The truth is a crafty witch
She will make the path easy
She will render the path not
She will make poor you feel rich

Beware the cheap seduction
Don’t feel you needn’t cover
Your each and every base
Though she found you paths verdant
It will just as soon deface
And you find you have nothing

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.

Even if you’ve never read Time Machine, there’s a good chance you’ve heard about what the time traveler finds in the future – mankind split into two separate species, one descended from the upper classes and one from the lower classes, the Eloi and the Morlocks, respectively. Aspects of the old relationship persist with the Morlocks creating everything and maintaining infrastructure for the Eloi, but with a twist – the Eloi are food for the Morlocks. The relationship has become something like cattle raised for slaughter. Both species have lost strength (and size) and intelligence compared to mankind now, but the Eloi much more so.

Thinking like a biologist [in training], the main thing that was nagging at me after reading the book was the explanation for why the Morlocks still clothe the Eloi. It was brushed off as vestigial behavior. That could be the case, but if it is so, it would have to be on its way out as it is expensive (what isn’t? Nature is a Miser) and will go away rather quickly in evolutionary time with the selective pressures for relaxed. But that’s not satisfying for me, since this makes a big part of the plot vestigial. The whole story is resting on a tail bone.

One explanation could be simply cultural. The Morlocks and the Eloi are at least smart enough to have language, and the Morlocks are smart enough to maintain infrastructure. Any instincts aside, Morlocks will continue the practice of clothing the Eloi as long as not doing so will make the Eloi lose any incentive to breed and be complacent. There can always be break-downs in Morlock society, though, as more and more Morlocks selfishly shirk their duties to Morlock-kind for personal gain. Given that global thinking evades their kind, one can be pretty sure it will happen, provided their care of the Eloi is a cultural practice they understand. It basically goes to game theory with all the players having marginal intelligence.

Alternatively, if the behavior is strictly instinctual (like the book implies), we are getting into evolutionary stable strategies. If it benefits an individual Morlock to shirk its Eloi-clothing responsibilities, there will be that pressure on being a selfish bastard who leaves the Eloi in their birthday suits, even if it threatens the survival of the species. There could be kin selection where such behavior is selected since it benefits others who carry the gene, but if there are variants where a group of Morlocks steal Eloi from rival bands (there’s no talk of tribes of Morlocks in the book, but given primate behavior, it’s a certainty), that would be selected for. If it is the case that being selfish always pays and there is no equilibrium where being more selfish is to one’s detriment (unlikely, since in primate culture, there’s social reciprocity), then individuals will strive for personal gain until the last Morlock is starving from uncared for Eloi failing to mate or running away when it’s light out.

Perhaps it is the fate of the Morlocks to go extinct. Indeed, in a section that the publisher had Wells add to the book (and he disagreed and won in the end) that showed the next stage in human evolution, there were no Morlocks in sight, but some small hopping animals descended from Eloi (The Grey Man). Perhaps the time traveler happened upon a collapse? Hmmm…

One bad argument for gay marriage is “homosexuality is not a choice.” Granted, it is not. For those exclusively attracted to the same sex, there is nothing they can nor should do to change that (I would add, though, that those attracted to both sexes, bisexuals outnumber homosexuals about 10 to 1, and for these people, you could say it is a choice). Indeed, more and more religious organizations that once had the position that homosexuality should be “cured” have modified their position to that the person should live a life of chastity (although some religious organizations had that stance all along). Therefore, gay marriage should only be rejected socially if it is harmful to society, so the task of opponents is to demonstrate that it is harmful to society or that it is harmful to children to have two mothers (when children of just one mother and no father turn out fine). Studies so far have failed to find substantial ill effects.

Opponents of extending marriage to homosexuals always note – correctly – the importance of familes in society. Families are where children are created and transformed into adults, forming the next generation. They say that a marriage is to create and raise children. However, this overly-idealistic fantasy is a slap in the face to a group of people who are rather important in society – infertile couples. They meet only the second mandate – raise children, which is rather important because many, many people (such as teenagers, particularly in places like Texas, I delight to point out) supply only the first and not the second. Homosexual couples are simply a category of infertile couples. If adoption agencies are consistent, fair and accurate in their assessment of potential adoptors’ suitability, there is no risk of homosexual parents being in any way harmful, though there may be a slight correlation between homosexuality and mental illness (presumably to having faced internal conflicts and discrimination growing up). We wouldn’t take the right of marriage away from fundamentalist Christians if we proved that such upbringing was slightly more likely to be harmful to children, would we?

Conservativism is supposed to be reality-based, not fantasy-based. Liberalism, on the other hand, is about well-thought out visions about the future; Conservatives have the job, then, of putting these ideas through the wringer. However, when conservatives are just superstitious or have unrealistic ideals, they are no longer conservatives but instead reactionaries. When people say “every child has a right to be raised by one man and one woman,” that is promoting a ridiculous view of the world while insulting single parents everywhere. The worst is when they say, “every kid has the right to be raised by the parents who created them.” In the real world, parents die, parents go to jail or otherwise are unwilling to take care of what they created. Also, parents split up and find someone else. If a woman is in an abusive marriage with children, she wants to leave and take custody of the children. If she finds someone else and falls in love, then it is only natural to marry that person and raise kids with that person. If the person happens to be man, the new union has the government’s support, but if the person is a woman, then the new couple will not have all the tools they need to rebuild the family. Custody, among other things, will be a challenge.

Lastly, conservatives understandably oppose the lifestyle of some gay males who happen to be more promiscuous. I don’t see anything inherently immoral about promiscuity itself (provided there is no dishonesty involved) but I do say it is vastly better to seek the more meaningul experiences of a trusting monogamous relationship, though human nature is too oft to seek immediate pleasure instead (as Mill says, “if happiness is to be got, it must be forgot”). Furthermore, if one wishes to lead such a lifestyle, great care must be taken to avoid the evils of dishonesty (i.e., full disclosure), sexually transmitted disease and unwanted pregnancies. Regardless, supporting gay marriage isn’t supporting this behavior conservatives find objectionable. Rather, it is supporting the alternative, monogamy. If it is the government’s business to regulate marriage, then the legal tools it affords opposite-sex couples shall be extended to same-sex couples.

One last disclaimer I must add. I am not for the institution of marriage itself. It’s social engineering on the part of the government to bribe people to marry and have kids. Well, we have enough people now, so they can stop. The Libertarian position on gay marriage is to simply say that marriage should be abolished altogether and leave it up to whatever church or secular institution to determine if someone is married or not. I basically agree with this, however I think it is the pansy Libertarian position to, knowing that this is unlikely to happen, not fight so that this same thing can be available to all, particularly when it does really have an effect with regards to immigration. Getting a green card was so easy for me and my wife. If I was a woman or she a man, it would not be so, thanks to the DOMA (defense of marriage act), something Obama had promised to get rid of but has yet to. That’s simply not fair. California gives most of the same rights, but simply aren’t allowed to grant that, as it is a federal thing.

That is all. No one ever indulged me in my challenge to a debate about this, so I just had to let it all out as a blog post. I hope you enjoyed reading it, regardless of whether you agree with me (but you should agree with me, unless you are evil). If you do wanna debate, bring it on, bitch!

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!

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).

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.

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…

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…

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

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.