POSITIVELY 4TH STREET by David Hajdu

by James Wallace Harris, 6/10/25

2025 is the 60th anniversary of my living through 1965. I discovered Bob Dylan in 1965 when “Like a Rolling Stone” came on Top 40 AM radio. That was when rock and roll matured, becoming rock. I’ve never been able to forget the sixties. That’s mainly because I was an adolescent during that decade, and few people can forget their adolescence. To compound the biological factor, we were Baby Boomers, believing the whole world was watching us lead some kind of revolution.

I thought Bob Dylan epitomized the decade when I was a teenager growing up with his albums The Freewheelin’ Bob Dylan in 1962 through Nashville Skyline in 1969. I’ve been listening to those albums for sixty years, and I’ve read a lot about Bob Dylan. He wasn’t my hero, but someone I admired and envied. While watching the recent film A Complete Unknown, I couldn’t help but feel they got everything wrong. Although the film and acting were dazzling.

Bob Dylan is legendary for hiding behind a mask. He has always worn an enigmatic persona. I think to understand Dylan requires not looking directly at Dylan but at everything that surrounded him and how he reacted. Of course, that belief may only be a delusion on my part, and it’s impossible to know the man.

Of everything I’ve read, Positively 4th Street by David Hajdu provides the best account of Dylan, Baez, and the Folk Revival movement of the late 1950s and early 1960s. I just reread it for the third time because it was selected by my nonfiction book club. I assume the others voted for it because of the film A Complete Unknown. This 2001 book is out of print except for Kindle and audiobook on Amazon.

A Complete Unknown claims Dylan broke with the Folk Music crowd when he went electric. Positively 4th Street documents how he left Folk Music with his second album, The Freewheelin’ Bob Dylan. The Folk Music Revival was about rediscovering, recreating, and reinterpreting historical music from many subcultures and countries. As soon as Dylan and others started writing their own songs, they became singer-songwriters. That was a new music genre. Those artists left folk music behind, and changed pop music, and rock and roll.

The Sixties can be remembered in many ways. There was a great deal of turbulent political change. Many histories of the Sixties are quite ugly. But the counterculture remembers it as a transcendental revolution. I did for most of my life. On this third reading of Positively 4th Street, I’m seeing evidence that undermines that perspective.

In my book club’s discussion group, David wrote:

I almost gave up on Positively 4th Street because of the gossip and drama described in the personal lives of some of my most admired musicians who were icons of the age of the folk era in the late 50s and early 60s.


I am not one for gossip that appears in People Magazine and ET describing the drama of celebrities, but when I learn about the personal lives of some of the great artists I wonder how they ever produced things of such beauty, truth, and goodness.


So I got thinking, is “narcissistic arrogance” a necessary ingredient for a person to create great art?

My reply was successful people often come across as assholes because of their relentless self-promotion. After reading David’s comments, I paid attention to their validity while rereading the book. It became quite apparent that these icons of the Sixties were chasing fame and fortune first. To reach the top of the creative heap means brutal competition. That often meant demeaning their peers. I need to rewatch A Complete Unknown to see how it interprets this aspect.

To think Dylan broke with the Folk Music Revival crowd when he went electric in 1965 is to miss the mark by a mile. Dylan had already blown through several artistic phases by 1965. Who can imagine where the man is at sixty years later.

I was thirteen when I first heard “Like a Rolling Stone.” I thought it would be fantastic to become a singer-songwriter like Dylan, or an astronaut like Wally Schirra, or a science fiction writer like Robert A. Heinlein. I couldn’t imagine what it would take to become successful like those famous men. Years later, I learned I didn’t have what it takes, but more importantly, I didn’t really want to be successful like Dylan, Schirra, and Heinlein. Reading Positively 4th Street reveals the low-level personality details I didn’t understand at thirteen.

Positively 4th Street is a wonderful, detailed history of a tiny creative scene that occurred from 1959 to 1966. David Hajdu culled the significant facts to tell this history, making it vivid and maybe even somewhat close to the truth.

While reading, I’ve listened to the folk albums mentioned in the book, and I’ve discovered that I don’t particularly like songs from the folk music revival. They are historically interesting, but they don’t press my emotional buttons like rock and roll or classic rock. It’s understandable why Dylan quickly fled the movement. The Beatles and the British Invasion buried the Folk Music revival.

Still, Positively 4th Street is an engaging history to read.

JWH

The Distance Between Us

by James Wallace Harris, 5/3/25

Even if we embrace in a mighty bear hug, we cannot get close enough for our minds to touch. Whatever consciousness might be, each person is alone in their head. Would telepathy soothe that existential solitude?

I Can Hear Thoughts” by Elizabeth Weil in the latest issue of New York Magazine reports on the viral podcast The Telepathy Tapes. (This article is behind a paywall, but if you haven’t visited the site recently, it might allow a free read. I read it via Apple News+. I find that subscription well worth the monthly $12.99 because it lets me read content behind hundreds of paywalls.)

The story is about a mother and her autistic son who appear to use telepathy. She started a podcast, which turned into a movement. The story is about how parents of nonverbal autistic children are desperate to know what their children think. For some, it goes much deeper than that. They want confirmation that a fully developed and aware human soul is trapped in a body that can’t communicate.

Often, one or more parents will sacrifice their normal lives to find some way to communicate with their nonverbal children. Many have spent years working with facilitated communication, leading to varying degrees of success. Sometimes such efforts produce startling results, results that appear to suggest telepathy.

Most scientists discredit these efforts. Studies show that autistic individuals respond to physical cues, variations on Clever Hans. However, some researchers suggest that something else might be at play. These researchers study consciousness, some with rather far-out theories about consciousness. Some researchers in consciousness want to leave the idea of telepathy open as a possibility, but see The Telepathy Tapes discrediting their research.

One of the most touching parts of the story is when Elizabeth Weil realized her journalistic queries brought doubt to the people she was interviewing. That their hope depended on absolute belief. I believe that issue is one of the fundamental reasons why our country has turned conservative and against liberal thinking. People are desperate to believe things science rejects, so they prefer to jettison science rather than their beliefs.

“I Can Hear Thoughts” is a beautiful piece of journalism about heartbreakingly sad lives. This story touches on many deep philosophical issues. Researching consciousness is at the cutting edge of science, philosophy, and even religion.

People desperate to save religion from science grasp any theory to rationalize their beliefs. The appeal of the Telepathy Tapes is the hope that communicating with profoundly autistic people will lead to proof of undiscovered spiritual dimensions. Dimensions that could be studied by science.

It’s a shame that this article is behind a paywall. I fully understand that New York Magazine needs to finance its publication. If you only consume free journalism on the web or YouTube, you are subsisting on a substandard diet of information. I wish more of my friends subscribed to Apple News+ so I could share articles with them.

I’m trying to wean myself off of crap news. The only way to do that is to pay for quality information. Apple News+ connects you with over 400 publications at a practical price.

JWH

The Reality of Reality

by James Wallace Harris, 5/2/25

I use reality to mean everything in existence. We used to use the term universe to mean everything, but scientists began speculating about multiverses and the word universe meant less than everything. Also, we tend to think of the universe in astronomical terms, and when I mean everything, I want it to encompass all the dimensions of existence everywhere, to whatever is beyond the quantum world to whatever existences lies beyond the multiverses.

The first reality of reality is that our local existence is an infinitely tiny portion of reality. We appear to exist in a three-dimensional domain defined by our sight, which gives us the illusion that we are small creatures in a large world. In reality, we are specks on a speck.

The second thing we need to remember about reality is that our lives have no meaning in relation to reality. Reality is completely indifferent to our existence. That every religion and philosophy we’ve ever created to explain reality are delusions by infinitesimally tiny beings. Think of our thoughts as a bacterium in our body speculating about its existence.

The third thing to remember about reality is that we spend our entire existence imposing order on chaos in our local bit of reality. Subatomic particles create atoms, and atoms create molecules, and molecules create inorganic chemistry, and inorganic chemistry creates biology, and biology creates humans, and humans create civilizations, and civilizations create technology, and technology is creating artificial intelligence. Reality is always evolving into something else.

Everything we do involves creating order out of chaos. We breathe and eat to stay alive. We learn to make sense of reality. We work to own things. We maintain the things we own. Doing the dishes imposes order on the kitchen. Washing clothes imposes order on our wardrobes. Gardening and landscaping impose order on our yard. Writing imposes order on our thoughts. Decluttering imposes order on our desks. Talking to people creates order in our relationships.

How much order we impose depends on how many habits, possessions, and people we want to control. The more we try to control, the more stress we feel. As we age, and our physical and mental abilities decline, we slowly lose control of everything we’ve worked to control. That is the reality of our lives.

We comprehend reality through science, but it’s extremely difficult because reality is hard to understand. At best, science notices repeatable statistical patterns that we can label with terms that we share. Like I said, religions and philosophies are mere delusions we embrace to think we understand reality. We don’t. We spend our lives acting on beliefs, believing we know more than we do.

We are creatures who live on delusions imposed on us by our biological urges and the delusions imposed on us by our culture and society. Except for Zen Buddhists, few people attempt to free themselves of their delusions. Instead, they passionately embrace their delusional beliefs by expending vast efforts to make them a reality.

I think about all of this as I encourage myself to go outside this morning to work at imposing order on the forty-thousand square feet of chaos that is my yard. The weeds are winning. They want to impose their order over my plot of land that I delusionally think I own and control. But it looks like rain, and as I glance around this room, I see three desks piled high with disorder that I need to wrestle into order. And I haven’t done my physical therapy exercises yet. If I don’t do them, my back falls into chaos, and I suffer great pain.

It would be so much easier to veg out in front of YouTube videos and let a little more disorder take over the house and yard.

JWH

I Can’t Believe the Most Essential Aspect of Sexual Reproduction and Gender Has Gone Unnoticed Until Now

by James Wallace Harris, 4/29/25

I suppose because humans have always reproduced like bunnies, we’ve always ignored an essential aspect of sexual reproduction and gender. Statistically, we need every female to have more than two children. Because some women can’t have children, and because some girls die before reaching reproductive age, to keep the population steady during current conditions requires 2,100 babies to be born to every 1,000 women. That number varies depending on the state of medicine and the number of catastrophes.

In 2024, 1,626 babies were born to every 1,000 women in the United States. That’s not enough. If we continued at that rate, we’d eventually become extinct. In many other countries, that number is much smaller than 1,626.

Why aren’t these statistics common knowledge? Why didn’t we learn them when our parents (or peers) taught us about sex? It’s a heavy responsibility to know that we should all have children. My wife and I didn’t have children. Most of my friends didn’t have children. Why did we all start doing our own thing and forget this essential aspect of life?

It’s unfair that the burden of maintaining the species falls on women. To maintain the current population, every woman needs to have two children, and one in ten needs to have three. That’s assuming all women can have children. The practical need is for all women to have three children. Few women want that today.

Males don’t escape responsibility either. The species could get by with fewer males for making babies, but we need males to support the raising of children. I suppose a feminist utopia could get by with an exceedingly small number of males, or even none if women perfected cloning, but the statistics of maintaining the species are the same even if males weren’t needed.

However, we have evolved into a society/culture that doesn’t want enough children. What does that mean? Should we make people have more babies?

I wrote about this yesterday. However, the impact of these numbers didn’t hit me until 3:11 am last night.

For humanity to survive, we must deal with climate change, environmental sustainability, capitalism, inequality in all forms, artificial intelligence, and reproductive stability.

Theoretically, we could solve all these problems, but I doubt we will. The obvious solution is that civilization will collapse, and we’ll fall back into previous kinds of social organizations. It’s a fascinating challenge to imagine a society that can solve all these problems. However, can you imagine any future where all fertile women must have three children, and all men must become dedicated fathers? I can’t.

The human race needs to act radically differently. Is that possible?

JWH

Can We Avoid a Population Collapse Without Throwing Women Under the Bus?

by James Wallace Harris

Most countries around the world are worried about a population collapse that will destroy their economies and social systems. I’ve been worried about overpopulation since the 1960s, but now economists are warning us that capitalism is doomed if we don’t have more babies. Every country’s economic wellbeing depends on GDP growth. That might be impossible if birthrates continue to shrink.

The replacement birthrate to keep the population the same is around 2.1 children per woman, or 2,100 children per 1,000 women. In the U.S., we had 1,626 births per 1,000 women in 2024. At that rate, if we exclude immigration, the United States will fade away. Here are the U.S. population number by decade for the next 400 years.

YearPopulation (in millions)
2025341.7
2035330.5
2045319.8
2055309.5
2065299.6
2075290.0
2085280.8
2095271.9
2105263.3
2115255.0
2125247.0
2135239.3
2145231.8
2155224.6
2165217.6
2175210.9
2185204.4
2195198.1
2205192.0
2215186.0
2225180.2
2235174.6
2245169.1
2255163.8
2265158.6
2275153.5
2285148.6
2295143.8
2305139.1
2315134.5
2325130.0
2335125.6
2345121.3
2355117.1
2365113.0
2375109.0
2385105.1
2395101.3
240597.5

If we follow the trends of other countries that have even lower replacement birthrates, we’d shrink even faster. If we became like South Korea, we’d shrink to half our population by 2100.

At some point, we’d reach zero population. From an ecological point of view, I’d think the Earth would be better off without so many people. However, capitalism, and our support systems like Social Security depend on growth.

To solve this problem requires women having more babies. Because some women can’t have children, most women would need to have three children. That’s quite burden to put on women. Countries around the world with declining birthrates are trying various incentives to get women to have more children, but so far, those incentives aren’t working.

Can We Have Capitalism Without Growth?

What if it’s time to think about shrinking the population? What would be a sustainable population regarding the environment? Let’s just say the world would be much better without only one billion people. Could we come up with an economic system that didn’t depend on growth?

Humanoid robots are enterting the workforce. Could they take up the GDP slack for fewer people? Are there other methods to generate economic growth without people? The U.S. economy depends on consumerism. Can we create an environmental steady-state economic system that creates abundance?

How Many People Do We Need?

If we allowed ourselves to shrink the population to one billion humans, to keep from continuing to shrink, we’d be back to needing women having 2,100 children per 1,000 women. That means every woman needs to have two children, and one in ten needs to have three.

Since the second wave of feminism and the creation of the birth control pill, women have chosen to have fewer children. We have to assume that’s what they want as individuals. Then is it fair to put the burden of reproduction on one gender? What if we had a society where every individual is responsible for raising their replacement? How would we force males into having kids?

Conservatives and some women are now proposing that women go back to being full-time mothers. What if most women don’t want to become mothers? Could we create a Brave New World type society where children are grown in test tubes and vats? That would allow males to have children.

This is a great idea for science fiction, but I’m not sure if it will ever happen.

What If Some Women Were Willing to Have Lots of Children?

Some women do like having children. If half of women were willing to have four or five children, and maybe a quarter of them have one child, that would allow one quarter of women to have no children.

Curently, in the U.S. 57% of all adults under 50 choose not to have children. That means we wouldn’t have enough women wanting children. Current incentive programs for woman to have more children are failing. Is there anything governments could do to convince women to have more children?

Universal guaranteed incomes are often discussed nowadays because of growing automation. What if women were guaranteed a significant income for having children? Say $75,000 a year for each child.

There is a meme going around where pretty women claim they are too beautiful to work. I don’t know how big this movement is, but it seems some women have decided that careers are not fun and they’d rather be stay-at-home moms. But as critics have pointed out, this plan only works with Mr. Right who makes a lot of money. How many women would choose a career of raising babies if they made $225,000 a year by raising three children, or $450,000 a year for raising six?

Think about how this would change our society? I have no idea if this is a good idea, but it sounds like it could make a fun science fiction story. How would this change society for males? It might make marriage more appealing. However, it would shift the power to women, and males might not like that.

However, with robots taking over everyone’s jobs, raising babies might become a new growth industry.

I’m just speculating here. If population collapse is a real problem, then we need to think of solutions. Conservatives are hell bent to bring back the large traditional family, but I doubt that will fly anymore. I think it’s obvious that many women don’t want to be moms to large broods.

How far are conservatives willing to go to recreate large families? Would they back $75,000 per child incentive? How many men would be willing to stay at home and raise children and let their wives have careers? How many people of either gender want careers? Would such an incentive balance out the responsibility of child raising if the incentive is paid to females and males? Do child raisers need to be married?

I suppose there could be new kinds of marriages, like limited partnerships. Conservatives would probably propose the incentives be payable only to married couples. Would they allow gay couples? What about two older people who are just friends and need to make some money? Maybe we need to redefine marriage as a legal bond to raise children.

Because robots and AIs are taking over everyone’s jobs, raising babies is one job they can’t have. Or could they? I suppose we could create robotic mothers and fathers to raise human babies that have been conceived in test tubes and gestated in vats.

There’s lots to think about.

I’ve thought of one other thing. What if humans are choosing not to have babies but raise robots instead? What if robots are our evolutionary replacements? If that’s the case, then population decline is right on time.

JWH