Archive for the 'reason' Category

Why do the Morlocks still Clothe the Eloi?

(note to friends: I meant to post this way earlier but hadn’t had time to edit it down. That’s why it refers to events way past. But the point is still fresh)

As is my fashion, I read a book on the plane. I read Time Machine on the way to Japan and King Hrolf Kraki’s saga on the way back. I have nothing to say about the latter except it would make an awesome series of movies with endless sequels and that modern literature lacks the sheer succinctness of poets of old. Of the Time Machine, well, what can I say, it was awesome, as expected. I also wonder why I didn’t read it earlier. It’s exactly the kind of book I would have read as a teenager, though I was much more into Asimov and Clark back then.

What made H.G. Wells such an awesome sci-fi writer (aside from those qualities that made him just plain old a good writer) was his ability to suspend disbelief by bringing heavy doses of real science into his stories while he makes his political commentary. My disbelief is not so easily suspended (one reason I seldom enjoy movies), so of course the SciFi I like is hard sci-fi, though I can appreciate the preposterous if it is at least internally consistent (e.g., if the way magic works makes sense and the world is as it would be were there magic; Lovecraft did this better than anyone else). His science isn’t the point of the novel. It isn’t to warn of an eventuality, but to make a separate point. It’s the good (for the time) science that draws you into the tale. Continue reading ‘Why do the Morlocks still Clothe the Eloi?’

A [Mostly] Conservative Argument for Gay Marriage

You’ve all heard the social libertarian/liberal arguments for gay marriage. Tolerance, equal rights, blah blah. They are important and I believe in them, but they are the reasons I support gay marriage being legal. There are many things I believe shall be legal but do not approve of. It is clearly wrong to cheat on one’s spouse, yet few would be so paternalistic (un-libertarian) as to say that such a thing is the government’s business, for example. However, not only do I support gay marriage being legal on basic social libertarian grounds, I approve of gay marriage and these reasons why are what I call my conservative argument for gay marriage. Of course, no one needs my approval to get married, but that’s getting back to the standard liberal arguments you’ve already heard. Continue reading ‘A [Mostly] Conservative Argument for Gay Marriage’

Challenge for Racialists

Explain how a group could be said to have rights that could in any way trump individuals’ rights.

There is a tribe of Asian pygmies called the T’rung – the only of a kind (all other pygmy groups are either Sub-Saharan African or Australoid/Oceanic). There are very few left and I don’t know the number, but let’s say for argument’s sake, there are only 10 left. Which is worse, killing all 10 of them or killing 100 Han Chinese people (who have no risk of perishing as an ethnic group from a mere 100 deaths)? It seems obvious to me, the answer is killing 100 people is worse than killing 10 people. The only thing that could differentiate between one death and another would be the circumstances (I’d rather be one of Stalin’s dead than Hitler’s death camp dead). Arne Naess, in his Ecosophy T doesn’t even hold species to hold rights, though he is of course the biggest advocate of preserving biodiversity for its own ends, not only ours.

Can races have rights? I think not, but a lot of people all over the political spectrum (united in their racialism) seem to think otherwise. Why should the Holocaust only refer to the half (or less, depending on the estimate) that were killed that happened to be Jewish? Why do racialists of every color and type cringe at the sight of miscegenation? Explain or forever hold your peace!

“No Offense But…”

Don’t you hate that phrase? It’s usually what people say before they say something incredibly offensive. What they really mean when they say it is “this is going to make you become so enraged and I want to watch it and I like to be ironic in saying no offense! yessssss.” I enjoy saying it before phrases like “you smell like gorilla’s arsehole” or “you’re not going anywhere, everything in your life sucks entirely because you suck and I hate you. Furthermore, you smell like a gorilla’s asshole”

Anyway, this has nothing to do with Miss California. I really don’t care what a beauty pageant’s political opinion is, nor which oversensitive makeup artist(s) she offended by expressing an opinion that is, though evil, hardly unusual. It’s not like she claimed that Italian Jews (pizza-bagels) have a secret plot to keep Americans fat (well, everyone believes it, but no one is crazy enough to actually go out and say it).

A Vegan for Animal Employment

Probably the primary difference I have with the Vegan society’s official views is that I am not unilaterally opposed to animal employment (I do consume honey, though I’d like some guidelines on humane practices for honey manufacture in place, such as a third-party certification body). I couldn’t approve of myself working. If rights vary from species to species, there must be a difference in needs and capacities behind it. With the acceptability of human labor necessarily comes that of other animals that can have at least a primitive sense of purpose. I’ll illustrate by example, rather than laboring an explanation (as is my fashion):

Though the numbers are low (but not low enough), great apes continue to be used for entertainment. Once they are no longer needed, someone must take care of them. The best place for an ape (or any animal!) is its natural habitat, but since being out of the wild often makes such impossible to adjust to, the next best thing is to be in a situation that has some sense of purpose in it, even if that means *shock* working.

Chimps and such are smart enough that having food and shelter but nothing to do is a punishment, just like it is for humans. Though the situation shouldn’t happen in the first place, given that it does, I would like to see more chimps being given jobs instead of just being some rich weirdo’s hobby. They’re certainly smart enough to do union jobs (I hope some unionized construction worker doesn’t read this and kick my ass…) Half-joking aside, there is a wide array of tasks that are simple enough for apes, even monkeys to do. They have good manual dexterity. Provided similar regulations as for human workers are in place, I do not see the issue of employing non-human animals when the alternative is to be a neglected pet.

I would not want an industry made of this and, as with human workers, basic regulations are necessary (I’m not a fan of regulations in general, but certain basal requirements must the there and you’d have to be stupidly purist in your libertarianism to be against, e.g., child labor laws). Also, the biggest hole in my argument is compensation. The reason I say human experiments are better than animal experiments is that humans can be paid and given a sense of importance. Chimps? Squat. So the only way I have around it, beyond reiterating the caveat that this is only for situations where the alternatives are worse, is to suggest that the work must somehow be fun for the animal. I, for one, refuse to work unless I get at least some enjoyment out of it. Call me a lazy bastard.

Open Source » Blog Archive » Dan Ariely: Confronting Irrationality

Open Source » Blog Archive » Dan Ariely: Confronting Irrationality

Here’s a good talk on radio open source (an island of interestingness in a vast sea of trying to make a routine election sound like an earth-shaking event – it’s not, people!!!) Ariely talks about how we should take into account limits of human rationality when deciding public policy and dealing with disputes. This is a pretty obvious idea, yet no one seems to be willing to accept it. Why? Is it creepy to think of our brains as somehow flawed? His analogy of how we make mittens for hands prone to cold to how we should adjust policy to how brains really work (not outmoded models about how they work) is quite apt.

This science of studying human irrationality (psychology, heh), combined with recent advances in game theory, represent a new frontier in bringing about positive social change. Social philosophies are no longer bounded to primitive psychology and sociology that is just-almost-right-but-not-quite. Marx’s logic was quite sound, but he missed important points about human nature. Now that we are understanding more and more where people make solid decisions and where they don’t, and we have models for how games are played rationally with competing interests, we can develop theories of history that are for once accurate! We can harness the same forces that make Americans obese and put them to positive use (like making Americans thin).

The flip side is that these sciences also represent new frontiers in controlling people. It’s no secret that businesses use consumer irrationality to derive profit (supersize for 50 cents.. you don’t really want all that extra food and yet…) and missionaries utilize the fact that a vast distance between carrot and stick convinces absolutely, even without a shred of evidence for the carrot nor the stick (there I go knocking on missionaries again. I’m on a roll!) and so on… People are pretty immune to these things once the trick is discovered, but I can’t help but fear for what will happen when the tyrannical entities of the world (like the “People’s” Republic of China) become all the more sophisticated…

Love the one you’re with…

I was talking to a Japanese friend of mine, and she gave some good advice to me, using this idiom:

遠くの親族より近くの他人
tooku no shinzoku yori, chikaku no tanin

It renders awkwardly into English. The best translation I can come up with is “hold more important the stranger who is near than your relatives who are far away.” I destroyed the delicious succinctness of the original, but at least it sounds all proverb-y, right?

I won’t reveal the context of the conversation, lest I reveal awkward personal details, but it got me thinking. It is a good saying. You should give more heed to those close to you, since they are your new family in a sense. But why is it? The answer leads to my main point of disagreement with Peter Singer…

I owe it to myself to help myself, of course. And I owe it to other people to do what is in their best interests or at least not harm them (I extend this to anything that feels, but let’s not go there right now). The easiest people to help will generally be those the closest to me. Meaning, I can enhance their lives greatly with less effort than it takes to only slightly help those far away.

This is the problem with Singer’s utilitarian scheme: I don’t know enough about the situation to know when
what I’m doing is equivalent to pulling a lever and letting the train hit a Bangladeshi child instead of my 2nd home in Vancouver (note: I don’t have a 2nd home in VC, but that would be awesome!) And yes, I should do what I can to learn and understand more often and help more than those close to me. HOWEVER, my intuition, granted by millions of years (at least) of social evolution, that it’s more efficient to help those near me, those whose problems I am made most aware and understand most intricately, will tend to be correct on more often than not. I’m not wrong for wanting to help my neighbor, and placing more energy into that than to donating to Bill & Melinda Gates (not that I shouldn’t donate anything whatsoever).

The second main thing is this: emphasize connections that do exist over those you think should. Don’t forget those you spend the most time with, those who you’ve formed real bonds with and influence (and be influenced by) every day. This is a good point to raise to any left-wing racialist (i.e., the type found in Black communities, as well as Eurocentrist neo-pagan circles) – you may deem some man you truly have nothing to do with in Zimbabwe your “brudda”, but just maybe whity me is much more truly your brudda.

</rant>

Oh yes, enjoy…

The Ethic of Stinge [sic]

Wise men sing, the praise of largess,
As do kind men say, but surely they jest!

I can only save one bloated African,
I durst not save the unattractive one!

In my day, I have only so much time,
Woe would be I, if I just analyzed a dime!

Christ boasts oft about his love for all
But love is a heart cut out of a sheet
Am I the heart, or am I the sheet?

Can I Jesus a thousand women,
when one exhausts my money, and 5, my semen?

For to belong, you see, is to be included,
While the universe of others is excluded

(for I desire not, but a sip of your wine,
Unless I can have a goblet that’s mine)

Nature, too, is a masterful miser,
from great bear to wily spider

No creature takes shape that fills all space,
nor all of time, beyond its own race

Look around, and see:
Much enters, but none leaves the sea
and
The three toes of the sloth,
The dull colour of the moth,
The useless eyes of the mole,
The numbered days of the tail on the tadpole,
The small size of a chigger?
Realize, my friend, that God is a niggard

Devil’s Advocate

[Wo]men of reason bitch oft about the destroyers of reason – people who pay scientists to fudge their reports in disfavor of human impact on climate change, people who try to downplay evolution’s importance in shaping life on this planet, holocaust deniers and so on.

The end result, however, is ultimately a deeper understanding. Those who strain to come up with any minute flaw in generally accepted ideas will actually contribute to it as a very passionate and crazed devil’s advocate. In this way, our understanding of climate, biology and history will only deepen. Indeed, last year saw strides in evolution and biology and I can’t help but think evolution “skeptics” had a role to play in this.

Grizzly Woman

Why is the idealist so frustrated? Why can’t she find reasonable compromise with the rest of the world? Because her fetus, animal, starving child, tree is like a family member. But, consider this (read if you are an idealist!):

You are camping in the woods with your family, when suddenly a hungry Grizzly Bear storms into camp. He comes to YOU and says, “I am very hungry and I crave delicious human flesh. But, I am fair, so I will let you choose who I will eat. I’m only hungry enough for one person. But, if you try to stop me or don’t select who I shall eat, I will eat someone at random and kill one more out of spite. God help you if you are one of the survivors”.

And what does the idealist choose time and time again? “You are a monster bear! You have no right to eat us! We are outraged.” And we all know the obvious answer is to choose yourself or, the jerk of the family everyone hates *evil grin*.

Refusal to talk with the “enemy”, refusal to prioritize with that which is most treasured, and refusal compromise get the idealist and the very thing they are fighting for time after time.

Ethics

When you speak of ethics, please don’t delude yourself into thinking ethics exist in the most literal sense. Remember that what you are doing is coming up with good rules for you to follow, not discovering universal ethical principles. I have no doubt that making a solid set of ethics for you to follow is the right thing to do, but it is only because it is the right thing to do.

Science

Everyone has her own crazy ideas
And most of them are wrong
But they all contribute in their own way
Their own part of the song

Every fallacy they had,
Is one more we shall not,
And every detail they found, however stupid,
Is the foundation from which we build atop

Some may push fallacious ideas,
But these will always fall to the ideas that work
For you cannot build a building with snake oil
Nor plow fields with “intelligent design”

Standing on the Shoulders of 1st graders

You are not standing on the shoulders of giants, Messrs. Newton. No, you are a midget standing on the shoulders of another midget standing on the shoulders of another midget and so on.. all the way back to the first half-wit that thought it made sense to beat rocks together and make sparks. (We’re all links in a chain. Promote yoursef, Mr. Scientist! Or get lost in history.)

Computers

When computers get smart enough, the efficient, but limiting occam’s razor will no longer be necessary. We will be able to exhaust every single possibility because sometimes, midget lepers do win a million dollars.

Arguments

Attacks of moral philosophies usually involve drawing up a scenario in which the philosophy allows “unconscionable” things. What makes something “unconscionable”? It seems really as if we are just trying to derive a formula that approximates best the curve that we all already built – culture.