Sunday, January 17, 2016
Sexual predator and pedophiles
I think, based on my personal experience, that there are two kinds of pedophiles. There are the predators, for sure. There are others however who genuinely intertwine the sexual impulse with either a romantic or a paternal impulse.
When I was about fifteen I fell in love with an older (in his twenties) teacher. When he began trying to "screw" me (an activity that had never entered my head), I did not like it and said so. His response was that I was never to forget I always have the right to say no -- something I always remembered.
He sort- of took me under his wing for a couple of years, gave me all sorts of special instruction (academic and college preparatory), was a good friend for years afterward, and we had a lot of pleasant sexual connection that never put me at any sort of unease. At that point in time, if our relationship had come out, he would have been jailed as a predator, but I would have died denying anything to protect him.
Since then I have had lovers, not tricks, and I think the maturity he helped me achieve also helped me get around the promiscuous temptations that are so common among young male gays, and leads to so many other problems and wasted time.
When I was about fifteen I fell in love with an older (in his twenties) teacher. When he began trying to "screw" me (an activity that had never entered my head), I did not like it and said so. His response was that I was never to forget I always have the right to say no -- something I always remembered.
He sort- of took me under his wing for a couple of years, gave me all sorts of special instruction (academic and college preparatory), was a good friend for years afterward, and we had a lot of pleasant sexual connection that never put me at any sort of unease. At that point in time, if our relationship had come out, he would have been jailed as a predator, but I would have died denying anything to protect him.
Since then I have had lovers, not tricks, and I think the maturity he helped me achieve also helped me get around the promiscuous temptations that are so common among young male gays, and leads to so many other problems and wasted time.
"You are entitled to your opinion.
When someone says something like, "Well of course you are entitled to your opinion," it is a patronizing way of insulting the person (their opinion is stupid) and at the same time avoiding the obligation to defend your own opinion. I can recognize that sort of thing when I see it and the best I can say about it is that it is cowardly.
Priests, celibacy, and child molestation
Much as I often detest some of the things religions do, I don't think they can be blamed for child molestation. It happens a lot all over the place, not just in churches.
Of course the RC celibacy rules are idiotic and just invite that sort of thing (people who are gay and under pressure to marry use joining the priesthood as an escape). Some of them, although a minority, will be pedophiles.
Part of the RC church's problem with such priests is the church's compassion, their hope that the person can be reformed, and hence their unwillingness to take the matter to the authorities. This comes, I think, as a left-over from the days when the clergy were pretty much exempt from civil law. It has been an expensive lesson but one which I think the church has now learned.
Of course the RC celibacy rules are idiotic and just invite that sort of thing (people who are gay and under pressure to marry use joining the priesthood as an escape). Some of them, although a minority, will be pedophiles.
Part of the RC church's problem with such priests is the church's compassion, their hope that the person can be reformed, and hence their unwillingness to take the matter to the authorities. This comes, I think, as a left-over from the days when the clergy were pretty much exempt from civil law. It has been an expensive lesson but one which I think the church has now learned.
Morality is a good thing
Morality is a good thing. I believe in mindful compassion, in maximizing good while minimizing harm, and in remembering that no person is a means to an end.
Sign language
It would probably be a good thing to teach everyone sign language. Think how quiet things could be in theaters and churches and how battlefield soldiers could remain unheard. It would also provide a second way to communicate and thereby make all communication more efficient and more precise.
More on judging people
Well this is subtle and I blame the English language for the confusion. When one judges someone and when one is discerning are slightly different. "Judge not lest ye be judged" is the passage from Christianity that conveys this -- Jesus (actually this was a common neo-Platonic platitude popular at the time that the author put in Jesus' mouth) was not telling us to be foolish in our dealings and not look as to need and repayment chances when asked for a loan, but to not decide one is better than someone else.
Buddhism has a problem that people see those worse off than themselves or who are blind and so on as being in that state because of evil deeds in prior lives. This may be the case, but then that doesn't mean we should not show them compassion now.
Buddhism has a problem that people see those worse off than themselves or who are blind and so on as being in that state because of evil deeds in prior lives. This may be the case, but then that doesn't mean we should not show them compassion now.
God's infinite goodness in the world's design
Let us not deceive ourselves -- nature is a cruel unforgiving horrible place, where death is the basis of evolution and suffering is the motivator.
Animals in nature as God is said to have created it live horrible lives filled with hunger and instinctual drives and constant frustration and fear and disease and biting insects and ultimately die violently.
Only science has lifted us from all this, and only somewhat, and there are those who would stifle science.
Animals in nature as God is said to have created it live horrible lives filled with hunger and instinctual drives and constant frustration and fear and disease and biting insects and ultimately die violently.
Only science has lifted us from all this, and only somewhat, and there are those who would stifle science.
Saturday, January 16, 2016
A bit more on cause and effect
I can see an assertion that effect can't exist without cause, but all kinds of things happen without effect, so cause can sit there and try and try and not achieve anything.
Cause and effect or magic
I'm curious what people do think about cause and effect. Of course it happens to us constantly -- I touch a certain key on my keyboard and the corresponding letter appears on my monitor.
Still, it seems magic. How does the movement of my finger muscle tell the key what to do, and which interrupt to send, and so on. We speak of forces and so on, but they seem arbitrary, just things that always happen so we expect them to happen and would be sorely upset if (and when) they don't.
If you think about what is going on at the nuclear level when I touch a key, you have all these electrons whizzing about the atoms near the surface of the key, generating a wall of negative electric charge, that repels the wall of similar electric charge on my fingers. It is not causation at all, but just the fact that the odds are overwhelming that the electrons will be there -- they might have gone elsewhere and my finger penetrate into the key and not do the work intended. This doesn't happen because it is hugely unlikely, not because there is real cause. There is no incantation I can do either.
So what we see as deterministic causation is actually an application of one of the laws of probability -- the one called "the law of large numbers." Causation not real but just an illusion emerging from the fact that in our macro world things are often overwhelmingly likely??
Of course the electrons doing their repulsion thing to each other can be seen as a sort of caused thing too, and we can talk about it in terms of forces, but what causes two electrons to always repel each other with a certain force?
Obviously I'm out of my depth here. I'm drowning. Help!
Still, it seems magic. How does the movement of my finger muscle tell the key what to do, and which interrupt to send, and so on. We speak of forces and so on, but they seem arbitrary, just things that always happen so we expect them to happen and would be sorely upset if (and when) they don't.
If you think about what is going on at the nuclear level when I touch a key, you have all these electrons whizzing about the atoms near the surface of the key, generating a wall of negative electric charge, that repels the wall of similar electric charge on my fingers. It is not causation at all, but just the fact that the odds are overwhelming that the electrons will be there -- they might have gone elsewhere and my finger penetrate into the key and not do the work intended. This doesn't happen because it is hugely unlikely, not because there is real cause. There is no incantation I can do either.
So what we see as deterministic causation is actually an application of one of the laws of probability -- the one called "the law of large numbers." Causation not real but just an illusion emerging from the fact that in our macro world things are often overwhelmingly likely??
Of course the electrons doing their repulsion thing to each other can be seen as a sort of caused thing too, and we can talk about it in terms of forces, but what causes two electrons to always repel each other with a certain force?
Obviously I'm out of my depth here. I'm drowning. Help!
Is homophobia a real phobia
Somehow the reaction of bigots to gays does not seem to me to reach the level of a "phobia." Phobias are irrational and visceral and involve genuine fear. I have a form of claustrophobia where when I'm in a crowded room, all my thinking gets centered on what to do if there is a fire or some sort of terrorist attack. Rationally I know it is utterly ridiculous, but it is there anyway.
Or the paranoia I experience when I'm high on grass (and why I don't use it except where I am at home and feel safe), such as fantasizing people sneaking up behind me with a knife ready to kill. It's funny because even when I'm high like that I know it is all absurd as absurd can be.
What is bigotry, is different. The person doesn't fear the target of the bigotry, he or she hates, for irrational reasons to be sure, even evil reasons, but it is not fear as I generally experience a phobia. They also are just too stupid to see the absurdity of the hatred.
I watch the behavior of the homophobes on a discussion board. They evince genuine hate. Their objective is to insult and degrade and of course make themselves separate and better (although one cannot escape the suspicion that they hate because they themselves have similar desires they don't want to admit). Nowadays, of course, most boards quickly put a stop to such things, so we don't see it quite as much as we use to.
Or the paranoia I experience when I'm high on grass (and why I don't use it except where I am at home and feel safe), such as fantasizing people sneaking up behind me with a knife ready to kill. It's funny because even when I'm high like that I know it is all absurd as absurd can be.
What is bigotry, is different. The person doesn't fear the target of the bigotry, he or she hates, for irrational reasons to be sure, even evil reasons, but it is not fear as I generally experience a phobia. They also are just too stupid to see the absurdity of the hatred.
I watch the behavior of the homophobes on a discussion board. They evince genuine hate. Their objective is to insult and degrade and of course make themselves separate and better (although one cannot escape the suspicion that they hate because they themselves have similar desires they don't want to admit). Nowadays, of course, most boards quickly put a stop to such things, so we don't see it quite as much as we use to.
Judging people
I don't judge people, at least that is what I tell myself.
As you can imagine, having lived so long in SE Asia, I am heavily influenced by Buddhist philosophy (although not so much by the religion). We each have to make our way in this world and deal with the consequences of what we do as best we can, and people who do evil things are not our problem, but their own problem.
Now of course we must be wise in dealing with people, and that means discerning low-lives and so on and protecting ourselves, but it does not mean judging them. It is a subtle difference of meaning that English doesn't have, as far as I can think of.
As you can imagine, having lived so long in SE Asia, I am heavily influenced by Buddhist philosophy (although not so much by the religion). We each have to make our way in this world and deal with the consequences of what we do as best we can, and people who do evil things are not our problem, but their own problem.
Now of course we must be wise in dealing with people, and that means discerning low-lives and so on and protecting ourselves, but it does not mean judging them. It is a subtle difference of meaning that English doesn't have, as far as I can think of.
Mormons
I remember the Mormon Elders where I grew up in Western Colorado. They thought I was arrogant and said as much behind my back, as I knew a lot of what they told me was history was bunk. The very idea of Jews having a civilization in North America in and around the first century.
One place where I got arrogant was when I did a little independent and found the Book of Mormons prophesy that the Civil War would originate in South Carolina was written after the fact. When pointed out to me I had been impressed, although it wasn't much of a coincidence, since South Carolina was the most likely place. When I realized I'd been fed a bald-faced lie, I did indeed get hostile (arrogant is how they rationalized it).
Of course the reaction was to get me on my knees for prayer, so the Holy Spirit could come, not to sit and reason about it. People like this sort of thing and buy into it, partly because they are gullible and partly because they like the idea of God giving them special attention. God would have known that my objections were well founded and genuine, so the threats that ensued (actually Mormons don't threaten people with perdition but are more subtle about it and give us a kind of paradise, but not one for the ambitious who want to become [a] God themselves).
The main point is that claiming God's Spirit or faith or something like that when confronted with truth is a cop-out of the most cowardly sort, and this is basically all they did.
Of course the reaction was to get me on my knees for prayer, so the Holy Spirit could come, not to sit and reason about it. People like this sort of thing and buy into it, partly because they are gullible and partly because they like the idea of God giving them special attention. God would have known that my objections were well founded and genuine, so the threats that ensued (actually Mormons don't threaten people with perdition but are more subtle about it and give us a kind of paradise, but not one for the ambitious who want to become [a] God themselves).
The main point is that claiming God's Spirit or faith or something like that when confronted with truth is a cop-out of the most cowardly sort, and this is basically all they did.
Friday, January 15, 2016
Summary of Vietnam - American war
One can argue all sorts of ways about the American War (as it is called in Vietnam).
The regime in the South was no more democratic than in the North, corrupt and determined to force Roman Catholicism on a Buddhist population. Hence Monk immolations and so on. To most Vietnamese in the South the Communists looked to be an improvement.
Then in come the Americans with their save-the-world, our-system-is-what-everyone-needs attitudes, not appreciated but seen by calculating leaders as someone they can use if they say the right things.
Well once in Saigon the Americans soon realized what a nest of iniquity the Southern government was, and arranged a coup to put more amenable and respectable and honest and less Catholic people in power. This was probably a good thing, but it made it clear that now America was the real ruler, not Vietnamese. Hence patriots who wanted a free Vietnam had to go with the North.
America might have "won" the war anyway, except it began to be too expensive, both in money and in body bags, and hence lost popular support. This is a major weakness of republican governments -- the people as a mass never have the backbone to stick with this sort of commitment as long as is necessary.
So the Democrats made political hay and Nixon, also being both smart and corrupt, decided to cut losses and get out of it, by cowardly stabbing the government they had put in place right square in the back.
So within months everyone knew what was going to happen and looked to their own safety and affairs, and the Americans had the helicopters on the embassy roof.
There ensued about ten to twenty years of serious deprivation, especially in the South, and horrible mis-government, following a Maoist mentality. Ho would have been removed if he hadn't died conveniently, and "New Thinking" ensued. The symbols and rhetoric of the old regime were kept, but put in abeyance, under old Marxist jargon that the country is not yet ready for Communism, nor even socialism, but needs to let individuals do their own businesses and allow foreign companies in and actually make a profit.
The first thing that happened, once farmers were allowed to sell their own product to whom they wanted at the best price they could get, was that agricultural production exploded and the street markets in HCMC (Ho Chi Minh City -- not actually a renaming of Saigon -- Saigon still exists, but the corporate city government is for a larger area -- the city and its suburbs) suddenly exploded with a huge abundance and variety of all sorts of food.
This was not unpopular.
There remain unfortunate aspects of the old regime, especially the corruption and arbitrary power of police and other law enforcement agencies, but things are getting better.
The regime in the South was no more democratic than in the North, corrupt and determined to force Roman Catholicism on a Buddhist population. Hence Monk immolations and so on. To most Vietnamese in the South the Communists looked to be an improvement.
Then in come the Americans with their save-the-world, our-system-is-what-everyone-needs attitudes, not appreciated but seen by calculating leaders as someone they can use if they say the right things.
Well once in Saigon the Americans soon realized what a nest of iniquity the Southern government was, and arranged a coup to put more amenable and respectable and honest and less Catholic people in power. This was probably a good thing, but it made it clear that now America was the real ruler, not Vietnamese. Hence patriots who wanted a free Vietnam had to go with the North.
America might have "won" the war anyway, except it began to be too expensive, both in money and in body bags, and hence lost popular support. This is a major weakness of republican governments -- the people as a mass never have the backbone to stick with this sort of commitment as long as is necessary.
So the Democrats made political hay and Nixon, also being both smart and corrupt, decided to cut losses and get out of it, by cowardly stabbing the government they had put in place right square in the back.
So within months everyone knew what was going to happen and looked to their own safety and affairs, and the Americans had the helicopters on the embassy roof.
There ensued about ten to twenty years of serious deprivation, especially in the South, and horrible mis-government, following a Maoist mentality. Ho would have been removed if he hadn't died conveniently, and "New Thinking" ensued. The symbols and rhetoric of the old regime were kept, but put in abeyance, under old Marxist jargon that the country is not yet ready for Communism, nor even socialism, but needs to let individuals do their own businesses and allow foreign companies in and actually make a profit.
The first thing that happened, once farmers were allowed to sell their own product to whom they wanted at the best price they could get, was that agricultural production exploded and the street markets in HCMC (Ho Chi Minh City -- not actually a renaming of Saigon -- Saigon still exists, but the corporate city government is for a larger area -- the city and its suburbs) suddenly exploded with a huge abundance and variety of all sorts of food.
This was not unpopular.
There remain unfortunate aspects of the old regime, especially the corruption and arbitrary power of police and other law enforcement agencies, but things are getting better.
Childhood religious indoctrination
Some believers seem to use the hostility and rudeness of some atheists as a reason for believing in God. That does not follow.
Something I would suggest you think about -- the atheist usually had a religious upbringing of some sort, which means they got the usual childhood indoctrination. Religions know that they will disappear if they can't indoctrinate children before the children learn critical thinking skills.
Well then these people figure out that what they were indoctrinated with as children is false. It takes a long time and indoctrinated beliefs are not like intellectual opinions -- they have an emotional hold on you and doubting them causes fear and guilt. Indeed most religious memes uses both of these emotions far more than they use rationality.
The person eventually resolves this and, not unexpectedly, develops a hate for what was "done to them" and the agony the religious caused them. I have to say I admire those who have the intellectual strength to make such a break far more than those who also go through the experience but end up "returning" to the fold and being rewarded with empty joy and meaningless peace.
Something I would suggest you think about -- the atheist usually had a religious upbringing of some sort, which means they got the usual childhood indoctrination. Religions know that they will disappear if they can't indoctrinate children before the children learn critical thinking skills.
Well then these people figure out that what they were indoctrinated with as children is false. It takes a long time and indoctrinated beliefs are not like intellectual opinions -- they have an emotional hold on you and doubting them causes fear and guilt. Indeed most religious memes uses both of these emotions far more than they use rationality.
The person eventually resolves this and, not unexpectedly, develops a hate for what was "done to them" and the agony the religious caused them. I have to say I admire those who have the intellectual strength to make such a break far more than those who also go through the experience but end up "returning" to the fold and being rewarded with empty joy and meaningless peace.
Well I just don't think democracy is the best. It has a certain legitimacy that can't be denied, and it had the benefit that if things get really bad the people don't have to carry out a revolution but can vote the bastards out. The trouble is when things get that bad usually the country is no longer a democracy (i.e., Zimbabwe).
Drawing from Plato and Lenin (and ignoring Marx and Stalin and Mao and Ho), modern Communists in China and Vietnam put a strict five year limit on top office, and the party does select people at all levels. They choose from among people they have known and worked with for years.
Party membership more and more is being offered to college graduates rather than children of political hacks, and ideology is still a factor (you have to pass examinations showing that at least you know Communist theory) but is not really what it use to be.
Of course decisions made in closed meetings are subject to corruption, and you can be sure it takes a lot of money to rise to the top. A couple of years ago there was in Vietnam a little noticed (in the West) disciplining of the Prime Minister about this sort of thing, and he cleaned up his act. The Chinese are being more public about it and purging and seriously punishing the worst offenders. This gives me hope.
No government will ever be perfect, and the advantages of a certain form of government over another are given too much credit. Geography, history, culture, religion, luck are probably every bit as important as to who prospers and who doesn't.
Drawing from Plato and Lenin (and ignoring Marx and Stalin and Mao and Ho), modern Communists in China and Vietnam put a strict five year limit on top office, and the party does select people at all levels. They choose from among people they have known and worked with for years.
Party membership more and more is being offered to college graduates rather than children of political hacks, and ideology is still a factor (you have to pass examinations showing that at least you know Communist theory) but is not really what it use to be.
Of course decisions made in closed meetings are subject to corruption, and you can be sure it takes a lot of money to rise to the top. A couple of years ago there was in Vietnam a little noticed (in the West) disciplining of the Prime Minister about this sort of thing, and he cleaned up his act. The Chinese are being more public about it and purging and seriously punishing the worst offenders. This gives me hope.
No government will ever be perfect, and the advantages of a certain form of government over another are given too much credit. Geography, history, culture, religion, luck are probably every bit as important as to who prospers and who doesn't.
False but useful scientific theory
One can still construct a theory that works and makes good predictions where the earth is the center and the sun goes around it. Of course that theory doesn't work if one introduces gravitational effects, but if one just sticks to mathematical description and is willing to get complicated enough, it can be done.
The problem I would have with that would not so much be its complications, but its ignoring knowledge for other areas. It has to limit itself to just one realm of data. Still, it could predict eclipses and locations and so on.
Classical physics has to try to ignore Michelson-Morley and Lagrange transformations, etc., for macroscopic phenomena and ignore radiation and tunneling effects, etg., for microscopic radiation (I dislike "microscopic" -- the usual word -- it should be "sub-microscopic" or atomic or something like that). Still classical physics is closer to the intuitive way we see things, and so seems to be where everyone begins any education on either relativity or quantum matters. It seems weird that we must begin to teach what is right by first teaching what is not.
At any rate this is fun. Exploring the nature of knowledge is something we can all do, or at least think we can do.
The problem I would have with that would not so much be its complications, but its ignoring knowledge for other areas. It has to limit itself to just one realm of data. Still, it could predict eclipses and locations and so on.
Classical physics has to try to ignore Michelson-Morley and Lagrange transformations, etc., for macroscopic phenomena and ignore radiation and tunneling effects, etg., for microscopic radiation (I dislike "microscopic" -- the usual word -- it should be "sub-microscopic" or atomic or something like that). Still classical physics is closer to the intuitive way we see things, and so seems to be where everyone begins any education on either relativity or quantum matters. It seems weird that we must begin to teach what is right by first teaching what is not.
At any rate this is fun. Exploring the nature of knowledge is something we can all do, or at least think we can do.
Global warming straw man
I am persuaded Global Warming is happening and is a serious danger for the same reason I am persuaded the plate tectonics is accurate, or relativity or quantum or evolutionary theory. Basically while I know the general story I am not an expert. I do however know what science is about and know that the scientific consensus may be wrong, but then only on the edges.
Putting me and the majority of scientists in the category of doom sayers and fear mongers is to create a straw man. I think mankind will survive; I think society much like it is, will survive. It is just that we appear to be creating a rough time (a really rough time) unnecessarily. Making refugees out of millions of people just to keep existing energy industries in place, when other approaches could be done, seems inhumane, stupid and immoral.
In fact as time passes I become more and more optimistic. I saw an item yesterday where solar and wind energy installations continue to accelerate in spite of the drop in oil and natural gas and coal prices. Is it becoming competitive regardless? I would like to see intelligent subsidies on these things, but what I have seen so far along these lines has been boondoggle-ish, so in such matters the devil is in the details.
Putting me and the majority of scientists in the category of doom sayers and fear mongers is to create a straw man. I think mankind will survive; I think society much like it is, will survive. It is just that we appear to be creating a rough time (a really rough time) unnecessarily. Making refugees out of millions of people just to keep existing energy industries in place, when other approaches could be done, seems inhumane, stupid and immoral.
In fact as time passes I become more and more optimistic. I saw an item yesterday where solar and wind energy installations continue to accelerate in spite of the drop in oil and natural gas and coal prices. Is it becoming competitive regardless? I would like to see intelligent subsidies on these things, but what I have seen so far along these lines has been boondoggle-ish, so in such matters the devil is in the details.
Gay sex education and bullying
Bullying should be addressed as buylling, and the sexuality of the victim should be irrelevant.
Where did you get the idea that I said education about gays will make thing worse? I see nothing wrong with education if it fits in the curriculum and is age appropriate. I just don't see that this should be a thing people form parades and shout about. It is also not necessary at least in High School to get into detail about sex practices.
Yes, kids do know about sex, and they find what teachers try to explain stilted and old news and funny. This sort of thing does no good whatsoever. If you are going to teach about it, teach them something that they don't already know.
Bigotry needs addressing, but in the general context of all forms of bigotry. Singling out bigotry against gays just provides an excuse to engage in it. I am of the pretty firm opinion that there exists a bigotry spectrum in human personalities, and there is an extreme of liberal people and an extreme of natural bigots, who automatically "hate" anything that isn't them. I just don't expect education to have much effect. For example, I've seen lots of internal bigotry among gays (those who hate drag queens, standard racists, misogynists, and so on). They should know better, having experienced the effect of bigotry themselves, and most gays learn the appropriate lesson, but some don't and no amount of arguing with them has any effect.
Where did you get the idea that I said education about gays will make thing worse? I see nothing wrong with education if it fits in the curriculum and is age appropriate. I just don't see that this should be a thing people form parades and shout about. It is also not necessary at least in High School to get into detail about sex practices.
Yes, kids do know about sex, and they find what teachers try to explain stilted and old news and funny. This sort of thing does no good whatsoever. If you are going to teach about it, teach them something that they don't already know.
Bigotry needs addressing, but in the general context of all forms of bigotry. Singling out bigotry against gays just provides an excuse to engage in it. I am of the pretty firm opinion that there exists a bigotry spectrum in human personalities, and there is an extreme of liberal people and an extreme of natural bigots, who automatically "hate" anything that isn't them. I just don't expect education to have much effect. For example, I've seen lots of internal bigotry among gays (those who hate drag queens, standard racists, misogynists, and so on). They should know better, having experienced the effect of bigotry themselves, and most gays learn the appropriate lesson, but some don't and no amount of arguing with them has any effect.
Vietnamese and Chinese Communist legitimacy
I don't know about Cuba, but it seems pretty bad, and North Korea is of course a sick perverted society dependent entirely on force to stay in power, but the other two surviving "Communist" societies are not really Communist except that the parties use ideology as a source of legitimacy. Their real legitimacy, however, is not Communist talking points but economic progress, and both societies are doing extremely well. There are ups and downs but believe me the vast majority of the population is happy with things as they are.
Both governments however do have tigers by the tail and I would predict someday the parties there will suffer the consequences. If your legitimacy is based on the ability to deliver material improvement, all economies suffer ups and downs, and more and more the world is getting linked so the world economy suffers ups and downs. A political system that has a different source of legitimacy (where for example the States is "legitimate" because the people elect the officials -- in a huge, largely fraudulent, farce), an economic downturn or some other disaster is not as big a threat.
Both governments however do have tigers by the tail and I would predict someday the parties there will suffer the consequences. If your legitimacy is based on the ability to deliver material improvement, all economies suffer ups and downs, and more and more the world is getting linked so the world economy suffers ups and downs. A political system that has a different source of legitimacy (where for example the States is "legitimate" because the people elect the officials -- in a huge, largely fraudulent, farce), an economic downturn or some other disaster is not as big a threat.
Black markets, corruption, competition
No market is ever completely free, and probably that is a good thing, as of course what you end up with if the government is not watching are strong-arm tactics and fraud and cooperative customer gouging (where everyone in a given business agrees on prices). Competition is necessary for real free markets, and competition has to be enforced by government. Individuals will do everything they can to avoid having to compete.
Here in Cambodia one learns to bargain and one learns to grease the wheels. They are two skills that take time to absorb. Non-negotiated prices is what everyone claims but as you are about the leave the store suddenly the attitude changes. The magic to getting a good price for things is to leave the shopkeeper with his or her face intact.
Minor government officials would die if they didn't get bribes, but one has to be able to see when and where to do it, and face is again the important thing -- the extra money is a "reward", not a bribe. Much the same applies to people coming out to repair things or do work -- there of course it is a "tip," and this practice is found everywhere, and people don't even see it as bribery.
Whenever the government tries to impose price controls, such as in Vietnam where the prices of precious metals and currencies are controlled and it is illegal to exchange VND (their currency) into something else, you have a sort of black market, except because of a steady flow of bribes that work their way to the top, is rarely enforced (but don't try to do it yourself unless you are in the network).
This sort of black market is essential in such a legal frame because otherwise of course one would not be able to get foreign currency needed to pay for the imports you need to keep your factory going.
When a government leader sees a black market, in Vietnam they try to profit from it, in Cambodia nowadays they tend more to crack down on it. Both approaches are harmful. It is better to look at what has caused the black market to develop and change the laws so that it dies on its own. Laws against gambling and hooch and prostitution, as well as price controls or government monopolies on something all produce black markets and a wise government will understand this and see that it is best to step out of the way as much as possible.
Of course some black markets can't be handled that way -- such as medical quacks or fencing operations. Here the police need to be paid enough to keep them honest.
Here in Cambodia one learns to bargain and one learns to grease the wheels. They are two skills that take time to absorb. Non-negotiated prices is what everyone claims but as you are about the leave the store suddenly the attitude changes. The magic to getting a good price for things is to leave the shopkeeper with his or her face intact.
Minor government officials would die if they didn't get bribes, but one has to be able to see when and where to do it, and face is again the important thing -- the extra money is a "reward", not a bribe. Much the same applies to people coming out to repair things or do work -- there of course it is a "tip," and this practice is found everywhere, and people don't even see it as bribery.
Whenever the government tries to impose price controls, such as in Vietnam where the prices of precious metals and currencies are controlled and it is illegal to exchange VND (their currency) into something else, you have a sort of black market, except because of a steady flow of bribes that work their way to the top, is rarely enforced (but don't try to do it yourself unless you are in the network).
This sort of black market is essential in such a legal frame because otherwise of course one would not be able to get foreign currency needed to pay for the imports you need to keep your factory going.
When a government leader sees a black market, in Vietnam they try to profit from it, in Cambodia nowadays they tend more to crack down on it. Both approaches are harmful. It is better to look at what has caused the black market to develop and change the laws so that it dies on its own. Laws against gambling and hooch and prostitution, as well as price controls or government monopolies on something all produce black markets and a wise government will understand this and see that it is best to step out of the way as much as possible.
Of course some black markets can't be handled that way -- such as medical quacks or fencing operations. Here the police need to be paid enough to keep them honest.
Thursday, January 14, 2016
Scientific certainty
Sometimes things come to be so supported by evidence coming from all over the place that it is essentially proved. The laws of conservation, the second law of thermodynamics, the inverse square relationship of gravity, that evolution has occurred, and so on.
I look at science as a big complicated building ("edifice" is a good word in this metaphor). It might be that someday some central part of the structure will prove unsound and a major rebuild of much of the building become necessary, but as time passes this becomes less and less likely, as more and more rooms and all are added on.
The last really large "paradigm shift" I remember happening when one day all the respected Science Journals came out with plate tectonics, completely replacing what had gone before. At the time no real rebuilding of the scientific edifice was needed as the previous theory didn't actually replace anything but just was recognized as answering a lot of questions. While it is conceivable that some basic aspect of physics could be seriously wrong, we know that whatever that error must be it must be subtle, as the world seems so behaved with the laws we have. This implies that any error will be only a revision or an addition of more detail, not a huge mistake.
The reality of existence is that nothing is, or even could be to an infinite mind, absolutely certain. The set of things an infinite mind know might be infinite, but there is no way such a being could be certain it included all things.
Even the tautologies known as "mathematical proof," convincing as they are, have at least two elements of possible uncertainty. An axiom or definition used in the proof may be false or wrongly applied, and the logic may contain unseen errors.
I look at science as a big complicated building ("edifice" is a good word in this metaphor). It might be that someday some central part of the structure will prove unsound and a major rebuild of much of the building become necessary, but as time passes this becomes less and less likely, as more and more rooms and all are added on.
The last really large "paradigm shift" I remember happening when one day all the respected Science Journals came out with plate tectonics, completely replacing what had gone before. At the time no real rebuilding of the scientific edifice was needed as the previous theory didn't actually replace anything but just was recognized as answering a lot of questions. While it is conceivable that some basic aspect of physics could be seriously wrong, we know that whatever that error must be it must be subtle, as the world seems so behaved with the laws we have. This implies that any error will be only a revision or an addition of more detail, not a huge mistake.
The reality of existence is that nothing is, or even could be to an infinite mind, absolutely certain. The set of things an infinite mind know might be infinite, but there is no way such a being could be certain it included all things.
Even the tautologies known as "mathematical proof," convincing as they are, have at least two elements of possible uncertainty. An axiom or definition used in the proof may be false or wrongly applied, and the logic may contain unseen errors.
Thinking for oneself and skepticism
The ability to think for oneself includes the willingness to accept the authority of people better informed and who have spent their lives studying a subject.
It includes being skeptical of claims of people who think they've discovered the secrets of the universe and who call stupid people who doubt them.
My ophthalmologist told me I had a small cataract and gave me a list of things to do to slow its growth. Do you think I will, "think for myself" and ignore him?
There is independence of thought (I am skeptical of medical studies paid for by drug companies just as much as I am skeptical of smoking studies paid for by tobacco companies and global warming studies paid for by oil or coal interests), and this is to be encouraged, but there is also humility -- that we are not able to be experts on everything and that because we thought something up is poor evidence for it. Moderation in all things, including skepticism and self-confidence.
It includes being skeptical of claims of people who think they've discovered the secrets of the universe and who call stupid people who doubt them.
My ophthalmologist told me I had a small cataract and gave me a list of things to do to slow its growth. Do you think I will, "think for myself" and ignore him?
There is independence of thought (I am skeptical of medical studies paid for by drug companies just as much as I am skeptical of smoking studies paid for by tobacco companies and global warming studies paid for by oil or coal interests), and this is to be encouraged, but there is also humility -- that we are not able to be experts on everything and that because we thought something up is poor evidence for it. Moderation in all things, including skepticism and self-confidence.
Inner compass or conscience in ethical decisions
Now that is an interesting discussion I would enjoy. I don't know about our inner compass, more often referred to as our conscience.
I see people posting the most evil and heartless and bigoted things, about immigrants, alcoholics, suicides, and so on, all the time. Do they have a conscience to think that way? If inner compass is to be accepted as valid, do we need to accept their inner compasses?
Also, slavery, as seen in this discussion, was perfectly acceptable to Christianity (and all of the world's other religions too) for thousands of years. I have even seen it defended as a necessary evil when one doesn't have machines (although in fact it was the presence of slavery in so many cultures that held their invention back so long and why the Romans got just to the edge of an industrial revolution but never went there).
Slavery is easily seen as an evil now, as cruel, arrogant, vicious, so why did't even God see it for the evil it was back when the Bible was being written? Well of course that proves absence of divine inspiration in such books, as we have to presume God would have.
In short we cannot trust our inner compass. Usually it is a good guide, and in good people it is an excellent guide (although of course we all think we are good people).
Most of the time we can go through our lives living through habit and what others do, but sometimes we are faced with genuine moral choices, and we must then become mindful of what we are doing and ask ourselves if it meets rational ethical choices. Is it maximizing harm and minimizing hurt to the best of my ability to tell? Is it compassionate? Does it avoid "using" another person? Does it violate the Golden Rule or some equivalent (I prefer Kant's Moral Imperative as a better formulation)?
I see people posting the most evil and heartless and bigoted things, about immigrants, alcoholics, suicides, and so on, all the time. Do they have a conscience to think that way? If inner compass is to be accepted as valid, do we need to accept their inner compasses?
Also, slavery, as seen in this discussion, was perfectly acceptable to Christianity (and all of the world's other religions too) for thousands of years. I have even seen it defended as a necessary evil when one doesn't have machines (although in fact it was the presence of slavery in so many cultures that held their invention back so long and why the Romans got just to the edge of an industrial revolution but never went there).
Slavery is easily seen as an evil now, as cruel, arrogant, vicious, so why did't even God see it for the evil it was back when the Bible was being written? Well of course that proves absence of divine inspiration in such books, as we have to presume God would have.
In short we cannot trust our inner compass. Usually it is a good guide, and in good people it is an excellent guide (although of course we all think we are good people).
Most of the time we can go through our lives living through habit and what others do, but sometimes we are faced with genuine moral choices, and we must then become mindful of what we are doing and ask ourselves if it meets rational ethical choices. Is it maximizing harm and minimizing hurt to the best of my ability to tell? Is it compassionate? Does it avoid "using" another person? Does it violate the Golden Rule or some equivalent (I prefer Kant's Moral Imperative as a better formulation)?
Wednesday, January 13, 2016
Freedom and the fraud of republican democracies
"Rights" and freedoms are necessarily limited. Physics, our own health, the rights of others, and many other factors serve to restrict us. Therefore just parading a slogan about "surrendering your rights" is almost meaningless and just propaganda that you have swallowed. America is not a free country. In fact I could cite dozens of ways Vietnamese are freer (and others where they are not). Cambodia, where I live now, has free elections where a given party and a given leader somehow manages to always be re-elected, but the country is much freer than any other I know of, I guess because that particular guy is smart and well intentioned and good at what he does (kinda puts me in mind of The Patrician in Ankh Moorpark).
Representative democracies where officials are said to be "elected" are nowadays just frauds. The people are rarely if ever happy with the very limited choices they are provided with, and the majority of voters are prejudiced, illiterate, emotional, easily swayed by propaganda, slogan lovers, and even people who vote for someone because they like their looks. It is a joke even if the choices were honest.
And look at the roll of Congress -- only a few are not lawyers. American has a dictatorship of the legal class.
I do not advocate socialism. I advocate a mixed economy where government and private interests are both involved, constantly adjusted as needed.
A final point, if I may.
Representative democracies where officials are said to be "elected" are nowadays just frauds. The people are rarely if ever happy with the very limited choices they are provided with, and the majority of voters are prejudiced, illiterate, emotional, easily swayed by propaganda, slogan lovers, and even people who vote for someone because they like their looks. It is a joke even if the choices were honest.
And look at the roll of Congress -- only a few are not lawyers. American has a dictatorship of the legal class.
I do not advocate socialism. I advocate a mixed economy where government and private interests are both involved, constantly adjusted as needed.
A final point, if I may.
Something I should have dealt with earlier but just now thought of. I am not "utopian." I have no dreams of perfection in any government. That doesn't mean we should not keep an open mind and look at different systems and try to see what is good and what is bad in them. Americans are blind in that way.
I start out with the fact that controlled fusion is not economical. It will probably be so at some point in the future, we hope, but does not appear to be a solution to the problem, except longer term.
The problem as I see it is to drastically reduce emissions of greenhouse gases while not stopping world economic growth. Technologies that capture greenhouse gases are being developed, but I again am pessimistic about them for the shorter term.
Also we need sustainable sources of energy -- sources that can be regularly replaced. The doom sayers about the world running out of oil and natural gas are, it would seem, seriously wrong, which I think is a pity as it would have forced what is necessary from the world in spite of itself.
OK that leaves solar, wind, hydrothermal (with its own set of problems) and in a few places geothermal, tidal, etc., etc. Only the first two are competitive and should be given sensible subsidies (often are but more is needed) to help overcome the inertia generated by high initial investment expense. There is also growing biomass crops and burning them, a lot more sensible than the ethanol boondoggle, and of course constantly making the economy do more with less energy input (aka conservation). The world has been shown to have plenty of land that could be used this way.
All these things can produce growth in the economy, lower costs, and hence improve living standards. The one thing we should not do is try to protect polluting industries, as one fool on this thread is doing.
The denial phenomenon seems partly religious and entirely foolish but selfish politics, and is as removed from real science as it can be -- just observe the Jesuitic and obfuscating and lawyerly arguments its proponent presents here. Unfortunately this junk has had the effect of giving politicians cover to represent selfish interests and thereby prevent, especially in the States, and thereby prevent the serious things that must be done.
The problem as I see it is to drastically reduce emissions of greenhouse gases while not stopping world economic growth. Technologies that capture greenhouse gases are being developed, but I again am pessimistic about them for the shorter term.
Also we need sustainable sources of energy -- sources that can be regularly replaced. The doom sayers about the world running out of oil and natural gas are, it would seem, seriously wrong, which I think is a pity as it would have forced what is necessary from the world in spite of itself.
OK that leaves solar, wind, hydrothermal (with its own set of problems) and in a few places geothermal, tidal, etc., etc. Only the first two are competitive and should be given sensible subsidies (often are but more is needed) to help overcome the inertia generated by high initial investment expense. There is also growing biomass crops and burning them, a lot more sensible than the ethanol boondoggle, and of course constantly making the economy do more with less energy input (aka conservation). The world has been shown to have plenty of land that could be used this way.
All these things can produce growth in the economy, lower costs, and hence improve living standards. The one thing we should not do is try to protect polluting industries, as one fool on this thread is doing.
The denial phenomenon seems partly religious and entirely foolish but selfish politics, and is as removed from real science as it can be -- just observe the Jesuitic and obfuscating and lawyerly arguments its proponent presents here. Unfortunately this junk has had the effect of giving politicians cover to represent selfish interests and thereby prevent, especially in the States, and thereby prevent the serious things that must be done.
Communism in China and Vietnam
Personally I think the best form of government is like that of modern China and Vietnam -- where government officials have five year terms and then must retire and who are selected by a limited "elite" of party members. Popular democracy never produces anything but politicians, who by definition must be dishonorable and mediocre in order to succeed.
Right now the Communist party ranks in China and Vietnam are dominated by party hacks -- people left over from unfortunate pasts. The future looks better, as it is now the case that one needs a college degree and actual achievements (kind of like getting tenure at a university) to be invited to be a member. Unfortunately, at least in Vietnam (I can't speak to China) there is a tendency to turn party membership into an inherited aristocracy. The party though seems aware of this and has been taking measures, both in its rules and in its party purges, to fix this.
This is of course Leninism -- perverted by Stalin and by others who made themselves dictators -- and now is institutionally not going to happen in China or Vietnam.
As for economics, both countries have pretty much abandoned, with a variety of excuses, strict socialism and are now pragmatic and willing to allow people to become rich, so long as they do it honestly. Of course there is massive opposition to this within the ranks of state-run administrators, and I think more energy is needed to push this, in spite of the internal political problems it causes.
Right now the Communist party ranks in China and Vietnam are dominated by party hacks -- people left over from unfortunate pasts. The future looks better, as it is now the case that one needs a college degree and actual achievements (kind of like getting tenure at a university) to be invited to be a member. Unfortunately, at least in Vietnam (I can't speak to China) there is a tendency to turn party membership into an inherited aristocracy. The party though seems aware of this and has been taking measures, both in its rules and in its party purges, to fix this.
This is of course Leninism -- perverted by Stalin and by others who made themselves dictators -- and now is institutionally not going to happen in China or Vietnam.
As for economics, both countries have pretty much abandoned, with a variety of excuses, strict socialism and are now pragmatic and willing to allow people to become rich, so long as they do it honestly. Of course there is massive opposition to this within the ranks of state-run administrators, and I think more energy is needed to push this, in spite of the internal political problems it causes.
Tuesday, January 12, 2016
Compassion for the stupid
I think society should do the best it can even for the stupid who bring their problems on themselves. They didn't ask to be born stupid -- more seriously, compassion is not judgmental -- oh how much better the world would be if people took the advice of great philosophers seriously -- read for example the Sermon on the Mount.
Monday, January 11, 2016
Scientific hypothesis versus speculation
I have a different definition of "speculation" from what I often see. Scientists think about known phenomena and known data that puzzles them and try to think of ways to fit theory into the observations. They then come up with ideas, and make predictions of what else we should see if these ideas are correct. They then do experiments to see if the predictions of the idea are true, and if so they incorporate the idea into existing theory. This is usually called a "hypothesis."
"Speculation," on the other hand, are ideas for which no experimentally testable predictions can be thought of -- either because we don't have the needed technology or because it is too unpredictable ("woo") to be reliably experimented on.
String theory, for example, is often labeled speculation for the reason that most of its predictions are effectively untestable -- to test them would require technology way beyond anything we can even imagine having. Hence string theorists are constantly looking for things string theory predicts that might actually be testable. An example is, if gravity waves exist, and if we can measure their polarization, this could test the reality of string theory.
The thing that impresses me about string theory, as compared to a lot of speculation you see, is it is so consistent mathematically -- the string theorists call it "beauty." I know that is what keeps them working on it in spite of the criticism. Maybe that is enough to convert it from speculation to hypothesis -- the boundary between the two is fuzzy.
"Speculation," on the other hand, are ideas for which no experimentally testable predictions can be thought of -- either because we don't have the needed technology or because it is too unpredictable ("woo") to be reliably experimented on.
String theory, for example, is often labeled speculation for the reason that most of its predictions are effectively untestable -- to test them would require technology way beyond anything we can even imagine having. Hence string theorists are constantly looking for things string theory predicts that might actually be testable. An example is, if gravity waves exist, and if we can measure their polarization, this could test the reality of string theory.
The thing that impresses me about string theory, as compared to a lot of speculation you see, is it is so consistent mathematically -- the string theorists call it "beauty." I know that is what keeps them working on it in spite of the criticism. Maybe that is enough to convert it from speculation to hypothesis -- the boundary between the two is fuzzy.
Sunday, January 10, 2016
Corruption
Well, yes, governments are corrupt, as are businesses and religions and people in general. That is one of the things one keeps in mind when designing institutions, but it can't be eliminated and there is no good just complaining and being emotional about it.
We have to accept that the universe as we experience is largely if not entirely illusion. It is not, however, delusion.
By that I mean that our experiences are not what we experience, but they are something. The illusion of hardness, for example, is not real, since there are vast spaces between and within the atoms that make up something we think is solid. But there is a reality -- electromagnetic forces -- underlying the illusion.
That counter-intuitive things exist is a given. My intuition is that people on the other side of the earth should fall off.
My intuition makes the constancy of light speed in a vacuum regardless of the motion of the observer very difficult to get my arms around, and I have worked on it for a long time, each time thinking I have it seeming to lose it again.
This brings me to ask my view of quantum mechanics, mainly the aspects of it that are commonly called quantum weirdness, such as the interpretation of it that the observer influences the outcome or that there can be the famous "spooky action at a distance." No, I have no "understanding" of all that and agree completely that it is counterintuitive. It is nevertheless both real and true, with the understanding that this is an empirical, not logical, conclusion, but we must be ruled by the outcome of experiment when repeated over and over with extremely precise agreement in the results. All that is above my pay scale and I can only see the detail from a very high altitude (don't complain about my mixing metaphors -- I like them).
The one thing I would not do is try to draw spiritual or similar conclusions -- such as that mind exists independently of matter (which I think is probably so but not for quantum reasons) or the brain gets free will from quantum uncertainty. One should take the theory only so far as it goes.
By that I mean that our experiences are not what we experience, but they are something. The illusion of hardness, for example, is not real, since there are vast spaces between and within the atoms that make up something we think is solid. But there is a reality -- electromagnetic forces -- underlying the illusion.
That counter-intuitive things exist is a given. My intuition is that people on the other side of the earth should fall off.
My intuition makes the constancy of light speed in a vacuum regardless of the motion of the observer very difficult to get my arms around, and I have worked on it for a long time, each time thinking I have it seeming to lose it again.
This brings me to ask my view of quantum mechanics, mainly the aspects of it that are commonly called quantum weirdness, such as the interpretation of it that the observer influences the outcome or that there can be the famous "spooky action at a distance." No, I have no "understanding" of all that and agree completely that it is counterintuitive. It is nevertheless both real and true, with the understanding that this is an empirical, not logical, conclusion, but we must be ruled by the outcome of experiment when repeated over and over with extremely precise agreement in the results. All that is above my pay scale and I can only see the detail from a very high altitude (don't complain about my mixing metaphors -- I like them).
The one thing I would not do is try to draw spiritual or similar conclusions -- such as that mind exists independently of matter (which I think is probably so but not for quantum reasons) or the brain gets free will from quantum uncertainty. One should take the theory only so far as it goes.
Illegal immigration
I think having a large population of second-class citizens (who are not represented as they can't vote, are subject to various restrictions, and who have a constant fear of deportation) cannot possibly be healthy for any country.
The main reason though is that those people have less reason to be loyal, patriotic, and so on. As a general rule immigrants tend to be even more loving of their adopted country than their native counterparts (e.g., Irving Berlin), but not if they are denied full participation.
What to do? Have a mass deportation and crack down police-style (it would require a massive invasion of everyone's privacy and probably require a national identity card to be successful)? This would be inhumane, harm the economy in major ways, impractical, and render the country undemocratic and invasive.
The alternative is to develop a process and set of rules whereby the majority of these people can become incorporated and assimilate naturally.
There is a visceral reaction that these people broke the law and that doing what I just suggested would encourage even more illegal immigration. This is true enough, but in government one must be pragmatic and not judgmental like that -- do what is best for the country.
In the end, if the US is to remain the superpower of the earth, something personally I think would be great for the entire planet, considering its history and potential and institutions, it needs to increase its population by quite a bit, and it has the technology and resources to do this. I know there is a lot of poverty in the States, but not compared to elsewhere. Right now low birth rates (which would be much lower if one did not include immigrants in the figures) is causing the US population to age, not a good thing for long term stability of the economy as a whole and for institutions such as Social Security.
The main reason though is that those people have less reason to be loyal, patriotic, and so on. As a general rule immigrants tend to be even more loving of their adopted country than their native counterparts (e.g., Irving Berlin), but not if they are denied full participation.
What to do? Have a mass deportation and crack down police-style (it would require a massive invasion of everyone's privacy and probably require a national identity card to be successful)? This would be inhumane, harm the economy in major ways, impractical, and render the country undemocratic and invasive.
The alternative is to develop a process and set of rules whereby the majority of these people can become incorporated and assimilate naturally.
There is a visceral reaction that these people broke the law and that doing what I just suggested would encourage even more illegal immigration. This is true enough, but in government one must be pragmatic and not judgmental like that -- do what is best for the country.
In the end, if the US is to remain the superpower of the earth, something personally I think would be great for the entire planet, considering its history and potential and institutions, it needs to increase its population by quite a bit, and it has the technology and resources to do this. I know there is a lot of poverty in the States, but not compared to elsewhere. Right now low birth rates (which would be much lower if one did not include immigrants in the figures) is causing the US population to age, not a good thing for long term stability of the economy as a whole and for institutions such as Social Security.
Saturday, January 9, 2016
Ridicule of religious belief and evangelist atheism
I never heard the expression "evangelist atheist" before, although I guess you mean people out to spread the gospel of atheism. There are "hard atheists" who assert affirmatively that there is no God (generally based on philosophical reasoning rather than any empirical evidence) and there are "soft atheists" who just say there is no evidence of God and so there is no need to believe.(Agnosticism is something different -- the assertion that knowledge of something like God is not possible).
I think someone who is "evangelistic" (pushy) about their atheism is probably someone who fears religion and superstition, probably based on both personal experience and the study of the history of the behavior of religions. After that it becomes a matter of personality and maturity -- some use ridicule and sarcasm, others try to reason with the believer (good luck with either approach -- sarcasm merely reinforces the martyrdom complex and reason is generally not possible once the person reaches a certain age). The believer after a certain point has heard it all before and has his or her rationalizations all carefully in place.
I think someone who is "evangelistic" (pushy) about their atheism is probably someone who fears religion and superstition, probably based on both personal experience and the study of the history of the behavior of religions. After that it becomes a matter of personality and maturity -- some use ridicule and sarcasm, others try to reason with the believer (good luck with either approach -- sarcasm merely reinforces the martyrdom complex and reason is generally not possible once the person reaches a certain age). The believer after a certain point has heard it all before and has his or her rationalizations all carefully in place.
Monday, January 4, 2016
Abortion and Contraception
Let me start with a general statement about religion and government. I think religions have an obligation to try to influence the behavior of their adherents, and I think most of the time this works for good. Do they have the right, however, to try to influcnce, let alone control, the behavior of others through law? When the adherents of a particular relilgion are in the majority, we often see this, and it is seriously wrong in and of itself.
That doesn't mean the law doesn't step in and regulate things that relilgions teach -- the law, to use the obvious example of murder, makes it illegal, and churches endorse this. I would say that because a religion supports a law does not make the law wrong, but it does make it suspect.
Being male, and a homosexual to boot, I don't have any personal involvement in conception and abortion, so I think I can look at it objectively. Of course my belief in freedom, basically that anything that restricts individual freedom needs strong and maybe even overwhelming state interest.
There is a magical view of life -- that living things are endowed with some sort of life spirit or soul. One can understand the emotional responses people have to the idea of preventing or ending a pregnancy if they think that way. I can only say the view is unscientific, devoid of rational supporting evidence, and in some ways leads to all sorts of impractical results -- such that it is immoral to step on an ant.
What overriding public interest do laws against abortion and contraception achieve? Stopping the killing of babies, I suppose, but is the foetus a baby? At some point it becomes a baby (at birth seems to be the general view) and then slowly over the next few years, if not over the next lifetime, it becomes a person.
The criminization of abortion and contraception has some very bad consequences -- back-door abortions, deaths of teenage girls, family disruptions, unwanted children leading to later criminals, and so on. Offsetting that are the dangers of abortion and the emotional problems to the parents that can happen later. These need weighing, to be sure, and people need to try to avoid making these things happen. I would say that it all depends, and, like all moral decisions, no absolute rule should be followed but instead compassion, maximizing good, minimizing harm, and not imposing our will (another way of saying "using") on others.
That doesn't mean the law doesn't step in and regulate things that relilgions teach -- the law, to use the obvious example of murder, makes it illegal, and churches endorse this. I would say that because a religion supports a law does not make the law wrong, but it does make it suspect.
Being male, and a homosexual to boot, I don't have any personal involvement in conception and abortion, so I think I can look at it objectively. Of course my belief in freedom, basically that anything that restricts individual freedom needs strong and maybe even overwhelming state interest.
There is a magical view of life -- that living things are endowed with some sort of life spirit or soul. One can understand the emotional responses people have to the idea of preventing or ending a pregnancy if they think that way. I can only say the view is unscientific, devoid of rational supporting evidence, and in some ways leads to all sorts of impractical results -- such that it is immoral to step on an ant.
What overriding public interest do laws against abortion and contraception achieve? Stopping the killing of babies, I suppose, but is the foetus a baby? At some point it becomes a baby (at birth seems to be the general view) and then slowly over the next few years, if not over the next lifetime, it becomes a person.
The criminization of abortion and contraception has some very bad consequences -- back-door abortions, deaths of teenage girls, family disruptions, unwanted children leading to later criminals, and so on. Offsetting that are the dangers of abortion and the emotional problems to the parents that can happen later. These need weighing, to be sure, and people need to try to avoid making these things happen. I would say that it all depends, and, like all moral decisions, no absolute rule should be followed but instead compassion, maximizing good, minimizing harm, and not imposing our will (another way of saying "using") on others.
Sunday, January 3, 2016
The Moral Obligation to tell the Truth
Honesty, which includes not just avoiding falshoods but also avoiding misrepresentation and failure to do what one promises to do, is certainly a virtue. It is also the course of wisdom as it makes life simpler and does the most good -- usually. However, there is no logical or biological argument that shows honesty is always good -- it is just a rule of thumb that has unfortunately been taken too far too often.
Interestingly, it seems that almost, if not all, virtues, when taken too far, end up being vices, and honesty is not an exception. Society has exceptions to the rule calling for honesty, the most common being the (quite proper) tolerance of "white lies"-- lies told to avoid the harm the truth will cause. Sometimes it is just to avoid hurting someone's feelings, sometimes it is to avoid conflict (telling your wife -- if you are a married man -- that her new hairdo looks great, even though it doesn't, as otherwise you know you will get the silent treatment for then next few months).
I remember a time when I was in high school where the teacher insisted the definition of a white lie was one where one has no personal gain, but only wishes to avoid harming someone. I argued otherwise, and, as this teacher was stubborn, didn't do so well in his class. I argued that personal gain, or at least avoiding personal harm, is sometimes a perfectly acceptable reason to lie, such as when one knows the truth may create an enemy, and also when the person asking the question has no right to the answer.
"Are you gay?" Well, I usually have no problem with such a question, but there are times when I lie and assert my heterosexuality. The person is invading my privacy, but if I tell them that, they will conclude I must be gay, since otherwise I would not be reluctant to answer. When a poll taker calls me on the phone with one of those surveys, and it soon becomes apparent that the "poll" is not a poll at all but a sales attempt or a politically partisan effort to push a particular position or candidate, then I begin to lie through my teeth, partly to waste their time and partly to confuse the data. Such things are dishonest going in and therefore have no right to the truth.
It is possible to imagine scenarios where truth is in fact a grave moral and ethical wrong, such as, say, having Ann Frank hiding in your attic and the Gestapo at the door asking if you have seen her.
Breaking of promises is another type of dishonest behavior, and can be classed as a species of lie. The story is, Thomas Jefferson promised his wife, as she was dying, that he would never remarry. So he didn't, but instead ended up committing the much worse offense of having children by a slave woman. Now he treated her well and gave her and her children their freedom in his will, but I have to say that having sex with a slave is a form of rape and far worse than breaking a promise made to ease the passing of someone who really has no right to extract such a promise.
Carrying honesty too far, when the truth is harmful, then, is a vice, and using the dictum to always tell the truth as an excuse for imposing such harm is a double-vice.
This illustrates the problem with codes of ethical conduct -- there can be no solid rules beyond avoiding harm, maximizing good, and not using others, and these objectives themselves are not absolutes but must be weighed against each other in each particular situation.
Interestingly, it seems that almost, if not all, virtues, when taken too far, end up being vices, and honesty is not an exception. Society has exceptions to the rule calling for honesty, the most common being the (quite proper) tolerance of "white lies"-- lies told to avoid the harm the truth will cause. Sometimes it is just to avoid hurting someone's feelings, sometimes it is to avoid conflict (telling your wife -- if you are a married man -- that her new hairdo looks great, even though it doesn't, as otherwise you know you will get the silent treatment for then next few months).
I remember a time when I was in high school where the teacher insisted the definition of a white lie was one where one has no personal gain, but only wishes to avoid harming someone. I argued otherwise, and, as this teacher was stubborn, didn't do so well in his class. I argued that personal gain, or at least avoiding personal harm, is sometimes a perfectly acceptable reason to lie, such as when one knows the truth may create an enemy, and also when the person asking the question has no right to the answer.
"Are you gay?" Well, I usually have no problem with such a question, but there are times when I lie and assert my heterosexuality. The person is invading my privacy, but if I tell them that, they will conclude I must be gay, since otherwise I would not be reluctant to answer. When a poll taker calls me on the phone with one of those surveys, and it soon becomes apparent that the "poll" is not a poll at all but a sales attempt or a politically partisan effort to push a particular position or candidate, then I begin to lie through my teeth, partly to waste their time and partly to confuse the data. Such things are dishonest going in and therefore have no right to the truth.
It is possible to imagine scenarios where truth is in fact a grave moral and ethical wrong, such as, say, having Ann Frank hiding in your attic and the Gestapo at the door asking if you have seen her.
Breaking of promises is another type of dishonest behavior, and can be classed as a species of lie. The story is, Thomas Jefferson promised his wife, as she was dying, that he would never remarry. So he didn't, but instead ended up committing the much worse offense of having children by a slave woman. Now he treated her well and gave her and her children their freedom in his will, but I have to say that having sex with a slave is a form of rape and far worse than breaking a promise made to ease the passing of someone who really has no right to extract such a promise.
Carrying honesty too far, when the truth is harmful, then, is a vice, and using the dictum to always tell the truth as an excuse for imposing such harm is a double-vice.
This illustrates the problem with codes of ethical conduct -- there can be no solid rules beyond avoiding harm, maximizing good, and not using others, and these objectives themselves are not absolutes but must be weighed against each other in each particular situation.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Well of course the chimps went their own way and we went our own way. Even Darwin pointed out that the common ancestor would not look like a chimp any more than we do.
The main thing is that the separation occurred seven or eight million years ago.
That is deep time -- time that gives one cold chills. A century is about all we can get our heads around, and history is measured in only a few thousand years. Think about ten thousand years, then a hundred thousand years, then a million years.
In all that time really not all that much happened. We stopped walking on our knuckles (if we ever did -- that may have come to chimps later), we evolved to eat a lot more meat, we began to have culture and the brains needed for the huge selective advantage culture provides.