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.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Sunday, March 18, 2007
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.
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.
Friday, March 16, 2007
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.
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.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
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?
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)