Cause(s) of homosexuality

It is a difficult subject to get people to be objective about.  Many see it as sinful or some other such bigotry, and therefore such people can be dismissed out of hand.

On the other side of the coin, however, homosexuality does need explaining.  It would not seem, at least on the surface, to be something natural selection would allow.  The claim that it is just a matter of taste is well known to be false; homosexuals (and other flavors of human sexuality) are not chosen -- people are born with it, and, at least for males, the trait seems to come from the mother.

One interesting theory, based on the observation of females maintaining the "genes" for the trait in the population (since until recently women rarely had much choice in childbearing so even gay women would have children) is that mothers of gay men tend to have more children than normal -- not by a lot but enough to keep the tendency in the pool.

This is but one of a whole class of theories that speculate there is some offsetting advantage for the homosexual traits -- better birth term survival, more robust babies, and, as described above, mothers who for some reason have more children.

There is also a set of theories that involve survival of hunter-gatherer cultures -- ideas like the homosexual (again, the male) serving a special role (shaman, pseudo-woman, etc.) and therefore allowing the other males to leave the group for extended periods without fear of being cuckolded.  (Personally I find this one a bit of a stretch).

Agnostics and atheists

I suppose it isn't how most people see the word, but technically an "agnostic" is a form or category of atheist.  An "atheist" does not believe in God, and neither does an agnostic.

Of course there are other kinds of atheist, so agnostic is a useful word for those who either say we don't know or maybe say we can't know.  I would subscribe to the latter, since it seems to me that to be "God" a being would have to be infinite and so far beyond us that knowledge, even revelatory knowledge, would be beyond our possibility of understanding.

The reason I tend instead to be a more standard atheist is that I see no need for such a hypothesis, and no reason to think it might be true.  It is possible but lots of things are possible, and we don't believe things just because they are possible.

Politics and energy technology

The efforts of the energy companies, mainly oil and coal, to prevent substitution of their products with renewable energy (and deny the problems their products cause) put me in mind of the efforts of the tobacco companies and now the soft drink companies to deny and hide the problems of their products.  It's enough to make one a socialist, except socialist enterprises are no better.  To rise to the top of a large business requires a certain ruthlessness, amorality, and willingness to put profit ahead of people.

The only solution has to be political (regulation, subsidies for alternatives to jump start them, etc.).  Unfortunately the established businesses have lots of resources and lobbyists and, well, after the mess the Americans just created in the world, a lot of foolish voters easily taken in by propaganda.
Who knows, we may get lucky and technology come along that simply out-competes the established firms on its own.  This could happen, and there are signs it may happen, but I continue to fear the political power of the political right to prevent a switch-over even then.

Jesus and other religious founders as myth

The details of the lives and teachings of the great religious tradition founders is almost entirely myth, except maybe Mohamed and Joseph Smith, who more likely were pious frauds, one to justify brigandry and the other for psychological reasons.

It is not necessary for a kernel of a real person to have existed for there to arise a body of myth about a person.  That is to say, King Arthur did not exist, much as some people try to find something, anything, for it.

At the same time, it is also possible for the kernel to have really existed, as is almost certainly the case with Confucius, Lao Tse, and Gautama the Buddha.  That does not mean, however, that we need take all or even most of the stories about these figures at face value.  Myths can exist about real people.

I think "Jesus" of Christianity was pure myth, mainly because he doesn't appear in writing for about a century after he is supposed to have been around, and the stories are, to those informed and honest about it (especially to themselves) conflicting and out of touch with real history and geography.  Still, the possibility is there -- the thing is, it makes no real difference whether the myth is the man himself or only the stories and teaching about him.  Either way we end up with nothing but sand for the religious edifice.

Life and Death in the Boondocks

It is interesting that most (if not, in fact, all) people can see situations where they would rather die than extend their lives a short while.  This involves considerations of quality of life but it also to very many involves considerations of cost and of difficulty for others.

When I decided to take residence in a place far out of town, where it takes a couple hours to get into town over largely dirt roads and without a hint of emergency service of any sort, my friends were astonished -- "What if you have a heart attack or something?"

Well, I have taken some measures, but I figure the money I save, the peace and quiet and clean air and beautiful surroundings I now live in make it a worthwhile trade, especially since I seriously doubt that any condition I can't survive for at least a couple hours getting me to hospital would be a condition I would want to survive anyway.  Using up my estate on keeping me alive in hospital and probably in pain for a few extra weeks, or in a comatose condition for however long, does not seem a reasonable deal.

Of course there are two elements that need thinking about in this context.  One is that illness is complex, and there are many disabling and even painful illnesses that still warrant continuing.  The second is that death is it.  Death is for eternity -- one is no more -- and this has a scary effect if not put in perspective.  It is not something to rush into.

Wild guess philosophy of time

There is time as measured on a clock and there is subjective time.  

There is no reason for us to think that the measurements we make aren't of something real, as part of a larger reality we call space-time, and obeying the Lorentz transformations, which goes to show me our understanding of it has to be remarkably deep.  That doesn't mean subjective time is real -- it is an experience invented by our brain, using our experienced knowledge of how long things typically take to happen.

I think of time as quantized to unbelievably short moment intervals (Plank time or less), with nothing between them (each such moment ceases to exist and the next one takes its place).  They are like moves on a chessboard.  Each move is influenced by what has already happened, but still also has elements of will and of chance in it, but always must obey certain rules we call laws of nature.

Nincompoop Presidential appointments

I wonder; I know of several generals and retired generals and quite a number of large corporation presidents and retired presidents Trump has taken into his administration, but I can't think of anyone from the academic world.  Maybe there have been and it escaped me.

Still, it tends, along with global warming being a Chinese fraud, and the impoverished vocabulary, and the rabid anti-intellectualism repeatedly expressed in his rallies and roundly cheered, if maybe, just maybe, the US has elected an ignorant, stupid nincompoop.

Prime numbers

It might be worth reminding ourselves that there can be no largest prime number, only (as already noted above) a largest known prime.  The implication worth contemplating in this context is that no matter how many gazillion digits a prime number has, it is infinitesimally small (indistinguishable from zero if looked at from far enough away) compared to all the primes that exist.

It is also interesting that, although we have to admit the prime numbers, on average, steadily get further and further apart, there is nevertheless an infinite number of them separated by any given even number, even two.  (Primes can't be separated by an odd number since an odd plus another odd number always produces an even number, and even numbers are by definition composite).

Another mind-boggler -- the occurrence of primes in the number sequence seems, by every test we can imagine, to be random, but, of course, it can't be random, as it has to be something determined.

Man the Hunter

When I was in college we were taught all about "man the hunter," the males going out and bringing back the big game and the women collecting the veggies.

It now appears that the reality could not have been more wrong -- that only in the last 20,000 years or so have humans had the technology to bring down big game at all, and that previous associations with such animals were examples of human scavenging.  While "hunter-gatherer" societies did sometimes get small game, like maybe a rabbit or two, mankind did not evolve as the hunter but as the scavenger and root digger, and both men and women participated in both.

It is true some people get a thrill out of killing an animal.  I feel sorry for them and their karma.

Is God evil?

Thanks for that -- you make an important and profound point --"the more we justify suffering the less basis we have for saying something is evil at all."

Some religions don't identify suffering as the definition of evil, but, instead, violation of certain rules, allegedly provided by God.  It is hard to deal with that.  Why does God make such rules?  If it is because they are wrong in themselves, then God's inserting himself is of no meaning -- they would be wrong anyway.  If it is because he simply decides on some ineffable basis, then what happens if someday he changes his mind?

(This of course is an ancient argument from Plato).

It seems that suffering is really the only possible meaningful definition of evil, in which case, since God created a world so full of suffering (in fact the main operating of creation -- natural selection -- depends on suffering and death as its driving force), aren't we forced in the end to say that God is evil? 

Of course there are also good things in the world, so one can say God is doing the best he can, but for good to exist evil must also exist.  That is probably true, but then why do we need God in the picture at all?

Trump and Putin's propaganda

I noted an extensive article in this morning's Washington Post about how the Russian propaganda machine was extremely (an adverb I try to avoid but which fits here) active in spreading false stories about Clinton during the campaign, and how it seems Trump's people, at a minimum, did nothing to discourage it.

One wonders why.  Some possibilities, not to be taken too seriously, are that Putin sees in Trump an incompetent he can manipulate or maybe a fellow kleptrocrat he can cooperate with in mutual self-enrichment (what is it -- Trump will enter the White House with millions and leave with billions upon billions)?

It is ironic, at the least, that those who paint themselves most patriotic among Americans here buy this propaganda and push it along.  Some of it is no doubt their naiveté, but I have to say I wonder about those who also regularly post misinformation about how the rebels in Syria are all ISIS and the Russians are not engaging in atrocities -- and similar stuff about Ukraine.

We need to be aware that Putin is corrupt and ignores international standards and is a bald-faced liar.  I tend to think about the same regarding Trump, but am going to have to give him the benefit of the doubt for at least a few months.

Recognizing propaganda

There are two general categories of unfair debate -- what is called propaganda, and, of course, logical fallacies.  It occurs to me that people don't seem to know how to recognize these.  There are web sites that can be found in any search to help.

Basically, propaganda uses non-rational, emotional appeal.  This is often negative (name calling, talking down to people, personal insults, attacking the person and their history rather than what they say, dismissive labeling, and others).  They can also be positive (patriotic symbols and music, religious appeals, quotes of famous people, and others.  Far and away the most effective form of propaganda is the lie -- disinformation -- invented stuff repeated over and over and made to appear legit.  To defend oneself from this sort of thing requires identifying sources of misinformation by being widely read over a broad political spectrum.

One other form of propaganda is "band-wagon," where a partisan group gang up on individuals who have other views.  It does not work, folks, except for those worried overmuch about what others think.

I won't go into logical fallacies here, although I sure see a lot of those too.  It amazes me, and I have to think that a lot of the people around here haven't had much education or they would know better.

Trump reversals

According to the LA Times this morning, yesterday Trump compromised on at least three issues.

First, he said he had been persuaded that torture was ineffective and that other methods work better -- torture only generates fabrications, not truth.  I would wish he would address the moral issue here -- that the appeal of torture seems to be sadistic and revenge impulses in the interrogator and has no scientific basis, and, more significantly, is wrong.

Second, he backed off on prosecuting Mrs. Clinton, saying she had suffered enough and that the Clinton Trust actually does a good deal of good.  This is really nothing more than an admission that the Big Lie he based his campaign (that Mrs. Clinton is "evil") and apparently won the Presidency on is false.  He would in fact, or at least should in fact, have no influence on whether there are prosecutions or not -- this is supposed to be done in a non-political way by the attorneys investigating -- and it would seem that no prosecutions are in the offing.  Putting it in terms of having "mercy" on the Clintons is transparent and outrageous, after the way he conducted the campaign. 

Third, now he says he has an "open mind" about global warming and that US withdrawal from recent warming agreements will not be automatic.  That is perhaps the most encouraging thing of all, since the consequences of his sticking with his prior unscientific attitudes could lead to disaster for future generations.

Qualia and Chemicals

I think it might be useful to insert a distinction here between "it's just chemicals" and "it's real."  Chemicals are real enough, and there is a reason the chemicals are there, but the presence of the chemicals might not be the cause but a result.

What we do think we know is that we "experience" things (known as "qualia" -- emotions, sensations, an ongoing narrative of the world).  It has been realized by introspective people from ancient times that none of this can possibly be "real" in the usual and intuitive sense of the world -- that our experience is not real but generated somewhere -- moderns assume in the brain.  About the best we can say is that the ongoing narrative of our experience is a useful interface between the outside world and ourselves -- like the odometer on a car is not "real speed" but just an interface telling us about the car's real speed.

Evolutionary fact and evolutionary theory

I wince when I see expressions like, "scientific fact."  It implies something determined beyond doubt that could never be questioned or modified.  I realize that when a scientist says it, he means something a bit different, but it is misleading regardless.

The best word in my opinion is "theory." Scientific theories are models of the world that explain in terms we understand what we observe -- the data.  There is atomic theory, genetic theory, germ theory, quantum theory, and so on.  Sometimes they are readily understood, sometimes they are not, and require us to just accept the fact that the theory makes predictions that can be tested and check out.

By the way, I do think evolutionary theory is so supported by all the biological and geological and genetic evidence that it is as close to "fact" as is humanly possible.

Trump's effects

In all Trump will probably be good for the economy.  He will reduce environmental regulation (it is feared to the harm of the environment and an increase in global warming), increase regulations on unions (it is feared to the point they will have no ability to change exploitive situations), eliminate all sorts of consumer protection regulations and so on and on.  This will happen mostly unseen by changes in rules and in the attitude toward their enforcement, but will tend to help the economy, at least short term, so there may be some growth.

However, it also appears there will be a surge in wasteful spending, on military boondoggles and, of course, on The Wall.  A lot of bridges and such will no doubt be built, some needed, but things less visible, such as water pipes and sewage disposal systems, will continue to be pushed aside.

Then there is trade policy.  If things go according to the rhetoric, a trade war with Mexico and China is in the offing, if not the rest of the world.  What seems to be forgotten is that these countries can retaliate.  Also, of course, such a policy is tailor made to increase China's trade and other economic influence with Latin America, Africa and Asia.  If carried far enough, it could precipitate a world-wide depression.

What worries me most however is social.  That women will lose the right to an abortion seems inevitable -- not just in states that want to do so but via Federal regulation of medical practice.  That gays may lose the right to marry also seems, for similar reasons, likely, even though Trump himself has pretty much avoided the issue.   It will be done by his appointees in small steps.  Of course immigrants, even legal ones, will lose most of their rights, and will end up living under a constant shadow of the threat of challenge (even when they produce papers, this sort of disturbance will cause many employers to terminate, just to avoid attention).

  

Not just immigrants, too, but Muslims (how about Jews, Catholics, Mormons, atheists) will live in a shadow, and, of course, blacks will have it hard.  Nothing official mind you -- just selectivity in the enforcement of existing laws and their interpretation will be enough.

There is also the right to vote.  I can see identification laws applied like Florida tried to apply, designed to see to it that only whites vote.

Love versus oxytocin

I have a split with myself over this.  The pleasure of a life partner to share things with and to raise children with is not to be denied.  Of course children are not the only reason for marriage -- a life partner, solemnized by ritual and recognized by family and community, is precious by itself.

Still, the knowledge that it is mainly oxytocin behind these feelings helps us keep a certain detachment, in the realization that no pleasure is permanent and all ultimately ends in frustration.  Our wife dies, our children disappoint us, we disappoint our children, and when we die we desperately desire to restore what we had, but cannot (or maybe we don't -- that one is still in the air.  

Balance is needed -- to prevent our detachment from making it too easy to abandon relationships and love making it too hard when the relationship dissolves regardless.