Eating blood -- if one eats meat, why not? As a westerner I have a cultural problem and can't bring myself to do anything but carefully pick out the bits of blood in my noodles or whatever and set them aside, although of course I say nothing.
One should not eat blood for the same reason one should avoid organ meats -- the iron and metallic load is too great (and other reasons -- this is not a medical blog so research it yourself).
However many religions prohibit blood consumption on its own for superstitious reasons -- it seems the precursors of modern Jews thought the soul was in the blood, or some such thing, and this got passed to Christians and Muslims, so that in most countries there are special laws regarding the draining of blood from slaughtered animals. The Muslims appear to have taken this way to far and demand slaughter methods that are barbaric and cruel.
Of course common sense tells us that even after draining the blood there will remain a lot of it in the meat. I don't know how the religions who make a big deal of this rationalize this simple fact.
I read in the Bible's Book of Acts that the apostles lifted most of the Jewish dietary laws from Christians (to ease the conversion of Gentiles) but did leave the "abstain from blood" in there.
So now we have at least one Christian group, Jehovah's Witnesses, who expel members who have a transfusion or allow one for their children to save the child's life, and insist the child be allowed to die.
Even if there were an ethical reason for not eating blood, and I can see no rational justification -- just authority and superstition -- this reflects a horrible and tragic and, indeed, evil, application of ethics. When presented with a choice of two wrongs, one must choose the lesser -- and a child dying versus a blood transfusion -- sheesh! -- obviously breaks that fundamental rule.
Wednesday, September 3, 2014
Eating meat
Something I've wanted to post about for awhile is the need for mankind to get off meat, or at least drastically reduce what we eat.
Of course there are ethical reasons -- meat is from sentient animals and although a case can be made that such animals might actually have better lives (and a good deal better karma if one sees this as valid -- and of course at a loss of karma for humans involved), the reality is probably that they lead lives of suffering, considering how many of those who raise animals for slaughter treat them.
But there are three other reasons. There is the environment, our health, and cost. The burden on the environment of ever-increasing animal husbandry offsets much that the world does to slow climate change, and those who make personal sacrifices for the environment but continue to demand meat are being hugely inconsistent. Also of course red meat is well known to contribute to modern diseases and suffering. Finally, leave the meat out and the food budget gets much lower, leaving money for other pleasures or charity.
I don't think it would be a good thing to completely eliminate meat, since it does add certain nutrients difficult to get otherwise, and it is very pleasurable. The pleasure however can be gotten by keeping its use down as a sort-of condiment rather than a main dish and experimenting with meat substitutes.
If one does decide to leave meat out of one's diet, one should remember the maxim that, when a guest, eat what is served, and not fuss or cause one's host to even be aware. The amount of rudeness and arrogance sometimes seen in vegetarians is unfortunate and counterproductive.
Of course there are ethical reasons -- meat is from sentient animals and although a case can be made that such animals might actually have better lives (and a good deal better karma if one sees this as valid -- and of course at a loss of karma for humans involved), the reality is probably that they lead lives of suffering, considering how many of those who raise animals for slaughter treat them.
But there are three other reasons. There is the environment, our health, and cost. The burden on the environment of ever-increasing animal husbandry offsets much that the world does to slow climate change, and those who make personal sacrifices for the environment but continue to demand meat are being hugely inconsistent. Also of course red meat is well known to contribute to modern diseases and suffering. Finally, leave the meat out and the food budget gets much lower, leaving money for other pleasures or charity.
I don't think it would be a good thing to completely eliminate meat, since it does add certain nutrients difficult to get otherwise, and it is very pleasurable. The pleasure however can be gotten by keeping its use down as a sort-of condiment rather than a main dish and experimenting with meat substitutes.
If one does decide to leave meat out of one's diet, one should remember the maxim that, when a guest, eat what is served, and not fuss or cause one's host to even be aware. The amount of rudeness and arrogance sometimes seen in vegetarians is unfortunate and counterproductive.
Putin says he could take Kiev in two weeks. Probably true but arrogant and, of course, taking it would be only the beginning. The Ukrainians will not just fold with the fall of a city.
We seem to have a fascist on our hands. The world, and especially Europe, would do well to pay close attention. After what Russia has been through, this isn't too surprising, and nationalism is an easy enough way of thinking for those who are so inclined. I doubt most Russians would buy what is going on if the actually knew the details.
We seem to have a fascist on our hands. The world, and especially Europe, would do well to pay close attention. After what Russia has been through, this isn't too surprising, and nationalism is an easy enough way of thinking for those who are so inclined. I doubt most Russians would buy what is going on if the actually knew the details.
Tuesday, September 2, 2014
Wolves at the door
Democracies (countries run by popularly elected politicians) tend to not pay much attention to wolves until they are at the door. There is instead a constant cry that the democracy causes the presence of wolves and that military spending in particular is (always, no matter how small) excessive.
The reason is mainly because wolves often self-destruct, and besides it interferes with re-election. The public does not like to make sacrifices to protect itself.
I read a nice piece in Huffington yesterday about the history of Wahhabism in Saudi. It seems terror and brutality have been a core part of not just that part of Islam but part of Islam in general through its existence -- that killing and raping the non-believer is not only acceptable behavior but is commanded. (I add that Islam is not unique in this respect).
As a tactic, up to maybe the end of the nineteenth century, it usually was successful. People will and generally should submit to preserve themselves and their families. Alexander the Great was generous to cities that surrendered without a fight and engaged in general slaughter and rape and enslavement and looting when there was resistance. It worked and he was able to take Asia Minor with only a few real sieges.
I don't think it works at all in today's world. What it does is alert democratic politicians and the public to the presence of a wolf. The wolf needs to wait until its power is too great for the democracy to resist, and, until then, play ball, for the most part -- as the Chinese seem to be doing.
Politicians like Obama and the Clintons love to save money by weakening the country's military, so they can buy votes with social programs. (I don't know that it is as crass as that -- maybe they think they are doing the right thing -- hard to understand though.)
Of course if one spends really excessive amounts on the military, one can weaken the domestic economy, and this ain't good either -- and ends up reducing the amount available. In the States, though, the weak economy is from other causes.
The Muslim terrorist and extremist groups think the old brutality and fear tactic still works. That was behind 9-11, which only served to give Bush the chance to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, although what he achieved has now been frittered away. At least for a couple of years the public understood the danger, but they don't like sacrifices and want them to stop. A couple of years is about all a determined leader has before the clamor forces compromise with evil.
Now ISIS, or whatever it will be called, is doing as much, telling the world the wolf is at the door. If they had pulled their uprising and then been civilized about it, instead of going on a murder spree, the world would have seen it and not liked it, but have done nothing. As it is Obama is being dragged into doing something (it seems as little as possible) by his own public.
In other words, terrorism today is stupid. It achieves very little if anything except alert the world to your evil.
The reason is mainly because wolves often self-destruct, and besides it interferes with re-election. The public does not like to make sacrifices to protect itself.
I read a nice piece in Huffington yesterday about the history of Wahhabism in Saudi. It seems terror and brutality have been a core part of not just that part of Islam but part of Islam in general through its existence -- that killing and raping the non-believer is not only acceptable behavior but is commanded. (I add that Islam is not unique in this respect).
As a tactic, up to maybe the end of the nineteenth century, it usually was successful. People will and generally should submit to preserve themselves and their families. Alexander the Great was generous to cities that surrendered without a fight and engaged in general slaughter and rape and enslavement and looting when there was resistance. It worked and he was able to take Asia Minor with only a few real sieges.
I don't think it works at all in today's world. What it does is alert democratic politicians and the public to the presence of a wolf. The wolf needs to wait until its power is too great for the democracy to resist, and, until then, play ball, for the most part -- as the Chinese seem to be doing.
Politicians like Obama and the Clintons love to save money by weakening the country's military, so they can buy votes with social programs. (I don't know that it is as crass as that -- maybe they think they are doing the right thing -- hard to understand though.)
Of course if one spends really excessive amounts on the military, one can weaken the domestic economy, and this ain't good either -- and ends up reducing the amount available. In the States, though, the weak economy is from other causes.
The Muslim terrorist and extremist groups think the old brutality and fear tactic still works. That was behind 9-11, which only served to give Bush the chance to invade Iraq and Afghanistan, although what he achieved has now been frittered away. At least for a couple of years the public understood the danger, but they don't like sacrifices and want them to stop. A couple of years is about all a determined leader has before the clamor forces compromise with evil.
Now ISIS, or whatever it will be called, is doing as much, telling the world the wolf is at the door. If they had pulled their uprising and then been civilized about it, instead of going on a murder spree, the world would have seen it and not liked it, but have done nothing. As it is Obama is being dragged into doing something (it seems as little as possible) by his own public.
In other words, terrorism today is stupid. It achieves very little if anything except alert the world to your evil.
Russian feet in the door
I appreciate the email last night the explained how Russia had promised to honor Ukraine's sovereignty in return for Ukraine handing over its nuclear weapons.
It would seem once the Russians got that danger out of the way they had no intention of keeping their side of it. They just needed to wait a decent interval and for something to take place that gave them an excuse. (I also note an unsettling tendency of Russian authorities here and there casually mentioning that Russia still has nuclear weapons -- lots of them).
Russia seems to be in the business of setting up small enclaves out of parts of former USSR republics. It has done it in Moldova and Georgia and now apparently will in Ukraine. They find an area where, because of Stalin's brutality, Russian ethnics predominate, and force the creation there of a separate political entity, controlled, however, by Russia. These are basically criminal regimes run by criminals with no legitimacy or international legality.
There is a temptation to think the locals should be allowed to make the decision, but this cannot be allowed unless the sovereign country agrees to it (as with Czechoslovakia). Otherwise the world will end up with no end of ethnic groups and sub-groups, majority or not, clamoring for independence. One can imagine the Navajo setting up their own state in the U.S. Southwest. A state, once legally constituted, can decide for itself whether it wants to divide itself up or not, but this cannot be imposed from outside and inhabitants who try to do this on their own can and should be suppressed. (Of course here in the case of Ukraine they were being suppressed -- we have instead a foreign invasion -- come to think of it, that is what happened in Georgia too).
When one either moves or otherwise comes to be a citizen of another country, it is incumbent on that person to give up their loyalty to the mother country and be patriotic, loyal citizens of the new country. That doesn't require giving up one's culture, at least right away (it usually happens naturally after a few generations). People who do not do this but stick to loyalty to a foreign state set themselves up to become traitors.
Still, these enclaves present to Russia an excellent foot in the door for eventually gaining back its empire, although of course now it won't be Communist but more Fascist in nature.
It would seem once the Russians got that danger out of the way they had no intention of keeping their side of it. They just needed to wait a decent interval and for something to take place that gave them an excuse. (I also note an unsettling tendency of Russian authorities here and there casually mentioning that Russia still has nuclear weapons -- lots of them).
Russia seems to be in the business of setting up small enclaves out of parts of former USSR republics. It has done it in Moldova and Georgia and now apparently will in Ukraine. They find an area where, because of Stalin's brutality, Russian ethnics predominate, and force the creation there of a separate political entity, controlled, however, by Russia. These are basically criminal regimes run by criminals with no legitimacy or international legality.
There is a temptation to think the locals should be allowed to make the decision, but this cannot be allowed unless the sovereign country agrees to it (as with Czechoslovakia). Otherwise the world will end up with no end of ethnic groups and sub-groups, majority or not, clamoring for independence. One can imagine the Navajo setting up their own state in the U.S. Southwest. A state, once legally constituted, can decide for itself whether it wants to divide itself up or not, but this cannot be imposed from outside and inhabitants who try to do this on their own can and should be suppressed. (Of course here in the case of Ukraine they were being suppressed -- we have instead a foreign invasion -- come to think of it, that is what happened in Georgia too).
When one either moves or otherwise comes to be a citizen of another country, it is incumbent on that person to give up their loyalty to the mother country and be patriotic, loyal citizens of the new country. That doesn't require giving up one's culture, at least right away (it usually happens naturally after a few generations). People who do not do this but stick to loyalty to a foreign state set themselves up to become traitors.
Still, these enclaves present to Russia an excellent foot in the door for eventually gaining back its empire, although of course now it won't be Communist but more Fascist in nature.
Monday, September 1, 2014
East Ukraine
I begin to think Russia will first set up an East Ukraine rather than emulating Hitler and using nationalism to occupy the whole country. That is good, but of course it means a hostile Ukraine (much more hostile now) will remain on its western border, so we will see.
Still, this East Ukraine, populated mostly by ethnic Russians, will be subservient, and probably quickly invite the presence of full-time Russian soldiers.
That would mean being, legally at least, an independent country, which has the small benefit of giving Russia another vote everywhere, but otherwise means nothing and can be undone any time with a simple annexation vote. There is a dollop of hypocrisy here -- Putin can pull back and say he didn't invade and didn't annex, while in fact of course he effectively did.
It is, however, now probably the best possible solution, considering the rabid Russian nationalism we are seeing. It is interesting that similar attitudes in Serbia gained them nothing -- I guess Russia is a bigger country.
Ukraine should have been left to work out its problems on its own, but Putin saw personal political advantage domestically, and went on to prove that he is without scruple or honor.
Still, this East Ukraine, populated mostly by ethnic Russians, will be subservient, and probably quickly invite the presence of full-time Russian soldiers.
That would mean being, legally at least, an independent country, which has the small benefit of giving Russia another vote everywhere, but otherwise means nothing and can be undone any time with a simple annexation vote. There is a dollop of hypocrisy here -- Putin can pull back and say he didn't invade and didn't annex, while in fact of course he effectively did.
It is, however, now probably the best possible solution, considering the rabid Russian nationalism we are seeing. It is interesting that similar attitudes in Serbia gained them nothing -- I guess Russia is a bigger country.
Ukraine should have been left to work out its problems on its own, but Putin saw personal political advantage domestically, and went on to prove that he is without scruple or honor.
Sunday, August 31, 2014
Atheism
There are several kinds of definition of what an atheist is, used by different groups to give them a debating advantage.
Probably the worst is that atheism is a religion of no God. That is as far as I can tell absurd. Religion, except for a couple of them originating in India, is all about gods, and these two (that I know of that don't have gods or at least don't assert them) are religions on their own -- not a "religion" of atheism.
No. Atheism is not even a belief to most people, but just an opinion, albeit usually a strongly held opinion. The way I would put it is that I am as sure that there is no God as I can be sure of anything, the world being such that one is never absolutely sure about anything.
Of course those who are truly on the fence, who doubt there is a God but have strong doubts about that doubt, who are usually called agnostics. There is an important distinction here. The agnostic is on the fence; the atheist may admit a remote possibility but is pretty damn sure. The atheist only sees the fence but is nowhere near it.
There is a sense in which agnostics could be classed as a type of atheist, if one defines atheism as "no God" since the usual off-the-cuff definition is one who does not believe in God, and the agnostic does not believe -- he or she is just more unsure than the more typical atheist.
Back to the really bad definition of atheism as a religion. The reason religionists like that definition is then they can say it is just a belief, like other beliefs, and one is not more valid than another -- we just choose. The thing is these people believe because they want to believe, and maybe even cannot imagine not believing, generally because they were taught to believe in childhood and hence are fully indoctrinated (religions like to get the children before the children are mature enough to think for themselves and with full rationality).
The atheist on the other hand takes the view that although one cannot prove a negative, if one wants to assert something important one must have proof, or at least lots and lots of evidence. It then becomes a matter of looking at the evidence present that God exists and coming to the conclusion that it is all wishful thinking and doesn't hold any water at all and that there is really no persuasive or even slightly convincing evidence. The heavens do not declare the glory of God, nor does nature. There are no asterisms spelling out the Tetragrammaton.
Absence of evidence in favor of an important assertion logically requires a negative conclusion. An honest person does not accept things because one likes them or because one wants to or because one wants to go to Heaven or because one's parents and culture believes it. The only honest way to think something is true is because one is persuaded by an honest investigation of the arguments (not just reading theist stuff).
Would you believe it, so far I have not tried to define "God," usually the first question in this sort of discussion. There is God and there are gods. To me the former has to be, to be God, omni- various things, such as omnipotent and omniscient. Omnipresent or omnibenificient would count but aren't necessary. Even a transcendent, spiritual being would be something like an angel or superman, not God.
This leads to the self-referential contradictions we have known about since the Middle Ages, having to do with whether or not God can make a rock so big he can't move it or whether or not we can really have free will, and not just an illusion, if God knows all the future (these are two different issues and theists have differing approaches, but I want to keep this fairly simple).
The way the theist tends to deal with this sort of thing is simply by saying that God can do anything except something impossible for God to do. Think about that for a minute. That has got to be one of the great cop-outs of all time. Besides, I can do anything except something impossible for me to do, so am I God? No.
What the theists do to get around their logical contradictions is to make God into a god. Zeus can do a lot of things too, but not those things he can't do.
Probably the worst is that atheism is a religion of no God. That is as far as I can tell absurd. Religion, except for a couple of them originating in India, is all about gods, and these two (that I know of that don't have gods or at least don't assert them) are religions on their own -- not a "religion" of atheism.
No. Atheism is not even a belief to most people, but just an opinion, albeit usually a strongly held opinion. The way I would put it is that I am as sure that there is no God as I can be sure of anything, the world being such that one is never absolutely sure about anything.
Of course those who are truly on the fence, who doubt there is a God but have strong doubts about that doubt, who are usually called agnostics. There is an important distinction here. The agnostic is on the fence; the atheist may admit a remote possibility but is pretty damn sure. The atheist only sees the fence but is nowhere near it.
There is a sense in which agnostics could be classed as a type of atheist, if one defines atheism as "no God" since the usual off-the-cuff definition is one who does not believe in God, and the agnostic does not believe -- he or she is just more unsure than the more typical atheist.
Back to the really bad definition of atheism as a religion. The reason religionists like that definition is then they can say it is just a belief, like other beliefs, and one is not more valid than another -- we just choose. The thing is these people believe because they want to believe, and maybe even cannot imagine not believing, generally because they were taught to believe in childhood and hence are fully indoctrinated (religions like to get the children before the children are mature enough to think for themselves and with full rationality).
The atheist on the other hand takes the view that although one cannot prove a negative, if one wants to assert something important one must have proof, or at least lots and lots of evidence. It then becomes a matter of looking at the evidence present that God exists and coming to the conclusion that it is all wishful thinking and doesn't hold any water at all and that there is really no persuasive or even slightly convincing evidence. The heavens do not declare the glory of God, nor does nature. There are no asterisms spelling out the Tetragrammaton.
Absence of evidence in favor of an important assertion logically requires a negative conclusion. An honest person does not accept things because one likes them or because one wants to or because one wants to go to Heaven or because one's parents and culture believes it. The only honest way to think something is true is because one is persuaded by an honest investigation of the arguments (not just reading theist stuff).
Would you believe it, so far I have not tried to define "God," usually the first question in this sort of discussion. There is God and there are gods. To me the former has to be, to be God, omni- various things, such as omnipotent and omniscient. Omnipresent or omnibenificient would count but aren't necessary. Even a transcendent, spiritual being would be something like an angel or superman, not God.
This leads to the self-referential contradictions we have known about since the Middle Ages, having to do with whether or not God can make a rock so big he can't move it or whether or not we can really have free will, and not just an illusion, if God knows all the future (these are two different issues and theists have differing approaches, but I want to keep this fairly simple).
The way the theist tends to deal with this sort of thing is simply by saying that God can do anything except something impossible for God to do. Think about that for a minute. That has got to be one of the great cop-outs of all time. Besides, I can do anything except something impossible for me to do, so am I God? No.
What the theists do to get around their logical contradictions is to make God into a god. Zeus can do a lot of things too, but not those things he can't do.
Saturday, August 30, 2014
Why I don't like the legal profession
Lawyers are neither more nor less likeable, I suppose on average, than anyone else. This is not personal.
When I was in high school, being outspoken, loquacious, and opinionated, I was many times told I should be a lawyer or even that I might make a good lawyer. At the time I would shudder and stay silent -- I had already formed my opinion of the profession.
If someone is smart and goes to college, one is presented with a number of possible career choices. One can become a teacher if one is idealistic and likes children and is not too much worried about making a lot of money. Or one can become a doctor if, again, one is idealistic and perhaps fascinated by blood and gore, but at the same time wants to be affluent. Or one can become an architect or artist or musician if one is into beauty and would like to be well off but is more interested in appreciation and even fame. Of course if one is nerdy or likes mathematics, one can go into computers or engineering or science.
There are, then, many choices. The ones who go into law are a little different. They too are smart, but not idealistic and very much interested in money. The other group who also fit this are of course those who go into business schools.
The similarities between the two groups are considerable. The thing I want to bring out though is they both have a certain tendency to rationalize unethical behavior, so long as there is a good chance they will get away with it. Of course I am sure there are exceptions to this, but the exceptions are not typical.
People self-select and lawyers are people with this personality trait. Their training makes it even worse. Under the rationalization that even the worst criminal is entitled to good legal representation at trial, they confuse juries and distort evidence and in the end the most competent of them help celebrities get away with murder.
So also, and even worse, is the tort bar, where the lawyer creates and seeks out litigation, slowing the economy and increasing costs for everyone not winning the tort lottery. The rationalization is fair compensation to those injured, but that lawyers and litigation can be done without is demonstrated by worker's compensation systems and other similar experiments -- but the lawyers in the legislature prevent such arrangements from being put into place for most litigation.
The end result, especially in the United States, is a country bursting at the seams with lawyers making comfortable and in some cases outrageous amounts of money off litigation and the threat of litigation, generating in my view a general decline of the country (it would be more noticeable except lawyers elsewhere do similar things) and a lower standard of living for the population, and, in many cases, especially medical care, a level of expense that makes not having insurance an insane proposition, as insurance premiums go higher and higher.
When I was in high school, being outspoken, loquacious, and opinionated, I was many times told I should be a lawyer or even that I might make a good lawyer. At the time I would shudder and stay silent -- I had already formed my opinion of the profession.
If someone is smart and goes to college, one is presented with a number of possible career choices. One can become a teacher if one is idealistic and likes children and is not too much worried about making a lot of money. Or one can become a doctor if, again, one is idealistic and perhaps fascinated by blood and gore, but at the same time wants to be affluent. Or one can become an architect or artist or musician if one is into beauty and would like to be well off but is more interested in appreciation and even fame. Of course if one is nerdy or likes mathematics, one can go into computers or engineering or science.
There are, then, many choices. The ones who go into law are a little different. They too are smart, but not idealistic and very much interested in money. The other group who also fit this are of course those who go into business schools.
The similarities between the two groups are considerable. The thing I want to bring out though is they both have a certain tendency to rationalize unethical behavior, so long as there is a good chance they will get away with it. Of course I am sure there are exceptions to this, but the exceptions are not typical.
People self-select and lawyers are people with this personality trait. Their training makes it even worse. Under the rationalization that even the worst criminal is entitled to good legal representation at trial, they confuse juries and distort evidence and in the end the most competent of them help celebrities get away with murder.
So also, and even worse, is the tort bar, where the lawyer creates and seeks out litigation, slowing the economy and increasing costs for everyone not winning the tort lottery. The rationalization is fair compensation to those injured, but that lawyers and litigation can be done without is demonstrated by worker's compensation systems and other similar experiments -- but the lawyers in the legislature prevent such arrangements from being put into place for most litigation.
The end result, especially in the United States, is a country bursting at the seams with lawyers making comfortable and in some cases outrageous amounts of money off litigation and the threat of litigation, generating in my view a general decline of the country (it would be more noticeable except lawyers elsewhere do similar things) and a lower standard of living for the population, and, in many cases, especially medical care, a level of expense that makes not having insurance an insane proposition, as insurance premiums go higher and higher.
Thursday, August 28, 2014
Trying to fix representative democracy
Yesterday, in the context of how copyright laws have come to be so absurd and hurt the public and defeat the reason they exist, I made a strong attack on the distortions money and press access have on the legislative procedure, to the effect that I have abandoned hope in democracy.
This is largely true, except as Churchill once noted, it is hard to come up with a viable alternative that doesn't risk dictatorship (not that democracies don't generally evolved into dictatorships too, or at least societies where people have little freedom).
Several things. First, the legal profession has to be prevented from controlling things. Lawyers are generally disliked everywhere for good reason, although there are good lawyers, there are an awful lot who do much more harm than good, but that is for another blog.
The issue here is that they tend to, as a profession, dominate legislative processes, and their solution to everything is to complicate the law. Society ends up with more and more regulation and regulators and bureaucrats and litigation and in the end vast amounts of corruption needed to function at all.
They also of course routinely act in their personal interest, so we have laws about things like "practicing law without a license" and an utter inability of legislatures to get litigation under any reasonable control.
So the first thing I think needs doing is to ban any member of the legal profession from politics, or anyone who has been in the past.
Another thing is pork. One approach might be to let the executive make the budget and the legislature either approve or disapprove, up or down, with no amendments. A lot of pork can be dealt with by having at-large representation in the legislature, with staggered terms.
That still doesn't eliminate it as the executive will have to make compromises in order to get the budget passed, and the executive itself will probably have its own bits of corruption. (Yes pork is corruption -- we need to recognize it for what it is.) This also seems putting a lot of power in the executive's hands, so institutional checks here need to be thought up.
Of course largely the root of the problem is the voter. They vote for all sorts of silly reasons, although more often in their selfish interest or based on the position of the candidate on a limited range of issues. So candidates lie or take bad positions just to get elected. Or, even worse, ideologues get elected, and some really stupid people who don't understand the real world and function from within an ideology or even a religion.
The thing is the voter has little choice. He or she only can assess the candidate by the campaign and what and how they say things, and this is so easily manipulated. Negative campaign adds, for example, have been shown to be effective over and over, when in fact it should drive voters into the camp of the person being attacked.
A much more limited voter roll seems needed -- one where stability and education and reasonableness and so on are considered when one applies for the franchise. Of course such things inevitably get used to keep groups, such as racial minorities, from having a say, so it would have to be much more complicated than just a board reviewing applications and more automated.
Then the voters are a small number who can get to know the candidate personally and who know what is going on.
I suspect my views are just too radical for most people, and smack of Platonic ideas and of course of Leninism, although there are differences. One thing is I would have the whole thing non-partisan and eliminate political parties (which have the effect of turning elections into sporting events).
Of course no system is perfect, and all can be criticized, but it seems to me we are so badly governed nowadays in most countries that something pretty radical needs to be done.
This is largely true, except as Churchill once noted, it is hard to come up with a viable alternative that doesn't risk dictatorship (not that democracies don't generally evolved into dictatorships too, or at least societies where people have little freedom).
Several things. First, the legal profession has to be prevented from controlling things. Lawyers are generally disliked everywhere for good reason, although there are good lawyers, there are an awful lot who do much more harm than good, but that is for another blog.
The issue here is that they tend to, as a profession, dominate legislative processes, and their solution to everything is to complicate the law. Society ends up with more and more regulation and regulators and bureaucrats and litigation and in the end vast amounts of corruption needed to function at all.
They also of course routinely act in their personal interest, so we have laws about things like "practicing law without a license" and an utter inability of legislatures to get litigation under any reasonable control.
So the first thing I think needs doing is to ban any member of the legal profession from politics, or anyone who has been in the past.
Another thing is pork. One approach might be to let the executive make the budget and the legislature either approve or disapprove, up or down, with no amendments. A lot of pork can be dealt with by having at-large representation in the legislature, with staggered terms.
That still doesn't eliminate it as the executive will have to make compromises in order to get the budget passed, and the executive itself will probably have its own bits of corruption. (Yes pork is corruption -- we need to recognize it for what it is.) This also seems putting a lot of power in the executive's hands, so institutional checks here need to be thought up.
Of course largely the root of the problem is the voter. They vote for all sorts of silly reasons, although more often in their selfish interest or based on the position of the candidate on a limited range of issues. So candidates lie or take bad positions just to get elected. Or, even worse, ideologues get elected, and some really stupid people who don't understand the real world and function from within an ideology or even a religion.
The thing is the voter has little choice. He or she only can assess the candidate by the campaign and what and how they say things, and this is so easily manipulated. Negative campaign adds, for example, have been shown to be effective over and over, when in fact it should drive voters into the camp of the person being attacked.
A much more limited voter roll seems needed -- one where stability and education and reasonableness and so on are considered when one applies for the franchise. Of course such things inevitably get used to keep groups, such as racial minorities, from having a say, so it would have to be much more complicated than just a board reviewing applications and more automated.
Then the voters are a small number who can get to know the candidate personally and who know what is going on.
I suspect my views are just too radical for most people, and smack of Platonic ideas and of course of Leninism, although there are differences. One thing is I would have the whole thing non-partisan and eliminate political parties (which have the effect of turning elections into sporting events).
Of course no system is perfect, and all can be criticized, but it seems to me we are so badly governed nowadays in most countries that something pretty radical needs to be done.
Assessing scientific studies
How does one deal with a "scientific study" that contradicts what you know or that seems improbable or that supports ideas that are usually rejected as pseudo-science?
The fact is a lot of "studies" aren't really and are either outright lies or contrived to "prove" what people want to prove. The ordinary person is not really able to assess such things, since even "peer reviewed" is more and more becoming meaningless (except for of course certain publications, but getting them and reading the original article is not terribly useful for all the jargon).
Generally even these reputable studies get misused and misinterpreted by both marketers and the press.
So what to do? I don't really know, except be aware and as informed as possible and generally follow what the scientific consensus seems to be.
The fact is a lot of "studies" aren't really and are either outright lies or contrived to "prove" what people want to prove. The ordinary person is not really able to assess such things, since even "peer reviewed" is more and more becoming meaningless (except for of course certain publications, but getting them and reading the original article is not terribly useful for all the jargon).
Generally even these reputable studies get misused and misinterpreted by both marketers and the press.
So what to do? I don't really know, except be aware and as informed as possible and generally follow what the scientific consensus seems to be.
Wednesday, August 27, 2014
Copyright laws
An example of how special interests dominate political bodies to get what it wants are the insane copyright laws all over the place.
The idea of copyright of course is to reward those who write or produce things people want, so the laws should be designed to optimize that, not optimize income to the ultimate owners of copyright. It is well known that things are written and produced even if copying is rampant, but still fairness says the authors and so on should get some money from copies for awhile.
One of the bad things that happens is that copyright owners are allowed to absolutely prevent the use of their characters and ideas in other places -- something just begging for litigation -- but, that aside, it has the perverse effect of denying the public things that would otherwise be produced -- thereby defeating its own purposes. An example are wonderful books where the rights are inherited by a strange relative of the author who subsequently locks it up.
Instead, the rule should be simple -- you can't use copyright to deny others the right to use your ideas, nor to keep your own product off the market for whatever reason -- you are entitled to reasonable royalties when this happens, for a few years (not the fifty plus we see nowadays) and that is it.
One must distinguish copyright infringement from plagiarism. The author of something is entitled to mention whenever the work is used, forever, and must be given credit. Using someone else's work as your own is dishonest and corrupt. This however is a moral rather than a legal issue -- the state needs, or at least should need, since the US Constitution is obsolete in its provisions here, compelling reason to restrict press and speech freedom. But only for a reasonable time should one have to pay for it, and then only a reasonable amount (legislatures need to provide details).
Another thing -- I find it astonishing that pornography is subject to copyright. I suppose the problem is defining it, but I would say the finding that the work is prurient only and of no other value should be a sufficient defense with copyright infringement. This stuff will appear regardless and does not need legal protection.
Of course no doubt this would mean you would have Mickey Mouse in all sorts of things the Disney Company doesn't like (actually it happens anyway and the character is not all that valuable outside his native habitat). So what? The public loses and only Disney Company gains with the present restrictions.
The thing is in a politically elected body, the commercial press, and movies studios in particular, tend to get what they want. Not only do they have plenty of money to spend in various ways to influence legislators, but they can also defeat even an incumbent in the ways they report about them, and so on. It always amazed me how two such politically different institutions, The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal seem to have the same editorial views on this one.
My conclusion, and this is just one reason, is that elective democracy just doesn't work as the propaganda would have us think. Such bodies are corrupt in all sorts of subtle ways without taking bribes.
The idea of copyright of course is to reward those who write or produce things people want, so the laws should be designed to optimize that, not optimize income to the ultimate owners of copyright. It is well known that things are written and produced even if copying is rampant, but still fairness says the authors and so on should get some money from copies for awhile.
One of the bad things that happens is that copyright owners are allowed to absolutely prevent the use of their characters and ideas in other places -- something just begging for litigation -- but, that aside, it has the perverse effect of denying the public things that would otherwise be produced -- thereby defeating its own purposes. An example are wonderful books where the rights are inherited by a strange relative of the author who subsequently locks it up.
Instead, the rule should be simple -- you can't use copyright to deny others the right to use your ideas, nor to keep your own product off the market for whatever reason -- you are entitled to reasonable royalties when this happens, for a few years (not the fifty plus we see nowadays) and that is it.
One must distinguish copyright infringement from plagiarism. The author of something is entitled to mention whenever the work is used, forever, and must be given credit. Using someone else's work as your own is dishonest and corrupt. This however is a moral rather than a legal issue -- the state needs, or at least should need, since the US Constitution is obsolete in its provisions here, compelling reason to restrict press and speech freedom. But only for a reasonable time should one have to pay for it, and then only a reasonable amount (legislatures need to provide details).
Another thing -- I find it astonishing that pornography is subject to copyright. I suppose the problem is defining it, but I would say the finding that the work is prurient only and of no other value should be a sufficient defense with copyright infringement. This stuff will appear regardless and does not need legal protection.
Of course no doubt this would mean you would have Mickey Mouse in all sorts of things the Disney Company doesn't like (actually it happens anyway and the character is not all that valuable outside his native habitat). So what? The public loses and only Disney Company gains with the present restrictions.
The thing is in a politically elected body, the commercial press, and movies studios in particular, tend to get what they want. Not only do they have plenty of money to spend in various ways to influence legislators, but they can also defeat even an incumbent in the ways they report about them, and so on. It always amazed me how two such politically different institutions, The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal seem to have the same editorial views on this one.
My conclusion, and this is just one reason, is that elective democracy just doesn't work as the propaganda would have us think. Such bodies are corrupt in all sorts of subtle ways without taking bribes.
Monday, August 25, 2014
Where is Mozart?
One of the problems I perceive with traditional Buddhist (and Hindu) rebirth (mislabeled "reincarnation") teaching is where is Mozart? He should have been reborn several times now.
The thing is his voice is unique. From earliest age his compositions are recognizable as his. This is true of many composers and artists and writers, but Mozart makes the best example.
So why haven't there been several Mozart's in history? Is all of that lost in the rebirth process -- if so what is the point?
All sorts of rationalizations are possible, of course, but wouldn't it be nice if there were at least one clear example of the rebirth of an identifiable talent?
The thing is his voice is unique. From earliest age his compositions are recognizable as his. This is true of many composers and artists and writers, but Mozart makes the best example.
So why haven't there been several Mozart's in history? Is all of that lost in the rebirth process -- if so what is the point?
All sorts of rationalizations are possible, of course, but wouldn't it be nice if there were at least one clear example of the rebirth of an identifiable talent?
Sunday, August 24, 2014
Eternal life
I read an item in one of the scientific web sites to the effect living forever is impossible. The basis was a survey of the age of death of the very oldest, and while lifetimes have been getting longer, this maximum age has not. Therefore no matter how good medical care and so on get, there is a maximum age.
While I agree living forever is impossible, this evidence draws the wrong conclusion. We age for some unknown complex of reasons, but each species seems to have a different and evolving maximum age, and there is no reason for that not to apply to us. There are biological reasons we age and die, and each species reflects these in accordance to its lifestyle and the normal age of death from disease or predation. That humans overcome these would remove the biological reason for aging and dying, and we would expect maximum lifetimes to slowly increase -- but on evolutionary terms this would require thousands or millions of years, not the short time of the observations.
The important thing here is that the fact that maximum age varies from species to species tells us it is not inherent but evolved, and that therefore there ought to be ways to interfere with it.
The reason living forever is impossible is simple -- one may never die but at the same time one has never reached infinite age. One may be a million or billion or gazillion years old, but never infinite.
One day the earth will become uninhabitable, a little later the solar system. Humans will of course know it is coming and we presume will have the ability to go elsewhere. Even orbiting a red dwarf, long-lived as they are, would someday have to come to an end.
There is reason to think, though, that space-time has unlimited low-entropy energy available -- this is after all how our present universe got its energy. Just separate the positive and the negative keeping the total at zero. So humanity could go on.
Back to nearer to us in time, what might a society where there is no aging and presumably very few if any deaths (technology would also steadily improve safety) be like? One can imagine frightening scenarios -- say a Stalin was in power and would live on and on -- and other messes, but one can also imagine things being pretty nice. Remove death and you also remove a lot of human angst.
Don't worry about overpopulation. That particular worry is trivial. If it came to it children would stop happening, but I think more likely humanity would expand. It's a big universe.
While I agree living forever is impossible, this evidence draws the wrong conclusion. We age for some unknown complex of reasons, but each species seems to have a different and evolving maximum age, and there is no reason for that not to apply to us. There are biological reasons we age and die, and each species reflects these in accordance to its lifestyle and the normal age of death from disease or predation. That humans overcome these would remove the biological reason for aging and dying, and we would expect maximum lifetimes to slowly increase -- but on evolutionary terms this would require thousands or millions of years, not the short time of the observations.
The important thing here is that the fact that maximum age varies from species to species tells us it is not inherent but evolved, and that therefore there ought to be ways to interfere with it.
The reason living forever is impossible is simple -- one may never die but at the same time one has never reached infinite age. One may be a million or billion or gazillion years old, but never infinite.
One day the earth will become uninhabitable, a little later the solar system. Humans will of course know it is coming and we presume will have the ability to go elsewhere. Even orbiting a red dwarf, long-lived as they are, would someday have to come to an end.
There is reason to think, though, that space-time has unlimited low-entropy energy available -- this is after all how our present universe got its energy. Just separate the positive and the negative keeping the total at zero. So humanity could go on.
Back to nearer to us in time, what might a society where there is no aging and presumably very few if any deaths (technology would also steadily improve safety) be like? One can imagine frightening scenarios -- say a Stalin was in power and would live on and on -- and other messes, but one can also imagine things being pretty nice. Remove death and you also remove a lot of human angst.
Don't worry about overpopulation. That particular worry is trivial. If it came to it children would stop happening, but I think more likely humanity would expand. It's a big universe.
What is philosophy for?
As a look at my blogs shows, I'm interested in amateurish philosophizing. The pros seem to mostly do nothing but talk about what philosophers in the canon said or didn't say, so I call what I do amateurish. I actually think about real answers.
(I do however recommend knowing at least what a few important philosophers had to say -- keeps one from re-inventing the wheel).
By the way, I do wonder how some people, like Nietzsche or Marx or Hegel or Sartre or Ayn Rand, got into the canon. Their ideas don't hold water, and all philosophers seem to do nowadays, is refute them. They were maybe just good, albeit arrogant, writers, and of course Marx and Hegel are significant politically, but not as far as I can see as philosophers.
But one doesn't do things like philosophy just to be right, since these are questions one never can be sure of. No the fact is I do it because it's fun. Thinking about it though, maybe one way into the cannon is to be sure one is right -- it's like a religion then and one gets disciples whom others have to set straight. Those less arrogant don't make it.
No, what philosophy is really for, is happiness. It provides ways to see the world in less gloomy ways -- except of course if you enjoy being gloomy, since it provides that too. One can learn to accept or maybe not care about or maybe see and avoid the two-by-fours life sometimes hits you on the head with.
Ethics is an example, and maybe the first branch of real philosophy (rather than religion or philosophy that became science). We all want to do what is right (I would hope), and doing what is right is satisfying and provides even joy. But that assumes we know what is right, which in turn implies there is such a thing.
Analogy to aesthetics is hard to avoid, so let us analogize. We all want what is beautiful but we don't really know how to say what is beautiful or whether or not beauty really exists -- except in the head -- we know it exists in our heads. Beautiful things give us joy (do they ever) but we don't know why or what it is. All we can say for sure is that beauty changes from person to person as well as over time and from culture to culture.
Does right and wrong behave similarly? If we say it does then the whole exercise of doing what is right becomes a farce. Right and wrong behavior affect others and affect the world -- we can be destructive or constructive. Now making beauty is the right thing to do, no doubt, but appreciating it is personal. Doing right is not. What we do and don't do have consequences far beyond what we like and don't like.
It might be that what is beautiful is not so variable as I think but exists in an absolute way, inferred from fundamental principles, but I doubt that very much. On the other hand I am forced to think that is the case with good and evil. What is evil, at least, can be reasoned out from principles, such as more sophisticated versions of the Golden Rule (the actual rule as we have it is easy to criticize, but the criticisms can be handled with rephrasing). Kant I think did a decent job of that.
The point is that the views of people (derived from their culture and personality), even majorities and universals, about ethics, are historical and personality accidents, to be disregarded (maybe evidence as to what is bad but not as proof). That is why the common test of an ethical rule, namely to think of a scenario where the rule when applied to the scenario has results we think violate our conscience, is not a valid test.
So when I do ethics I do philosophy in trying to deduce right and wrong using what I suppose is another branch of philosophy, logic and reasoning. In the end I do this in order to be happy and to have fun working it out. Kinda funny if you have that sort of sense of humor. It's not as funny though as trying to work out the nature of existence or whether non-existence could exist, or how we might know or not know something.
Saturday, August 23, 2014
Hamas lobbing its missiles
Maybe somebody will tell me why on earth Hamas persists in lobbing missiles into Israel when they achieve nothing except occasionally kill a toddler. Israel will never stop what it's doing, and the rest of the world will not apply enough pressure to Israel to stop, so long as this is going on. Hamas should know by now it achieves nothing, so why not try a different tactic?
As things are, Israel knows and gets daily proof, that if they let up they are to be destroyed. So Hamas has condemned and continues to condemn Gaza and maybe all the Palestinians to miserable hovel lives of poverty and deprivation and danger. Is this what they want? Sheesh! Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.
As things are, Israel knows and gets daily proof, that if they let up they are to be destroyed. So Hamas has condemned and continues to condemn Gaza and maybe all the Palestinians to miserable hovel lives of poverty and deprivation and danger. Is this what they want? Sheesh! Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)