The Story of Cap & Trade

Here in the United States, a large percentage of our population seems to be increasingly obsessed with the 'invisible hand' of capitalism and the 'wisdom' of the free market. Interestingly, many of these folks are also the very same people who are highly skeptical (to say the least) of the 'wisdom' of the evolutionary mechanism of natural selection. And of course, they'll try to rationalize away the cognitive dissonance with the kind of twisted logic one should expect in these scenarios.

But that's the point: while natural selection and the free market are incredibly good at eventually producing innovation, they do it at the cost of great losses for the majority of those fed into the grinder. There is no long-term foresight nor moral concern for anyone's welfare in these mechanisms. For everyone who survives and thrives in these systems, hundreds or thousands must perish, by necessity.

So, when large corporations (already involved in a tradition of corruption schemes) try to engineer 'environmental solutions' to the world's problems, we should be extremely cautious, not only that there might be corruption purposely or inadvertently built into the system somewhere along the line, but that the very nature of our understanding of the phenomenon in question becomes tarnished.

The main problem with so-called solutions like Cap & Trade, in my opinion, is not even the possibility of large-scale corruption: it's the fact that it filters our perception of the environment and natural resources so that we start to see them as commodities to be used, abused and manipulated for purely financial purposes. The value of people, animals and the environment is then understood in terms of how they contribute to the accumulation of wealth. If they don't contribute or feed into the system, they are then perceived to have no value, and if they have no value, they're not worth saving or fighting for.

Anyway, the following animation with Annie Leonard beautifully captures some of the devilish details built into the proposal of Cap & Trade and gives us some food for thought.

For more, check out The Story of Stuff or The Story of Bottled Water.

Read More

Hand Shadows

I've been spending a fair amount of time preparing for a new class I'll be teaching this semester on Environmental Ethics, so I haven't had much time to prepare an intellectually stimulating entry for everyone today.

I do have, however, some aesthetically pleasing videos showing both the creativity of hand shadow artists and the ease with which our minds can create three-dimensional mental representations based on black & white, 2-dimensional surfaces...

And why don't we get a bit environmental too?

Read More

World of Class Warfare

I have all kinds of philosophical problems with conservatism and the corruption of the GOP (and I'm increasingly finding it difficult to defend libertarianism with a straight face too, or anyone whose "philosophy" has been basically dictated by children's fiction writer Ayn Rand), but here is one thing I have to admire about Republicans:

Their uncanny ability to build the wealth of billionaires by screwing the poor, then to pull out the victim card and blame the poor for all of our economic problems, to get Congress to approve massive spending cuts in social programs for the needy while adamantly refusing to tax the super rich at even the same rate as the poor, and then to get the poor to elect them to office so they can get screwed all over again. Jon Stewart has more to say:

The Daily Show - World of Class Warfare - Warren Buffett vs. Wealthy Conservatives
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

The Daily Show - World of Class Warfare - The Poor's Free Ride Is Over
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Read More

Lecture 7 - Free Will, Determinism, Choice and Moral Responsibility

Ordinarily, we tend to think of our actions as freely chosen: we believe in free will. But if we get philosophical for a second, we have to start asking obvious questions, like what does that mean? What does it mean for something to be a choice? What does it mean for an action to be free? If all of nature is determined by physical law, and we are a part of nature, doesn't it follow that maybe our actions are just as determined, even though we may not always be aware of the causes antecedent to our actions? Hey, if we are indeed determined, how can the concept of moral responsibility make sense? Why praise or condemn someone for actions over which he has no real control? Can we make the choice to believe in free will?

In today's lecture, Professor Millican delves into these and other related questions, starting with the classic demarcation between libertarianism (not the political kind), determinism and compatibilism. As you'll see, the debate is just as alive, interesting and perplexing as ever...

Click here to see the course slides

My own leaning is toward the deterministic side of things (at least compatibilism and libertarianism make no sense to me at all), and even though that seems to rob us of our ability to make free choices, I think the upshot is that it also stops us from jumping to the all-quick conclusion that someone is to blame whenever things don't work out in the fashion we might have anticipated.

I find that as a determinist, I am more forgiving and empathetic than I would be if I just assumed that bad actions are always the result of someone's fault. Before pointing fingers, I think it's usually a good and healthy idea (to wonder at least) to what extent circumstances, and not a person, are to blame...

Read More

Unintelligent Design - The Giraffe's Laryngeal Nerve

The complexity and intricacy of the bodies of living organisms seems like the epitome of science and art coming together in an explosion of perfection. But that appearance is deceiving, and it has given rise to the popular but erroneous belief that such delicacy must be the inevitable result of design and foresight on the part of some intelligent designer.

When you look at the details a bit more closely, however, what you start to notice is that what these bodies actually show is the accumulation of historical antecedents that have gradually evolved over eons of time, and that no intelligent designer would design such systems... unless he were inept.

As you'll see in the following example of the giraffe's recurrent laryngeal nerve (which can be traced back to our fishy ancestors), and as Richard Dawkins explains in this clip from the Inside Nature's Giants documentary series, evolution is not so much a designer (who can always go back to the drawing board and start from scratch) as a tinkerer (who only gets to slightly modify what's already there).

But of course, even the giraffe would not have had the longest recurrent laryngeal nerve...

That would be what, 30 feet to connect two spots that are only inches apart?

Read More

Anderson Cooper Laughs, Loses It

You remember the time journalist of journalists Anderson Cooper got pwned by a bonobo, right?

Well, this time we have something funnier, and the only thing that's made me actually laugh out loud in a very long time. The story itself is not that funny, as you'll see, and the writing and the puns are kind of horrendous, but Anderson Cooper losing it and giggling like a little girl is priceless!

He's got the most adorable giggle, doesn't he? Makes me want to take him home and feed him like a hamster :)

Read More

The Cell - The Chemistry of Life

As we've seen in the first installment of this excellent documentary series on cell biology, it may have taken us a while to get a firm understanding of what cells are and how they work, but once scientists got going, there would be no stopping them.

Still, important questions remained. For instance, how is it that a bunch of molecules somehow 'know' to self-assemble into specialized cells? And how do cells 'know' what functions to perform and when? To unravel these and other mysteries, scientists decided to try to understand the chemistry of life as it played out in the nuclei of cells, and in the process they came to discover the amazing story of how information is transferred during the process of cell division.

Most astonishingly of all, the study of the chemistry of life would produce discoveries that would provide powerful support for Charles Darwin's theory of evolution and his prediction of common ancestry.

If you want more on the story of the discovery of the structure of DNA, why not hear from James Watson himself?

And for more on the idea of self-assembly, check out Jim Al-Khalili's documentary The Secret Life of Chaos.

Read More

Kevin Slavin - How Algorithms Shape Our World

If you remember Susan Blackmore's fascinating presentation on the evolution of memes and temes, then the concept that much of our own individual and collective behavior is done for the sake of cultural units of selection rather than actual human needs will not be foreign to you.

In the following TEDTalk presentation, Kevin Slavin argues that "we're living in a world designed for -- and increasingly controlled by -- algorithms. In this riveting talk, he shows how these complex computer programs determine espionage tactics, stock prices, movie scripts, and architecture. And he warns that we are writing code we can't understand, with implications we can't control."

I, for one, bow down to our maths overlords :)

Read More

Whereof One Cannot Speak... Fight Fire with Fire

You gotta give it to religious believers, no one in the history of humanity has managed to twist arguments and evidence to suit their beliefs quite like them. When you ask for evidence, there's always some bullshit story about the virtue of faith or about the ineffability of the transcendent; when you ask for a definition of God you can work with, you get so-called apophatic theology (defining God by what he's not); when you have a knock-down argument against the logical coherence of their deity, it's the devil brainwashing you or you're just too close-minded to the infinite possibilities of spirituality; and when they realize no matter what they say is going to sound bananas, the problem isn't their belief: it's the limits of language. And then they'll move on to quote some scientist or philosopher like Wittgenstein, but two can play that game :)

And in Wittgenstein's own words (more or less):

Pwned!

Read More

John Oliver - The Forecloser

I heard about this story a few weeks ago, and it's really one of those feel-good stories that just have to be shared: after having recently bought a house, this Florida couple got a foreclosure notice from Bank of America, even though they had paid for it in full and with cash...

The court ordered the bank to pay for the couple's legal fees, but after repeatedly failing to do so, the happy couple brought a sheriff and a repo truck to the bank, and foreclosed the bejesus out of it. John Oliver can't hold his enthusiasm as he shares this wonderful tale:

The Daily Show - The Forecloser
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Muy bueno!

Read More

Me vs. American Atheists vs. Ground Zero Cross

If I had to describe my religious beliefs, I wouldn't think twice to say I'm an atheist. I think religions are the adult equivalent of fairy tales and Santa Claus, and I enjoy occasionally mocking irrational thinking because it's important, but also, let's be frank, fun :)

That's not to say, however, that I don't also get upset with other atheists, whether these be bleeding-heart accomodationists (a la Chris Mooney, Michael Ruse or Paul Davies (technically not an atheist, though he should know better and get over St. Augustine's conception of God as existing out if time already because although it's possible, there's no reason to suppose it's actually true)), or just arrogant jerks who love to make fun of others without making any positive contribution of their own (like Bill Maher). Is it too much to ask for the latter to at least be interesting and/or funny and not just obnoxious, especially if he has a team of comedy writers at his disposal?

And while I understand (and may even agree with) the reasons behind their campaigns, here's another group of atheists I'm increasingly starting to find irritating: atheists who seem to revel in political self-victimization, and who profess to fight in the name of other religious minorities who are socially or politically discriminated against, while actually not giving a shit about those other minorities other than for self-serving reasons. Aren't these atheists supposed to hold the real moral high ground?

Just like having a right to free speech doesn't mean it's always a good idea to exercise that right, having the right not to be discriminated against doesn't mean it's always a good idea to complain and moan about how some other group has it 'better' than you do. What bothers me at bottom is not the logical merit of their arguments but the spirit that impels them: a spirit of weakness and righteous indignation that smells of jealousy and weakness and envy, and which I just find wimpy and contemptible.

Complaining implies indirectly that someone else has to do something for your conditions to improve, and that just makes it conveniently easier to forget to do something for yourself. It's a nice distraction, but what does it really accomplish other than an ego inflated with empty air? The more time one complains about being oppressed (even when correct), the less time he has to create some positive greatness of his own. This is in general my problem with all minorities who are obsessed with fighting for 'equal rights' and who hide behind the herd identity of their group instead of creating an individual identity full of awesome.

You admire Dawkins and Hitchens and Dennett? Well, become excellent scientists and writers and philosophers, and stop complaining about how Christians get to have two pieces of rusty metal displayed in a museum.

Is it sensible that people interpret two perpendicular beams from Ground Zero (in a place built with thousands of such structures) as a sign of Christian hope? No, it's plain fucking silly. Does it make a difference to me that they derive hope and comfort from these two piece of metal? No, it's still plain fucking silly. Make fun of it for all I care, but don't turn the silliness into an excuse for bouts of self-victimization disguised under the mantle of caring about the suffering of the victims of other faiths. If you're sick and tired of Christians, just say so, but be honest about it. Stop hiding under these politically-correct and ultimately disingenuous bullshit euphemisms.

And from the looks of it, I may have at least one person sort of agree with my point of view: Jon Stewart:

The Daily Show - Culture War Update - The Dividening of America - American Atheists vs. Ground Zero Cross
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Read More

Lecture 6 - Primary and Secondary Qualities

No introductory philosophy course is complete without at least touching on the famous distinction between primary and secondary qualities originally proposed by Descartes, but explored in more detail by Locke, Berkeley and Hume. If you don't know what I'm talking about, here's the 3-minute animated intro.

In today's lecture, Professor Millican provides a thought-provoking historical and conceptual analysis of this famous distinction, especially as it relates to the question of whether our perceptions can actually resemble objects out in the world. For Berkeley, the problem is that ideas and perceptions can resemble nothing but ideas and perceptions, and since these are not physical, then whatever perceptions are about cannot be physical either: good-bye material world. For Hume, what we have is more of a skeptical problem: if all we ever directly perceive are ideas in our minds (caused by perceptions), how can we know (and by what methods can we possibly demonstrate) that there's a world beyond those perceptions? As you can imagine, the answers to such questions will have a lot to say about the nature and limits of science itself...

Click here to see the course slides.

And check out Woody Allen's hilarious version of the homunculus problem.

Read More

Women's Nazi Health Plan

Sometimes I seriously wonder whether this life is all just a dream or whether people really are as obtuse and retarded as they sometimes seem. Take the fact that insurance companies will now be required to offer birth-control and other forms of preventative medicine without co-pay.

I would have imagined that if you were a pro-life conservative, the idea that maybe preventing more children to be conceived only to be aborted later would be welcome news. But no. Apparently, and as Stephen Colbert makes abundantly clear in the video below, helping women be more responsible with their sexual behavior and have more control over their own bodies is only an invitation for those harlots to slut it up :)

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

Read More

Paul Bloom - Essentialism and The Origins of Pleasure

If I tried to sell you the painting to the right for a hefty sum, I'm pretty sure you'd think it wasn't worth your time, or that I was trying to pull your leg. Never mind the artistic talent and effort that indubitably went into the piece, you'd argue it's obviously a forgery and hence not worth very much. But why should that matter?

In the following TEDTalk presentation, and using famous and fascinating examples from scientific studies and experiments, psychologist Paul Bloom argues that human beings are natural-born essentialists: we project meaning to our experiences way beyond the information we receive from our senses. Of course, Hume and Kant made that point about 300 years ago, but sometimes it takes science a little while (or a few centuries) to catch up to philosophy :)

Anyway, this is why the placebo effect is so powerful, why our expectations shade our perceptual experiences (like why we think more expensive stuff tastes better) and why we hold on to superstitious beliefs such as the idea that objects have some unchanging essence or sine qua non that gives them their unique identity. And it all starts with a hilarious story about that Nazi bastard Hermann Goering...

And if you want to see how easily people can be fooled by fancy names and brands, check out how Penn & Teller do it.

Read More

Stephen Fry vs. Ann Widdecombe On Whether the Catholic Church Is a Force for Good

It seems that in an effort to attract a larger audience to their already impressive intellectual and rhetorical displays, Intelligence Squared, the Oxford-style debate house, is taking a page from the RSA Animate playbook and animating some highlights from one of their most popular debates: whether the Catholic Church is a force for good in the world.

The clip below features animated excerpts from Ann Widdecombe, who favors the motion, as well as from Stephen Fry, who's not exactly the biggest fan of the church :)

If that got your attention, you won't want to miss the entire debate, which also includes a spectacular performance by Chrisopher Hitchens.

Read More

Social Security Reform Bill Encourages Americans to Live Faster, Die Younger

One thing that has become so crystal clear even the blind can see it,  is that while Republicans appeal to American values, love of country, the Founding Fathers and so on, they don't really give a shit about average people like you and me. They are mercenaries who have sold their souls to do the work of greedy multi-billion dollar corporations whose wealth has been built on the backs of ordinary people.

The thing that gets me is not even their misaligned interests, though: it's the dishonesty. So you can imagine how much I would prefer it if they had the balls to try to pass legislation that only The Onion is honest and ballsy enough to propose:

Now that's American! :)

Read More