Another Day on the Big Rock

Changing the World

2007-05-22T20:16:00.000+02:00

You can argue forever about philosophy and the meaning of life. But someone who has really figured it all out should be able to prove it through their actions. If you really know how the world should work your example should encourage others to follow your lead. One who truly understands the game should be able to win it.

Response to Manny

2006-05-14T04:35:00.000+02:00

The post by Manny is an excellent example of what I’ve found wrong with ‘objectivist’ thought. His comments display all the symptoms that I alluded to earlier and those symptoms must now be addressed. He stands on a pulpit of supposed moral superiority and passes down his dogma. But I have to wonder, to what extent has Manny truly scrutinized the morality of his supported actions? I feel compelled to go point by point through his comments and examine where I believe he has gone astray.

-Environmentalism-

To begin, his claims about environmentalism demonstrate a lack of understanding regarding what environmentalism, or at least the sub-category of sustainable developmentalism, actually stands for. Environmentalism does not ask people of the present to choose between their own survival and the happiness of people 100 years from now. The primary concern of true environmentalism is, and has always been, the health, safety and happiness of the people who are alive today. It is true however that environmentalism acknowledges that in 100 years people will exist, and environmentalism does indeed take the impacts on these future individuals into consideration. But this consideration for future generations is not made out of a sense of altruism, as Manny implies, this consideration is made out of selfish need to ensure the survival of one’s own progeny while adhering to basic principles of justice. Environmentalism does not ask people of the present to sacrifice for the future, but it realizes that it would be immoral to require that the individuals of the future sacrifice for us.

As an environmentalist I may live my life in whatever way I see fit, using my resources in whatever manner I deem most valuable, but I may not allow my actions to impinge on the health, safety or survival of anyone else, present or future. I do this to satisfy my own selfish desire to have my children and grandchildren live in a clean safe world, and in acceptance of the fact that any attack on the health and safety of others is inherently immoral.

I see no reason why this definition of environmentalism would not be supported by any objectivist, it is simply a statement of beliefs which they supposedly adhere to already. The question of which actions are damaging to others is certainly open to debate, but to reject the environmentalist viewpoint outright is simply misguided and, dare I say it, irrational. If an objectivist were to examine every environmental issue on its own merits, on a case by case basis, I believe he would find the adverse impact his actions have on others to be quite significant. And while it may be an inconvenience, or it may hurt profits, I believe he would conclude that it is our moral obligation to tread on this world as lightly as possible. I simply hope that rational individuals will no longer throw out an argument for a potentially beneficial policy simply because it is supported by environmentalists. If nothing else, I hope they consider the benefits they and their children could enjoy from a more sound environmental policy.

Interestingly, the issue Manny uses as an example, drilling for oil in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge, isn’t an environmental issue per se under this definition. There are no individuals whose health and safety would be directly damaged nor guaranteed by drilling for oil in ANWAR. This issue, as well as many other conservationist issues, is more correctly defined as a debate of economic value rather than a debate of moral obligation.

As it stands now ANWAR is owned by the US government, and so what is to be done with ANWAR is decided by the will of US citizens. We use our ‘majority rules’ system of governance, as flawed as it may be, to decide which we collectively value more, a slightly lower price for gasoline or a parcel of completely untouched wilderness. But aside from ownership, nothing of moral obligation really enters into the arguments over ANWAR. What we are actually talking about is what the land is worth to all of us as a whole, or at least to the majority of us. (I would like to point out here that our moral justification for ownership of this land is somewhat tenuous, as is the justification for our ownership of most land in the US, but that is a debate for another day.)

For me personally the benefits of drilling in ANWAR are not worth the costs, and fortunately the majority agrees with me for the time being. To come to this conclusion I have considered only my own personal happiness and welfare. Since the health and safety of others is not in danger, it is not a moral obligation for me to consider the wishes of anyone else. In fact, any altruistic consideration of other people’s desires would be immoral by objectivist standards. What I do consider is what would make me happier, a temporary a 10 cent per gallon reduction in the price of gasoline for a year or the indefinite survival of an untouched wilderness. To me 10 cents per gallon means practically nothing, but knowing that ANWAR will exist undisturbed throughout my lifetime and into the lifetime of my children brings me continual happiness.

To explain why an untouched ANWAR makes me happy, and for that matter why all wilderness areas make me happy, I must delve into the concept of ‘existence value.’ It is true that I may never see ANWAR with my own eyes, and that I may never receive economic benefit from its existence, yet to me it still has great value. Just knowing that it is there, knowing that it is being allowed to change and evolve as it has for millions of years, makes me happy. To interrupt the natural processes occurring in ANWAR, even in the slightest, would be a horrible loss, and it would be something that could never be undone. For those with a personal and selfish love of nature a cost like this is simply too high.

To best illustrate this type of ‘existence value’ I can use the analogy of a rare art collection, maybe a hypothetical collection of all the most exquisite Rembrandts. More than likely I would never have the chance to see this collection with my own eyes, yet like ANWAR, this collection of Rembrandts still has great value to me. It makes me happy to know these works exist as a testament to human achievement, and it makes me happy to know that they will exist for my children and grandchildren. If someone were to offer a 10 cent reduction in the price of gasoline in exchange for the destruction or desecration of these Rembrandts I would reject the offer immediately, for ANWAR my reaction is the same.

Certainly my desires for what to do with ANWAR would be modified by what could be offered in return. If drilling in ANWAR would provide the US with complete energy independence I would be forced to conclude that my personal benefit far outweighs the cost, however this is by no means the deal we have been offered. All we really have been offered is a temporary and ineffective Band-Aid to conceal the gaping wound which is our dependence on foreign oil. So, for the case of ANWAR, and for the issue of natural conservation in general, I urge all individuals to first consider what is most likely to bring happiness to themselves and to their children. Like me, Manny has admitted that a minor reduction in the price of gasoline wouldn’t make much of a difference to him. Yet he has made his decision for what to do with ANWAR based on what he thinks would help the person ‘scrapping for every penny.’ This altruistic consideration of the ‘poor man’, by his own objectivist standards, is immoral. And I would therefore advise Manny to think about how ANWAR could potentially make him and his children happy, not about what he believes would make the other guy happy. I think Ayn Rand would tell him the same.

-War-

In his comments Manny also touched on the topic of when military force is appropriate. My concerns with Manny’s sentiments, and with the sentiments aired by other objectivists, stem mainly from their lack of separation between the individual in a foreign country and the government of that country. If you view the government of a country as an accurate representation of every single individual in the population then the type of offensive military action supported by objectivists could be justified, but this is simply not the case. An individual in a country and the government of that country are not the same thing, and they may not be treated as if they were, to do so is a blatant rejection of the individualism that defines objectivism.

Following this individual-government homogenization Manny feels justified in aggressive and unprovoked military action against any irrational government and rejects the criticism that ‘innocents’ will be harmed by this action. Manny does admit that innocents do exist: “The only truly innocent person that exists in a country, is the one that morally opposes the government that is oppressing them.” But he refuses to believe that aggressive military action will hurt those ‘innocents’. He states that any ‘innocents’ should “welcome the US with open arms.” Well Manny, here is the flaw in this logic: aggressive military action is not the only way to force political change! Military action is too blunt a tool for the delicate and slow process of social change.

Aggressive and unprovoked military action does in fact hurt the ‘innocents’ that Manny describes because it forces a violent solution to a problem that could potentially be solved without violence. Our use of military might to force political change disrupts every non-violent form of resistance available to the individual that opposes his government and it brings a gruesome war into his home. If and when war is the only option this innocent might welcome our support, but as long as there is the slightest possibility of a non-violent political change this innocent individual is entitled to feel a certain amount of resentment toward our violent interference.

I do not pretend to understand all the forces that allow tyrannical regimes to stay in power. It appears that some nations simply have the perfect mixture of money, religion, history, tradition, and culture to permit obviously insane leaders to thrive. However, I do know that seemingly intractable conflicts can be resolved without resort to all-out war. Most significantly, the US ended the Cold War without firing a direct shot at the USSR. And I honestly believe that with enough time it will be possible to bring down any regime using simply our economic influence, the dissemination of information to their populations, and the subversive encouragement of political dissent.

Complete isolationism is not a solution, but military force should be used only in the most drastic of situations. We must limit our military intervention to those cases when our security is in imminent danger, or when egregious human atrocities are being committed. As I mentioned previously, maybe a good rule of thumb is to support only those wars you would be willing to fight in yourself.

Using these guidelines, and from an individualistic perspective, the choice to invade Iraq was questionable at best. Iraq did not pose an imminent threat to our security, and, while horrible, the government of Saddam Hussein did not commit humanitarian violations on the level that we see in several other countries around the world. The decision to invade was made hastily, and I think the botched results show exactly how poorly thought-out the action was. Iraq was still at a point where non-violent action could have had an impact, and in this case to resort to violence was pre-mature.

A more ideal manner of bringing lasting change to Iraq would have been through selective economic and cultural engagement. The more we could affect who got the money and information the more we could affect who had the power. Unfortunately this selective economic engagement was impossible as long as the US depended on Saddam’s only leverage, oil. As long as we are forced to buy foreign oil we have little control over where our money goes, and where our money can be withheld. Therefore, in the case of Iraq, our national security would have been much better served by using the 100 billion plus dollars spent on invasion for developing alternative energy solutions, and finally loosening the grip of foreign oil dependence.

Regardless of the impact on the Iraqi people, I feel that my own self interests have been compromised by this military action. Our invasion of Iraq was morally questionable and tactically misguided. I feel no safer now that Saddam is out of power, and I feel nervous about the fact that our military is stretched too thin to deal with other potentially devastating threats like Iran and North Korea. If instead of invading Iraq we had made some serious investments into national security and energy independence we would be in a much better situation right now, and I, personally, would feel much safer.

Along with these arguments I also tend to question Manny’s and other ‘objectivists’’ un-wavering and slightly jingoistic allegiance to the actions of the US government. If you are searching for irrationality you need look no further than our own back yard. Last I recall our head of state still claimed to believe in a mythical and all knowing being that takes particular interest in his foreign policy decisions and church attendance. And while the US may be one of the more rational countries in the world, I do not see how that would give us the moral justification to invade others because they don’t agree with us. To the extent that they cause us no harm, all individuals have the right to be somewhat irrational if they so desire.

The military option is a powerful and sometimes effective one, but it should not be used until all other alternatives have been exhausted. In the cases when our security is directly threatened we may take defensive, not aggressive, action, and in the cases when humanitarian atrocities are being committed we may be compelled to intervene, but no other justifications are sufficient. The turmoil caused by war brings with it a decreased level of security for individuals throughout the world, and to not realize this is simply irrational.

Morality

2006-05-13T19:39:00.000+02:00

If there were only one thing I could leave to this world it would be this: my definition of morality. This definition has laid the foundation for each criticism of ‘objectivism’ made in previous posts, and it has informed each of my proposed solutions. It is based on simple principles yet it is all encompassing. Ultimately this definition goes beyond the scope of objectivism entirely and provides the overarching guidance needed for that and any other philosophy. I also believe it is a definition which could be practically and beneficially implemented in the life of every rational individual.

My definition is the following:

All actions with immediate positive results are moral, unless those actions decrease the chances of humanity’s long term survival.

All actions with immediate negative results are immoral, unless those actions are necessary to increase the chances of humanity’s long term survival.

(For this definition “immediate positive results” and “immediate negative results” should be taken literally and should be completely intuitive: if the action makes you smile it is positive, if the action makes you (or anyone else) frown it is negative.)

While it may not seem profound, I believe this definition is absolutely correct and is a major improvement over the predominately religious and generally vague sense of morality prevalent in US culture. It provides basic guidelines for all actions, and it does not depend on any religious or spiritual belief.

-Humanity’s Long Term Survival-

The chain of thought that led to this definition is the direct result of a question I posed to myself: “Since there is no god, is there also no absolute morality?”

I was sure there was such thing as ‘absolute right’ and ‘absolute wrong’ but it was difficult to isolate the underlying justification for this judgment of right and wrong. I also realized that any determination of an action’s morality depended somewhat on a measure of time. One could argue that in a long enough time frame the results of almost any action will be erased, making that action neither moral nor immoral, but I knew this logic was somehow flawed. Conversely, one could argue that only the immediate results of an action were important and any consideration of the future was unnecessary, I knew this reasoning was incomplete as well.

The breakthrough in my thinking came when I realized one key concept: the survival of the human race is not guaranteed. Extinction of humanity is a legitimate concern. This threat could come in the form of natural catastrophe or nuclear obliteration, in 1,000 years or 1,000,000, but someday humanity may find itself on the verge of annihilation. Fortification against this potential fate is a biological imperative.

I also concluded that the only thing constant about the human species is consciousness itself. Buildings will crumble and societies will fall, but whatever it is that makes us human will continue on… if we are smart enough to protect it. Humans are nothing more than chemicals, but we are amazing chemicals. We are chemicals that have somehow become aware of our own existence, and it is this awareness which makes humanity special and endlessly valuable. On a long enough time scale all other factors disappear and the only thing left with any importance is this: the survival of the amazing clustering of chemicals which is human consciousness.

It then became clear that the impact on human survival could be used as a ‘litmus test’ for the moral judgment of any action. So, this became the foundation of my morality. In general, any action that helps the chances of humanity’s survival is good, and any action that hurts the chances of humanity’s survival is bad.

However, I realized that the survival of humanity could not be the only factor in determining an action’s morality. To disregard the immediate impacts of an action is to disregard what makes life worth living. As individuals all we have is a set of experiences, and the need to make those experiences positive is as important as the imperative to continue the survival of our species.

-Immediate Results-

The focus on ‘immediate results’ is a cornerstone of this definition. And I believe this focus makes the definition superior to many other moral frameworks. By first looking at the immediate results one is able to avoid the type of 'ends justifies the means' logic which has plagued so many other philosophies. The most immediately positive method of reaching one’s goals must be used or else the actions taken can no longer be considered moral.

Most traditional judgments of morality rely almost entirely on the long term implications of the action in question. (i.e. Christian and other religious moralities are defined by the impact an action has on the afterlife. Socialist morality is defined by the impact an action has on society.) These moral frameworks do not place enough emphasis on the immediate results of an action. Yet, if an action makes you smile more than likely it is moral, and if it makes you frown more than likely it is immoral.

By focusing entirely on the future these moral frameworks open the door for a myriad of immoral actions to be preformed for the sake of the perceived outcomes. If a man thinks only of the future he may convince himself that horrific immediate results of his actions are somehow justified. This has been seen time and time again, anywhere from the Spanish Inquisition to Communist Russia, and this trend must stop. The ends do not always justify the means!

In contrast, within my definition a person must first examine the immediate results of his actions. For an action with immediate negative results to be considered moral that action must help the chances of humanity’s long term survival AND there must be no alternative method to reach that goal. Suddenly, acts of violence or even unpleasantness can no longer hide behind a supposed moral justification unless there is absolutely no other option.

Also, by using the ‘immediate results’ test, all good things in life are left alone unless there is a serious reason for those actions to be curbed. The idea that enjoying yourself is in any way immoral becomes ludicrous (unless of course your enjoyment somehow endangers humanity). This focus on immediate results ensures a proper order for examination of morality, and I believe it makes implementation of this definition more practical.

-Conclusion-

To summarize, in applying this definition an individual is forced to FIRST examine the immediate results of his actions, and THEN examine those actions’ long term impacts on humanity’s survival. By following this procedure this individual will be encouraged to BOTH strive for individual happiness and fulfillment AND improve the chances of humanity’s survival. I believe under most circumstances these two goals will be mutually supportive; very rarely will this moral code force an individual to act in a negative way to help humanity’s survival.

Here I would also like to mention that the objectivist philosophy fits perfectly into this definition of morality. I believe that living a lifestyle which conforms to the principles of objectivism is an excellent way to ensure one’s own happiness, which is clearly an ‘immediate positive result’. Also, I believe that the chances of humanity’s long term survival would be greatly improved if everyone were to adhere to most objectivist principles. So, under my definition of morality, living as a true objectivist is an inherently moral act. However, objectivism will always be secondary to this definition of morality. If instances arise where objectivism and this definition of morality are in conflict it is the definition of morality which should always be considered supreme.

Finally, I must admit that there is one large piece missing from this discussion of morality: it is by no means obvious which actions “decrease the chances of humanity’s long term survival” and which actions are “necessary to increase the chances of humanity’s long term survival”. But the fact that this piece is missing is a good thing! I believe that, more than anything else, what is needed in this world is more debate on how our actions impact the long term survival of humanity. At some point the philosophical musing must end and the discussion of practical implications of our actions must begin.

For me, that second stage of discussions begins here. And I hope this and the last several posts will help to illustrate the ideas that have laid the foundation for all of my future positions.

Response to T

2006-05-01T08:25:00.000+02:00

For the most part I agree with the comments made by T. I believe that both he and I have nothing but good intentions for our philosophical musings. We are trying to find some sort of overarching guidance for our behavior that will help us make the tough decisions as they arrive in life. As such I also believe there is a common ground to be discovered in the instances where we do disagree. Our goals are likely the same and with effort our conclusions may become the same as well.

In one section of his comments T pointed out that both objectivists and environmentalists demonstrate irrational thinking when it comes to management the natural world.

In an especially good statement he sums up the inherent flaw of blindly rejecting the entire environmental movement: “…if the world is truly deteriorating and we are at fault, we are destroying ourselves and those around us. To do so would be irrational to our own continued existence and unjust to the existence of others.”

I believe the prevention of this ‘injustice to the existence of others’ is at the heart of environmentalism. More than anything else environmentalism strives to limit injustices perpetrated on fellow men.

He also points out, however, that environmentalists have perpetrated their own form of damaging irrationality. Without a doubt environmentalists are guilty of exaggeration, spectacle, and propaganda to get what they believe is correct. This is not an acceptable means of encouraging social change, regardless of the validity or falsehood of their conclusions. If the truths of your conclusions can not stand up on their own maybe the conclusions need further examination. Sometimes propaganda and exaggeration seem like the only way to grab the attention of an ambivalent public, but these methods undermine all credibility. The only moral means of public influence is dissemination of the truth, anything less only dooms your cause. The environmentalists may be learning this lesson the hard way, and at the expense of every person’s health and long term chances of survival.

T notes that the case of Global Warming is particularly tricky. No one is sure what will really happen, and the means of effectively abating the problem would be extremely drastic and expensive. If our survival does depend on these drastic measures there is no doubt that they are justified, but if the theory of Global Warming is incorrect we will have wasted countless resources on a hunch.

In the past I have decided my position on this issue by trusting the judgment of scientists and educators who I respect. In many ways I am still convinced of the danger and still I believe we must now start making changes to abate some of the effects of Global Warming. But this almost emotional conviction is not enough if I plan on pushing Global Warming as a political issue. Before I encourage legal measures to limit Carbon emissions I must be absolutely convinced by the science behind these assertions. In fact, before ANY person makes a decision to support or reject legal measures associated with this issue I believe it is their responsibility to seek out scientific support for why they feel one way or another.

The first step in this process is to examine the actual scientific research that is availabe to the public and to gather as much compelling evidence as possible. One logical first source for this inquiry is Global Warming: The Science of Climate Change by Frances Drake. Michael Crichton, an avowed skeptic, recommends this text in his novel State of Fear. He calls Drake’s book a “well-written overview for college students (that) can be read by any interested reader.” Reading Drake’s book will be my first step in solidifying my position, and I think any other concerned person should begin a similar route of inquiry.

I hope T, and the many people like him, are actively seeking out information about the Global Warming issue, and I hope they will not let the misrepresentations of environmentalists detract from the serious possibility that our current behavior may be responsible for a problem that would be devastating for our children.

The Underlying Cause

2006-04-24T23:51:00.000+02:00

In some ways this post may be out of order in the train of thought which I hope to develop. However, the arguments presented in the following posts regarding the ‘symptoms’ may be illuminated if one keeps this ‘underlying cause’ in mind throughout. Additionally, I hope the preliminary presentation of these ideas now will make them easier to support in the future.

The underlying problem with current ‘objectivist’ thought is simply this: ‘objectivists’ see their philosophy as an ends in itself rather than a means to reach a goal.

I believe objectivists are so caught up in decrying irrational behavior that they have forgotten what the purpose of rational behavior is. Without a consideration of overall purpose ‘objectivists’ become lost. They begin to haggle over the letter of the philosophy without consideration of the outcome of that philosophy. They become chronically short-sighted and disparage any attempt to examine the outcomes of their actions. ‘Objectivists’ soon fall into the same absolutist trappings which doomed communism and could as efficiently doom capitalism.

So, the question naturally becomes: what is the purpose of objectivism? For me the answer is simple yet grandiose: Objectivism is a means to ensure my own happiness and simultaneously an effective way to encourage the long term survival of humanity.

This purpose for objectivism obviously requires elaboration, but when it is accepted it instantly provides an overarching guidance of which current ‘objectivist’ thought is in dire need. The result of this overarching purpose is a weakening of the ‘Word’ of objectivism and a strengthening of the importance of the results. The objectivist “party line” is no longer sacred. Objectivism becomes an effective tool for reaching the goal of happiness and long term human survival, but as soon as ‘objectivism’ begins to hinder happiness and long term human survival it can be ignored.

Objections to ‘Objectivism’: an Introduction

2006-04-16T01:26:00.000+02:00

The last posting, ‘True Objectivism,’ inspired several comments to which I will respond in the following posts. I appreciate these comments by T and Manny and I genuinely hope they are only the first in a continuing discussion. However, not surprisingly, I don’t agree with everything that was said. I have spent significant time formulating my responses and I hope they will serve to advance the debate.

My objections to some of what was said, and for that matter my concerns regarding prevalent ‘objectivist’ thought in general, can be addressed on two levels. The first level is simply a discussion of the specifics of what I believe an ideal ‘true objectivist’ viewpoint would entail. The second level is a more broad discussion of the purpose and value of objectivism in general. It is helpful to separate my concerns into these two categories because in many ways the categories represent first the symptoms and second the underlying cause of everything I believe to be wrong with ‘objectivism’s’ current direction.

A discussion of the symptoms of ‘objectivism’s’ misdirection is one that could last indefinitely. These symptoms include both the mistrust of environmentalism and the support of aggressive government policy which, as mentioned, are routinely expressed in the ‘objectivist’ party line. I plan to address these issues, and taking the time to carefully examine these symptoms may produce some improvement in thinking, but at some point the underlying cause must also be addressed or progress will become stalled. I hope that this examination of the underling cause of ‘objectivism’s’ problems will show true objectivism as a tool toward progress rather than a goal in itself. And by viewing objectivism as a means rather than an ends I hope ‘objectivism’s’ direction may be corrected.

In the coming weeks I will attempt to elaborate my views on both ‘objectivism’s’ symptomatic problems and the shift in thinking which is necessary to avoid recurrence of these problems in the future. I sincerely hope comments on this task are added as often as possible.

True Objectivism

2005-12-20T13:55:00.000+01:00

Objectivism has so much potential. It is so close to being a truly inspiring and practical individualistic philosophy. But somehow it has degraded into neo-conservative dogma.

The benefits of Objectivism are clear: personal responsibility, the value of productive achievement, reason and rationality (read, ardently atheistic, which is a prerequisite for any practical philosophy).

But somehow these ideals have been taken (been used by Rand herself) to support wanton destruction: environmental degradation, and aggressive military policy being at the forefront.

Environmentalism, in it's truest form, is not anti-industrialist nor anti-progress but rather anti-destruction. Environmentalism is simply an attempt to stop one person from hurting another. It is no more complicated than preventing one man from enslaving or attacking another. This is a basic tenant which is supported by objectivism, but somehow overlooked.

The foreign policy of invading and laying waste to threatening countries is similarly destructive, and similarly contrary to objective thought. But somehow "objectivists" continually call for the US to preemptively invade Iran, North Korea, Syria, etc., etc..

The people killed in these invasions would be, by and large, civilians. The people killed would not be the ones threatening to us, and we could not justifiably claim to be acting in self defense. We would be, without a doubt, killing other human beings that have done us no harm, simply because their governments, not they, have threatened us.

To these "objectivists" the right to be considered an individual somehow ends at the US border. They ignore the fact that an individual in a country is not the same thing as the government of that country. They ignore the fact that the individuals they are killing may be just as opposed to the government, if not more so, than we are.

Furthermore the goal of making the world safer for the objective individual would not be accomplished. War causes more unrest and threat, not less. These governments must be defeated by progress, not destruction.

These are things that any rational objectivists should realize and know without doubt. But somehow the prevalent voices of objectivism have become blind and deaf to reason. I am at a loss as to why such an inspiring and hopeful philosophy has sunken into such dogma and irrationality.

The Struggle Against Religious Fanaticism

2005-11-11T13:46:00.000+01:00

For the prospects of a lasting, peaceful society on a global scale, violent religious fanaticism can be likened to an infection. The infection will take root anywhere it finds conditions suitable, and if ignored it will grow and spread.

In the modern era, religious fanaticism has taken root in much of world. In many places governments have created an environment where the infection of fanaticism can prosper. A country run by a dictatorial regime with no separation of church and state is like a flesh wound to this infection. Once religious fanaticism appears, it can use the church-controlled government to gain power while it simultaneously uses the poor and disenfranchised left behind to populate it's ranks as foot-soldiers. (Ironically, fanatical dictators, can actually gain power by managing their countries poorly. The more poor and the more destitute the population, the more likely they are to turn to the comfort of religion for support.) Like an infection, the religious fanaticism grows on itself, spawning more fanaticism everywhere conditions are favorable. Similarly, religious fanaticism can not be ignored. If left alone it will fester and eventually it will become deadly.

The Bush administration has attempted to deal with this infection in the most brutal manner possible. The administration has acted like a Neanderthal, stabbing at its own wounds in a futile attempt to cut away the infection. Every military offensive, every jab with a dull and rusty knife, only improves the conditions for fanaticism to spread. A country torn by war, grasps for something safe, something normal, something that they can believe in. A country torn by war finds religion. And in the power vacuum left by war, it is the most ruthless and manipulative of the population that rise to power. The Bush administration has found the perfect recipe for the creation of fanaticism. In the wake of the administrations attempts the only things that will remain undamaged are the fanatical dictatorships with waves of the poor and hopeless to follow their every decree.

So, where does that leave us? All we know is that violence is not the solution. War is too blunt of a tool for such a delicate problem. We must search for a new approach.

At the center of this new approach must be the identification and empowerment of the peaceful populations in countries where fanaticism has taken root. If supported and enlarged, these peaceful populations will act as a counterbalance to fanatical powers. We must acknowledge that religious fanaticism is not a natural nor universal state. External influences have lead some to fanaticism, but in no society do these fanatics make up the entire population. In fact, the populations of any given country are infected by fanaticism to a greater or lesser extent. The main concern must be ensuring that the peaceful populations are large enough to outweigh, both politically and socially, the fanatics.

In the Western World religious fanatics have become less influential, but to say that fanaticism does not exist is simply untrue. Fanaticism will always exist. But in a healthy society, the natural aversion to violence and the almost universal desire for peace will keep this infection from spreading. Economic prosperity, high levels of education and the honest belief in the separation of church and state, has kept the level of fanaticism in the west, for the most part, under control. There are occasions of violence, but the youth of the US are not lining up to bomb abortion clinics.

So, the solution is not to eliminate fanaticism entirely, for this is unrealistic even in today's most enlightened societies. The solution is to marginalize the fanatics and to eliminate the poverty and social unrest from which they draw their numbers. To return to the analogy, we must ensure that a society's immune system is strong enough to combat and contain the infection of fanaticism when it appears.

Where fanaticism has not yet taken root we must attempt to improve social and economic conditions so it never can. In the case of the Middle East, where fanaticism is already a serious problem, we must use social and economic policy rather than military might to change the state of things. Whenever and wherever possible we must support the specific commerce and trade that has the potential to help the general population. At the same time we must avoid the commerce and trade that puts power and money into the pockets of the fanatics. We must provide support, political and economic, for education, freedom of the press, and abatement of poverty. We must find those in the population who agree with the ideals of peace and freedom, and provide for them as much political backing as possible.

The western world is in conflict with the idea of religious fanaticism, not with a single people nor a specific country. We are in conflict with the idea that violence towards the western world is some sort of religious imperative. We must combat this idea in the minds of the populations that are likely to use the idea against us. We must discredit the idea and provide the alternative of peaceful interaction and mutual benefit. We must convince the populations that no conflict is necessary.

Our influence will obviously be limited and the process will be a slow one. But this is the only process that will eventually and finally wrest power from the fanatics. If we are able to subtly change the political conditions where fanaticism breeds, we may be able to stop its spread for good.

Why Europeans Hate Bush Too

2005-10-27T09:45:00.000+02:00

In response to "European Anti-Americanism":

Basically, I agree with the people in Europe. I don't like the American government much either. That comes from a few things, and I think it's more than just dogma.

Probably the most significant reason to distrust the US is the Iraq war. Countries should not be allowed to invade other countries just because they disagree with them. If there is a true threat to world security the there will also be an international consensus that something needs to be done, or at least not the level of resistance we saw for Iraq. The idea that "French people are just pussies" doesn't hold up. If there was a real danger they would have supported some sort of action as well. (I don't know if you remember the first Iraq war, but that was fought to stop Iraq from doing essentially what we did last year.) If there really is a danger, of course a country is allowed to defend itself... repeat DEFEND, not attack, but I don't think that was ever the case. Iraq was not ever a defensive move, it was aggressive. The Bush administration was set on invading (I believe for economic incentives... which turned out not to work too well either), and for that alone I think the administration deserves the negative public opinion.

The second reason would be the government's treatment of the environment. The stance of the Bush administration is basically that environmental health has no status versus industry. I agree that industry is a good thing, but pollution and destruction must be limited (I did a poor job of explaining this in the last post). He's just unwilling to admit that there might need to be some restrictions on what people (industry specifically) should and shouldn't be allowed to do. (Like I said before, I think this line is drawn at the point that people should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as they're not directly hurting anyone else. And I can give you a laundry list of why lack of environmental regulation DIRECTLY hurts other people.) (Climate change, persistent organic pollutants, loss of bio-diverstiy (health of the future), irresponsible use of genetically modified organisms and hormones in foods.)

Third, in a never ending list, is that Bush doesn't believe in the importance of international institutions. I disagree with this because of it's long-term negative impact on the US. Being isolationist, or unilateral is all well and good while the US is in power. If the US wants to pull out of the ABM treaty, or not join the international criminal court that's just fine. There's no moral obligation that we join these institutions. But I think this is a very short-sighted way to view the world, and eventually this is going to bite the US in the ass. Right now no one can tell the US what to do, but what about in 70 years when China is an industrial behemoth and has overtaken the US as an Economic power. We are going to be kicking ourselves for not creating international institutions with any real power. The US now has the opportunity to create international controls that really mean something. If the US were to really support international governance of some kind (not dissolution of natoinal sovereignty, but rather a real commitment to creatinig something with authority) those institutions could exist! This secession of some power now will ensure our safety in the future. At some point we're going to need powerful international institutions, and when we do they're not going to be there.

So, yes, people here hate Bush, and by association, the US Government, and further down the line the people who voted for Bush. I can't say I blame them, I don't like those people too much either. I truly believe that the US is beginning a downward spiral. (Personally I blame Christians, but that's too much to get into now. Religion is the opiate of the people and all... promotes and excuses irrational behavior.(a lazy society based on the success of previous generations also isn't helping)) Essentially I think the US gets what it deserves--be it another great depression, or just dirty rivers and polluted air. (Of course none of what Bush has done justifies terrorism etc., but I think that is another important issue. Bush's policies are filling the world with people who hate us and I really think he's making the US less safe.)

But I don't think I have the energy or motivation to try to fix things in the US, that's why I'm trying to make some sort of connection here. I will come back to the US, and I'll probably live there for quite a while. But when the shit really hits the fan, I'm out. Einstein left Germany in 1933 because he saw what was going on. I want to be in the position to do the same if necessary.

And that's the way things are!

Individual Freedom and the Environment

2005-10-26T17:30:00.000+02:00

I guess I should start by saying that I define myself as a "Sustainable Developmentalist" rather than an "Environmentalist" per se. I take this to mean that: development, industry, productivity should be encouraged but these forces must be prevented from destroying things that can not be replaced and from acting in a way that will inevitably lead to human-destruction in the long-run. People should be encouraged to create things, and improve the world, but this should be done in a way that can be continued indefinitely. In addition there are some things which can't belong to a single person, company or nation and those things must be protected (the air is one obvious example).

Now I don't know if you imagine these restrictions as being reasonable, or as already too much of an infringement on individual freedom, but I have to believe that you agree there is a certain amount of regulation which is necessary. As the most extreme and obvious example, a factory should not be allowed to pollute the air so much as to kill people in a neighboring town. Correct?

This idea seems simple enough, and in reality it may be. People should be allowed to do whatever they want to, as long as it doesn't hurt someone else. Unfortunately when you get to the practicalities of implimenting environmental legislatoin the lines are not always clear. I am finding that environmentalism deals very closely with regulating the actions of other people, and sometimes it is hard to know what is an acceptable regulation and what is not. Every day I am presented with new cases where this line is blurred, and I imagine other's where I wouldn't know how to decide.

One very specific example is International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV). This is an agreement which gives plant breeders property rights over the plants and seeds that they develop or discover. On the surface this sounds like a reasonable idea, but the specifics tend to be tricky. When exactly can someone say they "developed" a plant. In this convention all someone has to do is be the first to try to patent and sell it. So, essentially I could go into a country and, as long as no one else has come before me, start claiming to own the rights to any plants that weren't already "common knowledge". I don't have to change the seeds or really do anything, just have the idea to sell them, and have the resources to patent them. So, should someone be able to claim to own something they did nothing to create? And if they can, how long does this ownership last? Do they own that plant type and any plant type derived from it? Can they dictate who can grow those plants and what they do with them? Maybe, yes. They might have right to own all of these things. But I don't know if I like the idea of world where "coca-cola" owns the rights to every tree in a park. (And on a tangent: maybe if "Pfizer Pharmaceuticals" owned the rights to every tree, plant and animal in the Amazon they would protect some little bits, but the rest would still be laid to waste. So as far as bio-diversity goes property rights are probably not the solution.)

Here's another random example of the blurred line between one person's rights and antother's. While walking down the street today I saw a McDonalds, I think probably the only McDonalds in Geneva. It had a very under-stated sign outside, and none of the big golden arches you see everywhere else in the world. I am sure this is because Switzerland heavily regulates how big and flashy signs can be. As a simplistic example of this general issue, how big of a sign should a restaurant be allowed to have? You might agree that there must be SOME limit, a huge flashing sign for McDonalds with rotating lights and lasers shooting everywhere doesn't sound like my idea of acceptable. But someone else DOES own the restaurant and who am I to say what he can or can not do (even though it does directly affect me). So, if some sort of regulation is necessary whose sensibilities do you use? Mine, when I say I fucking hate McDonald's signs, or the average New Yorker who thinks anything under 35ft tall is ok?

Anyway, I'm not too worried about these dilemmas, but it is important to keep the perspective of all sides in mind. I think my stance on most of issues is clear. Do whatever you want as long as it doesn't hurt someone else. The key is finding where the rights of one begin and the rights of others end. I know there are answers, but it seems that each issue needs to be examined on a case by case basis.

It is unfortunate to think that many of the things I'm fighting for, while protecting the health and rights of one group, might infringe upon the rights of another. But I guess you just have to make a value judgment about which you think is more important. And when you compare the value of one man's profits with the value of indefinite human survival and a sustainable world, I don't think it's too hard to choose.

Some reasons why George Bush is an Asshole

2005-10-26T11:13:00.000+02:00

A friend of mine inquired:

"...what is your opinion regarding the federal government's response to Hurricane Katrina? Also, tell me about the environmental reasons why we are having so many hurricanes, I mean is it nature or is it attributed to greenhouse gas emissions?"

My Response:

About the Katrina stuff. My stance on the whole thing is kind of complicated. I don't think that Bush was really responsible for getting all those people out of there before the storm, that should have been more heavily pursued by the local governments. I think people stayed just because they had lived through hurricanes before, and they figured it wouldn't be that bad. So, you can't 'force' people to be more safe, in a lot of cases it was their own choice to stay. (I think if anyone knew how bad it would be they would have put more effort into getting people to leave.)

As far as Bush's role in the whole situation, he didn't really 'cause' any of this, but it does highlight a few of the MANY things he is doing wrong. There is no reason he would want to provide help to the people in New Orleans because that is not where his constituency is. He has no incentive to care about poor black people, they wouldn't vote for him anyway. So, true he didn't try to get them out, but he also cut their social programs, and made life harder on them for the last 5 years. So I don't see how this is any different. The thing in New Orleans is a compelling news story, but no one mentions the millions of other people who are being hurt by Bush's policies. You have to ask yourself, if the people in New Orleans had better public schools, better social programs, better health care, better public transportation, better jobs, would as many have been poor enough and uninformed enough to stay behind? Bush is giving tax cuts to the richest 1% in the country while others can barely survive. He is helping to increase the gap between rich and poor, and eliminate the middle class. So, no he didn't help to get them out, and no he didn't care, until however it got on the news. Now he is SOOO full of compassion for the struggling people.

About the Kyoto protocol: I believe, and I think good science supports, that there are some major environmental changes going on that we caused and are causing. Exactly what those changes are, and will be, is not yet clear, but soon enough we will be finding out. There is no way to prove that Katrina was stronger because of climate change, but I suppose it is possible. The real effects of global climate change probably won't start for another couple decades, but people are using this as an example of the type of thing we will see more and more of as the effects become clear. I think it's a little misleading to say Katrina happened because of climate change, but maybe it will get people to wake up to the issue.

Now, Bush's stance is: there is nothing happening, nothing will happen, and if the climate changes we'll deal with that then. Basically he has decided to ignore the issue because it will cost too much to do anything about it. The "scientific community" is pretty unified about the fact that 'something' is happening. People argue about the specifics, and the time line for change, and exactly what the changes will cause, but something is happening and we are causing it. You can't pump billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year and expect nothing to happen. (The Ozone layer taught us we CAN in fact change the atmosphere. Depletion of the Ozone layer is FACT, everyone agrees that is going on, but at first the conservatives said that wasn't happening either.)

So, the Kyoto protocol was meant to be a first step in trying to stem this problem, at least slow it down a little. (I think the theory is: there is a 50 year lag between when the carbon is emitted and when the effects would be felt, so even if we were to stop using all fossil fuels right now we would still have 50 more years of climate change.) The protocol is a flawed document, full of wishy-washy language that probably wouldn't have too much impact even if everyone were to comply with it. BUT the reason it is like that is so that countries like the US would sign onto it. It is only supposed to be a first step, an admission that there might be a problem. And Bush refuses to do even that. The science is against him, but he clings to little uncertainties and says nothing is happening. For the people who are working their entire lives trying to stop some of this problem it is maddening.

(Not to mention the fact that if the US doesn't ratify Kyoto soon, and really start putting it's political power behind it, there is no way we're going to get China and India to control their emissions 30 years down the line when they are doing even more damage than we are.)

In Europe they have basically accepted that something is happening and they are doing the little they can to do something about it. They try to have good public transportation, and expensive gas so people use less of it. It doesn't fix the problem, but it at least it is an attempt to deal with it somehow. It is an accepted fact of life, and they find it astonishing that the US can be so oblivious. (I do as well.)

So, that's it. No, Kyoto wouldn't have stopped Katrina at all, and no, Bush wasn't responsible for helping those people get out of New Orleans, but he sure isn't helping matters. (Again, not to mention the fact that he thinks nothing of invading countries without international approval, won't join the international criminal court, won't help secure Russia's nuclear stock pile, gave up talks with North Korea, backed out of the Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty so he could develop his missile defense system (which is and was sure to be, a total failure), and generally doesn't give a fuck about what the rest of the world thinks.)

I get pretty livid about all this stuff just because I'm constantly having to defend myself about Bush's foreign policy. I have to tell people over and over 'I didn't vote for him.' 'It's not my fault.' The people here (Switzerland) really aren't very pleased with the US. I can't really blame them.

Anyway, that's why I didn't vote for Bush :)

Lazy man's blog

2005-10-26T10:31:00.000+02:00

I don't have the energy to write anything new, so the next few posts will be any interesting things I've written in e-mails recently. Enjoy. And yes, I know I'm lazy. But I figure since no one's actually reading this it's ok.

The Start of Something...

2005-10-21T14:44:00.000+02:00

Everyone thinks they're the most important thing on Earth. Blogs seem like a good way to find out who's right... and a good way to show everyone else how wrong they are.