There is no shortage of conspiracy theories about a secret group ruling the world. I don't happen to subscribe to any of them because I've seen no evidence. But I do understand the appeal of the idea. So I thought I'd add fuel to the fire.
One problem with a secret group is that it is impossible to keep it secret for long. Every group eventually spawns a Paris Hilton type who simply can't avoid the spotlight. Succeeding generations become increasingly overconfident until they feel invincible.
Another problem with secret groups is maintaining focus and motivation across the generations. History is rife with examples of wildly divergent personalities among monarchs. Kings and queens seldom behave the same as their predecessors or successors even when they are direct genetic relations.
Given just these two problems (I'm sure there are plenty of others) I really have no confidence in the ability of any group to stay in control of the entire world across several generations.
But... what if there aren't generations? What if it is a group of unusually long-lived individuals? Such a group would avoid the problems noted above. In addition, such a group would have time to develop connections and amass wealth. They would be able to develop power beyond the reach of people with a more limited lifespan.
At first it sounds like complete fantasy. But is it? We still don't understand the aging process. There is still debate about whether aging is an unavoidable fact programmed into our DNA or whether it is some sort of environmental issue.
Obviously, if death is not a genetic trait then immortality is a simple matter of avoiding death. Eat right, exercise, avoid disease, don't take unnecessary risks and you should live forever. Whether or not that's feasible is an open question. Even without disease and accident there is the possibility that the environment is still killing you. I've always thought the aging process looks remarkably similar to radiation poisoning. So it wouldn't surprise me to find out the natural background radiation of the Earth was the root cause of old age and "natural" death. I also suspect our own mind becomes our enemy at some point. It's worth noting how many people die of "natural" causes just after retiring or after seeing their grandchildren graduate or some similar milestone. It's as if they simply give up and decide they are no longer needed (the "it's my time" mentality). But maybe a well-motivated person could avoid such pitfalls. So without a genetic doomsday clock it may be possible for humans to survive centuries instead of decades.
And a genetic doomsday clock does not entirely negate the possibility of near-immortality. There's already a wide diversity of "natural" lifespans. Some people die "naturally" in their sixties. Others live beyond a century before succumbing to death. So we don't know where the doomsday clock is set or even if there is a default setting. It is almost certain that there would be a range of lifespan settings just like there is a range of height or a range of hair colors that varies between individuals. More importantly, for this theory, if there is a genetic doomsday clock then it is susceptible to mutation like any other gene. We know about the rare genetic disorder, progeria, which causes children to age rapidly and die ridiculously young. Is it not probable there is an equally rare, or even more rare, disorder that slows or eliminates the aging process? Such a thing may never be documented for the simple reason that no sane person is likely to go to the doctor to find out why they haven't died yet.
So either with or without a genetic limit on human lifespan it may be possible for some humans to live for generations. And it's hard to imagine what an individual could accomplish with that ability. I know that I am suffering into my forties for mistakes I made in my late teens. I may not recover from those mistakes before my fifties. If I only live to my seventies then I would have lived most of my life trying to correct stupid mistakes. But if I live well into the hundreds... well then I could recover from those mistakes, learn from them, and enjoy life without regretting how much of it I wasted trying to fix what I broke.
If it were possible to live for centuries, how would that affect a person? It seems likely that even the most noble individual would at some point develop a god complex. How could you not? How could you maintain any connection with the rest of humanity when you keep watching them die off around you? It seems inevitable that you would at some point look at short-lived humans the same way most of us look at pets; people would be an amusing, but easily replaced, diversion.
Once you reach that point, the world becomes a huge game of Sims. You could use the connections and influence you spent decades building to manipulate the world for your own amusement. You might even compete against other immortals to see who held most sway with the masses. Which would explain much of why the world is as fucked up as it is today.
Just to be clear, I am not saying this is the way the world is. Like all good tinfoil hat theories this is just plausible enough to not be totally ludicrous. We don't need a race of immortal puppeteers pulling strings behind the scenes to explain the rampant discord of human civilization. All it takes is a handful of completely mortal zealots to ruin everything. And we have more than a handful.
Sunday, June 7, 2015
Sunday, August 24, 2014
A question for physicists
I confess I have no grasp whatsoever of advanced physics. I understand Newton's work, simple mechanics, just fine. But quantum mechanics, string theory, super symmetry... these are inconceivable to me. This lack of knowledge leads me to question an assertion I've seen made several times.
I'm told that the leading theories predict as many as ten or eleven dimensions in our universe. Remarks about these multiple dimensions are frequently followed by the caveat that these dimensions do not mean there are supernatural forces dwelling there and influencing our lives. My question is, how do you know that?
I've been an atheist most of my life. But even I have to wonder what the presence of multiple dimensions means to us. How can anybody say with certainty that we aren't a three-dimensional Sims game on some four-dimensional schoolkid's laptop? There are still unsolved mysteries about our own dimensions. How can we possibly know anything about other dimensions which we can't even examine? Does matter exist in these other dimensions? Don't give me that "not as we know it" cop-out. If "stuff" is in these higher dimensions then how can we say that this "stuff" can't form into intelligent life? And wouldn't intelligent life in a higher dimension almost by definition be a god to us? Much like we are gods to pixels on a screen.
I'm told that the leading theories predict as many as ten or eleven dimensions in our universe. Remarks about these multiple dimensions are frequently followed by the caveat that these dimensions do not mean there are supernatural forces dwelling there and influencing our lives. My question is, how do you know that?
I've been an atheist most of my life. But even I have to wonder what the presence of multiple dimensions means to us. How can anybody say with certainty that we aren't a three-dimensional Sims game on some four-dimensional schoolkid's laptop? There are still unsolved mysteries about our own dimensions. How can we possibly know anything about other dimensions which we can't even examine? Does matter exist in these other dimensions? Don't give me that "not as we know it" cop-out. If "stuff" is in these higher dimensions then how can we say that this "stuff" can't form into intelligent life? And wouldn't intelligent life in a higher dimension almost by definition be a god to us? Much like we are gods to pixels on a screen.
Sunday, August 17, 2014
Thoughts on alien life
Science fiction movies and television shows often portray aliens as remarkably humanoid. This is obviously a matter of convenience since most of the actors available to portray aliens are themselves typically humanoid. But it's become somewhat common for people to critique these shows for a perceived lack of imagination in the design of the aliens. The objection is that aliens would look completely different, dare I say "alien". But is this really the case? Would aliens really look so terribly different from us?
I want to be clear that I am specifically talking about intelligent aliens. We know from our own animal kingdom that life can take on a huge variety of bizarre forms. So there's every reason to think alien creatures would be every bit as diverse and bizarre as what we see here.
But intelligent life is another story all together. There have been many millions of species on this planet since life began. Yet, as far as we know, only one has evolved into intelligent life. Why is that? Convergent evolution clearly demonstrates that unrelated species can independently evolve similar traits. Insects, birds, and bats, for example, all independently evolved flight because flight offered some survival advantage. Intelligence has undoubtedly given us a tremendous survival advantage. So why are we the only species to have it?
I submit that physiology plays a role in the answer to that question. One of the keys to advancing intelligence is the use of tools. This requires a degree of dexterity not seen in many species. Right off the bat, we are limited to creatures that are accustomed to grappling things. This means mainly arboreal or other climbing creatures. Appendages suited for gripping limbs or ledges will be equally suited for gripping sticks, rocks, and more advanced tools. Whereas hooves, wings, and paws are poorly suited for tool use. So horses, falcons, and tigers are unlikely to begin using spears.
A tree or cliff dwelling creature that for some reason decides to begin living on flat ground will also find itself with spare limbs. Forelimbs once essential for gripping the next branch or crag would now be free to carry any number of tools or supplies while leaving the hind limbs free to move the creature about the landscape. This is important since a tool is of little use if you have to set it down every time you move.
Some may argue that tentacles could also allow tool use. But I think this is unlikely. Tentacles have never evolved on land. This is probably due to some physiological limit of the mechanism. So while tentacles are undoubtedly useful and dextrous in their environment, it is their environment that is the problem. Advanced technology, and the intelligent life that co-dependently evolves with it, cannot arise in an aquatic world. You can't smelt ore, harness fire, or build electronics underwater. An aquatic species might possibly advance a ways. But it would be limited to stone age technology. That may or may not be sufficient to qualify as intelligent. But it is certainly not sufficient to communicate with spacefaring species.
Even an amphibious species would be rather unlikely to gain intelligence. Use of fire is a fundamental first step on the road to intelligence. An amphibious species is highly unlikely to develop an affinity for fire. Their need to stay moist is directly at odds with fire's tendency to dry things out. Amphibious creatures don't tend to live in areas where it gets cold enough to require fire for warmth since such cold would make it difficult to maintain the moisture of an amphibian's skin. Without fire a species is again limited to the stone age.
So it seems logically that any intelligent species would have to be terrestrial in origin. But there are still deductions we can make to further define the characteristics of an intelligent species. There must be a minimum size to any intelligent creature. It takes a certain amount of brain capacity to be intelligent. This means there must be a minimum size body to support that minimum size brain. But it is entirely unclear just how large a species must be before the brain reaches the critical mass for sentience. Sentient mice are certainly out of the question. Sentient dogs? Who knows?
There is probably even be an upper limit to the size of an intelligent species. Beyond a certain size, what tools can a species build? Dinosaurs could never have woven cloth much less developed microchips. They could never have ground lenses to make telescopes to examine the stars. Just how big can a species get before the fine details of technology escape its grasp?
Certainly there is room for a great deal of diversity. Species could have more senses, fewer senses, different numbers of sensory organs, more limbs, any number of variations. But I really don't see any logical support for the idea that intelligent aliens would look vastly different from us. There are real limits on the growth of intelligence. Limits that apparently exclude all but one species out of millions. If there were a broad range of traits that allowed for intelligence to flourish then we would surely see more intelligent species on Earth. Since we don't see a wide variety of intelligent life here on Earth there's no reason to suspect we'd see a wide range of intelligent life elsewhere. So there's no reason for writers to create truly bizarre creatures for their shows.
I want to be clear that I am specifically talking about intelligent aliens. We know from our own animal kingdom that life can take on a huge variety of bizarre forms. So there's every reason to think alien creatures would be every bit as diverse and bizarre as what we see here.
But intelligent life is another story all together. There have been many millions of species on this planet since life began. Yet, as far as we know, only one has evolved into intelligent life. Why is that? Convergent evolution clearly demonstrates that unrelated species can independently evolve similar traits. Insects, birds, and bats, for example, all independently evolved flight because flight offered some survival advantage. Intelligence has undoubtedly given us a tremendous survival advantage. So why are we the only species to have it?
I submit that physiology plays a role in the answer to that question. One of the keys to advancing intelligence is the use of tools. This requires a degree of dexterity not seen in many species. Right off the bat, we are limited to creatures that are accustomed to grappling things. This means mainly arboreal or other climbing creatures. Appendages suited for gripping limbs or ledges will be equally suited for gripping sticks, rocks, and more advanced tools. Whereas hooves, wings, and paws are poorly suited for tool use. So horses, falcons, and tigers are unlikely to begin using spears.
A tree or cliff dwelling creature that for some reason decides to begin living on flat ground will also find itself with spare limbs. Forelimbs once essential for gripping the next branch or crag would now be free to carry any number of tools or supplies while leaving the hind limbs free to move the creature about the landscape. This is important since a tool is of little use if you have to set it down every time you move.
Some may argue that tentacles could also allow tool use. But I think this is unlikely. Tentacles have never evolved on land. This is probably due to some physiological limit of the mechanism. So while tentacles are undoubtedly useful and dextrous in their environment, it is their environment that is the problem. Advanced technology, and the intelligent life that co-dependently evolves with it, cannot arise in an aquatic world. You can't smelt ore, harness fire, or build electronics underwater. An aquatic species might possibly advance a ways. But it would be limited to stone age technology. That may or may not be sufficient to qualify as intelligent. But it is certainly not sufficient to communicate with spacefaring species.
Even an amphibious species would be rather unlikely to gain intelligence. Use of fire is a fundamental first step on the road to intelligence. An amphibious species is highly unlikely to develop an affinity for fire. Their need to stay moist is directly at odds with fire's tendency to dry things out. Amphibious creatures don't tend to live in areas where it gets cold enough to require fire for warmth since such cold would make it difficult to maintain the moisture of an amphibian's skin. Without fire a species is again limited to the stone age.
So it seems logically that any intelligent species would have to be terrestrial in origin. But there are still deductions we can make to further define the characteristics of an intelligent species. There must be a minimum size to any intelligent creature. It takes a certain amount of brain capacity to be intelligent. This means there must be a minimum size body to support that minimum size brain. But it is entirely unclear just how large a species must be before the brain reaches the critical mass for sentience. Sentient mice are certainly out of the question. Sentient dogs? Who knows?
There is probably even be an upper limit to the size of an intelligent species. Beyond a certain size, what tools can a species build? Dinosaurs could never have woven cloth much less developed microchips. They could never have ground lenses to make telescopes to examine the stars. Just how big can a species get before the fine details of technology escape its grasp?
Certainly there is room for a great deal of diversity. Species could have more senses, fewer senses, different numbers of sensory organs, more limbs, any number of variations. But I really don't see any logical support for the idea that intelligent aliens would look vastly different from us. There are real limits on the growth of intelligence. Limits that apparently exclude all but one species out of millions. If there were a broad range of traits that allowed for intelligence to flourish then we would surely see more intelligent species on Earth. Since we don't see a wide variety of intelligent life here on Earth there's no reason to suspect we'd see a wide range of intelligent life elsewhere. So there's no reason for writers to create truly bizarre creatures for their shows.
Saturday, August 16, 2014
Beyond misogyny
I don't think "misogyny" is a sufficiently all-encompassing term. I would like to propose a new term to add to our repertoire of epithets, "gynophobia".
I propose this term because there is a group of humans who don't necessarily "hate" women as the "mis-" in "misogyny" implies. Rather, this group tends to view women as something to be avoided or shunned. This group is primarily made up of "feminists" who do everything they can to disavow their femininity. They are afraid, ergo "phobic", of everything pertaining to women, ergo "gyno-".
Compare the modern "feminist" to the only woman I can think of who truly represents what a feminist should be, Mae West. Mae West celebrated her femininity. She did everything she could to accentuate her sexuality. But she also stood on equal ground with the men who surrounded her. She reveled in her promiscuity, even if that promiscuity was exaggerated. She was strong-willed, independent, subservient to no-one. There was no doubt she considered herself the equal of any man. And she attained that status without disavowing her femininity in the slightest.
The only modern example of true feminism I can think of is fictional, the character "Ripley" from the "Aliens" movie franchise. She didn't flaunt her sexuality the way Mae West did. But she did embrace her nurturing "motherhood" side with both the stray child "Newt" and later with the hybrid creature she had to kill. And she embraced that nurturing aspect while still being equal to, even superior to, the men around her.
Gynophobia is just as destructive as misogyny. Gyno- and andro- represent the yin and yang of humanity. We've had thousands of years of dominance of the andro-. Where has that left us? We need women to elevate the gyno-, to celebrate it and restore the balance society is lacking.
I propose this term because there is a group of humans who don't necessarily "hate" women as the "mis-" in "misogyny" implies. Rather, this group tends to view women as something to be avoided or shunned. This group is primarily made up of "feminists" who do everything they can to disavow their femininity. They are afraid, ergo "phobic", of everything pertaining to women, ergo "gyno-".
Compare the modern "feminist" to the only woman I can think of who truly represents what a feminist should be, Mae West. Mae West celebrated her femininity. She did everything she could to accentuate her sexuality. But she also stood on equal ground with the men who surrounded her. She reveled in her promiscuity, even if that promiscuity was exaggerated. She was strong-willed, independent, subservient to no-one. There was no doubt she considered herself the equal of any man. And she attained that status without disavowing her femininity in the slightest.
The only modern example of true feminism I can think of is fictional, the character "Ripley" from the "Aliens" movie franchise. She didn't flaunt her sexuality the way Mae West did. But she did embrace her nurturing "motherhood" side with both the stray child "Newt" and later with the hybrid creature she had to kill. And she embraced that nurturing aspect while still being equal to, even superior to, the men around her.
Gynophobia is just as destructive as misogyny. Gyno- and andro- represent the yin and yang of humanity. We've had thousands of years of dominance of the andro-. Where has that left us? We need women to elevate the gyno-, to celebrate it and restore the balance society is lacking.
Thursday, August 14, 2014
Meet the new god...
Other atheists keep telling me that religion is nothing more than belief in some supernatural force. It's belief in something we can't see, can't measure, but that still manages to control our lives. Alright. For the sake of argument, let's go with that idea. That means that "string theory" is a religion.
If you don't already know, string theory is all about a force that exists in higher dimensions than our own. Strings are the source of everything we see, but we cannot measure them or test them in any way. So strings are god.
If you don't already know, string theory is all about a force that exists in higher dimensions than our own. Strings are the source of everything we see, but we cannot measure them or test them in any way. So strings are god.
Sunday, August 3, 2014
Absolute morality?
I just finished a debate on morality with a moral realist. For those who don't know, moral realists are certain that there are absolute moral laws very much like there are absolute laws of physics. My own view is that morality is a human construct and mostly subject to the whims of individuals and society. That makes me a moral relativist. What scared me about the debate, and gave me reason to distrust realists, is the stance the bloke had on the idea of competing moralities.
My opponent made the comment that there is only one right way to look at any given question. Reasonable enough, yes? He went on to say that people who do not believe this one right way are delusional or self-deceptive. What? So now if you argue with the Right Way you aren't defending an alternate stance, you are mentally ill. He continued by saying that there is no requirement for external, objective proof of which way is the right way. So the Righteous can make up whatever moral law they want and they don't have to provide rational support for their law.
Taken together, these views account for all the evil that has ever been wrought on humanity. Stalin, for example, was convinced that those who did not believe in his moral crusade to help the proletariat were just misguided. He established "re-education" camps to help these delusional folks find their way back to the moral path.
This sort of absolutism is dangerous. This is what allows people to justify all manner of atrocities. Such absolutists are convinced they, and they alone, hold the key to human salvation.
If you want to claim your way is the One True Path you had better bring some evidence. Newton didn't just claim, "my theory of gravity is the right one!" He backed his claim with testable facts. Today, nobody questions the veracity of his claims. Because everybody can see he was right. If you want everybody to see you are right you better bring the hard facts so that people find it impossible to dispute your claims. Just saying, "because I said so" will not fly.
My opponent made the comment that there is only one right way to look at any given question. Reasonable enough, yes? He went on to say that people who do not believe this one right way are delusional or self-deceptive. What? So now if you argue with the Right Way you aren't defending an alternate stance, you are mentally ill. He continued by saying that there is no requirement for external, objective proof of which way is the right way. So the Righteous can make up whatever moral law they want and they don't have to provide rational support for their law.
Taken together, these views account for all the evil that has ever been wrought on humanity. Stalin, for example, was convinced that those who did not believe in his moral crusade to help the proletariat were just misguided. He established "re-education" camps to help these delusional folks find their way back to the moral path.
This sort of absolutism is dangerous. This is what allows people to justify all manner of atrocities. Such absolutists are convinced they, and they alone, hold the key to human salvation.
If you want to claim your way is the One True Path you had better bring some evidence. Newton didn't just claim, "my theory of gravity is the right one!" He backed his claim with testable facts. Today, nobody questions the veracity of his claims. Because everybody can see he was right. If you want everybody to see you are right you better bring the hard facts so that people find it impossible to dispute your claims. Just saying, "because I said so" will not fly.
Saturday, August 2, 2014
Beating a dead horse (yet another assault on the climate change hoax)
I watched the movie, "Pandora's Promise" the other day. I admit it gave me a sense of smug satisfaction to see a bunch of environmentalists finally realize that nuclear power is the most ecological power possible. For the most part, the movie was informative and entertaining. They actually showed the numbers supporting the benefits of nuclear. And I learned there have been people living cancer-free in Chernobyl since about a year after the catastrophe that was supposed to render half of Europe permanently uninhabitable. I was absolutely amazed by that.
But, being environmentalists, they couldn't make it through an entire film without banging the war drum for Anthropogenic Climate Change. Which I once found only mildly annoying. Now that the Cult of Gaia has become the official doctrine of the land, however, I can no longer stand the ignorance of these people.
First of all, they went on about CO2 emissions. It has been a documented, proven scientific fact for some two decades now that CO2 levels lag behind global temperature changes by a matter of centuries. So CO2 emissions cannot be part of the problem. A cause must precede an effect. On top of that, CO2 is hardly a toxin. CO2 is critical to plant life. More CO2 means more plants. Just ask any gardener or even aquarist who uses supplemental CO2 to improve plant growth. So when I hear any Gaian complain about CO2 levels I know they are ignorant of even the most basic science. This makes it impossible to take them seriously afterwards.
Secondly, and this is the one that really makes me want to paint my face and head to war, they insist on saying that anybody who disagrees with them is a "denier". The use of this word, and the tone that accompanies it, pretty much amounts to calling people "heretics". And that's exactly the sort of ad hominem attack you expect from people who cannot support their position with data.
The one Gaian went so far as to say that those who "deny" ACC simply cherry-pick data to support their position. This is at least a rational accusation. But it's also demonstrably false. And here are some globally-recognized facts that are not subject to cherry-picking but which definitely support my assertion that ACC is a hoax being perpetrated in the name of social engineering;
1) CO2 emissions, the great boogeyman of the Cult of Gaia, do not cause climate change. So why are CO2 emissions at the center of virtually every ACC debate? They are a non-issue
2) Human contributions to the known and suspected greenhouse gasses amount to less than half a percent of the total levels. So even if humans ceased to exist there would still be more than 99.5% of the greenhouse levels Gaians so vociferously preach about.
3) The Milankovitch Theory. This is the big one. While the average person on the street may not know this, the Earth has been cycling between cold and warm spells for a very, very long time. This current warm spell started some 18,000 years ago-- long before the Hummer or even coal power. And Milutin Milankovitch calculated the cause of this cycle roughly a century ago. In the early 1900s, Mr. Milankovitch calculated that the Earth would go through glacial periods on a roughly 100,000 year cycle. And every bit of evidence we've discovered since then have supported his calculations. Variations in the Earth's orbit and the tilt of the Earth's axis combine to create variations in the amount of heat our planet absorbs from the sun. This is known science. It's been accepted fact for a century. So how is it cherry-picking to say that this effect is doing now what is has done the last several glacial cycles?
What the Gaians are doing is simple social engineering. They know the average person is too busy worrying about what Lady Gaga is wearing to be bothered to read anything remotely scientific. They count on your ignorance to make you gullible and easily manipulated. They are doing exactly what the Aztecs (or was it the Mayans?) once did. The Aztec/Mayan priests understood solar eclipses. They had records of them and calendars to predict them. But they knew the average peasant was ignorant of eclipses. So the Aztecs/Mayans would display their "power" by holding ceremonies when the sun was due to be "eaten". Just as the world went dark and all seemed lost, the priests would perform a sacrifice-- lo and behold! The sun was reborn and so was the peasants' faith in the power of the priests. It was all smoke and mirrors.
And so it is with the Gaians. They know the Milankovitch theory is proven fact. They know CO2 is not an issue. But they also know that you can be made to believe there is a problem. And they know that by making you believe there is a problem they can then manipulate you into following them down whatever primrose path they choose to take you down.
To any Gaians who happen across this post and wish to challenge me, your task is simple. You believe humans are causing more warming than would naturally occur. So all you have to do is demonstrate what warming would occur right now without any human involvement. It really should be a simple task. Just compare this interglacial warm spell with the last seven or eight the Earth has experienced. See what the normal variation is between those seven or eight interglacial warm spells. Then compare this current interglacial warm spell to those previous ones to see if there is any statistically significant difference between this one, with evil humans present, and the previous ones. That should have been the first step in all this, see if there really is an athropogenic component to this current warming trend.
But I want to issue a further challenge to the Gaians as well as give other Freethinkers something to ponder. In the Jurassic age, arguably the high-point of the dinosaurs, there was no polar ice and probably little snow except at the highest elevations. So why is the reduction of polar ice now something to fear? The dinosaurs lived in a tropical paradise. Can you prove we wouldn't have that again if the icecaps melted entirely? Are you even familiar with how the hydrologic cycle works? You do realize that ice at the poles is water that could be sustaining life elsewhere on the planet, right? If the icecaps melted we would have increased rainfall globally. Combined with the increased CO2 levels we would have increased plant growth. Can you prove that a warmer Earth than we have now would not result in expanded tropics? Can you prove that life would not flourish if the Earth continued warming like it flourished millions of years ago, before the ice ages began? Because my belief is that the best thing we could do for humanity, and all lif on the planet, is to deliberately melt the Antarctic ice. That would reduce solar reflectivity, allow the Earth to absorb more heat from the sun, and free up precious water for all creatures to drink. My way gives us longer growing seasons, more CO2, and more rainfall. How does this in any way seem wrong? Can you Gaians prove your way is better than mine? Would you really prefer another glacial age to another Jurassic age?
If you Gaians want to accuse me of cherry-picking data you have to prove the Milankovitch Theory is wrong. Or you have to prove that this interglacial warm spell is going to be significantly hotter or last significantly longer than history would predict. And that this longer/warmer warm spell is inherently a bad thing. Those are fundamental facts, not trivial bits of data. So put up or shut up.
But, being environmentalists, they couldn't make it through an entire film without banging the war drum for Anthropogenic Climate Change. Which I once found only mildly annoying. Now that the Cult of Gaia has become the official doctrine of the land, however, I can no longer stand the ignorance of these people.
First of all, they went on about CO2 emissions. It has been a documented, proven scientific fact for some two decades now that CO2 levels lag behind global temperature changes by a matter of centuries. So CO2 emissions cannot be part of the problem. A cause must precede an effect. On top of that, CO2 is hardly a toxin. CO2 is critical to plant life. More CO2 means more plants. Just ask any gardener or even aquarist who uses supplemental CO2 to improve plant growth. So when I hear any Gaian complain about CO2 levels I know they are ignorant of even the most basic science. This makes it impossible to take them seriously afterwards.
Secondly, and this is the one that really makes me want to paint my face and head to war, they insist on saying that anybody who disagrees with them is a "denier". The use of this word, and the tone that accompanies it, pretty much amounts to calling people "heretics". And that's exactly the sort of ad hominem attack you expect from people who cannot support their position with data.
The one Gaian went so far as to say that those who "deny" ACC simply cherry-pick data to support their position. This is at least a rational accusation. But it's also demonstrably false. And here are some globally-recognized facts that are not subject to cherry-picking but which definitely support my assertion that ACC is a hoax being perpetrated in the name of social engineering;
1) CO2 emissions, the great boogeyman of the Cult of Gaia, do not cause climate change. So why are CO2 emissions at the center of virtually every ACC debate? They are a non-issue
2) Human contributions to the known and suspected greenhouse gasses amount to less than half a percent of the total levels. So even if humans ceased to exist there would still be more than 99.5% of the greenhouse levels Gaians so vociferously preach about.
3) The Milankovitch Theory. This is the big one. While the average person on the street may not know this, the Earth has been cycling between cold and warm spells for a very, very long time. This current warm spell started some 18,000 years ago-- long before the Hummer or even coal power. And Milutin Milankovitch calculated the cause of this cycle roughly a century ago. In the early 1900s, Mr. Milankovitch calculated that the Earth would go through glacial periods on a roughly 100,000 year cycle. And every bit of evidence we've discovered since then have supported his calculations. Variations in the Earth's orbit and the tilt of the Earth's axis combine to create variations in the amount of heat our planet absorbs from the sun. This is known science. It's been accepted fact for a century. So how is it cherry-picking to say that this effect is doing now what is has done the last several glacial cycles?
What the Gaians are doing is simple social engineering. They know the average person is too busy worrying about what Lady Gaga is wearing to be bothered to read anything remotely scientific. They count on your ignorance to make you gullible and easily manipulated. They are doing exactly what the Aztecs (or was it the Mayans?) once did. The Aztec/Mayan priests understood solar eclipses. They had records of them and calendars to predict them. But they knew the average peasant was ignorant of eclipses. So the Aztecs/Mayans would display their "power" by holding ceremonies when the sun was due to be "eaten". Just as the world went dark and all seemed lost, the priests would perform a sacrifice-- lo and behold! The sun was reborn and so was the peasants' faith in the power of the priests. It was all smoke and mirrors.
And so it is with the Gaians. They know the Milankovitch theory is proven fact. They know CO2 is not an issue. But they also know that you can be made to believe there is a problem. And they know that by making you believe there is a problem they can then manipulate you into following them down whatever primrose path they choose to take you down.
To any Gaians who happen across this post and wish to challenge me, your task is simple. You believe humans are causing more warming than would naturally occur. So all you have to do is demonstrate what warming would occur right now without any human involvement. It really should be a simple task. Just compare this interglacial warm spell with the last seven or eight the Earth has experienced. See what the normal variation is between those seven or eight interglacial warm spells. Then compare this current interglacial warm spell to those previous ones to see if there is any statistically significant difference between this one, with evil humans present, and the previous ones. That should have been the first step in all this, see if there really is an athropogenic component to this current warming trend.
But I want to issue a further challenge to the Gaians as well as give other Freethinkers something to ponder. In the Jurassic age, arguably the high-point of the dinosaurs, there was no polar ice and probably little snow except at the highest elevations. So why is the reduction of polar ice now something to fear? The dinosaurs lived in a tropical paradise. Can you prove we wouldn't have that again if the icecaps melted entirely? Are you even familiar with how the hydrologic cycle works? You do realize that ice at the poles is water that could be sustaining life elsewhere on the planet, right? If the icecaps melted we would have increased rainfall globally. Combined with the increased CO2 levels we would have increased plant growth. Can you prove that a warmer Earth than we have now would not result in expanded tropics? Can you prove that life would not flourish if the Earth continued warming like it flourished millions of years ago, before the ice ages began? Because my belief is that the best thing we could do for humanity, and all lif on the planet, is to deliberately melt the Antarctic ice. That would reduce solar reflectivity, allow the Earth to absorb more heat from the sun, and free up precious water for all creatures to drink. My way gives us longer growing seasons, more CO2, and more rainfall. How does this in any way seem wrong? Can you Gaians prove your way is better than mine? Would you really prefer another glacial age to another Jurassic age?
If you Gaians want to accuse me of cherry-picking data you have to prove the Milankovitch Theory is wrong. Or you have to prove that this interglacial warm spell is going to be significantly hotter or last significantly longer than history would predict. And that this longer/warmer warm spell is inherently a bad thing. Those are fundamental facts, not trivial bits of data. So put up or shut up.
Monday, July 28, 2014
Immanuel Kant and the paradox of truth
I don't understand the long-running debate over Kant's "murderer paradox". I can understand Kant's position that the truth is the foundation of reason and human civilization. I happen to agree that lying is an abhorrent practice. However, I can't comprehend how Kant believes that lying to a murderer in order to protect the would-be victim falls into the realm of immorality.
I know I'm not the first to point this out, not even close to it. But a murderer is operating outside the realm of morality. You can't step outside the realm of morality and still expect to be protected by the rules of morality. So there is no obligation to treat the murderer with the same moral behavior you would use towards other humans.
If Kant were right, if it were immoral to treat a criminal immorally, then all forms of punishment we regularly use against criminals would be wrong. Nobody argues that it's wrong to lock criminals in cages. So why would anybody argue that it's wrong to lie to criminals?
I know I'm not the first to point this out, not even close to it. But a murderer is operating outside the realm of morality. You can't step outside the realm of morality and still expect to be protected by the rules of morality. So there is no obligation to treat the murderer with the same moral behavior you would use towards other humans.
If Kant were right, if it were immoral to treat a criminal immorally, then all forms of punishment we regularly use against criminals would be wrong. Nobody argues that it's wrong to lock criminals in cages. So why would anybody argue that it's wrong to lie to criminals?
Saturday, July 19, 2014
A new sub-species of fallacy identified by science
Most folks are familiar with the "is-ought" fallacy. For those who aren't, it is the fallacy of saying that because something "is" it therefor "ought" to be. Here's an extreme case to demonstrate why is is a fallacy; pedophilia exists, it "is" a real thing in our world. Following the "is-ought" fallacy we can then conclude that pedophilia "ought" to exist.
Now even though only a handful of demented fucks believe pedophilia "ought" to exist there are a surprising number of people who believe "is" justifies "ought". I hope this over-the-top example clarifies that to adhere to the "is-ought" philosophy is to say that our current world is perfect in every way.
There has been a noticeable decline in the use of "is-ought" lately. But there's a sub-species of it that flourishes. If you simply change the tense of "is-ought" from present to future you get what I call the "can-must" fallacy. This fallacy is hugely popular on the left side of the political spectrum. Folks are very fond of saying that if you are able to do something, usually help the poor, then you are morally obligated to do that something.
To use another extreme example of why this is a fallacy; Germans "can" build gas chambers. It does not logically or morally follow then that they "must" build gas chambers.
A more realistic example; many people will say that if I "can" give a beggar a dollar, I "must" give a beggar a dollar. To demonstrate the disconnect between "can" and "must", I "can" just as easily kick the beggar in the crotch. But it does not therefor morally follow that I "must" kick the beggar in the crotch. Morality cannot be logically linked to ability because we are able to do many things we do not consider moral.
I said above that leftists are quite prone to the "can-must" fallacy. I'd go so far as to say it's their mantra. They are constantly saying that wealthy people "must" help the needy simply because they "can". They typically point out that wealthy people have so much money their lives wouldn't be negatively impacted if even half their wealth was forcibly confiscated for redistribution to the poor. And that may be factually accurate. But it does not logically follow that forcibly confiscating this wealth is morally righteous.
I'll prove this by using exactly the same logic applied to an entirely different situation. First, let's lay out the logic:
1) Group A has exclusive/disproportionate control over some resource that group B would also benefit from.
2) Group A "can" share this resource without noticeably reducing their own ability to use this resource.
Therefor;
3) Group A "must" share this resource with group B.
Those who propose a society based on "altruism by force" would read this as:
1) The wealthy have exclusive/disproportionate control over money that the needy would also benefit from.
2) The wealthy "can" share their money without noticeably reducing their own ability to use their money.
Therefor;
3) The wealthy "must" share their money with the needy.
Any disagreements with this? Is that not the logic they use? If that logic is the logic of morality then we have to apply it to everything if we want to create a moral society, do we not? So let's apply it to something else:
1) Women have exclusive/disproportionate control over vagina that men would also benefit from.
2) Women "can" share their vagina without noticeably reducing their own ability to use their vagina.
Therefor;
3) Women "must" share their vagina with men.
I, of course, do not advocate the idea that women should be obligated to provide needy men with vagina. But I also do not advocate the idea that wealthy people should be obligated to provide money to needy people. Because I do not submit to the fallacy that the ability to do something creates the obligation to do that thing. If you want to obligate people to do something you need actual moral justification for the obligation. "Well, they can" is as ethereal a reason as any other variation of "because".
Now even though only a handful of demented fucks believe pedophilia "ought" to exist there are a surprising number of people who believe "is" justifies "ought". I hope this over-the-top example clarifies that to adhere to the "is-ought" philosophy is to say that our current world is perfect in every way.
There has been a noticeable decline in the use of "is-ought" lately. But there's a sub-species of it that flourishes. If you simply change the tense of "is-ought" from present to future you get what I call the "can-must" fallacy. This fallacy is hugely popular on the left side of the political spectrum. Folks are very fond of saying that if you are able to do something, usually help the poor, then you are morally obligated to do that something.
To use another extreme example of why this is a fallacy; Germans "can" build gas chambers. It does not logically or morally follow then that they "must" build gas chambers.
A more realistic example; many people will say that if I "can" give a beggar a dollar, I "must" give a beggar a dollar. To demonstrate the disconnect between "can" and "must", I "can" just as easily kick the beggar in the crotch. But it does not therefor morally follow that I "must" kick the beggar in the crotch. Morality cannot be logically linked to ability because we are able to do many things we do not consider moral.
I said above that leftists are quite prone to the "can-must" fallacy. I'd go so far as to say it's their mantra. They are constantly saying that wealthy people "must" help the needy simply because they "can". They typically point out that wealthy people have so much money their lives wouldn't be negatively impacted if even half their wealth was forcibly confiscated for redistribution to the poor. And that may be factually accurate. But it does not logically follow that forcibly confiscating this wealth is morally righteous.
I'll prove this by using exactly the same logic applied to an entirely different situation. First, let's lay out the logic:
1) Group A has exclusive/disproportionate control over some resource that group B would also benefit from.
2) Group A "can" share this resource without noticeably reducing their own ability to use this resource.
Therefor;
3) Group A "must" share this resource with group B.
Those who propose a society based on "altruism by force" would read this as:
1) The wealthy have exclusive/disproportionate control over money that the needy would also benefit from.
2) The wealthy "can" share their money without noticeably reducing their own ability to use their money.
Therefor;
3) The wealthy "must" share their money with the needy.
Any disagreements with this? Is that not the logic they use? If that logic is the logic of morality then we have to apply it to everything if we want to create a moral society, do we not? So let's apply it to something else:
1) Women have exclusive/disproportionate control over vagina that men would also benefit from.
2) Women "can" share their vagina without noticeably reducing their own ability to use their vagina.
Therefor;
3) Women "must" share their vagina with men.
I, of course, do not advocate the idea that women should be obligated to provide needy men with vagina. But I also do not advocate the idea that wealthy people should be obligated to provide money to needy people. Because I do not submit to the fallacy that the ability to do something creates the obligation to do that thing. If you want to obligate people to do something you need actual moral justification for the obligation. "Well, they can" is as ethereal a reason as any other variation of "because".
Tuesday, July 8, 2014
Unbelievably believable
I just learned about a study on how people think. It wasn't about the mechanics of thinking, but rather they were looking at how people reacted to thinking without any outside distractions. What they learned both amazed and disgusted me.
It turns out that twenty-five percent of women and two-thirds of men would rather administer electrical shocks to themselves than "suffer" their own quiet reflections. That's right, given the option of sitting quietly and thinking to themselves or pressing a button to receive a jolt of electricity a significant portion of the human population would rather get a shock than think.
If you are one of the ones who can handle thinking, consider what this means. Two-thirds of the men you meet are so uncomfortable using their own brain they would rather get an electrical shock than think. Two-thirds! How the fuck can I respect a person who is afraid of their own brain? I certainly can't treat them as an equal. I guess there's more hope for women since only twenty-five percent of them wish they were retarded.
What are the ramifications for society when a huge block of the population refuses to think? Refuses to think! What the hell separates you from the chimps at the zoo if you don't think? Is it any wonder the world is so fucked up?
Here's the article I read if you want to check it out yourself.
It turns out that twenty-five percent of women and two-thirds of men would rather administer electrical shocks to themselves than "suffer" their own quiet reflections. That's right, given the option of sitting quietly and thinking to themselves or pressing a button to receive a jolt of electricity a significant portion of the human population would rather get a shock than think.
If you are one of the ones who can handle thinking, consider what this means. Two-thirds of the men you meet are so uncomfortable using their own brain they would rather get an electrical shock than think. Two-thirds! How the fuck can I respect a person who is afraid of their own brain? I certainly can't treat them as an equal. I guess there's more hope for women since only twenty-five percent of them wish they were retarded.
What are the ramifications for society when a huge block of the population refuses to think? Refuses to think! What the hell separates you from the chimps at the zoo if you don't think? Is it any wonder the world is so fucked up?
Here's the article I read if you want to check it out yourself.
Sunday, July 6, 2014
The movie that wasn't there
I just finished watching "The God Who Wasn't There" on Netflix. I was hoping for an in-depth look at the historical evidence, or lack thereof, for the existence of Jesus. What I got instead was pathetic christophobia.
I've been an atheist for decades. I'm no fan of what the Abrahamic religions have done to this world. But why is it that the "enlightened" few who seek to counter these philosophical abominations always resort to the same tactics as the philosophies they despise? You can't claim the moral high ground and wallow in the mud at the same time. You can't claim dominion over the realm of reason while resorting to hyperbole and fear-mongering.
Easily the most despicable part of the movie, the part that destroyed it for me, was in the opening segment. The director took pains to lump the victims of the Mt. Carmel slaughter in with the likes of Charles Manson. He called the 86 men, women, and children who died at the hands of a secular, leftist regime "crispy fans" of the same dogma as Manson and other fundamentalists. I can't comprehend the utter disregard for human life, the lack of compassion that it takes to dismiss such a heinous crime simply because the victims didn't believe what you believe. The Branch Davidians had lived peacefully in their own little world since 1935. They may have read the same bible as the more vitriol-spewing fundamentalists. But they lived as peacefully as Buddhists. They did nothing to deserve what was wrought upon them. And they certainly deserve better than to be called "crispy fans" by some pseudo-intellectual filmmaker.
I can't recommend this film to any critical thinker. It offers nothing new. It's the same "aren't we atheists so smart!" nonsense that has been repackaged time and again. We see little evidence to support the claim made by the title of the movie. It would have been most helpful if he had explored why none of the contemporary Greek, Roman, or Egyptian scribes ever mentioned Jesus. But that never happened. Aside from briefly discussing the gap between Jesus' alleged lifetime and the first appearance of the gospels we get no mention of the lack of historical evidence. The entire movie is dedicated to the narrator/director/producer driving home the point that Christians believe what the believe based on pure faith and that the bible says some decidedly evil things. Boring. Pointless. Trite.
I've been an atheist for decades. I'm no fan of what the Abrahamic religions have done to this world. But why is it that the "enlightened" few who seek to counter these philosophical abominations always resort to the same tactics as the philosophies they despise? You can't claim the moral high ground and wallow in the mud at the same time. You can't claim dominion over the realm of reason while resorting to hyperbole and fear-mongering.
Easily the most despicable part of the movie, the part that destroyed it for me, was in the opening segment. The director took pains to lump the victims of the Mt. Carmel slaughter in with the likes of Charles Manson. He called the 86 men, women, and children who died at the hands of a secular, leftist regime "crispy fans" of the same dogma as Manson and other fundamentalists. I can't comprehend the utter disregard for human life, the lack of compassion that it takes to dismiss such a heinous crime simply because the victims didn't believe what you believe. The Branch Davidians had lived peacefully in their own little world since 1935. They may have read the same bible as the more vitriol-spewing fundamentalists. But they lived as peacefully as Buddhists. They did nothing to deserve what was wrought upon them. And they certainly deserve better than to be called "crispy fans" by some pseudo-intellectual filmmaker.
I can't recommend this film to any critical thinker. It offers nothing new. It's the same "aren't we atheists so smart!" nonsense that has been repackaged time and again. We see little evidence to support the claim made by the title of the movie. It would have been most helpful if he had explored why none of the contemporary Greek, Roman, or Egyptian scribes ever mentioned Jesus. But that never happened. Aside from briefly discussing the gap between Jesus' alleged lifetime and the first appearance of the gospels we get no mention of the lack of historical evidence. The entire movie is dedicated to the narrator/director/producer driving home the point that Christians believe what the believe based on pure faith and that the bible says some decidedly evil things. Boring. Pointless. Trite.
Sunday, October 20, 2013
Robin Hood the anarchist
Certain folks are fond of citing Robin Hood as some form of moral or ethical support for the idea of wealth redistribution. After all, who doesn't like the story of Robin rushing around and returning stolen gold to the poor peasants of Sherwood?
What these folks fail to mention is exactly who it was that Robin was robbing. In those days, the only wealthy people were the nobles... also known as the ruling class... aka, the government. People ignore the fact that the villain of the story was a government employee, the sheriff. People ignore the fact that the gold Robin was stealing back was first stolen in the form of various taxes.
Robin Hood was not the prototypical socialist expropriating wealth from honest merchants who had managed to do well for themselves. Robin Hood was an anarchist actively working to bankrupt the government and return the wealth to those who had earned it.
What these folks fail to mention is exactly who it was that Robin was robbing. In those days, the only wealthy people were the nobles... also known as the ruling class... aka, the government. People ignore the fact that the villain of the story was a government employee, the sheriff. People ignore the fact that the gold Robin was stealing back was first stolen in the form of various taxes.
Robin Hood was not the prototypical socialist expropriating wealth from honest merchants who had managed to do well for themselves. Robin Hood was an anarchist actively working to bankrupt the government and return the wealth to those who had earned it.
Friday, September 20, 2013
An open letter to Verizon
When my current contract ends you will be losing me as a customer. Now that other providers carry phones that suit my needs I no longer have any reason to remain with Verizon. But I do have reason to leave.
I know you hear the same complaint regularly, quit cluttering up my phone. I live three-hundred miles from the nearest ocean. So a tide monitor is rather useless to me. I could not care less about the spoiled crybabies in the NFL. So why must I have the NFL app on my phone? I don't listen to music, I don't watch videos, I don't Skype... yet I have all these apps on my phone. These apps take up valuable space that I cannot use for the apps that I do want.
I don't mind that these apps come pre-installed. I understand marketing and the need to provide a spectrum of generic content to try and please a broad group of people. What I mind is that it is impossible to remove these apps. What fucking moron thought it was a good idea to make the NFL part of the operating system? Do you really think that is something the majority of your customers actually want? I doubt it. And just because I bought a ruggedized phone does not mean I need "adventure" apps like a compass and tide monitor. But the only way for me to remove this useless clutter from my phone is to void the warranty and risk breaking the phone by rooting it.
Or I could simply switch to another company that understands that customers are individuals with unique desires.
I know you hear the same complaint regularly, quit cluttering up my phone. I live three-hundred miles from the nearest ocean. So a tide monitor is rather useless to me. I could not care less about the spoiled crybabies in the NFL. So why must I have the NFL app on my phone? I don't listen to music, I don't watch videos, I don't Skype... yet I have all these apps on my phone. These apps take up valuable space that I cannot use for the apps that I do want.
I don't mind that these apps come pre-installed. I understand marketing and the need to provide a spectrum of generic content to try and please a broad group of people. What I mind is that it is impossible to remove these apps. What fucking moron thought it was a good idea to make the NFL part of the operating system? Do you really think that is something the majority of your customers actually want? I doubt it. And just because I bought a ruggedized phone does not mean I need "adventure" apps like a compass and tide monitor. But the only way for me to remove this useless clutter from my phone is to void the warranty and risk breaking the phone by rooting it.
Or I could simply switch to another company that understands that customers are individuals with unique desires.
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
An honest question
If it is righteous and legal for one country to attack another when the latter uses poison gas against its own citizens, including children...
...then why didn't somebody righteously attack the US when the evil dictator Bill Clinton sent agents to use poison gas against children in Waco, Texas?
...then why didn't somebody righteously attack the US when the evil dictator Bill Clinton sent agents to use poison gas against children in Waco, Texas?
Sunday, June 30, 2013
All for none and none for all
Every so often somebody says something that I find so utterly revolting that I find it difficult to remain civil about it. This time around it is author Stephen King who has roused my ire.
I realize there is no shortage of anti-gun nuts in the Hollywood crowd. But it's the attitude that Mr. King displayed in the interview I just watched which really has me seeing red. Mr. King claims he has "no patience" for people like Mr. Wayne LaPierre of the NRA. What people would that be, exactly, Mr. King? People who believe that freedom is an absolute and not open for debate? Well count me among that group.
I believe absolutely that gays should have the freedom to marry. I believe absolutely that women should have the freedom to get an abortion. And I believe absolutely that everybody should be free to own guns.
I believe absolutely that my freedoms are not dependent on the behavior of others. I don't have to license my bathtub because a number of women drown their children in a bathtub. I don't have to be chemically neutered because some men insist on raping women. And I don't have to give up my guns because a handful of sociopaths flip out and kill people.
Liberals don't believe in freedom. They talk about freedom. They rant about freedom. They write songs about freedom. But they only believe people should have a certain set of freedoms as prescribed by the Socialati*. Liberals believe that people should be free to use words like "hick", "redneck", and "hillbilly" to describe rural folks, but words like "faggot", "nigger", and "wetback" are signs of small-minded bigotry and must be eradicated. Liberals believe people should be free to bash Christians as much as they want, but anybody who bashes Muslims is an "Islamophobe" who needs to be re-educated. Liberals believe a woman who gorges herself and then deliberately vomits to avoid gaining weight is the unfortunate victim of a disorder, but a woman who just gorges herself and skips the vomiting is merely a lazy fatass who needs to learn self-control. Liberals think it's an abomination to tax the working man to pay for the "war on terror", but it's perfectly fine to tax the working man to pay for the "war on poverty". Liberals think that Tipper Gore and her PMRC were somehow different from the book-burning, right-wing censoristas* so often vilified in movies. They see the flawed right-wing attempt to eradicate crime by prohibiting alcohol as being somehow different from the flawed left-wing attempt to eradicate crime by prohibiting guns. Liberals are quick to trot out clever quips like, "if you don't like abortion, don't get one." But they get flustered if you use the exact same logic on them and tell them, "if you don't like guns, don't get one." Liberals are fond of attacking corporations by saying, "corporations can't be treated like individuals" while out the other side of their mouth they are talking about "Society" and "The Greater Good" as though they are real, live beings whose rights supersede the rights of the individuals. Liberals don't see that they are just the flip side of the same fascist, totalitarian coin occupied by conservatives.
Enough rambling. I'll get to the point. Mr. King; if you, Mr. Michael Moore, and the rest of the Socialati think this "one" is going to stand and defend the rights of those you support while you are actively trying to take away my rights then you definitely have another thing coming. You are the same sort of small-minded vermin who burned innocent young girls to death to "protect" the community from evil witches. You seek to punish those who have hurt no-one. You seek to turn honest people into criminals simply because you do not approve of their lifestyle. I have had enough of you liberals telling me how I should think, what I should eat, how I should live my life, and then expecting me to be thrilled with the situation. I have had enough of you liberals telling me that I am a second-class person unworthy of being treated with the same respect as others. I will remain silent no longer. Fuck you, Mr. King. Fuck Mr. Moore. Fuck Mr. George Soros. Fuck every single socialist. Fuck every socialist sympathizer. I am a sovereign individual. My life is mine to live, not yours to control. I have no more respect for you than I have for the inbred bible-thumpers who try to control me. Birds of a feather, you and they.
Good day, sir.
*Socialati is a portmanteau I coined because "socialist" just doesn't convey the insidiousness of the socialist movement.
*Censorista probably doesn't need an explanation.
I realize there is no shortage of anti-gun nuts in the Hollywood crowd. But it's the attitude that Mr. King displayed in the interview I just watched which really has me seeing red. Mr. King claims he has "no patience" for people like Mr. Wayne LaPierre of the NRA. What people would that be, exactly, Mr. King? People who believe that freedom is an absolute and not open for debate? Well count me among that group.
I believe absolutely that gays should have the freedom to marry. I believe absolutely that women should have the freedom to get an abortion. And I believe absolutely that everybody should be free to own guns.
I believe absolutely that my freedoms are not dependent on the behavior of others. I don't have to license my bathtub because a number of women drown their children in a bathtub. I don't have to be chemically neutered because some men insist on raping women. And I don't have to give up my guns because a handful of sociopaths flip out and kill people.
Liberals don't believe in freedom. They talk about freedom. They rant about freedom. They write songs about freedom. But they only believe people should have a certain set of freedoms as prescribed by the Socialati*. Liberals believe that people should be free to use words like "hick", "redneck", and "hillbilly" to describe rural folks, but words like "faggot", "nigger", and "wetback" are signs of small-minded bigotry and must be eradicated. Liberals believe people should be free to bash Christians as much as they want, but anybody who bashes Muslims is an "Islamophobe" who needs to be re-educated. Liberals believe a woman who gorges herself and then deliberately vomits to avoid gaining weight is the unfortunate victim of a disorder, but a woman who just gorges herself and skips the vomiting is merely a lazy fatass who needs to learn self-control. Liberals think it's an abomination to tax the working man to pay for the "war on terror", but it's perfectly fine to tax the working man to pay for the "war on poverty". Liberals think that Tipper Gore and her PMRC were somehow different from the book-burning, right-wing censoristas* so often vilified in movies. They see the flawed right-wing attempt to eradicate crime by prohibiting alcohol as being somehow different from the flawed left-wing attempt to eradicate crime by prohibiting guns. Liberals are quick to trot out clever quips like, "if you don't like abortion, don't get one." But they get flustered if you use the exact same logic on them and tell them, "if you don't like guns, don't get one." Liberals are fond of attacking corporations by saying, "corporations can't be treated like individuals" while out the other side of their mouth they are talking about "Society" and "The Greater Good" as though they are real, live beings whose rights supersede the rights of the individuals. Liberals don't see that they are just the flip side of the same fascist, totalitarian coin occupied by conservatives.
Enough rambling. I'll get to the point. Mr. King; if you, Mr. Michael Moore, and the rest of the Socialati think this "one" is going to stand and defend the rights of those you support while you are actively trying to take away my rights then you definitely have another thing coming. You are the same sort of small-minded vermin who burned innocent young girls to death to "protect" the community from evil witches. You seek to punish those who have hurt no-one. You seek to turn honest people into criminals simply because you do not approve of their lifestyle. I have had enough of you liberals telling me how I should think, what I should eat, how I should live my life, and then expecting me to be thrilled with the situation. I have had enough of you liberals telling me that I am a second-class person unworthy of being treated with the same respect as others. I will remain silent no longer. Fuck you, Mr. King. Fuck Mr. Moore. Fuck Mr. George Soros. Fuck every single socialist. Fuck every socialist sympathizer. I am a sovereign individual. My life is mine to live, not yours to control. I have no more respect for you than I have for the inbred bible-thumpers who try to control me. Birds of a feather, you and they.
Good day, sir.
*Socialati is a portmanteau I coined because "socialist" just doesn't convey the insidiousness of the socialist movement.
*Censorista probably doesn't need an explanation.
Saturday, June 22, 2013
Brief thoughts on linux
I'm a huge fan of linux. I love the flexibility and speed of it. And it's hard to be angry about the price. But mostly I like the fact I can tinker with it and adapt it to my specific needs.
I've tried some thirty different versions of linux since I first "discovered" it several years ago. One thing I've learned the hard way is that Ubuntu is to linux what Budweiser is to beer, wildly popular despite being absolute shit.
I've tried some thirty different versions of linux since I first "discovered" it several years ago. One thing I've learned the hard way is that Ubuntu is to linux what Budweiser is to beer, wildly popular despite being absolute shit.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Where are the lions when I need them?
There are two types of Christians in this world, those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus and the other 98%. The other 98% needs to shut the fuck up. You are the problem. You are the scum of the world. And if you think you're in the 2% that actually lives the life you're supposed to live I can almost guarantee you are wrong.
I've met less than a dozen true Christians in my entire life. And I've been to church quite a lot. There are no true Christians in any church. Jesus did not teach his followers to go to church. He taught them to live righteously. People who go to church do so only to try and impress others with their piety. They dress up all fancy in spite of Jesus' teachings against vanity and arrogance. True Christians want no part of such a dog & pony show.
But where the 98% utterly fail at their attempt to be Christian is in their total ignorance of the teachings they profess to follow. What part of "live and let live" do these inbred fucks not understand? Jesus did not call for you to stand outside bookstores and protest the fact they were selling fictional books about prepubescent wizards. He did not call on you to demand an end to pornography, drugs, card games, or whatever else it is you find offensive. Jesus taught people to lead by example. He taught people to live well and to leave others to live as they choose.
Psalms 1:1 warns you not to stand in the path of sinners. Yet that is precisely what the 98% do. When you are supposed to be displaying tolerance and piety you instead spew hatred and bigotry. How many people have been tortured and killed over the centuries for simply trying to live their lives according to different rules? How many? "Thou shalt not kill" is one of the ten fundamental rules of your faith. It doesn't make exceptions for abortion doctors, gays, or people with different beliefs. Yet you people are perfectly happy to kill "in god's name".
You are also not supposed to worship graven images. How many of you put up trees every December? It doesn't tell you to do that in the bible. Decorating trees was a pagan celebration of the winter solstice. For a Christian to do it is idolatry. But you don't care. You 98% are incapable of thinking for yourselves. You can't even bother to read the book you claim to follow. If you did read it you would never do half the things you do routinely.
But what annoys me most about the Christian 98% is their insistence on claiming that god is the source of morality. I am frequently questioned as to where I get my morals from since I don't worship their god. It never occurs to them that morality doesn't come from god. God is not needed to keep people in check. And the concept of god does a lousy job of keeping people in check. I have never killed anyone. I don't rob people. I find it impossible to even lie to people. And I manage all this without worrying about what god thinks about me. Conversely, there are priests in prison for killing. And a casual reading of the bible shows that god is not as opposed to killing as he claims to be. God commands people to kill on several occasions. God himself kills millions with floods and fires. God orders people to stone adulterous women and homosexuals. Is that the morality you live by? No? Then where do you get yours? What you don't realize is that only inherently bad people need an outside source of morality. Good people don't need a god in order to behave. I am a good person simply because that is the way I live. I am not good because I am trying to impress people. I am not good because I fear going to hell. But you 98% can't grasp that because you are not inherently good. You are inherently spiteful, hateful, bigoted, violent, and ignorant. So you need a strong hand to keep you in check.
Unfortunately, the hand of god just isn't strong enough. Because I look around the world and I see "Christians" doing all manner of things against the teachings of Christ. The inbred fucks at the Westboro Baptist Church are the prime example. I find it hard to comprehend just how vile and ignorant those people are. They are quite literally the lowest form of human life. Clearly, having faith in god has done nothing to make them worthwhile humans. The rest of you 98% are almost as bad. Every time you think "something needs to be done about that" you have failed as a Christian. You are called to witness, not to judge. It is not your place to judge others. Your god even tells you so. But you can't be bothered listening to him. You're too busy demanding the local porn store be shut down.
Live and let live. Or burn in the hell you claim to fear. The choice is that simple. Shut up, leave the rest of us alone.
I've met less than a dozen true Christians in my entire life. And I've been to church quite a lot. There are no true Christians in any church. Jesus did not teach his followers to go to church. He taught them to live righteously. People who go to church do so only to try and impress others with their piety. They dress up all fancy in spite of Jesus' teachings against vanity and arrogance. True Christians want no part of such a dog & pony show.
But where the 98% utterly fail at their attempt to be Christian is in their total ignorance of the teachings they profess to follow. What part of "live and let live" do these inbred fucks not understand? Jesus did not call for you to stand outside bookstores and protest the fact they were selling fictional books about prepubescent wizards. He did not call on you to demand an end to pornography, drugs, card games, or whatever else it is you find offensive. Jesus taught people to lead by example. He taught people to live well and to leave others to live as they choose.
Psalms 1:1 warns you not to stand in the path of sinners. Yet that is precisely what the 98% do. When you are supposed to be displaying tolerance and piety you instead spew hatred and bigotry. How many people have been tortured and killed over the centuries for simply trying to live their lives according to different rules? How many? "Thou shalt not kill" is one of the ten fundamental rules of your faith. It doesn't make exceptions for abortion doctors, gays, or people with different beliefs. Yet you people are perfectly happy to kill "in god's name".
You are also not supposed to worship graven images. How many of you put up trees every December? It doesn't tell you to do that in the bible. Decorating trees was a pagan celebration of the winter solstice. For a Christian to do it is idolatry. But you don't care. You 98% are incapable of thinking for yourselves. You can't even bother to read the book you claim to follow. If you did read it you would never do half the things you do routinely.
But what annoys me most about the Christian 98% is their insistence on claiming that god is the source of morality. I am frequently questioned as to where I get my morals from since I don't worship their god. It never occurs to them that morality doesn't come from god. God is not needed to keep people in check. And the concept of god does a lousy job of keeping people in check. I have never killed anyone. I don't rob people. I find it impossible to even lie to people. And I manage all this without worrying about what god thinks about me. Conversely, there are priests in prison for killing. And a casual reading of the bible shows that god is not as opposed to killing as he claims to be. God commands people to kill on several occasions. God himself kills millions with floods and fires. God orders people to stone adulterous women and homosexuals. Is that the morality you live by? No? Then where do you get yours? What you don't realize is that only inherently bad people need an outside source of morality. Good people don't need a god in order to behave. I am a good person simply because that is the way I live. I am not good because I am trying to impress people. I am not good because I fear going to hell. But you 98% can't grasp that because you are not inherently good. You are inherently spiteful, hateful, bigoted, violent, and ignorant. So you need a strong hand to keep you in check.
Unfortunately, the hand of god just isn't strong enough. Because I look around the world and I see "Christians" doing all manner of things against the teachings of Christ. The inbred fucks at the Westboro Baptist Church are the prime example. I find it hard to comprehend just how vile and ignorant those people are. They are quite literally the lowest form of human life. Clearly, having faith in god has done nothing to make them worthwhile humans. The rest of you 98% are almost as bad. Every time you think "something needs to be done about that" you have failed as a Christian. You are called to witness, not to judge. It is not your place to judge others. Your god even tells you so. But you can't be bothered listening to him. You're too busy demanding the local porn store be shut down.
Live and let live. Or burn in the hell you claim to fear. The choice is that simple. Shut up, leave the rest of us alone.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
On the origin of species
Science tells us that a degree of our behavior is genetically determined. Whether it's coded into the genome, determined by the interaction of our genes and our fetal environment, or determined by the way genes are expressed as we develop science can't say. Science is also at a loss to define how much of our behavior is genetically determined and how much is learned later. We know, for example, that congenitally blind babies know how to smile even though they've never seen a person smile. And congenitally blind adults still use hand gestures when talking even though they've never seen such gestures. Clearly these people are acting on behavior they have not learned.
We even tacitly recognize this idea in our personal lives. Our personal fetishes and taboos have largely been with us since birth. I, for example, never made a conscious choice to be turned on by redheads. Nor can I consciously decide to not be turned on by redheads. It's an urge that has always been there and will be there as long as I draw breath.
If we accept the validity of the hypothesis that some behavior is genetically determined, I think we have to accept a somewhat more radical hypothesis. This is the radical idea that there is not a single human species. If behavior indicates something about your genome then radically different behaviors must indicate differences in the genome. So just like we differentiate between caucasians and occidentals we may have to differentiate between liberals and conservatives or between marxists and capitalists.
Not that I think there's a gene specifically for voting a certain way or similarly minute behaviors. But there is a strong possibility that there is a genetic predisposition to have a mindset which causes you to think in a way that leads you to voting a certain way. And this is why you can never win political debates. You aren't asking your opponent to change his mind. You are asking him to change his genes. Asking a liberal to become conservative is like asking an Asian man to stop squinting or asking a midget to grow. It is beyond the realm of the possible.
So I posit that much of the conflict we see in the world today is the result of interspecies rivalry, not merely a battle of ideas. This conflict cannot be resolved by the means we are accustomed to using since those means typically requires compromise and people cannot compromise their genetics. I think this hypothesis further strengthens the case for absolute individualism. It is impossible to create a system under which so many disparate views can be treated equally. The only way to allow all these views to coexist harmoniously is to remove any hierarchy among them and thereby to let people fully express themselves without coercion. As long as we have a hierarchal system we will have people fighting to put their ideals in control. Because, according to my hypothesis, there is no way we will ever get everybody to agree on a single best way to live.
We even tacitly recognize this idea in our personal lives. Our personal fetishes and taboos have largely been with us since birth. I, for example, never made a conscious choice to be turned on by redheads. Nor can I consciously decide to not be turned on by redheads. It's an urge that has always been there and will be there as long as I draw breath.
If we accept the validity of the hypothesis that some behavior is genetically determined, I think we have to accept a somewhat more radical hypothesis. This is the radical idea that there is not a single human species. If behavior indicates something about your genome then radically different behaviors must indicate differences in the genome. So just like we differentiate between caucasians and occidentals we may have to differentiate between liberals and conservatives or between marxists and capitalists.
Not that I think there's a gene specifically for voting a certain way or similarly minute behaviors. But there is a strong possibility that there is a genetic predisposition to have a mindset which causes you to think in a way that leads you to voting a certain way. And this is why you can never win political debates. You aren't asking your opponent to change his mind. You are asking him to change his genes. Asking a liberal to become conservative is like asking an Asian man to stop squinting or asking a midget to grow. It is beyond the realm of the possible.
So I posit that much of the conflict we see in the world today is the result of interspecies rivalry, not merely a battle of ideas. This conflict cannot be resolved by the means we are accustomed to using since those means typically requires compromise and people cannot compromise their genetics. I think this hypothesis further strengthens the case for absolute individualism. It is impossible to create a system under which so many disparate views can be treated equally. The only way to allow all these views to coexist harmoniously is to remove any hierarchy among them and thereby to let people fully express themselves without coercion. As long as we have a hierarchal system we will have people fighting to put their ideals in control. Because, according to my hypothesis, there is no way we will ever get everybody to agree on a single best way to live.
Friday, June 24, 2011
Get a grip
So Ryan Dunn gets drunk, flies down the road, loses control, crashes, and dies and people call it a tragedy. What if it had just been some no-name shmuck? How many drunks die every day in similar crashes? Does anybody consider those deaths tragedies? No, they don't. But let a celebritard die and the fanboys come out of the woodwork.
Ryan Dunn was a moron. He lived his life doing stupid shit to get attention. You can't gamble your life constantly and expect to never lose. He wasn't about to cure cancer, end world hunger, or bring about global peace. He was just a drunk retard who made a living swimming in septic tanks. The world will not suffer for the loss. And if that is the sort of person you look up to, the world will not suffer when it loses you either.
Ryan Dunn was a moron. He lived his life doing stupid shit to get attention. You can't gamble your life constantly and expect to never lose. He wasn't about to cure cancer, end world hunger, or bring about global peace. He was just a drunk retard who made a living swimming in septic tanks. The world will not suffer for the loss. And if that is the sort of person you look up to, the world will not suffer when it loses you either.
Monday, April 25, 2011
Ignoble savages
So I'm scanning my Facebook newsfeed this morning and see this link. Really? Are we still beating that drum? This drivel is intellectually dishonest and counterproductive.
By way of explanation for those unfamiliar with anarchist philosophy and its various schools, the idea behind this picture is that every last acre of land in this territory was rightfully owned by the Skraelings when filthy Europeans arrived. Europeans then proceeded to rape, pillage, and plunder their way across the continent. They slaughtered everything in sight and stole all the land for their own nefarious purposes. Communists masquerading as anarchists say all land deeds today are invalid because all land was stolen.
And these claims are pure bullshit. It's caucasian self-loathing and revisionist history at its finest.
To review actual history, Europeans arrived peacefully in this territory. They colonized areas and traded with the natives. At least in the northern sections. South of the Rio Grande was definitely a different story. But Plymouth Rock was not a war zone. Nor did it become one for quite some time.
Gradually, more and more Europeans arrived. The colonies expanded. It was not until 1634, 137 years after John Cabot "discovered" the region, that the first violence broke out. This was the Pequot War. And it was started when allies of the Narragansett tribe raided a local trading vessel. They killed the ship's owner and several of his crew, and made off with the cargo. The natives started a war over protecting their trade routes. A war of protectionism. That's far from an anarchic ideal.
If you scan westward you will find more of the same. Homesteaders did not rush out with guns blazing. They found open fields and homesteaded them. That's where we get the word "homestead". This is important because homesteading is universally accepted by anarchist thinkers as a legitimate way of claiming unused land. Most schools of thought consider it the only legitimate way. This is the part I love. The standard within the anarchist community is that a person must "mix their labor" with the land in order to own it. In other words, you only own as much lawn as you are willing to mow or as much field as you are willing to plow. But most plains tribes were nomadic. They didn't have big cities with outlying farms. They followed the buffalo and ate what nature provided. According to the view created by John Locke and held as the standard in the anarchist community, the skraelings did not "own" their hunting grounds. They never applied their labor to it. So homesteaders had every right, under anarchist philosophy, to settle the land as they did.
But the skraelings had never read John Locke. They felt their hunting grounds belonged to them. They took offense at the settlers occupying their lands. And violence ensued. Yes, it was the noble savage that began a policy of ethnic cleansing by attempting to remove white settlers.
Frankly, it's disgracefully hypocritical for anarchists to use the skraelings as a role model. The skraelings did not recognize the Lockean view of property rights which is considered gospel by anarchists. Rather, they used deadly force against peaceful families who were simply exercising their right to make a life for themselves. In addition, anarchists vehemently oppose tighter control of the US/Mexico border by saying the right to move about is an inalienable human right. But they then ignore the skraeling use of violence to prevent "illegal immigration". Step back 200 years and you will see that Europeans heading west were treated the same by the skraelings as modern mexicans are treated when they cross the Rio Grande. So how can any intellectually honest anarchist hold skraelings in any regard?
If you support the idea of Lockean property rights, you cannot begin to claim all land is stolen. It's pure fantasy. And if you support the right of people to move about as they wish without artificial borders, you cannot hold the skraelings as a role model. They didn't invent ethnic cleansing. But they sure as hell practiced it.
There is still more hypocrisy in the claim that restitution must be made to the skraelings. Anarchy is a philosophy of individualism. You can only punish people for wrongs they themselves have committed. You can't punish a person by taking their land or money away from them because you think their great-great-great grandfather did something wrong. And you can't give restitution to people for wrongs that were not inflicted on them. The whole idea is bat-shit insane. It's a complete contradiction of anarchist ideals. Especially since it treats everybody as members of collectives instead of as individuals. Chief Ownsa Casino does not deserve money because Chief Sitting Bull was kicked out of his house. There is no connection between the two other than some vague cultural similarities.
Anarchists need to drop skraelings as a role model. The natives simply don't fit the bill. Nothing about their culture represents the anarchist ideal. Skraelings fought wars with each other, they treated women like property, they slaughtered wildlife far in excess of what they needed, they basically did everything anarchists claim to despise govts for doing.
By way of explanation for those unfamiliar with anarchist philosophy and its various schools, the idea behind this picture is that every last acre of land in this territory was rightfully owned by the Skraelings when filthy Europeans arrived. Europeans then proceeded to rape, pillage, and plunder their way across the continent. They slaughtered everything in sight and stole all the land for their own nefarious purposes. Communists masquerading as anarchists say all land deeds today are invalid because all land was stolen.
And these claims are pure bullshit. It's caucasian self-loathing and revisionist history at its finest.
To review actual history, Europeans arrived peacefully in this territory. They colonized areas and traded with the natives. At least in the northern sections. South of the Rio Grande was definitely a different story. But Plymouth Rock was not a war zone. Nor did it become one for quite some time.
Gradually, more and more Europeans arrived. The colonies expanded. It was not until 1634, 137 years after John Cabot "discovered" the region, that the first violence broke out. This was the Pequot War. And it was started when allies of the Narragansett tribe raided a local trading vessel. They killed the ship's owner and several of his crew, and made off with the cargo. The natives started a war over protecting their trade routes. A war of protectionism. That's far from an anarchic ideal.
If you scan westward you will find more of the same. Homesteaders did not rush out with guns blazing. They found open fields and homesteaded them. That's where we get the word "homestead". This is important because homesteading is universally accepted by anarchist thinkers as a legitimate way of claiming unused land. Most schools of thought consider it the only legitimate way. This is the part I love. The standard within the anarchist community is that a person must "mix their labor" with the land in order to own it. In other words, you only own as much lawn as you are willing to mow or as much field as you are willing to plow. But most plains tribes were nomadic. They didn't have big cities with outlying farms. They followed the buffalo and ate what nature provided. According to the view created by John Locke and held as the standard in the anarchist community, the skraelings did not "own" their hunting grounds. They never applied their labor to it. So homesteaders had every right, under anarchist philosophy, to settle the land as they did.
But the skraelings had never read John Locke. They felt their hunting grounds belonged to them. They took offense at the settlers occupying their lands. And violence ensued. Yes, it was the noble savage that began a policy of ethnic cleansing by attempting to remove white settlers.
Frankly, it's disgracefully hypocritical for anarchists to use the skraelings as a role model. The skraelings did not recognize the Lockean view of property rights which is considered gospel by anarchists. Rather, they used deadly force against peaceful families who were simply exercising their right to make a life for themselves. In addition, anarchists vehemently oppose tighter control of the US/Mexico border by saying the right to move about is an inalienable human right. But they then ignore the skraeling use of violence to prevent "illegal immigration". Step back 200 years and you will see that Europeans heading west were treated the same by the skraelings as modern mexicans are treated when they cross the Rio Grande. So how can any intellectually honest anarchist hold skraelings in any regard?
If you support the idea of Lockean property rights, you cannot begin to claim all land is stolen. It's pure fantasy. And if you support the right of people to move about as they wish without artificial borders, you cannot hold the skraelings as a role model. They didn't invent ethnic cleansing. But they sure as hell practiced it.
There is still more hypocrisy in the claim that restitution must be made to the skraelings. Anarchy is a philosophy of individualism. You can only punish people for wrongs they themselves have committed. You can't punish a person by taking their land or money away from them because you think their great-great-great grandfather did something wrong. And you can't give restitution to people for wrongs that were not inflicted on them. The whole idea is bat-shit insane. It's a complete contradiction of anarchist ideals. Especially since it treats everybody as members of collectives instead of as individuals. Chief Ownsa Casino does not deserve money because Chief Sitting Bull was kicked out of his house. There is no connection between the two other than some vague cultural similarities.
Anarchists need to drop skraelings as a role model. The natives simply don't fit the bill. Nothing about their culture represents the anarchist ideal. Skraelings fought wars with each other, they treated women like property, they slaughtered wildlife far in excess of what they needed, they basically did everything anarchists claim to despise govts for doing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)