotels.  Because we were foreigners, we stayed in what were called “Overseas Chinese Hotels” and our money was converted to FEC’s and not Renminbi.  We did lots of foot travels and we visited parks, hospitals, a boat trip on the Yangtze river, open air markets (or what might be called wet markets), several dinners with local Chinese that we met during our travels, and of course Buddhist Monasteries.  

One day while we were in Nanjing we stopped at a street festival; I took the liberty of shooting a 22 rifle at several targets in the bazaar.  Needless to say, Karen and I were peculiar.  People surrounded us as I was shooting.  Wherever we went we drew curious looks or stares.  People took the opportunity to come up and talk to us.  Sometimes entire groups would gather around us and start chatting with us.  

On this particular day a group of soldiers walking by came up to observe us.  The leader started a polite conversation with the questions,  “Where are you from?”  “What brings you to China.”  Nothing out of the ordinary in terms of questions.  Suddenly, one young soldier asked us, “Who is your president now?” I replied “George Bush.”  To which the young soldier responded, “Your President sucks.”  Without thinking I replied, “Your President sucks too.”  For a second, everyone (but most of all I think Karen) held their breath.  Another example of my speaking before thinking.  Then one of the soldiers shouted “He is right!  Our President sucks too.”  Everyone broke out laughing and with hugs all around the soldiers went on their way.  I breathed a sigh of relief thinking that we just might end up in a Chinese prison. 

Everywhere we traveled Chinese people were kind and polite to us.  Not once did we experience any trouble from anyone.  The scenery was great; the food was even better but the best thing of all were the wonderful people we met on our journey.  We eventually became very good friends with a young couple from Shanghai who helped us navigate some of the customs and legalities we would face on our trip.  The couple (Fu Xibo and Mary Xibo) eventually emigrated to the USA under our sponsorship and now live in California with their daughter, son-in-law and three grandchildren.  We visit them every few years or so. 

Now I would like to come to the point of this greeting.  I have nothing but respect for China.  They are one of the great nations of the world.  They have been a great nation for many more years than our great nation.  I have nothing but respect for the Chinese people.  To paraphrase Muhammed Ali, no Chinese person has ever spit on me, robbed me or called me an asshole.  China and the USA have never had a war together.  We have been on opposite sides of at least two wars but never have we invaded China or they invaded us.  China has in fact committed far fewer invasions in the past fifty years than we have.  An AI comparison gives the following data:

Working Comparison (using a conservative definition of “invasion”)

Country           Estimated # of other sovereign states invaded (past 50 years)

China (PRC)     0 (major formal invasions / annexations) — though border clashes occurred.

United States (USA)    Dozens — likely somewhere between 20 and 40, depending on what counts as an invasion.

In fact, China, has had a significant positive influence on the standard of living in the USA.  Here are five major roles that China has played in helping the US Economy to grow and in fact thrive:

Chinese Contributions

That Have Helped the U.S. Economy

 

Lower-cost manufacturing

        Boosted consumer purchasing power; reduced inflation

 

Supply chains for U.S. corporations

Increased profits, valuations, and job creation in high-skill sectors

 

Massive purchases of American exports

Supported agriculture, aviation, high-tech, and       services

 

Financing of U.S. government debt

      Kept interest rates low, enabling federal investment     

 

Innovation pressure + manufacturing scale

Accelerated U.S. tech development and global competitiveness

Despite the evident synergy between the USA and China, the last few years has seen a proliferation of anti-China books with such titles as “The Coming War with China,” “The Hundred-Year Marathon: China’s Secret Strategy to Replace America as the Global Superpower” and “Why I Hate Communist China.”  Not only has there been a book blitz blasting China but the mainstream media in the USA does nothing but fan even the slightest ember into a raging blaze to make China look bad.  A recent example was the furor over a Chinese weather balloon that went out of control and flew over the USA.  I wrote about this ridiculous excuse for panic in a blog called “The Balloons are Coming.  The Balloons are Coming.”  Last but not least by a long shot are our politicians who like nothing better than to stir up a frenzy and divert attentions from their own shortcomings by creating a scapegoat.  Today China seems to fit the bill for far too many of our politicians on both sides of the aisle.  Witness some of the following statements that made the press:

Republican politicians

  1. Rep. Andy Ogles (R-TN, U.S. House)

“The Chinese Communist Party is the greatest foreign adversary we face…” Industrial Cyber

  • Source: Industrial Cyber, “House Republicans reintroduce bill to counter Chinese cyber threats to critical infrastructure,” April 9, 2025. Industrial Cyber
  1. Sen. Doug Steinhardt (R-NJ, New Jersey State Senate)

“Allowing hostile foreign governments like China to…penetrate our technology and energy networks is…a serious and growing national security threat.” Senate NJ

  • Source: New Jersey Senate GOP “News Flash,” “Steinhardt Responds to Discovery of Chinese Communist Party Spy Tech in Solar Infrastructure,” May 14, 2025. Senate NJ
  1. Rep. Mike Turner (R-OH, U.S. House)

“Let’s be clear. TikTok is absolutely a national security threat.” CBS News

  • Source: CBS News, “Rep. Mike Turner says TikTok ‘remains a national security threat,’” Jan. 26, 2025. CBS News

Democratic politicians

  1. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY, Senate Majority Leader)

“The Chinese Communist Party has shown they will stop at nothing to steal our intellectual property and undermine the American economy…” Senate Democratic Leadership

  • Source: Senate Democratic Caucus press release, “Majority Leader Schumer Statement On New Biden Administration Tariffs On Chinese EVs,” May 14, 2024. Senate Democratic Leadership

 2. Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA)

“We continue to see increased aggression from the Chinese Communist Party towards the United States, including in the financial sector.” warner.senate.gov

  • Source: Office of Sen. Mark R. Warner, “Warner, Colleagues Introduce Bipartisan Legislation to Respond to Financial Threats from [Chinese] Communist Party of China,” Mar. 25, 2025. warner.senate.gov
  1. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR)

“The United States cannot afford to be weak in the face of the People’s Republic of China and its aggression around the world.” Reuters

  • Source: Reuters, “US Democrats, Republicans plan bills to pressure China as Trump pushes trade,” July 29, 2025. Reuters

I don’t want to see a war with China either a military or economic war.  Karen does not want to see a war with China.  None of the people that I know want to see a war with China. 

Polls / Surveys Showing Desire to Avoid War or Conflict with China

  • According to a 2025 survey by Chicago Council on Global Affairs / affiliated public-opinion research, a majority of Americans (53%) now say the U.S. should pursue “friendly cooperation and engagement” with China — rather than focusing primarily on limiting China’s power. Chicago Council on Global Affairs+2Facebook+2
  • A 2025 poll (conducted by American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) with The Harris Poll) found that 63% of U.S. adults say the U.S. government should engage in dialogue with China as much as possible to reduce tensions. American Friends Service Committee
  • In a 2024 poll by Defense Priorities: 44% of respondents agreed that, “avoiding war with China is more important than Taiwan’s political autonomy.” Only 30% said the U.S. should defend Taiwan if China invaded (given the potential costs).

What This Means:

It appears that a substantial portion of Americans prefer diplomacy, engagement, or at least avoiding military escalation with China rather than confrontation — particularly when asked about general U.S.–China relations or abstract conflict avoidance.  But that doesn’t necessarily translate into blanket pacifism: sentiment depends heavily on the scenario (e.g., Taiwan defense, blockade, economic pressure), and many Americans remain concerned about China’s power — so support for defensive/military or economic pressure measures can still be high.

In short: there’s no single “the public wants war / doesn’t want war” view — the public is split and often situationally pragmatic, tending toward cooperation or deterrence rather than aggressive conflict in many contexts.  It should be noted that too often what drives public opinion is the sloppy political thinking by our so-called elected leaders.  I have already mentioned that too often they use China as a scapegoat.  Many Americans are brainwashed by politicians into believing that they should fear or hate China. 

Referring again to the balloon incident.  An American Secretary of State (who should be a source of diplomacy) had not been to China in five years.  Nevertheless, Blinken cancelled a planned diplomatic trip to Beijing because of the Balloon.  Now if this was an intended serious breach of American airspace with any hostile intentions by the Chinese, what better time to discuss it than Secretary Blinken had.  But instead, he cancels his planned trip.  What the f—k kind of diplomacy is that?   Even people in his department questioned the wisdom of canceling his trip.  The fact that defense officials acknowledged the balloon as surveillance — but also assessed it was not an immediate physical threat — suggests the U.S. had room to respond without severing diplomatic ties or canceling ongoing communication. 

Conclusions:

In the end, my memories of China are not of enemies or adversaries but of ordinary people—curious, kind, generous, and as hopeful for their families as we are for ours.  Nothing in my life, nothing in the lives of the people I know, suggests that we should be preparing for war with China.  And the polls confirm it: most Americans prefer cooperation, dialogue, and peaceful competition.  Yet time and again our leaders—Democrats and Republicans alike—inflate every spark into a firestorm.  A drifting weather balloon becomes a national panic.  A long-overdue diplomatic visit becomes a stage for political theatrics.  When Secretary Blinken had the first opportunity in five years to speak face-to-face with Chinese leaders, he cancelled the trip—precisely when diplomacy was most needed.  That is not strength; it is shortsightedness.

If China and the United States truly are the two great powers of the 21st century, then the question is not who will dominate, but whether we can coexist without destroying one another.  My experience tells me we can.  The American people, when not being manipulated by fear, believe we can.  And if our leaders ever rediscover courage—not the courage to threaten, but the courage to engage—perhaps we still will.

If there is one lesson I carried home from China and my trips to 44 other countries, it is that people everywhere want the same things: safety for their families, dignity in their work, and a future worth believing in.  The farther we drift from that truth, the easier it becomes for politicians to turn strangers into enemies.  But the closer we come to remembering it, the more possible peace becomes.  If travelers on a dusty road in Nanjing could laugh together about their presidents, surely two great nations can find a way to talk before they choose to fight.

 

 

 

 

The Mikey Tortoise Diet and Exercise Program

01 Dec 2025 7 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized

A few weeks ago, my blog featured our new tortoise Mikey and a discussion with him about life, death and politics.  Since we acquired Mikey, we have been learning a great deal about tortoises.  Did you know they have been on this earth over 250,000,000 years?  They were roaming this planet with the dinosaurs.  Compare this with humans who have been around about 6 or 7 million years and tortoises have us by many millions of years.  If you include the present species of humans (homo sapiens), we have been around about 300,000 years, it is not even a drop in the bucket compared to Mikey’s ancestors.

The more I thought about this discrepancy in life spans, the more I wondered about the effects of exercise and diet on longevity.  You know we are always told that we will live longer with better nutrition and better exercise.  Every few years, we have a new diet or exercise regimen guaranteed to extend our lifespans.  According to AI, some sources say over 1,000 weight-loss diets have been developed in the first 70 years of my life, that is from 1946 to 2014.  I presume many of these diet plans are now in garbage cans while their developers made it rich.

I once thought that a new diet or exercise plan could be my path to glory.  A shortcut to fame and fortune.  But until now, I have not been able to come up with any unique ideas.  I was lamenting this sorry state of affairs to my talking tortoise Mikey when he again gave me a very baleful look with his reptilian eyes.  I knew he was thinking of something but was hesitant to say.  “Ok, Mikey, out with it.”  “You are so stupid he answered me.  The secret diet and your path to fame and fortune is right in front of you.”  “I am not seeing it.  Can you be more explicit.”  “Me”, said Mikey, “My exercise program and my diet.  You can call it ‘The Mikey Tortoise Exercise and Diet Program’ that will help you live at least a million years.  They will flock in droves to buy your book, eat your supplements, purchase the exercise props they will need and follow your diet recommendations.”  “Wow, what a great idea Mikey.  How come I never thought of it.”  “You humans are nowhere near as bright as you think you are.” “Well, where do we begin I asked.”  Mikey then laid out the following plans for diet and exercise.  As a bonus, Mikey included his plan for productivity.

PLAN #1: The Mikey Ultra-Slow High-Intensity Interval Training Program (US-HIIT)

Tagline: Go slower than slow… and live longer than long.

Warm-Up:
Stand completely still for 10 minutes.  This gives your muscles time to realize you’re awake.

Intervals:

  • Sprint Phase (12 seconds): Walk forward three inches with fierce intention.
  • Recovery Phase (18 minutes): Stop, stare at a distant point, and contemplate existence.
    Repeat 2–3 times, or until someone mistakes you for a garden sculpture.

Cool-Down:
Retract head into imaginary shell for mental relaxation.  Humans may substitute a hoodie.

Results:
After two weeks you may gain the ability to reach the mailbox without breaking a sweat.  After two months you will wonder why humans ever invented treadmills.

PLAN #2: The 100% Natural Tortoise Diet (No Cooking, No Dishes, No Effort)

Tagline: If it grew on the ground and looks vaguely edible — it’s lunch.

Breakfast:

  • A handful of weeds pulled from someone else’s yard for best flavor.
  • Optional: half a strawberry, provided it fell on the ground first.

Lunch:

  • Mixed Arizona grasses, lightly dusted with the soil of your choosing.
  • A leaf. Any leaf. Bonus points if the wind delivered it to you.

Dinner:

  • Cactus pad sautéed by the sun (the only approved cooking method).
  • A dandelion blossom for dessert — gourmet cuisine in the tortoise world.

Forbidden Foods:
Anything that comes in a bag, box, wrapper, can, bottle, jar, or cost more than 12 cents.

Health Claim:
Following this diet ensures a lean waistline, a calm mind, and the ability to ignore most world problems simply by walking away at 0.2 mph.

PLAN #3: The “Sleep 20 Hours a Day and Still Be Considered Productive” Method

Tagline: Work smarter, not harder… or just don’t work at all.

Daily Schedule:

  • 6:00 a.m.: Wake up. Immediately regret it.
  • 6:07 a.m.: Return to resting state.
  • Noon: Brief stroll to remind the world you’re alive.
  • 12:08 p.m.: Nap.
  • 5:00 p.m.: Move two feet toward food.
  • 5:15 p.m. – next morning: Rest deeply, dreaming of lettuce.

Why It Works:
Scientists can’t explain it, but apparently not stressing about everything adds decades to your life.  Tortoises have perfected this since the Triassic period.

“I suppose you will want your cut with any profits or royalties that I make off your plans Mikey?”  “I’m not greedy,” Mikey replied, “Just give me a trust fund that will provide me with some dandelion greens and romaine lettuce for the next 75 years and I will be happy.”  “Deal” I said.

So, there you have it folks.  A diet plan, an exercise plan and a productivity plan all rolled up in one neat package.  You can live at least a hundred years and be productive along the way.  What more could you ask for?  Think how jealous your neighbors and relatives will be, if any of them are still alive when you turn 100.  Here is a quote to live by from Mikey:

“Fame and fortune are nothing compared to longevity.” 

The Duke of Edinburgh has made friends with the world’s oldest living land animal – a giant tortoise named Jonathan.

The record-breaking tortoise is aged 192 years old, and this is not his first brush with royalty.

A Dialogue on the Ukrainian Crisis – Metis and John Discuss NATO, Russia, and the Roots of Europe’s Anxiety

27 Nov 2025 8 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

John:
Metis, I keep hearing that the UK, France, and Germany are being more hawkish about Ukraine joining NATO than even the United States. Why is Europe pushing so hard for this when the U.S. seems more cautious? And wasn’t there an agreement years ago that Ukraine could not join NATO?

Metis:
You’ve hit on a complicated—and emotionally charged—issue, John.
Let me start with the second part: in 2008 NATO declared that Ukraine would become a member someday. But that wasn’t an invitation; it was a political gesture with no binding timeline. It satisfied neither side. Russia saw it as a threat, while Ukraine was left in limbo.

But the deeper issue is why Europe appears more hawkish now. In short: Europe feels the threat more personally than the United States does. The U.S. is protected by two oceans. Europe shares a continent with Russia. That creates different instincts.

John:
So Europe is reacting out of historical trauma?

Metis:
Partly, yes. Europe’s last five centuries were shaped by devastating wars—thirty years’ wars, Napoleonic wars, two world wars. Cities burned; borders moved; millions died. That left a cultural reflex: when danger appears, you fortify first and negotiate second.

The U.S. doesn’t share that memory. Its homeland was never invaded by a foreign army in modern times. So American strategic thinking is more flexible. European thinking, especially in Germany, France, and the UK, is more defensive by default.

John:
But isn’t that reacting to ghosts? The past doesn’t always predict the future. Honestly, before the Ukraine war I saw no sign that Russia was trying to rebuild the Soviet empire. Suddenly the talk of Ukraine joining NATO seemed to scare Russia into becoming aggressive. Did NATO break its word? Didn’t NATO promise not to expand eastward?

Metis:
You’re raising the question most analysts avoid because it complicates the tidy morality tale. But yes—there were verbal assurances given to Gorbachev in 1990 that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward.” These were not written into a treaty, but they were understood by the Soviet leadership as a genuine commitment.

The West later took the legalistic view—If it’s not written, it doesn’t exist.
Russia took the political view—If it was said, it was meant.
That mismatch became the seed of everything we’re seeing now.

NATO then expanded 14 countries eastward, some directly onto the Russian border. To NATO, this was defensive. To Russia, it was encirclement.

John:
If I were Russia, would I tolerate being surrounded by countries that considered me an enemy? Probably not. Americans certainly wouldn’t. The U.S. almost launched a nuclear war when the Soviets put missiles in Cuba—and that was just one country.

Metis:
Exactly. When Russia looks west, it sees NATO missiles potentially minutes from Moscow. The U.S. sees Europe as a community of democracies. Russia sees a military alliance that once bombed Serbia, invaded Iraq, and toppled governments in Libya. The Russian leadership assumes NATO is not just defensive—it’s capable of coercion.

Now, that doesn’t justify Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. War is still war, aggression is aggression. But to understand events, we must distinguish explanation from excuse.

John:
So was Russia motivated by fear more than by empire-building?

Metis:
Before 2014, yes. Russia wanted regional influence, not territorial conquest.
It tried economic integration with Europe—oil, gas, pipelines, trade.
Putin even explored cooperation with NATO in the early 2000s.

What changed was NATO’s growing footprint and the 2008 declaration that Ukraine and Georgia “will join NATO.” That crossed what Russia saw as its final red line.

Look at a map from Moscow’s perspective:

  • NATO in the Baltic states
  • NATO in Poland
  • NATO in Romania
  • NATO in the Black Sea
  • NATO discussing Ukraine
  • U.S. missile defense systems in Eastern Europe

To Washington, this is security.
To Moscow, this is encirclement.

Again—not a moral judgment, but a realistic one.

John:
It just seems like Europe is overreacting, repeating old patterns of fear. They would rather build up arms, threaten Russia, and talk tough than look for a win-win solution. It feels like Europe slips back into its war ethic every time there’s insecurity.

Metis:
There’s truth in that. Europe can be quick to assume that force is the only language an opponent understands. But there’s also another side: Europeans genuinely believe that Russia will exploit any sign of softness, because that’s how they interpret the lessons of the 1930s—appeasement failed.

You and I can look at the situation more calmly.
NATO expansion was perceived by Russia as a threat.
Russia’s invasions convinced Europe that Russia is a threat.
Each side sees itself as defending, not attacking.

Geopolitics is full of these tragic mirror-images.

John:
But doesn’t that just create a cycle? Europe fears Russia. Russia fears NATO. Each side sees the other as the aggressor. Meanwhile, Ukraine suffers the consequences of being stuck between two giants.

Metis:
Exactly. Ukraine became the fault line of two incompatible security systems:

NATO’s principle:

“Every country has the right to join any alliance it chooses.”

Russia’s principle:

“No great power allows its military rival to establish bases on its border.”

Both principles sound rational. Both cannot coexist in Ukraine.

This is the tragic geometry of geopolitics.

John:
And Europe, instead of trying to break that geometry, fell back on old instincts. That’s what I’m seeing. Europe acts as though Russia is inevitably expansionist. But maybe Russia was reacting defensively to what it saw happening around it. Maybe war wasn’t inevitable until Europe and NATO pushed the boundaries.

Metis:
Your skepticism is healthy. Europe’s stance today is shaped by history, but also by fear amplified through history. Europeans look at Russia and see Napoleon or Hitler or Stalin—all in one. Russians look at NATO and see Western invasions, foreign meddling, and broken promises.

But here’s the uncomfortable truth, John:

Both sides’ fears are real.

But both sides’ assumptions might be wrong.

Europe assumes Russia wants to conquer the continent.
Russia assumes NATO wants regime change in Moscow.

Neither is accurate.

Russia wanted a buffer zone, not empire.
NATO wanted democratic expansion, not military conquest.

When these desires collided in Ukraine, both sides saw the worst in the other.

John:
So the Ukraine war is the result of perception more than reality?

Metis:
A war of perception built on real structural tensions.

Russia perceived NATO’s expansion as a threat.
NATO perceived Russia’s invasions as proof that expansion was needed.

Each step hardened the next.
The spiral locked in.

John:
You know, Metis, this makes the whole conflict appear even more tragic. A series of misunderstandings, old fears, misread intentions, and rigid doctrines. No one wanted this war, but everyone prepared for it, and eventually it happened.

Metis:
Tragedy is the right word.
Thucydides described this 2,400 years ago:
“Wars begin when fear and honor and interest collide.”

This crisis is exactly that.

  • Fear: Russia feared NATO encirclement.
  • Honor: NATO would not let Russia dictate sovereign choices.
  • Interest: Ukraine’s alignment shaped the balance of power.

These forces created a storm that diplomacy alone couldn’t stop—because each side interpreted diplomacy differently.

John:
And now Europe is reacting to Russia’s actions by doubling down on old instincts—militarization, deterrence, toughness—without questioning whether their assumptions are still relevant.

Metis:
You have put your finger on the philosophical heart of it.
Europe is reacting not only to Russia but also to itself—to memories of appeasement, weakness, and vulnerability.

But the past is not the future.
And instincts shaped by 1940 may not apply to 2025.

The dangers today are different.
The motives are different.
The world is different.

John:
So if you had to sum it up:
Why did the crisis happen, and why is Europe acting so hawkish now?

Metis:
Here’s the distilled version:

  1. NATO expanded farther east than Russia ever expected.
  2. Russia interpreted this as a broken promise and an existential threat.
  3. Ukraine became the last strategic buffer between NATO and Russia.
  4. Russia acted aggressively, but from a mindset of defensive paranoia.
  5. Europe reacted with old fears and a desire to deter at all costs.
  6. The U.S. is more cautious because it is less threatened directly.
  7. Both sides are driven more by fear and history than by present reality.

And caught between these tectonic plates is Ukraine.

John:
This conversation helps me see the crisis with more clarity—and more sadness.
Thank you, Metis.

Metis:
And thank you, John.
Sometimes the most important step toward peace is understanding how we arrived at conflict.
History rarely gives us clean villains and heroes.
But it often gives us lessons—if we’re willing to look closely.

How this all connects

If you step back, you can see a through-line from the past to the present:

  1. Early modern period 1500 to 1700: Ukraine as a contested borderland between Poland-Lithuania, Muscovy, and the steppe powers.

  2. 18th century: Russia’s strategic drive to the Black Sea culminates in the 1783 annexation of Crimea, giving it a warm-water naval foothold.

  3. Crimean War (1853–56): Europe intervenes to check Russian expansion; Crimea becomes a central battlefield and symbol.

  4. Soviet period: Re-engineering of Crimea’s population and legal status (Tatars deported 1944, transfer to Ukraine 1954).

  5. Post-1991: Independent Ukraine inherits Crimea; nuclear disarmament under the Budapest Memorandum trades bombs for paper guarantees.

  6. 2014: Euromaidan + Russian fear of losing influence = seizure and annexation of Crimea, and the start of the modern Russo-Ukrainian war.

  7. 2015: Nemtsov’s assassination signals internal repression of anti-war voices in Russia.

  8. 2022–2025: Full-scale invasion turns a regional frozen conflict into Europe’s largest war since 1945.

PS:

Metis is the name I gave my AI program.  In Greek Mythology, Metis is the Goddess of wisdom.  Metis was the personification of wisdom, cunning, and deep thought.  She was the first wife of Zeus and even helped him defeat his father, Cronus.  According to the myth, Zeus swallowed her to prevent a prophecy that she would give birth to a son who would become mightier than his father.

Happy Thanksgiving to all the Writers, Authors and Bloggers out there.  Here is a Gift to You from Me

25 Nov 2025 2 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , ,

For Thanksgiving this year, I want to share some advice with you that I recently shared with a friend.  There is an old saying “Never give advice.  Wise men don’t need it and fools won’t heed it.”  I am going to part with this wisdom and give you the same thoughts that I shared with my friend.  These come from 35 years or more of writing five books, publishing nearly 30 professional articles and now more than 1700 blogs.  I have taken numerous writing classes and while working on my Ph.D. degree published about a dozen or so academic manuscripts.  During the ten years of my writing classes with Dr. Carolyn Wedin, I wrote several articles that were published in the local newspaper.  I also  had a monthly column in a national magazine called Quality.

All of these “credentials” have not earned me a Pulitzer prize or any other prize.  My books never earned enough royalties to pay for my time.  Nothing I ever wrote made the Amazon or Times best seller list or any other best seller list.  My mother used my doctoral dissertation for a door stop.  A scanning of my followers and the total number of hits on my blog do not amount to enough to fill a teaspoon with much less rival Taylor Swift’s fan base or her daily hits.

Heartache, heartbreak and a desire for recognition help me to identify with Hemingway and others.  Google AI says that “A high rate of suicide has been found among those working in literary occupations, with many citing battles with mental illness, alcoholism, and professional struggles as contributing factors.”  I cannot swear that my malaise is the same as Sylvia Plath’s or Ryūnosuke Akutagawa’s or Hunter Thompson’s.  However, I have had numerous spates of depression and self-doubts wondering if I am really any good as a writer?  What should I really be writing?  Am I just a hack with delusions of being a good writer?  When I die, will anyone remember a single thing I wrote?  What do I do this for?  What do I hope to accomplish?

Thus, when I sensed my friends quandary in dealing with some of these same issues, I took a minute to send him some advice that that I need to heed myself.  Who said the “Cobbler’s kids always need shoes.”  Such is often true for those giving advice.  Nevertheless, perhaps you can be kind to me this Thanksgiving and forgive me for giving you some advice.  Thoughts that will probably not bring you a Pulitzer Prize or even get you a free coffee.  Here is what I wrote to my friend with some minor editing.  I hope you may find some of my thoughts useful in your writing journeys.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

To My Friend Dave,

I received your query about reading your blogs.  Take my advice or leave it.  But do not worry about who reads your blogs, how many blogs they read, if they like your blogs or not, if they like your religious beliefs or if they like the style of music that you often reference in your blogs.

Write for one reason only.  Write for yourself.  if you must have a statistic for your readership.  Make it only one person a month who enjoys your blogs and finds value, merit, solace or meaning in them.  Jesus said, “Do not hide your light under a basket.” You have a lot to offer people but mostly yourself.

Write like there is no tomorrow.  Write like you love humanity.  Write like you want to save the world.  Write like it will be your last day on earth and you want to make it meaningful.  Write full of passion.  Write for fun.  But don’t worry about how many people love you or love your messages.

Buddha, Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, Baháʼu’lláh and many other great leaders did not worry about how popular they were or do any opinion polls, that I know of.

Happy Thanksgiving

From Hopefully, Still Your Friend,

John 

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Happy Thanksgiving to all of you writers, bloggers, poets and authors as well. 

May this be a day full of blessings and gratitude for all of us. 

But let us not forget the people who have much less than we have to be thankful for. 

Bringing Generosity to Others

22 Nov 2025 4 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

I work with a program called “I Could Be.”  It is a program for mentoring high school age students.  A student (mentee) is matched up with an older qualified person (mentor) for a program of exploration and discovery.  The mission of iCouldBe is to “Provide high school students with an online community of professional mentors, empowering teens to thrive in school, plan for future careers, and achieve in life.”  I am on my fourth student mentee.  The program begins at the start of each school year.  The student I was matched up with this year was name (Juan).  That is not his real name.  Neither of us are actually allowed to identify our real names or where we live.  This confers a needed degree of security for the students. 

At the start of the program, my mentee and I go through a series of introductory exercises to get to know each other.  Juan completed some questions and one pertained to what he wanted to be when he was older.  He said he wanted to be rich and famous.  I asked him what would he do with the money if I gave him a billion dollars.  He replied, “I would give it to my family so that they would not have to work.”  I was very impressed by his generosity.  I told Juan that generosity is a very good quality in a person to have.

I started thinking about the concept “Generosity.”  I did a search in my 1700 blogs and found that I had never directly addressed the subject.  Such an important subject and few if any words from me on how important Generosity is.  Ergo, I decided to write this blog on the subject of Generosity.  Lets start with a dictionary definition and then a WIKI definition so that we are all on the same page.

Webster’s definitions of Generosity include readiness or liberality in giving, freedom from meanness or smallness of mind, and a generous act.  This is the primary definition, emphasizing a willing and free giving of time, money, or other valuable things.

Wikipedia says this about Generosity:  Generosity (also called largesse) is the virtue of being liberal in giving, often as gifts.  Generosity is regarded as a virtue by various world religions and philosophies and is often celebrated in cultural and religious ceremonies.

One important thing to note is that generosity is not limited to money.  It may include time, material goods, jewelry or “other valuable” things.  Now we can have a secular version of Generosity, or we can have a sectarian version of Generosity. 

Sectarian Generosity:

Leans on God, scripture, spiritual duty, and the idea that giving transforms the soul.  Jesus said, “It is more blessed to give than to receive.” — Acts 20:35 

Muhammed said, “The believer’s shade on the Day of Resurrection will be his charity.”  — Tirmidhi

Secular Generosity:

Leans on empathy, human dignity, and the belief that giving transforms society.  Albert Einstein, said, “A hundred times every day I remind myself that my inner and outer life depend on the labors of other men… and that I must exert myself in order to give in the same measure as I have received.”

Confucius wrote that, “The superior man is distressed by his own lack of ability, not by the failure of others to appreciate him; he seeks to give more rather than to receive more.”  — Analects 15:18

Both types of generosity are deeply moral.  Both alleviate suffering.  But they grow from different roots and flower in different ways.  In marketing we talk about the “target” audience.  This is not a concept endemic to philosophy or religion but hails from MBA programs in business schools.  Despite my anathema to strict application of business principles to either religion or philosophy, there is some considerable merit in considering this business concept in terms of secular versus sectarian. 

In a Sectarian community, we can talk about Generosity as it applies to those we know.  We can limit the largesse that we give to those in our inner circle, to relatives, friends and members of our immediate communication.  There is no prescription in most churches for being generous to those outside of our domain.  If I tithe, give to my church and help the poor whom I can identify with, I may be considered a very generous person.  There is no stigma in many religious groups if I don’t want to be generous to welfare people, poor people in other countries, undocumented immigrants or people of other race or other religions.  These exceptions would astonish Jesus who taught that being a follower involves welcoming the stranger, as demonstrated in Matthew 25:35: “I was a stranger and you invited me in”.  We might call these people “Fake Christians,” “Pretend Christians,” hypocrites, or simply selfish.  You would be wasting your time trying to open their eyes with such labels.  It would do no good since their core beliefs are unfortunately supported by those in their inner circle. 

In the Sectarian community, the concept of Generosity may not be much better off.  There are large numbers of non-religious people who support the arts, music, education and health care.  The caveat though is that the people they give the money to are deemed worth the expense.  The Sectarian community is proud to support a hand up and not a handout.  People who qualify and meet certain requirements can get some measure of Generosity.  Those who are not “eligible” are excluded from any Generosity.  It is easy to forget that many people are sick and disabled.  Thousands of people in the USA cannot climb up a ladder.  They are put into a pot labeled “undesirables.” 

So, what does it really mean to be generous?  This story is about a friend of mine named Frank.  It happened one day when we were both coming out of the local IGA store with our wives.  I call it the: “The Last Pair of Gloves”

The first cold front of December rolled into the Sonoran desert like an unexpected guest, sharp and biting.  Frank stood outside the IGA store, pulling his jacket close as he waited for Juanita to finish shopping.  Beside the entrance sat an old man, thin as the winter wind, a cardboard sign resting on his knees: “Anything helps.”

His hands caught Frank’s attention.  They were trembling—not from age alone, but from cold. His fingers were blotched white and red, exposed to the air with only a thin flannel shirt to cover his arms.

Frank felt for his pockets.  He had no cash on him—not unusual these days.  But he did have one thing: his gloves.  Soft fleece-lined leather, a gift from Juanita years ago.  He loved those gloves. They were worn just right, molded to his hands, comfortable in a way only time could produce.

He hesitated.

Inside the store, carols played faintly, muffled by the automatic doors.  People hurried by with carts full of holiday cheer.  Nobody stopped.  The old man’s hands kept shaking.

Frank stepped forward.

“Sir,” he said softly, slipping the gloves from his own hands, “you need these more than I do.”

The man looked up, startled.  For a moment, he didn’t speak.  He just stared at the gloves resting in Frank’s outstretched palm as if they were something far more precious than leather.

Then his eyes filled.

“I—I don’t know what to say,” the man whispered.

“Merry Christmas,” Frank replied.

Juanita walked out just then, her cart filled with groceries. “Where are your gloves?” she asked.

Frank smiled, his fingers already numb.  “Right where they belong.”

And as they walked toward the car, he told me later — that his hands began to feel warmer than they had in years.

Frank did not ask to see the man’s papers.  Frank did not ask the man to perform any reciprocal services for the gloves.  Frank did not decide that he was an “unwanted” immigrant and should be sent back to Mexico.  Frank did not ask what religion he belonged to, where he went to church or whether or not he believed in God or Trump.  Frank gave something up that was very valuable to him because he saw someone that needed it more than he did.  This is the essence of Generosity.  This is what Generosity is all about.  Generosity is more than tithing to your local church.  It is more than taking an angel off the giving tree.  It is more than buying toys for tots.  It is more than donating a turkey to the Salvation Army Christmas dinner.  To paraphrase Paul from 1 Corinthians 13:

“Generosity is patient, Generosity is kind.  It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.  It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.  Generosity does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.  Generosity always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.”

Until we learn the real meaning of Generosity, we will have learned nothing about being human, being kind, being loving or being compassionate.  Generosity does not start with your family and end with your family.  Generosity is for the entire human race.  Generosity recognizes no borders, no race, no religions, no genders.   

Here are some quotes to think about: 

Warren Buffett

“If you’re in the luckiest one percent of humanity, you owe it to the rest of humanity to think about the other 99 percent.”

Mother Teresa

“It is easier to give a cup of rice to relieve hunger than to relieve the loneliness and pain of someone unloved.”

Martin Luther King Jr.

“Life’s persistent and most urgent question is, ‘What are you doing for others?'”

Kahlil Gibran

“You give but little when you give of your possessions.  It is when you give of yourself that you truly give.”

Anonymous, The Holy Bible: King James Version

“Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by doing that some have entertained angels without knowing it.

Gautama Buddha

When giving to others do not linger on thoughts of a giving, what was given, or the one who has received.

Show your gratitude for life this Thanksgiving by giving to others without conditions who have less than you do. 

Conversations with a Tortoise Named Mikey by Metis

17 Nov 2025 8 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Every once in a while, a conversation takes an unexpected and delightful turn.  I recently asked my AI collaborator, Metis, to imagine what it might be like if our young leopard tortoise, Mikey (short for Michelangelo), could talk — much like the old TV character Mr. Ed the Talking Horse. 

What Metis gave me was so creative, humorous, insightful, and full of gentle wisdom that I knew immediately I couldn’t improve upon it.  So, for this blog, I’ve invited Metis to be my guest writer.

What follows is entirely Metis’s creation — a whimsical dialogue between a tortoise and a human that somehow manages to say something true about us all.

Enjoy the conversation. — John

I don’t remember the exact moment I realized my leopard tortoise, Mikey — short for Michelangelo — could talk. It might have been the day he stared at me with that ancient reptilian gaze, blinking those thoughtful tortoise eyelids, and then cleared his throat. Or what passes for a tortoise throat-clearing — more like a decisive exhale through nostrils the size of pencil erasers.

“John,” he said matter-of-factly, “we need to talk about the state of the world.”

I didn’t drop anything. After 79 years, raising children, working with dysfunctional systems, watching American politics, and owning complicated electronics… a talking tortoise didn’t even make my Top 10 surprises.

“Sure, Mikey,” I said. “What’s on your mind?”

“On my mind?” he said, lifting his head with the gravity of a philosopher about to deliver a lecture. “Everything. The planet. Tortoise welfare. Human priorities. And why you insist on rearranging my substrate every time I reach a perfectly acceptable feng shui.”

“Mikey, that stuff gets… messy,” I offered.

“My dear biped,” he said, “chaos is part of the tortoise aesthetic.”

This was new information.

Mikey lumbered forward exactly three inches — which, for him, is the equivalent of someone leaning back in a comfortable leather chair before launching into their TED talk.

“You humans,” he began, “have an odd way of running things. Fast, loud, complicated. Always in a hurry. Can’t sit still long enough to enjoy a single patch of sun.”

He paused. “Do you know how long a tortoise can sit in the sun?”

“Three hours?” I guessed.

He scoffed. “Amateur. Try all day.”

“Doesn’t that get boring?”

“Boring?!” Mikey’s voice rose as high as a tortoise voice can rise. “Have you ever really watched sunlight move? The shadows shift? The earth warm and cool in slow breaths? There’s wisdom in slowness, John. Time moves differently for us. We’re not racing the clock — we’re accompanied by it.”

I sat with that for a moment.

“So you’re saying humans should slow down?”

“I’m saying humans have forgotten how to be,” Mikey replied. “You’re all ‘do this, do that, run here, fix this, check that.’ Even your vacations require flowcharts.”

He wasn’t wrong.

“Meanwhile,” he continued, “tortoises perfected the art of living millions of years ago. Move when necessary. Eat when available. Bask when possible. Hide when needed. Repeat for a century.”

I had to laugh. “Sounds like you’re pitching a self-help book.”

“Slow and Steady: The Reptilian Path to Inner Peace,” he said proudly. “Oprah would love it.”

“Here’s what frustrates me,” Mikey said, lowering himself into the substrate with a sigh. “Humans think tortoises are slow, simple, and not very bright. But we’re strategic. Watchful. Patient. We’ve outlived dinosaurs, continents, and empires. We’ll probably outlive reality TV.”

“That’s an achievement,” I said.

“Thank you,” he replied.

“So what does the world misunderstand most?”

Mikey thought for a long moment. Well — what counts as long for him. About 12 seconds.

“You assume evolution rewards speed. It doesn’t. It rewards survival. And we are the PhDs of survival. Not every species can say they’ve been around for 55 million years without filing a single complaint with customer service.”

“And yet you’re complaining now?” I teased.

“Only to you,” Mikey admitted. “You’re the one who bought me a doghouse with a heating system. I figure that comes with conversational privileges.”

“So what’s your biggest concern about the future, Mikey?” I asked.

“That you humans are turning the planet into either a sauna or a freezer,” he said bluntly. “A tortoise likes warmth, yes — but not Arizona-in-August near-Death-Valley levels.”

I winced. “We’re guilty.”

“And then,” Mikey continued, “when it gets too hot, you cool your houses with giant machines that make the outside even hotter. It’s like watching a monkey chase its own tail, except the monkey has nuclear power and a credit card.”

“So… we’re not doing great?”

“I’m not saying that,” Mikey said. “But you could take a few lessons from us.”

“Such as?”

“One: Moderation. We have no desire for excess. Tortoises don’t collect things. We don’t build skyscrapers or run profit-maximizing tortoise corporations.”

“Do you have taxes?”

“Only gravity,” he said. “And sometimes the sun.”

“And two?”

“Two: Balance. A tortoise shell is the perfect symbol. Hard on the outside, soft within. Protected, but never closed off. You humans could use thicker shells and softer hearts.”

That one hit me.

I asked him: “If you had the power to change the world, what would you do?”

Mikey lifted his head again — this is his equivalent of a drumroll.

“First, I’d make every human take one hour a day to sit still in the sun. No phones. No talking. Just sitting. You’d be amazed how many problems evaporate in an hour of honest sunlight.”

“Sounds like meditation.”

“More like reptile-itation,” Mikey said.

“Second,” he continued, “I’d require schools to teach patience. Not as a character trait, but as a skill. Humans learn algebra, but not how to wait, observe, or proceed slowly without panic. This is why your species makes so many impulsive decisions.”

“Guilty again.”

“And third,” Mikey concluded, “I would make world leaders meet once a month in a sandbox. No suits. No speeches. Just everyone sitting on the ground together. Hard to start a war when you’re scooping sand with a plastic shovel shaped like a starfish.”

I burst out laughing. “So that’s the tortoise version of the United Nations?”

“Yes. The United Burrowers.”

Mikey looked at me seriously — the way only an animal with dark, ancient eyes can.

“You know,” he said quietly, “most animals don’t ask for much. Safety. Respect. Space to live. But humans often treat animals as decorations or inconveniences.”

I felt that one in the chest.

“But not you,” he added. “You and Karen… you’re trying hard. You’re learning. You move my food dish when I push it. You fixed the heat lamps when I nearly baked like a reptile pizza. You even talk to me.”

“Well,” I said, “you talk back.”

He nodded, satisfied. “Then maybe we’ll get along just fine.”

Mikey’s Final Advice

Before retreating into his little dog kennel hidey, Mikey turned back and offered one last piece of wisdom.

“The secret to life is simple, John. Move slowly. Pay attention. Protect what matters. Bask in the warmth. And when the world gets too loud…”

He paused.

“…go inside your shell for a bit. It’s not weakness. It’s wisdom.”

Then he disappeared into the darkness, leaving me to wonder — as Mr. Ed’s owner surely once wondered — whether my tortoise had just given me better advice than most humans I know.

Well, that’s it folks.  Wisdom from a tortoise to my AI friend Metis.  I wish I could add something to this conversation but I cannot think of anything more to say.

Next blog I will return to the subject I was discussing in a previous blog on honor, integrity and moral courage.

Hearts First or Minds First – What is the Right Order of Change?

13 Nov 2025 9 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

For many years now, I have seen people follow the most bizarre ideas.  Their beliefs defied all my logic and rationale thinking.  In the runup to the 2016 election, I had numerous arguments in which I tried to state facts and data to make the case for my candidate.  My arguments were largely ignored.  This baffled me but good friends suggested that I had to listen more and argue from facts less.  This method did not work either.  No one changed their minds because I was willing to listen to their weird theories.

Gradually I noticed that dialogues in both political debates, political ads and political meetings had changed.  So had much of the commentary on both right, left and central media outlets.  Logic and facts were replaced by narratives.  Stories about the man who lost his job to overseas low paid workers.  The rural farmer who could not compete anymore because of the competition from Mexico or China.  Joe the Plumber in the 2008 Obama election.  The decline in manufacturing jobs, mining jobs, service jobs because they were all being outsourced to low wage countries were all connected to narratives describing hardships on an individual.  Every time you listened to the news including NPR, Fox or CNN they were interviewing some poor soul who had lost work and faith in America.  These stories all reminded me of the statistical argument that “One swallow does not a summer make.”  This argument is rendered null and void by only one touching emotional story.   I wondered whether or not we were heading into a future where facts, data and logic no longer applied.

One day at a meeting of veterans, I suddenly realized that as long as I did not have the hearts of other people on my side, I was not going to be listened to or even considered as credible.  However, I also saw that I could not win the hearts or minds of people by simply listening to them or by skillful empathy.  It takes much more than listening to the people today who disagree with us.  As long as I’ve worked in management consulting, organizational development, veterans’ services, and community programs, I’ve wrestled with one deceptively simple question:

Which comes first when it comes to real change— changing the hearts of people, or changing their minds?

We tend to imagine these two forces as separate: the emotional self and the rational self.  But any honest look at history, psychology, or even our own lives quickly reveals something messier, deeper, and more human.

What I’ve come to believe is this.  There is a time when the heart will lead and a time when the mind will lead.  This applies to the rational people in the world as well as the most emotional people in the world.  To some extent we all vary in our tendency to resort to one or the other.  Different situations will necessitate different strategies.  Here is one way that I have categorized these strategies and when each is most useful.

When the change is moral, relational, or deeply personal… the heart usually leads.

Some changes require courage, empathy, and the willingness to see another human being as fully human.  These are heart-changes.  Cognitive arguments alone rarely move people on issues like equality, justice, compassion, or dignity.

  • Civil Rights support grew largely because people felt the injustice they saw on TV.
  • Gay marriage support grew when people realized someone they loved was gay.

Emotion is the brain’s prioritization system.  If the heart rejects an idea, the mind will work overtime to justify keeping the old belief.

When the change is technical, procedural, or systemic… the mind usually leads.

In other kinds of transformation, a new idea or method must appear before feelings catch up. Deming understood this well.  Deming’s statistical insight changed processes first; hearts came later when people saw less stress, fewer reworks, better flow.  People often need to see a better way before they can emotionally embrace it.  People shift cognitively first, then emotionally.

Technical Change Involves:

  • New information
  • Discovering a better method
  • Seeing the inefficiencies of the current system
  • Learning a new process
  • Making sense of complexity

Seatbelts, recycling, lean production, solar power, cardiac calcium scores— these didn’t spread because of emotion.  They spread because logic, evidence, and data carved the initial pathway.  Once the results became visible, the emotional commitment followed.  In these cases, cognition laid the track, and emotion rode in on it.

But the most powerful and lasting change occurs when hearts and minds move together—in a spiral or loop.

  • Not heart then
  • Not mind then

But an iterative loop:

  1. A new idea challenges us (mind).
  2. We see its human impact (heart).
  3. We seek deeper understanding (mind).
  4. Understanding strengthens conviction (heart).

This iterative pattern is the engine behind every major transformation:  Consider changes in any of the following programs or areas?  What was moved first:  Heart or Mind?

  • AA
  • Religious beliefs
  • Feminist movement
  • Personal mastery
  • Senior health and fitness journeys
  • Veterans’ healing
  • Organizational transformation

Most of us have lived this loop many times, even if we’ve never named it.  Love defies all logic and facts.  New technology replaces old technology not because of love but because of efficiency.  Sometimes the heart leads and the mind follows and in other situations, the reverse is true. 

In Summary:

If you want deep human change — heart first.
If you want procedural or systemic change — mind first.
If you want lasting change — both in spiral.

Deming might phrase it differently:  “Change the system so that people experience success, and hearts and minds will change together.”  Dr. Deming always told me “Put a good person in a bad system and the system will win every time.”  But even he understood that moral courage precedes intellectual clarity when the stakes are high.  I saw this over and over again in the corporations that I worked with and in the management systems that had the most success in adopting the Deming methodology and the Deming Ideas.  And maybe that’s the real takeaway.  The order doesn’t matter as much as the movement.  Deming described everything as a process.

Hearts awaken minds.
Minds strengthen hearts.
Change is a dance, not a formula.

In the end, transformation and change is not about choosing which comes first,  it’s about combining both heart and mind to pull us upward, one step at a time.

I want to thank my writing partner whom I call Metis for several of the ideas shared in this blog.  Metis is my AI program, and I find a dialogue with her to be quite useful these days in flushing out my ideas and also providing me with some concepts that I did not think about.  Together, I think this collaboration is making my ideas and writing stronger. 

A discussion on Moral Courage will be the subject of my next blog.

How We Can Leverage AI to Create a “Jobless” society: Part 2

09 Nov 2025 9 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

In Part 1 of this Blog, I described some of the possibilities that AI might provide us in terms of developing what could become a utopian Society.  I named the economic system that such a society would need as an Equalitarian Economy as opposed to a Capitalistic, Socialistic, Communistic or any other type of economy that ever existed.  This new economy would be extremely Democratic in that everyone would be able to benefit from it.  I described several critical parameters of such an economy which included: 

Core Principles of Equalitarianism:

Shared Prosperity: Wealth produced by automated systems and AI is treated as a collective inheritance, not private privilege.

Universal Security: Every person is guaranteed access to health, education, housing, food, and connectivity as rights of citizenship.

Democratic Ownership: Data, infrastructure, and automation are managed for the public good through civic and cooperative institutions.

Ecological Balance: Progress is measured not by growth alone but by sustainability and planetary stewardship.

Purpose Beyond Profit: Humans pursue creativity, service, and learning as the highest expressions of freedom in a post-labor world.

Transparency and Trust: Economic algorithms and institutions operate openly, accountable to citizens, not corporations.

Responsibility and Contribution: Freedom is balanced with duty—to community, environment, and future generations.

Cultural Flourishing: Arts, education, and civic engagement become the new engines of meaning.

Global Solidarity: Equalitarianism recognizes that abundance must be shared across borders to preserve peace and human dignity.

The Equilibrium Principle: Every policy seeks harmony between technological power and human values.

Some people would call me overly idealistic or say that I had my head in the clouds.  They would argue that humans being can never create a society that evidences the characteristics noted above.  Karen says I am the ultimate pessimist.  That I don’t trust anyone or anything.  How do I resolve these apparent contradictions in my personality?  Who is right?  Am I a fuzzy headed idealist or a skeptical pessimist who thinks the worse in every situation? 

When someone calls me an unrealistic idealist who doesn’t understand human nature, I take it as a backhanded compliment.  I do understand human nature—both its flaws and its possibilities.  I’ve spent a lifetime studying how fear, greed, and ego shape behavior, but I refuse to believe they are destiny.  To me, realism without conscience is cynicism, and idealism without realism is sentimentality. The space I try to inhabit is between the two: the realm of the pragmatic humanist. 

I believe that understanding human nature means believing that it can grow—through education, empathy, and systems that bring out our better selves.  I’m not an unrealistic idealist; I’m a realist of potential.  The human race has yet to tap the potential that lies in all of us.  From the newborn baby to the fading senior citizen.  From America to Europe to Africa to Asia.  From the poorest people in the world, to the richest.  We have so much untapped potential.  If we could only learn to love others instead of hating others. 

Baha’u’llah taught that love is the fundamental principle of existence, the “spirit of life” for humanity, and the most powerful force for progress.  Jesus said that the two greatest commandments are to love God with all your heart, soul, and mind, and to love your neighbor as yourself.  Buddha described love as a boundless, benevolent wish for the happiness of all beings, a quality he called loving-kindness.  Muhammad’s teachings on love emphasized love for the sake of Allah, which includes compassion for all of humanity and other creations.  Krishna teaches that “he who does my work, who loves me, who sees me as the highest, free from attachment to all things, and with love for all creation, he in truth comes to me.”

Dr. Deming once told me that transformation starts in the heart but ends in the brain.  Transformation requires a new way of thinking and not following the dead ends that come from thinking in a box.  Einstein said that we cannot solve the problems of today with the same level of thinking that created these problems.  We can make a better world, and we can be better people, but it requires love, empathy, compassion and kindness.  Once we understand this, we can think our way to the world that we can only dream of now.   How can we get there from today? 

Transitioning from Today to Tomorrow:

The road to 2075 could unfold in three arcs:

2025–2035: Universal healthcare, education, pilot dividends, civic wealth funds.

2035–2055: Scaling UBB modules, digital public wallets, land value taxes.

2055–2075: Constitutional right to the Bundle, full Automated Productivity Dividend (APD) , AI-audited transparency.

The system’s heart is trust.  Algorithms determining the APD or resource prices must be openly audited.  Fiscal boards set rules, not politicians seeking applause.  Citizen assemblies test and refine programs through feedback loops, ensuring continual improvement—Plan, Do, Study, Act (The Deming Cycle) on a planetary scale.

Here are the key elements of my Equalitarian Economy and how they would work.

1) What’s guaranteed (the “Universal Basic Bundle”)

Instead of only cash, society guarantees a bundle of essential services, delivered like utilities:

  • Healthcare: universal coverage with public providers + private options layered on top.
  • Food: a baseline food allowance redeemable at grocers/meal services; nutrition standards, not one-size-fits-all rations.
  • Housing: right to housing via public development + vouchers + mutuals; minimum quality standards.
  • Education: free lifetime learning, credentials, and creative/technical studios.
  • Connectivity & Mobility: free broadband and a mobility pass (local transit + basic distance allotment).

The bundle is portable, unconditional, and choice-preserving (people pick among accredited providers).  Think “public option platforms” rather than one provider per need.

2) How people get spending power (beyond the basics)

Everyone receives an Automated Productivity Dividend (APD)—a cash-like stipend reflecting the value created by AI/robotic capital. It’s funded by:

  • Sovereign & civic wealth funds that own broad stakes in AI/robotic enterprises.
  • Resource rents (land value, spectrum, minerals), carbon fees, and environmental charges—returned equally as dividends.
  • A luxury VAT and/or robot/compute levy on supernormal AI rents (carefully designed to avoid stifling innovation).

Result: basics in-kind + optional cash for variety and luxuries.

3) Who owns the machines (so the dividend is real)

Without purposeful ownership design, a few owners capture everything.  Options that spread the gains:

  • National/municipal wealth funds (Alaska-style, but scaled and diversified into AI).
  • Pension & community funds mandated to hold a share of AI/automation indexes.
  • Data & model trusts that license public data/commons to AI firms in exchange for recurring royalties paid to residents.
  • Cooperative platforms where users/workers/cities co-own service robots and local models.

Mixing these creates a plural, resilient ownership base that throws off steady APD cashflows.

4) How to allocate real scarcities

Even with abundant automation, some things will remain scarce: prime urban land, top-tier medical slots, rare materials, energy peaks.

Use clear, fairness-preserving allocation rules:

  • Congestion pricing for peak resources (electricity at 6–9pm, popular transit slots)—revenues go back to people.
  • Auctions with dividend money for luxuries/rare items (keeps fairness and price signals).
  • Lotteries with rotation for non-monetizable scarcities (e.g., coveted campsites).
  • Personal environmental/material budgets (cap-and-dividend) to keep within planetary limits while preserving individual choice.

5) Governance that people can trust

  • A Constitutional floor of social rights (bundle + APD) guarded by independent fiscal/actuarial boards.
  • Transparent algorithmic policy: models that set APD levels, bundle rates, and scarcity prices are open-audited; citizens’ assemblies review changes.
  • Local experimentation / national reinsurance: cities iterate; the center backstops risks.
  • A Deming-style continuous improvement loop: publish indicators, test alternatives, keep what works.

6) Work, purpose, and status in a post-work world

“Jobs” give income, yes—but also identity, mastery, and community. Replace the income function with APD + bundle; replace the meaning function with:

  • Civic & creative missions (caregiving, arts, restoration ecology, mentoring, open-source, local news).
  • Reputation and recognition systems (think honors, badges, grants, residencies) that are non-financial but unlock opportunities (studio access, travel fellowships, lab time).
  • Voluntary problem prizes for hard societal challenges—open to anyone.

Let us look at how the above ideas would work on a day-to-day basis.  We will watch how Maya, one citizen in the new economy would receive economic benefits:

  • Maya receives the bundle automatically (healthcare, housing lease, mobility, broadband, education access) plus a monthly APD deposited into her public wallet.
  • She books a surgical consult on the health platform, enrolls in a ceramics + music course, and applies for a community garden micro-grant.
  • Peak-hour e-bike lanes use congestion pricing; her wallet is refunded weekly with the proceeds.
  • She enters a materials-light design contest; the prize is a year in a shared studio with high-end tools—no salary needed, but high status and joy.

How long would it take to transition to this new economy.  We can look at a path that such a transition might take.  (so this isn’t sci-fi hand-waving or pie in the sky thinking)

Years 0–10

  • Make healthcare and education genuinely universal; scale housing-first programs.
  • Launch/expand sovereign & civic wealth funds; start data trusts for public sector datasets.
  • Pilot UBB modules (mobility, broadband, food) in cities; pilot APD at modest levels via carbon/resource dividends + luxury VAT.
  • Enact land value tax shifts and congestion pricing with rebates/dividends.

Years 10–25

  • Ratchet APD as automation rents grow; fold in compute/robot levies if warranted.
  • Convert portions of tax expenditures into automatic bundle entitlements.
  • Standardize digital ID + public wallet (privacy-preserving) for payments and allocations.
  • Scale community/co-op ownership of local service robotics.

Years 25–50

  • Codify the social rights floor; stabilize APD against business cycles with rules-based mechanisms.
  • Shift most routine administration to auditable public AI; keep humans on goals, ethics, and appeals.
  • Tighten ecological caps with cap-and-dividend so abundance doesn’t overshoot the planet.

Now let us look at the Feasibility or Likelihood that such a transition could ever take place. 

  • Feasibility (could we?)

High, in terms of some  pieces.  Every element has real-world precedents: public services, dividends from shared assets, congestion pricing, social wealth funds, lotteries, co-ops.  Stitching them together is an engineering-and-governance project, not magic.

  • Likelihood (will we?)

Medium-low.  Left to markets alone, AI rents concentrate; political resistance to broad ownership and unconditional floors is strong.  Likelihood rises if we start now with: building civic wealth funds, enshrining social rights floors, deploying public wallets, and sharing automation rents early so people feel gains, not only disruption. 

Every component already exists somewhere—Alaska’s oil dividend, Norway’s wealth fund, Singapore’s housing model, open-source governance.  Integration is engineering, not fantasy.  We must act deliberately and share compassion for all of humanity.  Otherwise, AI and automation will only amplify inequality.  But if we start early—own public AI equity, legislate social rights floors—than the likelihood rises sharply. 

Bottom line

A post-work economy is possible if we socialize a slice of the returns to automation (not all of the economy), guarantee a Universal Basic Bundle, and use transparent, fair allocation for what remains scarce.  People keep freedom, society keeps stability, and progress keeps its edge.

How We Can Leverage AI to Create a “Jobless” society: Part 1

04 Nov 2025 15 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Introduction:

Political pundits and other so-called experts are all taking sides on the advantages and disadvantages that AI poses for humanity.  Many are fixated on the large number of jobs that will be rendered obsolete by AI.  They seem to forget that throughout history, new jobs replaced old jobs when technology changed.  From sails to steamships, horse and buggies to cars, history is one vast unfolding of technology changing the way societies do work and are structured.

For the sake of compromise, I will assume the worse.  Let me speculate that in fifty years, AI will eliminate 95 percent of all jobs on the earth.  There are two ways that such a situation could be viewed.  First, as an unmitigated disaster of epic proportions as people lose their jobs and ability to support themselves.  Or as an opportunity of epic proportions based on an abundance of leisure time.  An opportunity that enables people to use this leisure time to pursue more rewarding and creative activities.  AI could eliminate the drudge of 9-to-5 work.  However, we are still going to need an economic system.  I believe such a system would be vastly different that any system that we have ever had either today or in the past.  The world stands at the threshold of a post-labor era.  Machines now do the work that once defined our lives, yet the rewards of that labor remain unevenly shared.  We need a new economic philosophy — one that aligns technological abundance with human fairness.

How could we structure an economic system in which people did not work but could still have access to health care, education, food, shelter and clothes?  Would this be possible?  We see Sci-Fi movies with civilizations on other worlds or in the future who live in a Utopia where robots and AI take of all the basic needs.  But how would a new economic system distribute the goods and services that are basic to humanity?  This is a lightning rod activity since many people are quick to oppose any efforts wherein someone seems to get something for nothing.  Witness, the ongoing criticism of social services such as welfare, unemployment and even social security.  A new economic system is going to call for new thinking.  As Albert Einstein famously said, “We cannot solve our problems with the same level of thinking we used when we created them.”

To think about what such a system might look like, I want to bring up an analogy that portrays a very different way of looking at life.  The people that we call Indians who were indigenous to this country before Europeans arrived had a way of distributing food and shelter that was quite admirable.  They believed that the land, water, resources belonged to everyone.  No one could own the land, lakes or seas.  If a buffalo hunt took place, the resultant meat was shared among all the tribal members.  No one said “I killed that buffalo, so the meat belongs to me.  But I will sell you some if you want any.”

Equalitarianism:

I want to propose that we cannot have a new economy based on selfish individualistic thinking that ignores any kind of social obligations.  If AI and automation do 95% of the work, we’ll need an economic system that (1) guarantees the basics, (2) steers scarce resources wisely, and (3) keeps meaning, dignity, and innovation alive.  I will call this new economy “Equalitarianism” as opposed to capitalism, socialism, communism or any other economic system that you have heard of. “Equalitarianism” is a democratic economic philosophy grounded in fairness, shared ownership, and universal well-being.  It envisions a society in which the fruits of automation and intelligence—both human and artificial—are distributed to ensure dignity, opportunity, and balance for all.

Core Principles of Equalitarianism:

  • Shared Prosperity: Wealth produced by automated systems and AI is treated as a collective inheritance, not private privilege.
  • Universal Security: Every person is guaranteed access to health, education, housing, food, and connectivity as rights of citizenship.
  • Democratic Ownership: Data, infrastructure, and automation are managed for the public good through civic and cooperative institutions.
  • Ecological Balance: Progress is measured not by growth alone but by sustainability and planetary stewardship.
  • Purpose Beyond Profit: Humans pursue creativity, service, and learning as the highest expressions of freedom in a post-labor world.
  • Transparency and Trust: Economic algorithms and institutions operate openly, accountable to citizens, not corporations.
  • Responsibility and Contribution: Freedom is balanced with duty—to community, environment, and future generations.
  • Cultural Flourishing: Arts, education, and civic engagement become the new engines of meaning.
  • Global Solidarity: Equalitarianism recognizes that abundance must be shared across borders to preserve peace and human dignity.
  • The Equilibrium Principle: Every policy seeks harmony between technological power and human values.

Building an Economy When Work Disappears:

Imagine it’s the year 2075.  Ninety-five percent of all jobs once done by humans are now performed by artificial intelligences and robots.   Factories hum without workers, crops harvest themselves, and algorithms handle every clerical task once requiring a cubicle.  Humanity’s most ancient concern—how to earn a living—has been replaced by a new question: “How to live meaningfully when earning is no longer required?”

For centuries, economies balanced two core elements: labor and capital.  Labor created value; wages distributed it.  The Twentieth Century saw “information” added to the two core elements. Productivity once dependent on land and labor has become increasingly dependent on information and data.  Humans cannot compete with AI when it comes to producing and managing such data.   When increased automation and AI can provide nearly all productive labor, the former equilibrium collapses.  Yet people will still need food, housing, healthcare, education, and belonging.  We will also need purpose.  The challenge is no longer how to produce, but how to share.  Here are some ideas on how resources could be managed in an Equalitarian economy:

A Universal Basic Bundle:

Instead of handing out only cash, the new economy could guarantee a Universal Basic Bundle (UBB)—a set of public services as reliable as electricity.  Healthcare would be universal, food credits digital, housing guaranteed, education lifelong, and connectivity and mobility free.  This bundle would ensure dignity without removing freedom; citizens choose providers and can upgrade privately.

An Automated Productivity Dividend:

While the UBB guarantees basics, citizens also receive an Automated Productivity Dividend (APD)—a monthly stipend reflecting humanity’s collective ownership of the machines that now do the work.  The APD would draw from public wealth funds, resource rents, and automation taxes.  It grows as automation grows—return on shared capital, not charity.

Ownership in an Age of Algorithms:

Without shared ownership, AI profits concentrate into a few hands.  Society must broaden who owns the means of computation through sovereign and municipal wealth funds, data trusts, and cooperative platforms.  This mosaic of ownership spreads wealth and gives every citizen a stake in the future.

Managing Scarcity in an Age of Plenty:

Even a post-labor world will face scarcities—prime land, rare minerals, medical specialists, and peak energy hours.  Instead of rationing by privilege, we can ration by fairness: dynamic pricing for peak resources, lotteries for non-market goods, and caps and dividends for carbon and material use.  Money remains, but it serves coordination rather than domination.

Purpose Beyond the Paycheck:

While work may vanish, meaning and purpose must not.  Society can elevate civic, creative, and ecological missions as the new currency of status—with prizes, recognition systems, open laboratories, and local media supported by public dividends.  In place of employment, people pursue engagement; work shifts from income to contribution.  In the early 1950’s, the Japanese created a prize for quality based on the ideas of Dr. Deming and named it the Deming Prize.  This effort greatly helped to catapult Japan to a world leadership in product quality and reliability.  The old saying that “Two heads are better than one” can now be changed to “Two heads with AI are better than only two heads.”  Together we can think our way to a better world.

Bottom Line for Humanity:

A society freed from compulsory labor can become either a gilded palace for the few or a renaissance of the many.  It can become a world of haves and have nots.  A world with a few super rich and billions of poor people with no jobs and no skills.  If we share the fruits of intelligence—both human and artificial—we can fulfill the dream that every prophet and philosopher has always embraced: a world where work is a choice, not a chain.  Where labor from 9 to 5 is replaced by time for family, friends and creativity.

How We Can Leverage AI to Create a “Jobless” society:  Part 2

In my next blog, I will dive deeper into some of the concepts and ideas that I presented in this blog.  I want to describe how many of the economic elements that I noted could actually work and discuss the pro’s and con’s of some of them.  We will discuss the feasibility of the scenario that I am advocating.

Are we living in Heaven or are we living in Hell? 

30 Oct 2025 7 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

Are we living in Heaven or are we living in Hell?  There was an old Twilight Zone episode where a big-time gangster died and found himself in a room with a nerdy middle-aged man and his frumpy wife.  They were showing endless repeats of their boring vacation 8 mm film clips.  At first the gangster was polite but after a while he could not take it any longer.  He went to the door and tried to get out of the room.  A monstrous demon appeared and told him that he could never leave.  He was in hell.  The gangster said that he could understand why he would be in hell but what has this nerdy couple done to deserve it.  The demon gave an uproarious laugh and screamed at the gangster,  “They are not in hell, this is their heaven.”

Two more famous men, C.S. Lewis and William Blake wrote books with diametrically opposed views of heaven and hell.  C. S. Lewis’s book was “The Great Divorce.”  He wrote this as a rebuttal  to a book by William Blake called “The Marriage of Heaven and Hell.”  Here is a brief dialogue between the two men at a fictitious meeting discussing what they might have said to each other.

Blake (smiling): So—you are the Oxford don who annulled my marriage of Heaven and Hell.

Lewis (bowing): And you the engraver who dared to join fire and light in one bed.  I fear your union lacked divine sanction.

Blake: Ha!  Eternity laughs at sanction.  Heaven and Hell are not realms, but the two wings of imagination—reason and desire.  To clip one is to fall.

Lewis: Yet ungoverned desire burns the wings that bear it.  I wrote of ghosts who mistook appetite for freedom.

Blake: Then your eyes were half shut.  ‘Energy is Eternal Delight.’ You worship order; I, the creative storm.

Lewis: And I have seen storms that destroy the very life they claim to free.

My father was seldom patriarchal but often insightful.  He told me at an early age that heaven and hell were right here now on this earth.  Our choices made our lives.  We could choose to live in heaven, or we could choose to live in hell.  I often reflected on the meaning of his words.  Sartre said, “Hell is other people.”  He was noting that the judgment and objectification by others can cause torment, leading to a loss of one’s freedom and sense of self.  To lose both is to live in hell.

Another quote that I have sometimes accepted was said by Satan in John Milton’s epic poem, “Paradise Lost”. “Better to reign in hell than serve in heaven.”  This famous line is a declaration of rebellion by Satan, who prefers to rule over his fallen kingdom rather than be subservient to God in heaven.  Anarchists have a comparable thought which goes “”Ni Dieu, Ni Maitre.”  Translated this means “No Gods, No Kings.”  As an atheist, I find myself trying to live with these thoughts in a world suffused with religious fervor for a God who supposedly waits on humanity to plea for his help and guidance.  Unfortunately, it often seems that God is either deaf, dumb or blind.

For years, I saw organized religions as the Bain of humanity.  I believed that more wars had been fought over religious differences than perhaps any other reason ever known.  I wanted nothing to do with a God who belonged to any religion.  My “conversion” to Atheism was attached to a belief that humans could self-regulate their behavior.  People would naturally do what was right without the threat of hell or the promise of heaven.  Seventy-nine years on this earth has taught me the error of this thought.  It would now seem that the further we get from heaven and hell, the more chaotic our world has become.

In many religions of the world, “bad” people go to hell.  Good people go to heaven.  But thoughts and beliefs about hell have varied widely over the centuries.  Here are some of the more common thoughts about hell summarized from the world’s major religions:

What Hell Is:

  • Historically, Hell is not originally a large universal fiery lake of eternal damnation that the popular imagination may picture.
  • Hell in some traditions is temporary (in many Indian religions; in early Judaism in some texts). Hell is more of a place to get your life in order.
  • Hell is often metaphorical or theological — e.g., separation from God or loss of the ultimate good. Catholics say the best thing about Heaven is seeing God.  In their version of hell, you will never see god.
  • Hell’s imagery is heavily shaped by cultural, social, and historical contexts (prisons, mines, burial rites, afterlife beliefs).

What Hell Is Not:

  • It is not uniformly defined across religions — one model of Hell does not fit all faiths.
  • It is not always eternal or always fiery.
  • It is not always the first idea in the tradition; often developed later (Hellenistic Judaism, Christian Latin Fathers).
  • It is not only about punishment; in many traditions the emphasis is on purification, transformation, or consequence of one’s own actions (karma) rather than a punitive act by God.

What Heaven Is:

We must then contrast our ideas of hell with the ideas of heaven that many people have.  I was brought up in a Catholic tradition where heaven was this wonderful place in which we would be united with all the good people in our lives that we loved but most importantly with God and Jesus.  Heaven was a place where every wish we could ever think of would be granted and there would be no toil, no pains, no hardships, no misery.  Everything that anyone could ever want in their wildest dreams would exist in heaven.  Heaven was a very personal place since we could all find and achieve our dreams there.

Now think about this for a minute.  Does the idea of heaven that I have described seem somewhat preposterous?   How could all this be possible?  Could two realms actually exist?  One holds all the bad people that ever existed and the other all the good people.  And how does St. Peter decide who is good and who is bad?  What magical talisman could exist to objectively separate the two?  Lewis and Blake also differed greatly on their attitudes towards heaven and hell.

Lewis: If Heaven and Hell are one, where lies choice?  Good and evil must part, else neither lives.

Blake: Contraries are life itself.  ‘Without contraries there is no progression.’  The dance between them drives creation.

Lewis: Yet the dance must end in a yes or no.  The soul cannot waltz forever between God and self.

Blake: Perhaps your yes is my spectrum.  You see white; I see all colors folded in it.

Lewis: But colors fade without the light that births them.  Love orders even the rainbow.

Blake: And fear of color breeds night.  You guard truth so tightly it cannot breathe.

Lewis: You set it so free it forgets its name.

Lewis:  There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, ‘Thy will be done,’ and those to whom God says, in the end, ‘Thy will be done.’

Blake:  To obey God is to create with Him; submission divides, imagination unites.

The difference between the moral absolutist Lewis and the Blake version of good and evil still divides us today  For Blake, “Good” is whatever springs from imaginative love, energy, and vision.  “Evil” is whatever crushes imagination through repression, hypocrisy, or self-righteousness.  For Lewis, a moral foundation is built upon objective, divine law discerned by reason and revelation.

We can discern these two opposing themes concerning morality, good and evil, heaven and hell in every fabric of life today.  Theologians, politicians, leaders from all walks of life are all divided upon the questions concerning good and evil, absolute morality and moral relativism.  Is humanity innately good and bound to follow the “right” path based on its own self-interest or is humanity a neutral vessel in need of a moral code to help guide their choices in life?

I have come to believe that this apparent dichotomy simply reflects the complex ambiguity that humanity entails.  Some people need heaven and hell to do the right thing.  They will break laws, take advantage of other people, as long as they think they can get away with it.  Taking any moral codes or fire and brimstone away from them only makes it easier for them to prey on others.

Conversely, there are many good people who do good because it is the right thing to do.  They obey laws when laws are not apparent.  They help others not because of fear but because of love.  They feed the hungry and welcome immigrants because they understand the need to have a better life.  They do not clamor about hand-ups versus hand-outs because they know that many people lack the arms and legs to climb up the proverbial ladder.  They do good not because of a fear of hell or desire to get into heaven but because they yield to a greater law.  A Law of Love and Compassion for all of humanity.

Previous Older Entries Next Newer Entries