This week heralded the tenth wedding anniversary of Ann and me. We did a couple of celebratory things, including a lovely yum cha in Sydney. I had hoped that we could spend a few days in Canberra but family issues preclude that for the time being, so maybe closer to Christmas for that trip.

Marriage is always a complicated dance between two essentially different people. We all have some similarities, of course, but many contrasts too. If we come from different cultures, as Ann and I do, then the opportunity for misunderstandings to arise increases. There are sometimes fundamentally opposing ways of living, seeing the world, understanding reality, and so forth.

In spite of all this, here we are. Actually, I think our marriage is stronger than ever. A mixed marriage is not for everyone as a lot of smitten men will find out once they have gotten past the obligatory 'looks' phase. There are many cautionary tales.

As I advise others, learn about the culture, in a deep not a cursory way, and be prepared for ways of thinking about issues that are radically different from your own. And learn how to bite your tongue!

Recently the news has has a number of stories about the potential for AI disaster. Tasks given to AI have turned in unusual and unexpected directions. In one case the AI agent broke out of the controlled environment, in another, a number of AI agents found ways of collaborating on a task by hacking into and communicating through a digital bulletin board. Doubtless there are other surprises that we have yet to learn of or which we will never hear about.

I am not opposed to artificial intelligence, especially where it can make life better for real world natives of the planet earth. In medicine, research, in advancing good technology, and so forth, AI has an important role to play. But most intentional actions have unexpected consequences, some better, some worse. And some intentions are malign in the first place.

There are plausible scenarios in which AI, so enabled by human actors, destroy civilisation and even life on earth. It could happen through evil intent, or negligence, unrealistic optimism, or quite by accident, but it remains, even as I game a number of options in my head, within the realm of possibility.

If checks are put in place now at an international level, then perhaps it can be averted. I am not at all confident about that given the the way international relations look at the moment. 

I am not an economist though I have an interest in how things work in the economy. That doesn't mean that I completely (or even partly) understand interviews and articles that cover emerging or current problems or why one thing is linked to another. It is a far bigger and more complex picture than the oft-alluded to household economy.

But having watched a few programs recently, I do get the worry about the global economy, though I often forget about half of what is said. It seems that, as I recall, a financial crisis may be brewing, principally because of three factors - a bond market squeeze, high government debt, and the AI infrastructure boom. I am a bit sceptical when I hear about something or other being a 'perfect storm', another way of saying how multiple problems may converge to create something much larger than themselves, but I'll sit with it this time.

Apparently, if the storm clouds do indeed become the deluge, then, um, I don't really know what happens. But there will be 'wailing and gashing of teeth.' The Biblical metaphor is quite apt really, because a lot of people, especially small ones, will be hurt. The rich, I guess might suffer the slings of a small part of their vast fortunes, or the arrows of a luxury yacht or two. Poorer folk might really be in shtuck for lost houses, cars and businesses, if the worst outcome prevails.

I hope that they are all wrong and that we muddle through to an unsatisfactory conclusion, that being the likely least bad option.

 Speaking of literacy, I watched an old BBC doco from the early 1960's in which some of the adults who were interviewed bemoaned their lack of education, relative to that of their children. Many had left school quite young and felt that had they had the same chance as their kids, their incomes who be significantly higher. It was interesting how strongly they attached educational background to earnings (valid as that is) and so little to intellectual striving or personal fulfilment. Then again, they didn't really have much choice and their limited vision, stunted by their educational lack, made such remarks perfectly reasonable.

Another aspect of the program (which was highlighting changes in nature of South London after WW2) was the common response to 'are you happier now?' inquiry. While most said that they were undoubtedly better off than their parents were, the increase in living standards and new high-rise housing had diminished their sense of community. Things were not so neighbourly as they once were.

Such an atomisation continues apace. The folk from the sixties cited TV as a major cause of the decline of local camaraderie. Today a similar argument is made with smart phones. Doubtless we are also far more affluent than the people in the documentary. When I am on the train, I often just watch my fellow commuters, most of whom are deeply engaged with all-in-one entertainment machines. The only voices I hear are those who are talking into those machines. This is not a criticism, just an observation. I am not sure where it is all leading.

I hadn't realised until yesterday what a wonderful philanthropist the late Dolly Parton was. We read an article from the The Conversation on 2RPH's Features Forum which talked about her program, Imagination Library, which she started in 1995. This delivers age-appropriate books monthly and freely to children from birth to their fifth birthday. In this country alone, 50,000 kids get a monthly book. Having books read to you and being able to read them yourself, irrespective of your circumstances, is a blessing for both literacy and the imagination.

Dolly is best known for her music, costumes and wigs. She was an outstanding and influential performer. But her generous contribution to literacy (her own father could not read) will have ripple effects for generations to come, things unseen and yet moving on the spirit of the written and spoken word.

Pursuant to my last post, it seems that modern commentators think that the times we live in now are morally superior to the past, and that people who say otherwise are afflicted by the 'rose-coloured glasses on the past' syndrome.

I always have a good think about criticism like this and the point made can apply in many cases. The 'good old days' posts that regularly pop up on social media are undoubtedly looking back through a biased lens, one that confirms the prejudices already held. Posters comments reinforce this. I have spent a good part of my life fighting such skewed views of the world. Moreover I don't think the time of my youth was any kind of halcyon period.

The key thing about views of moral good or evil is the metric by which it is measured. It came as a surprise to me then that contemporary analysts (philosophers, sociologists etc) are on quite a different page to me. For whereas I am looking at the moral from the point of view of a more ancient aspect (murder, lying, sexual misconduct, avarice, jealousy, pride, love of neighbour etc) they are more inclined to consider the greater good, progress in medicine and hygiene, a reduction in prejudice, increased compassion, access to clean water, a reduction in suffering and so forth. These are all very noble goals and I support them heartily. Who wouldn't?

But we are talking at cross purposes. When your yardstick is grounded in materialism and the metaphysical is irrelevant, then you are always going to have a different view of whether we are in moral decline. I don't think either side is wrong - we are just talking about different things and how you measure them.

 Greater minds than mine, of which there are many, have considered the question - 'can there be a moral code without God?' - and there have been a lot of well-considered answers. 

Apparently that answer is 'yes', followed by a perfectly reasonable justification. Here is one very common response:

'The truth is, morality doesn't require a belief in God. Secular morality offers a compelling alternative, grounded in reason, empathy and our shared human experience.' (Sacrilegious Discourse)

It is surely possible to build a moral code, one that informs our legal system, one that reflects the grounding elements mentioned above. It may even function well for a period of time.

But Christians (and other people of faith) will argue that without the imprimatur of God, and the sanctions that only a divine creator can employ, such a moral code, good as it is, will eventually decay into relativism. Secularists disagree. Who might be right?

My observations, subjective as they are, suggest that just such a decline into relativism is happening now and has been ongoing for a century or longer. With the decline of faith and belief in God, together with the teaching of moral codes such as the ten commandments, the idea of truth, of what constitutes right and wrong and what this means in practical liveable terms, has been muddied, challenged and undermined. It really is getting worse by the year.

The folks who postulate theories of secular morality are smart, well-educated, decent people, who are actively interested in the well-being of society. They are a tiny minority. I don't know if, outside their virtuous circle, they notice the increasing amorality of many of the citizens around them, the disregard for human life, the decline of public discourse, the normalisation of practises and ideas that are repugnant to human dignity. Do they notice the 'my truth/your truth' brigade as they play out a classic relativistic scenario?

Yes, a moral code is possible without God. It's capacity to maintain itself though, is somewhat in question. Just look around.