Black markets generally (I would say never but I can't really be sure of that) are not free. They come under the control of criminal organizations, who set prices and quotas and all that. To get and preserve a really free market takes government oversight preventing cartels and monopolies and price-setting conspiracies. The businessman will always seek to avoid competition by whatever means possible -- political power, strong-arm tactics, conspiracy, sometimes just sending price signals.(When companies succeed with price signals, regulators need to see this and start breaking up companies into even smaller pieces).
Tuesday, January 19, 2016
Monday, January 18, 2016
Suffering and God
It's hard for someone who believes in a Western type of god, active in history and filled with love, actually exists, for sure.
There are other gods people have thought up. A King Log kind of god would allow suffering, not being motivated to do anything about it.
Or maybe suffering is just necessary for there to be good. Without it we would take all the good that happens for granted and not give god proper thanks when he give us a little relief now and then. That one really is a bit much when you think about it, and it is good Voltaire took Leibniz to task for it (every would-be theologian who wants to use that argument should read and think about Candide).
The deist would tell us God made the world so perfect he doesn't need to do anything more and just go away, hence he "rested" when creation was done and had been resting ever since. Thing is, though this fits the premise that everything that God does is perfect, it doesn't fit with the data very well.
There are other gods people have thought up. A King Log kind of god would allow suffering, not being motivated to do anything about it.
Or maybe suffering is just necessary for there to be good. Without it we would take all the good that happens for granted and not give god proper thanks when he give us a little relief now and then. That one really is a bit much when you think about it, and it is good Voltaire took Leibniz to task for it (every would-be theologian who wants to use that argument should read and think about Candide).
The deist would tell us God made the world so perfect he doesn't need to do anything more and just go away, hence he "rested" when creation was done and had been resting ever since. Thing is, though this fits the premise that everything that God does is perfect, it doesn't fit with the data very well.
Ancient slavery
All slavery is immoral. You can't whitewash owning another human being so easily, and you are a fool if you think the average slave was given anything more than just enough to keep them alive. Plenty of archaeological evidence testifies that slaves have never anywhere been well treated -- one can see it in their overworked early-death corpses.
The Romans treated Greeks they enslaved who were useful to them for education and entertainment relatively well, but with constant put downs and slights. Other slaves worked the mines or something similar for a couple years where they inevitably died.
Because something was always done doesn't make it right. Sheesh, man, think about it a little from basic principles of compassion and human aspiration.
The Romans treated Greeks they enslaved who were useful to them for education and entertainment relatively well, but with constant put downs and slights. Other slaves worked the mines or something similar for a couple years where they inevitably died.
Because something was always done doesn't make it right. Sheesh, man, think about it a little from basic principles of compassion and human aspiration.
Adam and Eve, the forbidden fruit, mans dominon over the animals
A comment about Adam and Eve. That story is one of the more mischievous and unfortunate tales in our culture.
It portrays snakes as evil and cursed animals.
It portrays women as conniving and as the initial source of sin in the world ("By Eve sin entered the world")
It portrays man as ruler of the animal kingdom, having been supposedly given dominion by God.
It portrays woman as made for man's benefit and after man was made.
It tells us of a God who creates a temptation (the forbidden tree) right in the center of the Garden where it would get a lot of attention, and then, being omniscient, full knowing that Adam and Eve would break the command, nevertheless condemns them to death after a life of toil and suffering for doing it.
It tells us of a God who further condemns all of man's descendants (and the rest of the animal world to boot) to death and suffering for this offense, even though the descendants had nothing to do with it.
It all is a bit too much for intelligent people able to see beyond childhood indoctrination. It is in fact laughable in its idiocy and primitiveness.
Worse, it is used by religions as an excuse for despoiling the environment, for dominating women, and puts snakes in a superstitious category.
It portrays snakes as evil and cursed animals.
It portrays women as conniving and as the initial source of sin in the world ("By Eve sin entered the world")
It portrays man as ruler of the animal kingdom, having been supposedly given dominion by God.
It portrays woman as made for man's benefit and after man was made.
It tells us of a God who creates a temptation (the forbidden tree) right in the center of the Garden where it would get a lot of attention, and then, being omniscient, full knowing that Adam and Eve would break the command, nevertheless condemns them to death after a life of toil and suffering for doing it.
It tells us of a God who further condemns all of man's descendants (and the rest of the animal world to boot) to death and suffering for this offense, even though the descendants had nothing to do with it.
It all is a bit too much for intelligent people able to see beyond childhood indoctrination. It is in fact laughable in its idiocy and primitiveness.
Worse, it is used by religions as an excuse for despoiling the environment, for dominating women, and puts snakes in a superstitious category.
Slavery and conscience
Slavery is an evil no matter what rational approach you take. It stymies economic development and invention, it involves "using" a human being (Kant), it certainly harms the slave in all sorts of ways, no matter how kind the master may be, and kind masters are rare.
That so many in history were able to rationalize it only proves that our conscience is not completely reliable as an ethical guide.
That so many in history were able to rationalize it only proves that our conscience is not completely reliable as an ethical guide.
Love and oxytosin
We evolved as social animals -- the chimpanzees and gorillas and especially the bonobos are also social animals, and the "love" they show is like the love in a pack of wolves -- a boon to survival of the pack and hence its members, excluding outsiders.
I don't think much of western "love." It is largely a Hollywood fantasy evolved from Western European romances.
When we see a child, especially our own, we fall in love with that baby because of a flood of a certain chemical (oxytosin) that floods our brain. It is all there to perpetuate the survival of our genes through that baby and be sure we care for it in spite of the problems and disruption to our lives it causes.
If you have ever tried oxytosin you realize how the emotion of love is just chemistry. For a short time one experiences delightful emotions of belonging and love for everyone around.
There is another emotion, compassion, that has a more interesting and puzzling source. We can learn compassion, and I think it is one of the foundations of morality. Still, it, too, and the altruism that accompanies it are closely associated with brain chemistry we evolved to help the species get on.
One other problem with "love" is that is seems to be so selective. We grieve when those close to us die, note the death of a celebrity with a certain regret, and don't even think about others in that regard. The dismissal I see from some characters who think themselves good people on this board of suffering of even children around the world,(in threads on global warming and on immigration and displaced people) is a good example of how essentially selfish the emotion of "love" generally is. It evolved that way and it takes getting above our animal natures for there to be true enlightened compassion, or "love" is one insists on that loaded word.
I don't think much of western "love." It is largely a Hollywood fantasy evolved from Western European romances.
When we see a child, especially our own, we fall in love with that baby because of a flood of a certain chemical (oxytosin) that floods our brain. It is all there to perpetuate the survival of our genes through that baby and be sure we care for it in spite of the problems and disruption to our lives it causes.
If you have ever tried oxytosin you realize how the emotion of love is just chemistry. For a short time one experiences delightful emotions of belonging and love for everyone around.
There is another emotion, compassion, that has a more interesting and puzzling source. We can learn compassion, and I think it is one of the foundations of morality. Still, it, too, and the altruism that accompanies it are closely associated with brain chemistry we evolved to help the species get on.
One other problem with "love" is that is seems to be so selective. We grieve when those close to us die, note the death of a celebrity with a certain regret, and don't even think about others in that regard. The dismissal I see from some characters who think themselves good people on this board of suffering of even children around the world,(in threads on global warming and on immigration and displaced people) is a good example of how essentially selfish the emotion of "love" generally is. It evolved that way and it takes getting above our animal natures for there to be true enlightened compassion, or "love" is one insists on that loaded word.
Sunday, January 17, 2016
Creationism and deep time
The biggest thing creationists can't get their heads around is time -- deep time. They keep saying idiotic things like we don't see chimps evolving into people.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)