The video is shocking. (See it here.) A line of students sits on the ground, heads bowed. A police officer dressed in riot gear walks up to them, holding a pepper spray gun. He theatrically raises his arm, as if about to carry out an execution, and presses the trigger. A foul-looking orange spray shoots out.

Methodically, deliberately, he walks to the end of the line, saturating each student. He might as well be casually spraying bug spray. When he reaches the end he begins walking back in the other direction, spraying each of them again. The students huddle in obvious pain. People in the crowd nearby gasp in shock and began chanting, “Shame on you! Shame on you! Shame on you!”

This event is powerfully symbolic. It is about contempt from those in power and the wanton use of force against the powerless.

We have seen similar things over and over again in the past few years. We have seen it in banks lobbying for public handouts and then denying relief to millions of exploited homeowners. We have seen it in tax breaks and bonuses for the rich while millions of Americans are out of work. We have seen it in church and university officers abusing children and then covering it up. We have seen it in the censorship of climate science performed in the public interest. We have seen it in the absurd declaration that corporations are “people” and entitled to spend billions of dollars to elect representatives that they will then own. We have seen it everywhere we turn.

The police officer is Congress. Our banks. Our clerics.

The students are us.

If I had to sum up the attitude of America’s governing classes in one word, I would say: contempt.

We are seeing the beginning of a worldwide movement to fight for dignity and intelligent, collective governance. It is remarkable, the parallels between what we see in Tunisia, in Cairo, in Rome, in Zucotti Park, in Oakland, California, and now at UC Davis.

It is time for UC Davis Chancellor Linda Katehi to resign. I simply cannot fathom a university administrator bringing riot police onto campus to assault peacefully demonstrating students. At the most, campus police could have simply carried them away. In her blog, Duke prof (and former teacher of mine) Cathy Davidson deftly dissects the craven claim that tent camps present “health and safety concerns.” And Bob Ostertag, a UC Davis prof, shows how the administration lost its moral compass.

People say that the Occupy movement has not been clear in its demands. I would say that their demands could not be more obvious.

They are already being articulated everywhere: the New York Times, the Huffington Post, Salon.com, the New Yorker. They are full of luminous writers: Nicholas Kristof. Paul Krugman. Gail Collins. Hendrik Herztberg. George Packer. Steve Coll. Dozens of intelligent books have appeared on the shelves in the past few years, examining the country’s failures and offering thoughtful proposals for reform.

They want a fairer tax system. They want a sane energy policy that addresses climate change and searches for cleaner ways to power our civilization. They want a government that is not wholly owned by the rich. They want access to justice and education. They want a reasonable hope of getting and keeping a job that gives them a living wage and the ability to invest for the future.

They want a rational health care system that they can afford. They want government policy that is driven by thoughtful attention to rational research, not ideology. They want a transparent government that holds the powerful accountable. They want a government that understands the importance of investing now in human capital and infrastructure.

The obstacles to reform seem overwhelming. The country’s far right has systematically obstructed every attempt to change things for the better. The electorate seems hopelessly divided. For decades, it has voted to create legislative deadlock. Despite the overwhelming failure of the Bush administration, half of the country has not grasped how utterly the Republican philosophy of governance has been discredited. The Democrats are uncoordinated and have no coherent philosophy at all. In our Internet age, the media are so fragmented that no single idea can seem to hold the country’s attention for long. America has never seemed more divided and paralyzed in living memory.

Nonetheless, America’s two most famous recent political movements – the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street – have taught us several things. It is possible to get the country’s attention. And getting its attention is equivalent to setting its agenda.

The Tea Party, which is now fading fast, was always a faux movement, funded by secretive billionaires and so aggressively, laughably ignorant that neither it nor its candidates could retain credibility for long.

But Occupy Wall Street is much more broadly based. It has a large and powerful set of progressive ideas to draw upon. And it is getting the country’s attention.

What Occupy Wall Street needs to do is set a moral example. Moral examples move people to action. I am very proud of the students at UC Davis, both the ones who remained seated, heads down, and the ones in the crowd surrounding them. They vastly outnumbered the police officers. They could have torn them apart. I have no doubt that many of them wanted to. I wanted to.

But, as Gandhi and Martin Luther King so well understood, nonviolent resistance is extraordinarily powerful. It shows who holds the moral high ground. It reveals the thugs and bullies in high places for who they are. It creates sympathy and evokes principled action. It clears the way for thoughtful men and women of conscience and character to speak out for rational courses of action.

I think we have just reached a turning point.

May 21, 2011. My newest blog entry: Communicating with Intelligent Aliens. I consider the prospect of communicating with aliens from the perspectives afforded by linguists: Mark Johnson and George Lakoff on the one hand, and Guy Deutscher on the other. Are our bodies and histories likely to be so different as to make communication impossible? Or can the gulfs be crossed by patient efforts at explanation? Read the posting to find out.

Tonight I saw Francis Fukuyama lecture at Politics & Prose about his new book, THE ORIGINS OF POLITICAL ORDER. He gave an impressive performance, lecturing for an hour on how governments form, both for better and for worse.

A point that stuck with me was that governments have to overcome the natural human inclination to transfer power to immediate family and clan relations. It’s natural for kings to want to pass on the crown to children. But doing that greatly reduces the chance of competent governance; as he put it, if generals pass their power to their children, they’re not going to win wars. And from this perspective, clerical celibacy makes sense because it forces an end to nepotism and hereditary office. (First time I’ve ever seen any value in clerical celibacy.) So any successful government has to break a clan and kinship-defined polity.

His talk spanned many eras, from third-century China, which developed a merit-based civil service with entrance exams and performance critera, to the French Revolution (where his book leaves off; a planned second volume will bring things up to the current day.)

One thing that struck me is that Fukuyama sees history as being very contingent, with culture and historical happenstance accounting for many of the features of English parliamentary democracy and its American descendant. He saw English and American democracy as being by no means historically determined.

This emphasis on contingency apparently would put him at odds with Robert Wright, whose book NONZERO: THE LOGIC OF HUMAN DESTINY argues that development proceeds almost thermodynamically from lesser complexity to greater, from lesser freedom to more. I wanted to ask him if their two books are as much at odds as it would seem, or if they’re really working in different domains — but I didn’t get the chance.

C-SPAN was on hand to film the lecture, and it’ll be well worth watching.

If you want a field where august authorities come to completely different conclusions, try astrobiology. Some people are certain that there is life off the earth (and some even think that we have already found it), while others insist that life is rare and intelligent life even more so.

I’ve been reading a slew of books in this field, including Ward & Brownlee’s “Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe,” Paul Davies’s “The Eerie Silence: Renewing our Search for Alien Intelligence,” and Marc Kaufman’s “First Contact: Scientific Breakthroughs in the Hunt for Life Beyond Earth.” Read on for my take on these books…

I’ve put up a new Psychology Today blog posting, Is There a Logic to History?

Here’s how it starts: “I have been pondering this question: When, if ever, is it meaningful and fair to say that one culture is “more advanced” than another?” Read more.

I’ve put up a new blog posting on Psychology Today. “On February 16, 2011, an IBM computer named ‘Watson’ crushed its two human competitors in the final night of a three-day Jeopardy battle. Its final score was $77,147 to the humans’ $24,000 and $21,600. It might seem that Watson is another incremental step toward computers attaining humanlike intelligence. Just keep making them faster and more complicated, and sooner or later they’ll become self-aware. But in fact  artificial intelligence doesn’t gain much just by scaling up. What Watson needs is an ecosystem, not more RAM.” Read more.

When the New York Times put its review up on its website, I was so nervous I printed it out and had my wife read it to me line by line.  But it’s a great review! “Michael Chorost is not only a clear and concise science writer, but also a visionary.” Read the whole thing.

And then, if you’d like to read an excerpt from the book, the Times has posted it here.

According to Moore’s Law, the number of transistors on a chip doubles approximately every two years. Now, we have Stevenson & Kording’s Law: the number of neurons that can be tracked in the brain doubles every 7.4 years. What are the implications of that? I’ve written a Psychology Today blog entry considering that. Read more.

I’ve just posted my Ten Hard-Learned Relationship Tips on my Psychology Today blog. Read now.

I’ve just put up a new post on Psychology Today, Ten Hard-Learned Dating Tips. Thought I’d write a post that didn’t require any research, just reflection on a long dating career that recently ended in marriage. As I say, I don’t think anyone who gets married at 45 deserves to call himself a relationship guru, but here it is, for what it’s worth. Read more…