The Vacuum of the West

I'm not the first to point out that the wealth of the West has made its people fat and complacent, and left them content to work pointless jobs for base comforts and have no motivation to achieve anything beyond material accumulation. I'm no puritan myself. I enjoy material comforts, but I also have an appreciation for glory, beauty and creativity that far surpasses any desire for anything material. The contemporary Westerner has little appreciation for these things.

There are of course, Westerners who care about more than material comforts. Many devote a lot of time and energy to protests and railing against injustice on the left, and religion on the right. The left, however, does not devote itself to anything, only against what they see as being wrong. They offer nothing but guilt, repentance and flagellation. Those on the right, even the religious, focus more on the "evils" of homosexuality and obscenity than on the divinity of Christ.

The Muslim world has much the same problem as the Christian West. They are against more than they are for, and what they are for is some fantasy of an afterlife. They don't care about making the world better, they don't care about making people better, they only care about punishing and restraining people in order to achieve pipe dreams.

Both, however, make the left look pathetic. The left, largely, does not advance anything in this world or the next. They do have some sense of appreciation for glory and achievement, but what they find glorious is not the building of anything or the advancement of anything, but rather the destruction of authority. There is a lot of authority that needs to be destroyed, of course, but the left offers nothing in replacement.

Where Do They Expect All These Palestinians to Go?

Larry Auster, in his approval of a townhall.com article by Ben Shapiro, advocates the expulsion of the Palestinians from the West Bank. Here's a copy of the e-mail I sent him about what seems to me to be an oversight in that plan.

Hello Mr. Auster,

I read your response to Ben Shapiro's article on expelling the Palestinians out of the West Bank, and as difficult as any proposed solution to Israeli security would be to implement, this seems particularly implausible. Not only would Israel encounter resistance from the Palestinian population, but also any country to which the IDF would attempt to send the Palestinians would resist.

As much as Arab governments like to talk about the plight of Palestine, their not too fond of actual Palestinians, and few countries are going to be willing to take in 5 million poor and poorly educated refugees. Jordan, the most geographically convenient place to move the Palestinians, would obviously refuse since the PLO tried to overthrow their king in 1970. Israel would have to force open Jordan's borders in order to push through all the Palestinian refugees, and that would embroil Israel in a war with a country with which it has had a reasonably stable relationship for decades. The same is true of Egypt and the inhabitants of Gaza.

Given that the West Bank doesn't share a border with any other country, I don't see how these refugees can be moved to any other country short of flying them or trucking them en mass over Israeli soil to Jordan, Syria, or Lebanon, and I doubt that would be a logistically or economically possible thing to do to an unwilling population.

So where do you and Mr. Shapiro suppose Israel would put all of these people, and how do you expect the IDF to get them there?

Fusion Fraud?

According to this article a researcher at Purdue University has created nuclear fusion using sound waves. The scientific community and the government are so skeptical about this prospect that they all seem to be assuming that it is the result of fraud or error.

The Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee of the House Science and Technology Committee, are investigating the discovery. Nobody at any other facility has been able to duplicate Purdue's results, but another scientist from LeTourneau University has been able to reproduce the experiment on Purdue's equipment.

A Theory of Divinity

Religion is the process of making up a reality beyond the one that really exists. The reason why people do this is because they are profoundly dissatisfied with reality. In part, this comes from the nature of human psychology. I think we are mostly designed never to be fully satisfied. We can nonetheless have a concept of what complete and total satisfaction would be like. All concepts of the divine are the result of imagining just such a thing.

Having given up on trying to find satisfaction in the material world, religions, especially Abrahamic religions, create a world where complete and unending satisfaction are granted.

Perfection, in the sense of something wholly satisfying, is something that most human minds crave, but are rarely able to find through the senses. The divine, therefore, can only be perceived by the imagination.

Thesis

I'm going back to university this year to upgrade my current major in political science to an honours in political science which requires doing a bachelor's thesis. I had been mulling over the idea of doing something about Islamic integration in Europe, and comparing the various immigration policies to see which has been most effective at integrating Muslims into society, but I was worried that that would be too touchy a subject for a liberal arts university.

Instead I'll be doing something about China. I'm not entirely what I'll do just yet, but I'm leaning in the direction of looking at Chinese investment in Africa and what effects it has had. I've also been considering looking at more philosophical aspects of Chinese foreign policy (I'm also doing an honours in philosophy), namely how amoral China has been in its pursuit of the resources it needs.

China's growing wealth and influence gives it a lot of power, but it seems unwilling to accept any responsibilty. Take Sudan. China has so much money invested in the Sudanese oil industry that if they gave a shit about Darfur, they could stop the genocide there in a matter of days. China's internal policies are just as robotically pragmatic. Not only do they restrict the number of children a couple can have, and often resort to forced abortions if that limit is breached, they are also one of the few remaining countries to openly practice eugenics. People of lower intelligence are forcibly sterilized.

I'll have to do some more research to find out how much this topic has been examined and whether I can come up with an original idea about the subject, but I think the area has a lot of potential.

Mohler

I just saw this thing on The Colbert Report about this guy named Albert Mohler who said basically the same thing I said in an earlier post, that we may someday have the ability to technologically remove any biological predisposition to homosexuality.

Mohler took a lot of heat for advocating such a practice, but would it really be that objectionable? I am in favour of gay rights, because I don't think whom you find attractive is as important as your ability to pursue a relationship with whomever may consent to have a relationship with you. I therefore think it would be far more preferable for a parent to remove biological urges for relations with the same sex than to force them to fit into some lifestyle that is not compatible with their biology.

So I don't have a problem with parents biologically inducing heterosexuality in their children, and I don't have a problem with parent's who choose to do the opposite.

Jeffersonian Democracy

One might be surprised by the fact that Thomas Jefferson had a hand in writing the US Constitution considering his advocacy of aristocracy and social stratification in a letter he wrote to John Adams.

The constitution does say that "all men are created equal," but does this really conflict with the idea of social stratification? Does the idea that all men are created equal mean that all men end up equal or should be treated equally? I don't think that that is what Jefferson believed. He believed that "there is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents." He also said that "There is also an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents." By this he means the traditional European concept of hereditary aristocracy.

I can't speak for everyone who had a hand in writing the constitution, but this seems to me to be evidence that Jefferson believed that equality of creation meant not that everyone should be treated equally, but rather that your status should be based rather on "virtue and talents" not the circumstances under which you were "created."

Jefferson considered the natural aristocracy, "the most precious gift of nature for the instruction, the trusts, and government of society" and asks, "May we not even say that that form of government is the best which provides the most effectually for a pure selection of these natural aristoi into the offices of government?"

Too bad that's not the kind of government the United states has now.

Highly Illogical

I consider myself generally to the left on most issues, but nonetheless I have a fascination with right-wing pundits and bloggers. Their arguments are often so ridiculous, they make me feel very intelligent by comparison. One of the blogs I often read is View From the Right. It's written by a dude named Lawrence Auster, who is a blatant racist (although he bristles at any charge of racism) who fancies himself a deep thinker.

This one article he wrote, "A simple proof of the existence of God," is delightfully audacious. His main premise is that the differences in the properties of hydrogen atoms and larger atoms suggest that those properties are not inherent to matter itself, but rather imposed from some force outside of the universe. In his words, these properties "are not material. They are mental." Therefore, I guess, he means to posit that the universe is governed by some intelligence.

I take issue with this for three reasons:

First, while physics doesn't yet explain why a basic unit of matter (the hydrogen atom) does not seem to have properties that would predict the behaviour of larger atoms that are largely made up of the same components, it does not necessarily follow that physics can't ever explain it.

Second, he assumes that there are no components below the level of protons and electrons that would have properties that explain the behaviours of all atoms at once. String theory and loop gravity theory posit that these components really do exist.

Third, even if there really is some force outside of the universe, outside of matter and space-time, that imposes these properties on matter rather than those properties being inherent, it doesn't necessarily follow that that force is intelligent or eve conscious. For the properties of matter to exist outside of the universe, all that is necessary is that information be stored and retrieved from some source. This does not require any kind of intelligence.

China: The New America

If you thought the ruthless and paranoid activities of the US and CIA during the Cold War were bad, wait until you see what China is capable of.

Although the Americans were certainly paranoid enough to really believe that the Soviet Union was going to conquer the US by sneaking in the back door of South and Central America and inspiring places like Guatemala to nationalize public resources, it also provided them with a pretty convenient excuse to pick a fight with any leader, democratically elected or not, who stood in the way of American companies looking to make a profit off of the resources of foreign nations. This wasn't just in South America, but Iran as well. When Mossadeq nationalized the oil industry, the British and Americans took him out and replaced him with the Shah who would guarantee that American and British money, uh, I mean "security" would be guarded from socialists. Of course, if the Shah hadn't been in power, there would have been no Iranian Revolution in the late 70s. Had there been no Iranian Revolution, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would not be in power today.

But China also has economic interests in various parts of the world, and their ability to protect those interests are getting ever stronger. The Chinese, however, can't use security concerns to justify their thuggery. There is no great military adversary to China so they can't say that they have to gobble up the oil in Africa (and in so doing, fund the Sudanese genocide) in order to keep that oil from falling into "the wrong hands."

Well, they could say that, but they have even less credibility than the Americans when they used that excuse, and we all know how credible the Americans are in those matters.

What Are Rights?

I believe in natural rights, but not in nearly the same way as most people who believe in natural rights. I believe that a person's nature should determine what their rights are, but that there is very little in common among humanity as a whole, and that the idea of a universal "human right" doesn't really make much sense. Each person has a nature that determines their proclivities and the conditions under which they would be able to live the best life possible.

Most human beings, typical human beings, are very similar in nature, but there are significant portions of humanity that don't fit in. These people deserve as much autonomy and self-determination as possible.

The desires and motivations that are deepest and most important to a particular human being are not entirely determined by biology. There are some inescapable motivations that are biologically dependent, but there are also some that are completely induced by environment and some that are a mixture of the two. These motivations are no less strong and basic than the purely biological ones. As such, societies that have been inducing certain values that have become inexorable in the members of those societies should have the autonomy to accommodate their people according to their natures.

The primary criticism of any theory of natural rights is that the way that a person "is" does not imply that that is the way this person "ought" to be. I agree with this assessment, but I agree with it because what a person "ought" to do is irrelevant if their nature forces them to do something. I believe that to say someone "ought" to do something, one is implying that they "can" do it. If a person's nature forces them to behave a certain way, it makes no sense to say that they "ought" not to behave that way. They have no choice but to behave according to their nature.

The one human characteristic that is significant for all of humanity is that there are people who will have a nature that is different from any other member of humanity, therefore the only universal human right that should be taken seriously is the ability to opt out of any society that doesn't recognize one's true nature. Anyone who wants to leave a particular country should be allowed to leave that country to seek one that will better accommodate them.

External Gestation

I consider myself fiercely pro-choice despite the fact that I really dislike abortion. The idea that a woman should be forced to carry a child to term is far more despicable than the fact that abortion is whithering away the populations of many countries and is just plain gross.

I don't like abortion, and I don't like forcing women to carry children they don't want and have no desire (and probably no ability) to raise. So for this, as with all things, I look to technology for a way to have my cake and eat it too.

One of the best things that we could invent is an artificial womb. I'm sure somebody, somewhere, is already looking for a way to gestate a kid from conception to birth without the need of burdening some poor lady's uterus. Not only could this provide more options to women prone to miscarriages, but, if a fetus or even embryo could be extracted from a pregnant woman, that woman would retain sovereignty over her body and the child she conceived would survive.

Now I'm sure some lovey dovey conservative fruitcakes will whine about how this would violate the bond between a mother and her child, but come on, if that bond were otherwise going to be severed with a coat hanger, it couldn't have been that strong in the first place. Kids who are put up for adoption would never know who their parents are anyway, so that's really a moot point.

An artificial womb would mean a more sustainable population and an end to abortions altogether without violating a woman's right to her own body. And who could be against that?

China's Ace in the Hole

It isn't news that China is gaining power, wealth and influence, but few people understand the role that their huge population will play in their future standing in the world. Right now it's seen as a liability, and it it is a liability for a socialist country, committed, at least ideologically to providing basic necessities to over a billion people. Given that the native populations of most Western countries are failing to reproduce at replacement rates, however, a population that has trouble keeping itself under control could be a profound advantage.

The countries at the top of the heap right now are either declining in population like Russia, or can only keep their populations afloat by inviting in millions of immigrants into the country. If the West is lucky, and those immigrants are able to adopt the culture and way of life that has kept Europe and its colonies prosperous, then there is little to worry about. If, however, those immigrants, who largely come from less successful countries, bring cultural traditions with them that are not conducive to the continuing prosperity of the West, then East Asia and especially China will take the West's place at the top.

There is plenty of room for criticism of the political situation in China, but whether you like the country or not, its population and the pro-prosperity culture it supports enjoy a security that the West does not.

No Flab for Me!

I'm still pretty young (only 25) but already, I'm scared to death of getting older and nothing exacerbates my fears more than seeing how much the kids I went to high school have let themselves go over the years. The guys and gals with whom I graduated have only been out of high school for seven years, but they're already getting fatter. I don't think anybody I knew back then is actually thinner now.

The more I see this, the more frightened I am by each new birthday cake.

YouTube Demons

Despite my avid interest in the occult, I'm a skeptical sort of guy. Since I was in high school I've been reading about Anton Lavey, Aleister Crowley and later, John Dee and the Ars Goetia. My primary interest in the stuff has always been aesthetic. I like the semiotics, poetry, and even the couture of the occult. I never really took it seriously, however, and have always had a giggle at those who do.

The Goetia, (a system developed by King Solomon to summon demons and get them to do your bidding) arouses an especially vehement skepticism in me, mainly because those who practice it claim to be able to summon visibly observable entities that they claim are absolutely not figments of their imagination. If this is the case, however, I think there would be more than just drawings of these things. If you can really see them, and they are really there, why has nobody photographed or video taped any of these things? You'd think YouTube would be loaded with Goetia videos.

He's a Rare Kind of Republican

Somehow a lispy libertarian is beating all the other Republicans running.



Could it be that in 2008, instead of voting for the lesser of two evils, Americans will actually get to vote for the greater of two goods?

The Paradox of Choice

I was looking over this book, The Paradox of Choice, and I found it very interesting. It's central premise is that our assumption that having more and better options from which to choose makes us more satisfied is largely wrong. Obviously getting to choose something you clearly prefer over something you clearly don't is more satisfying than being stuck with something you don't want, but when you have a ton of options, all of which are pretty good, whatever you choose is not going to be as satisfying because you may wonder if what you did not choose would have been better.

One would think someone with fewer options would not be as happy as someone with lots of options, but when you have fewer options, you have fewer decisions to regret if they don't work out. Having more options is only beneficial to the very decisive. To everyone else, they are just distractions.

The Future of Homosexuality

Conservatives, especially the "race realists," reject the idea that social constructs can influence a person's intelligence or ability to fit into society. They believe that certain kinds of people are just stupid or criminal "by nature" and that there is no amount of social engineering that can change that. There's one exception to this, however and that is sexual preference. A person's intelligence or criminality are significantly influenced by their genetics, but their sexuality? That is somehow a choice. Conservatives believe that, unlike criminals, homosexuals can somehow be rehabilitated.

Consistency is not a strong quality of the right.

While I believe that a person's sexuality can be influenced by social constructs (Homosexuality in ancient Rome was not only more accepted, but genuinely more common), this can only be done within limits that are at least somewhat biologically determined. The possibility of technology that can grant us further knowledge and control over our biology, however, would mean that, although we may not be entirely free to choose our own sexuality, we will certainly be able to control the sexuality of our children.

Insofar as sexuality is beyond a person's control, it makes no sense hold someone morally responsible for the kind of person to whom they are or are not attracted. However, even if homosexuality becomes increasingly tolerated, will parents who have they option to manipulate their children's sexuality continue to leave it up to chance?

Hey a New Blog

I'll try to take care of this one.