Monthly Archive for December, 2010

Herding Cats?

It's said that organizing atheists is like herding cats. We're implicitly compared to believers, who have acknowledged leaders, authoritative texts, and formal organizations. The reason usually advanced to account for this phenomenon is that we atheists are generally rather individualistic and thus reluctant to follow someone else's lead on such matters. But there's another reason which I've never seen presented in the context of explaining the herding-cats idea: atheism is much too broad a concept under which to seek to organize. The proper comparison is not to individual religious sects but to theists as a whole.

If we randomly put a dozen people who don't believe in any gods in a room, then they're no less likely to reach an agreement on any given issue than if we randomly put a dozen people who do believe in gods in a room. A representative sampling of a dozen of the world's theists would include four Christians (two Catholics, one Orthodox, one Protestant), three Muslims (two Sunnis, one Shiite), two Hindus, a (theistic) Buddhist, a Taoist, and an Animist. I rather doubt they would agree to much at all, since they don't even agree on the basic definition and identity of the gods. In fact, the random group of atheists might even be more likely to reach agreements since many atheists have great respect for science, which provides an objective way to establish underlying facts, since appeals to faith would be roundly rejected, and since atheists have no prejudices against other atheists who don't believe differently than they do. The task of organizing atheists seems significantly different from this perspective.

I'm not expressing an opinion about whether atheists should attempt to organize. Atheists—as distinguished from the much larger group of the non-religious—number very few in many parts of the world, including my own, so there may be wisdom in trying to gather as many people under the umbrella as reasonably possible. My point is only that organization works best when it's structured around a specific set of beliefs and not a general belief or disbelief. Only with that in mind can one make real comparisons between groups.

Image: Vlado | FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Herding Cats?

It's said that organizing atheists is like herding cats. We're implicitly compared to believers, who have acknowledged leaders, authoritative texts, and formal organizations. The reason usually advanced to account for this phenomenon is that we atheists are generally rather individualistic and thus reluctant to follow someone else's lead on such matters. But there's another reason which I've never seen presented in the context of explaining the herding-cats idea: atheism is much too broad a concept under which to seek to organize. The proper comparison is not to individual religious sects but to theists as a whole.

If we randomly put a dozen people who don't believe in any gods in a room, then they're no less likely to reach an agreement on any given issue than if we randomly put a dozen people who do believe in gods in a room. A representative sampling of a dozen of the world's theists would include four Christians (two Catholics, one Orthodox, one Protestant), three Muslims (two Sunnis, one Shiite), two Hindus, a (theistic) Buddhist, a Taoist, and an Animist. I rather doubt they would agree to much at all, since they don't even agree on the basic definition and identity of the gods. In fact, the random group of atheists might even be more likely to reach agreements since many atheists have great respect for science, which provides an objective way to establish underlying facts, since appeals to faith would be roundly rejected, and since atheists have no prejudices against other atheists who don't believe differently than they do. The task of organizing atheists seems significantly different from this perspective.

I'm not expressing an opinion about whether atheists should attempt to organize. Atheists—as distinguished from the much larger group of the non-religious—number very few in many parts of the world, including my own, so there may be wisdom in trying to gather as many people under the umbrella as reasonably possible. My point is only that organization works best when it's structured around a specific set of beliefs and not a general belief or disbelief. Only with that in mind can one make real comparisons between groups.

Biblical Bear Bloodbath

"We are here today to consider a most grievous case," said the judge, who began to read the case directly from the bible, as god had luckily decided to include it in his Big Bumper Book Of Magic Words:

"2 Kings 2:23-24
From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!”
He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys."


"Now we have the bare facts in the case of 42 families vs The Prophet Elisha and his bear henchmen," declared the judge.

"Call the first witness for the defence," he ordered.

"It was awful, a really grizzly scene, bodies splattered all over the road," said eye witness Farmer Giles.

"Does the accused consider the use of bears of mass destruction warranted in this case?" asked the judge.

Elisha was startled, "What? They called me a bald git. Of course it was justified.  I bet you have no hair under that judge's wig.  How would you feel if I made comments about your bare head?"

"My head has no bearing on the matter," snapped the judge.

"Call the next witness for the defence," said the judge

"Your honour, I call forth the families who lost a child on that unbearable day."

"Yes, I can see you all trying to bear up under the strain," noted the judge, "What have you got to say to these poor families, Elisha?"

"Bah! It's all bare-faced lies! I am innocent!" he protested.

"Elisha, you have shown no remorse for your crime. You will be taken from this place and promptly executed with a baseball bat."

"Balls," said Elisha.

"No, just the bat," said the judge.

Biblical Bear Bloodbath

"We are here today to consider a most grievous case," said the judge, who began to read the case directly from the bible, as god had luckily decided to include it in his Big Bumper Book Of Magic Words:

"2 Kings 2:23-24
From there Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!”
He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys."


"Now we have the bare facts in the case of 42 families vs The Prophet Elisha and his bear henchmen," declared the judge.

"Call the first witness for the defence," he ordered.

"It was awful, a really grizzly scene, bodies splattered all over the road," said eye witness Farmer Giles.

"Does the accused consider the use of bears of mass destruction warranted in this case?" asked the judge.

Elisha was startled, "What? They called me a bald git. Of course it was justified.  I bet you have no hair under that judge's wig.  How would you feel if I made comments about your bare head?"

"My head has no bearing on the matter," snapped the judge.

"Call the next witness for the defence," said the judge

"Your honour, I call forth the families who lost a child on that unbearable day."

"Yes, I can see you all trying to bear up under the strain," noted the judge, "What have you got to say to these poor families, Elisha?"

"Bah! It's all bare-faced lies! I am innocent!" he protested.

"Elisha, you have shown no remorse for your crime. You will be taken from this place and promptly executed with a baseball bat."

"Balls," said Elisha.

"No, just the bat," said the judge.

Top Ten 10′s in 2010

(Edit: Due to a bizarre spam problem, comment moderation is temporarily on.)

I have another post I’ve been working on for several days, but can’t seem to find time to finish it! Today, I am off and do have time, but it’s a holiday, so what kind of blogger would I be if I didn’t wish everyone a Happy New Decade and said something incredibly wise about this year? So here are ten lists of top ten things of 2010! (Lists are arranged in the order I thought of the item.)

1. Top Ten Books I Read in 2010:

  1. Child 44, Tom Rob Smith
  2. The Well Trained Mind, Susan Bauer and Jesse Wise
  3. Rebecca, Daphne Du Maurier
  4. The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, Jean Dominique Bauby
  5. The Red Tent, Anna Diamant
  6. The Girl With a Pearl Earring, Traci Chevalier
  7. From Eternity to Here, Sean Carroll
  8. Night, Elie Wiesel
  9. Beastly, Alex Flynn
  10. The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin

2. Top 10 Movies I Watched in 2010:

(Not necessarily made in 2010, nor necessarily my favorite movies of all time; just my favorites that I actually watched at some point! And yes, I watch a lot of children’s movies. My excuse is that I have a 4-year old!)

  1. Beauty and the Beast
  2. How to Train Your Dragon
  3. Tangled
  4. Zombieland
  5. Terminator
  6. Enchanted
  7. Rebecca
  8. 28 Days
  9. Aeon Flux
  10. Black Swan

3. Top 10 Lessons of 2010:

  1. Except for minor children you may have spawned, nobody deserves to be part of your life. Being with you is a privilege, not a right based on genetics.
  2. Assertiveness is not the same as rudeness.
  3. Make sure you actually turned off the heat before you dip your finger into that pan.
  4. I am a pretty likable person worth getting to know; I am adequately awesome.
  5. Debating can be fun, but it’s not fun if it isolates you from the relationship/other friends, and not everyone who says they want to learn something actually do.
  6. Even if I’m not perfect, I am the funnest mom around!
  7. I am not lazy.
  8. I like to run. I LOVE to bike!
  9. I would have coffee with Satan if it would make my daughter, husband, or brother happy.
  10. I have lost a ton of friends over the years, but I have gained so many more. It’s worth it to cut out those who seek to tear you down, because there are plenty of people out there who will support you (even if that means disagreeing with you!). You just have to get out there and find them!

4. Top 10 Songs I Liked in 2010:

  1. “Love Theme” from Romeo and Juliet, Tchaikovsky
  2. “All the Right Moves”, OneRepublic
  3. “Moves”, The New Pornographers
  4. “Firework”, Katy Perry
  5. “Blue Does”, Blue October
  6. “In this River”, Black Label Society
  7. “Viva la Vida”, Coldplay
  8. “Breathe”, Alexi Murdoch
  9. “My Never”, Blue October
  10. “Gravity”, A Perfect Circle

5. Top 10 Favorite Things to Do in 2010:

  1. Read
  2. Write
  3. Watch movies/television
  4. Sing
  5. Bike
  6. Scrapbook
  7. Be with/take care of my people
  8. Cook (as long as I start in a clean kitchen and don’t have to clean up the mess!)
  9. Walk
  10. Laugh

6. Top 10 Goals for the Next 10 Years:

  1. Figure out what I want to be when I grow up and pursue it.
  2. Write a novel. Or ten.
  3. Enjoy life as it is.
  4. Enjoy life with my daughter: she’s growing up fast!
  5. Continue learning about and implementing strategies for good health.
  6. Be proud of myself: who I am, what I’ve done, and how I’ve conducted myself.
  7. Work hard, play hard: Savor life.
  8. Don’t sweat the small things.
  9. Climb out of my financial hole.
  10. Make more babies!

7. Top 10 Favorite Foods in 2010:

  1. Smoothies
  2. Breakfast banana split
  3. Diet Coke
  4. Twix
  5. Pizza
  6. Spinach
  7. Black beans
  8. Sweet potatoes
  9. Chicken nuggets
  10. Poppyseed salad dressing

8. Top 10 Favorite Things in 2010:

My:

  1. mini laptop
  2. Books
  3. Hammock
  4. Hair straightener
  5. Blog
  6. Bicycle
  7. new apartment
  8. bright blue and green theme in my bedroom and bathroom
  9. Netflix
  10. Gerbera daisies

9. Top 10 Favorite TV Shows in 2010:

(Again, not that are necessarily still running in 2010. Those that are off the air are shows I watched for the first time in 2010.)

  1. Eureka (the theme song is my ringtone!)
  2. X-Files
  3. Stargate: SG-1
  4. Caprica
  5. Stargate Universe
  6. 30 Rock
  7. Family Guy
  8. Southpark
  9. Biggest Loser
  10. Bones

Bonus:

11. Oz

12. Pillars of the Earth

These seem more like long movies to me because they had a definite end date. It’s technically a miniseries, but I wanted to put them in the movie category.

10. Top 10 Favorite Blogs/Webcomics in 2010:

(Note: I am not going to include atheist/former fundie blogs because I read and love so many for various reasons. You can find most of the ones I love on the right side of the page–I may have forgotten one or two because I read them in Google Reader and add them to the links as I have time. No need to repeat myself! Plus, I don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings for not making the list!)

  1. Cyanide and Happiness
  2. Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal
  3. Hyperbole and a Half
  4. Cracked
  5. Doghouse Diaries
  6. Another Lunch
  7. Cake Wrecks
  8. smitten kitchen
  9. PostSecret
  10. Bad Astronomy

So that’s me! This post took quite awhile! What are some of your favorites of 2010?

Hope you all have a safe and happy New Year!

Year of the Cliff-Diving Bull

In the final hours I lure my raw feelings and trap them in an amber bottle. I nurse them with tenderness, lull them with the etherizing smoke of a Cuban cigar then watch them bleed through the tip of a pen. I run my fingers through the wavy hair of a year gasping for one last breath. Naked, I stand in the cold on top of a steep rock. The view is awesome as I carry 2010 precariously close to the precipice. You've been my year, I softly whisper, staring at eternity whirling in her sleepy eyes. I kiss her softly and lay her to rest. Then I tiptoe forward to the very edge, raise my arms high above my head and, like a cocked bow releasing its feathered arrow, I jump off the cliff, soul first. I dive toward the blue sea. At long last I'm free.

The world around remains enslaved by the folly of mad men and women. The lust for power, greed and tyranny dictate the day to day existence, the very destiny of the exasperated masses. The oppressed were further tormented while those living under the illusion of freedom went on with their lives unperturbed. The hungry, the homeless and the poor were stripped naked of their dignity by the cheapness of the rich. Generations aspiring for human honor and personal liberty suffocated from the obnoxiousness of fetid traditions and the defunct morality of ideas long dead. Is it about the world I'm writing or is it about me?



I bullied my way forward like a raging bull in an Andalusian plaza de toros. The smell of blood and urine and earth mixed together, filling my nostrils with the pungence of life and death. Torn between encouraging cheers and dispiriting shouts the arena turned red in my eyes. The matador was a small man like most. He would not stand a chance if it weren't for his picador on horseback and the gang of banderilleros stabbing my back with barbed sticks. Men who hide behind shiny pretense are bereft of courage while honor lies under the hoofs of the beast. Another swig followed by a long drag and the red lessened. I was walking upright again, crossing yet another bridge and burning it like others before. There was an open field ahead and way in the distance the silhouette of a forest emerged and drew my horizon. I walked on.

Happy New Year!


Year of the Cliff-Diving Bull

In the final hours I lure my raw feelings and trap them in an amber bottle. I nurse them with tenderness, lull them with the etherizing smoke of a Cuban cigar then watch them bleed through the tip of a pen. I run my fingers through the wavy hair of a year gasping for one last breath. Naked, I stand in the cold on top of a steep rock. The view is awesome as I carry 2010 precariously close to the precipice. You've been my year, I softly whisper, staring at eternity whirling in her sleepy eyes. I kiss her softly and lay her to rest. Then I tiptoe forward to the very edge, raise my arms high above my head and, like a cocked bow releasing its feathered arrow, I jump off the cliff, soul first. I dive toward the blue sea. At long last I'm free.

The world around remains enslaved by the folly of mad men and women. The lust for power, greed and tyranny dictate the day to day existence, the very destiny of the exasperated masses. The oppressed were further tormented while those living under the illusion of freedom went on with their lives unperturbed. The hungry, the homeless and the poor were stripped naked of their dignity by the cheapness of the rich. Generations aspiring for human honor and personal liberty suffocated from the obnoxiousness of fetid traditions and the defunct morality of ideas long dead. Is it about the world I'm writing or is it about me?



I bullied my way forward like a raging bull in an Andalusian plaza de toros. The smell of blood and urine and earth mixed together, filling my nostrils with the pungence of life and death. Torn between encouraging cheers and dispiriting shouts the arena turned red in my eyes. The matador was a small man like most. He would not stand a chance if it weren't for his picador on horseback and the gang of banderilleros stabbing my back with barbed sticks. Men who hide behind shiny pretense are bereft of courage while honor lies under the hoofs of the beast. Another swig followed by a long drag and the red lessened. I was walking upright again, crossing yet another bridge and burning it like others before. There was an open field ahead and way in the distance the silhouette of a forest emerged and drew my horizon. I walked on.

Happy New Year!


Why We Leave

Religious people often make the case that people like being atheists, agnostic, or just non-believing because then they can “do whatever they want”. The idea is simple: if there is no god, there is no one watching you when you are alone and therefore there are no consequences as long as you can get away with something. In other words, atheists can turn a blind eye to their own actions.

The last couple of years I have watched in utter astonishment as “True Christian” after “True Christian” have on the one hand turned their eye to corruption around them and on the other self-righteously and tirelessly stood up for their favorite principles. It seems as if turning the blind eye is completely subjective and is not limited to the atheists. It is a human problem.

Along with this observation, I have had another question floating around in the back of my mind: why is it that some of us leave and some stay Christian? How is it that tiny details can drive one person to leave their faith while others can simply ignore them completely and act as if they are honestly no big deal?

For example, it may bother a good Christian woman endlessly to hear a swear word or be in the company of someone who is drinking alcohol but when it comes to sending troops to die in Iraq for what might be a trumped-up war… she can honestly act like it is not her problem and that they are serving the Lord by giving their lives up. A person can whine about a little wine and praise Jesus over a dead relative in battle?

For secularists things like this bother us enormously. We feel a sense that overwhelming injustice is being done by our fellow humans.Vote for a Christian Republican who supports creationism and refuses to even read the evidence for evolution? Be against abortion even in the case of rape? Teach the Bible is inerrant when there are so many “obvious” errors? Support Palin?

Outrageous!

It seems that in order to pick our battles we do have to turn our blind eye to things.

I have seen Christians ignore blatant Bible contradictions by changing the topic or inventing – on the spot – an explanation that seems reasonable enough that they can just move on. Or they simple shoulder the responsibility onto their pastor, elders, or “experts”. In the end, textual contradictions do not exist as long as the believer feels that resolving them is not their responsibility. And even when many believers make a crack at giving an answer, they often assume the Bible is still inerrant even if someone can knock a hole in every harmony they can give.

In other words, “it is not my problem!”.

The Christian is doing what every human does everyday: shouldering responsibility on others to relive their own stress.

As an atheist I have made the mistake of assuming that every Christian should feel the sense of responsibility to defend the entire Bible, creationism, or the logical contradictions with the concept of God as I did when I felt convicted to abandon Christianity altogether. In other words, it was almost as if I wanted to say “hey look, I felt this massive responsibility, why don’t you?” I feel disrespected, like a person who set out to clean up a massive mess and discovered a problem and no one else even thinks there is a mess. It makes me feel alone and like keeping things clean is a lost cause.

And I think that for many of us who leave a religion of some sort, we probably all – at some point – felt responsible for something others did not. We set out with noble motives to shoulder a weight that others had refused to pick up or had only loosely dealt with. When we discovered the only resolution involved a complete cleanup of our worldview, we looked around in astonishment that nobody else felt the huge weight we did.

The truth is that a belief in god can be a great peace-bringer because it gives us a being upon whom to shoulder all the weight of responsibility in the end. It allows us to remove responsibility from ourselves. It allows us to turn a blind eye to problems and simply follow up every accusation with “well, that is the Lord’s business and He is in control.”

So why do some of us leave then, when it could be so easy to just shoulder all the responsibility for our religion’s every problem onto a deity?

We leave because we started being responsible. We started seeing the millions of people dying of starvation yearly and supposedly going to hell, or the increasing global warmth, or the poor handling of scientific data, or the discrepancies in our holy text, and we said “I am responsible to resolve these issues.”

And what do we call it when a person starts to shoulder more and more responsibility rather than expecting others to take care of it for him?

Growing up.


Filed under: Josh

Should I Take A Philosophy Class? (And Should I Major in Philosophy?)

When deciding if you should take a philosophy class (or major in philosophy), you might want to ask yourself what kind of an answer you want:

  • Do you want an easy class? If so, it’s probably not a good idea.
  • Do you want something enjoyable? If so, it depends on what you find enjoyable.
  • Do you want to find out about subjects that were marginalized or ignored in your high school education? If so, you should take it.
  • Should other people learn to improve their thinking and become better people? If so, then you should too—and you should take the class.
  • Do you want to take an important class? If so, then yes.

The second two answers are the ones I will attempt to provide here.

Others should try to be better people, but so should you.

Do you want people to be gullible, close-minded, fanatical, criminal, irrational, or dim witted—or would you rather they learn to be reasonable, open minded, moral, rational, and thoughtful? Philosophy helps change people for the better. You might think philosophy is hard or depressing, but that’s a poor excuse to sacrifice the most important part of your education. You think other people should try to be moral and rational—and it’s a lot harder to be moral and rational without studying what the “experts” have to say. There are people who have spent their lives thinking about morality and rationality—and studying what other people have to say about these topics who did the same. It’s a lot easier to learn to be moral and rational through the years of experience of others than to try to build it all from the ground up on your own.

Terrorists and criminals tend not to be very rational or moral. We don’t want people to be dirty cops, corrupt politicians, or immoral CEOs. If teaching people to be rational and moral will help them avoid being horrible people, then everyone should be taking philosophy classes—including you.

That’s certainly not to say that philosophy has to be depressing. You can learn to be a better person and enjoy attaining higher levels of consciousness. You can learn to make yourself and the world better. Philosophy can help.

Philosophy is important

Philosophy is important for many reasons including the following:

  1. It offers a degree of knowledge involving life’s biggest questions: Reasoning, logic, morality, and reality itself. Knowledge seems to be worth pursuing for its own sake. It can be enjoyable just to attain some knowledge—especially about life’s biggest questions.
  2. It can transform you into a better human being. You will learn to think for yourself, refute poor reasoning, use better reasoning, consider various worldviews, and learn how to make the world a better place.
  3. You will learn to be “open minded” without being gullible, and “skeptical” without being “close-minded.”
  4. By learning to be reasonable, you will avoid being fanatical or reckless. You will be less likely to become a criminal or horrible person.
  5. By learning about morality (ethics), you will learn something about what it means to live a meaningful life and make the world a better place. This can be used. If we want the world to become a better place, we need people to think about what goals are worth having and how to accomplish them. Philosophy is the best way to do that.
  6. Philosophy has lead to real world achievements, such as logic, the best higher education imaginable, computers, and natural science.
  7. Philosophy can offer you the best sort of “enlightenment” that I know about. Philosophy can help you see the world in new ways that can transform you into a better person and transcend the limited worldview you have attained from your culture. You can learn to better “seize the day.” You can better see how life is marginalized through consumerism, how your time is wasted with trivial distractions, how people’s behavior is often thoughtless or irrational (often due to a faulty worldview), and so on.
  8. Philosophy can teach you the history that is often taken out of history books—the history of worldviews and thought itself. You can’t know how we have “progressed” and attained the wonders of science and technology without knowing the history of philosophy.
  9. You will learn of many of the greatest achievements and conversations that existed throughout history—the books and thoughts written by people who devoted their lives to learning about the world and how to live a good life.
  10. You will learn how to think more creatively, not less. Learning about the answers people have thought of to life’s greatest questions opens possibilities that you would have a very difficult time to realize on your own. Philosophers often contribute to the world by thinking in entirely new ways and offering entirely new answers—and you can learn to do so as well through example. You might think you are creative now, but odds are that many of your ideas are the same as someone else’s. Would you rather know what ideas are already thought of so you can make sure your own ideas are unique or do you want to end up coming to the same ideas that many others come up with?

Conclusion

What you get out of philosophy is partially up to your teacher, but it’s mostly up to you. If you want to get by doing the minimal work with as little effort as possible, then you might not get much out of philosophy at all. To get something out of philosophy, you should spend some time arguing and thinking about your life and what it means to be rational or moral. In fact, you don’t need to take a single philosophy class to learn about philosophy. You could try to learn it on your own.

Whatever you want to do in life philosophy can help. Being rational, thinking clearly, and being moral is important for all human beings just for being human beings. Everyone should not only take a philosophy class of their own free will, but people should be required to learn philosophy in high school. It could probably be taught as part of our English classes. Learning to read and write is an important part of learning to think. You can’t read or write anything important if you can’t read or write philosophy. (In fact, I think philosophy should have a greater influence over all of our education in general. Education should be less about obedience, following directions, and memorization; and more about understanding the world using good reasoning.)

Should you major in philosophy? If you want an education to get a job like everyone else, then it might not be the best choice. However, if you want to make yourself or the world better, then you should consider it.

Related:


Filed under: outreach, philosophy Tagged: class, education, learning, major

Winter 2010-2011: A Climate-Awareness Inflection Point?


2849l

The world remains mired in blind indifference to a primal scream emanating from our future. If we could hear it, or pay attention to it, we would connect with a frightening level of rage leveled at our short-sightedness in 146 languages plus binary code and cuneform:

“You people were privileged beyond all reason, you knew, and you did nothing!!”
“Ustedes tuvieron el privilegio más allá de toda razón, te conocía, y que no hizo nada!”
“Sie waren Menschen jenseits aller Vernunft privilegierten, wussten Sie, und Sie haben nichts!”
“Vous les gens ont eu le privilège au delà de toute raison, vous le saviez, et vous n’avez rien fait!”

[...]

Climate effects everyone, and its change will change all of our lives dramatically. From the crops of subsistence farmers to the coastal infrastructure of major metropolitan areas, the way of life of billions is in peril. Climate change is going to impoverish us. It will cost untold trillions of dollars, create higher levels of human misery, has the potential to ruin teetering economies, and could set in motion military and political change that threaten the very notion of a modern liberal international system. If you think I’m exaggerating, just read the links I’ve provided.

Those of us who’ve been lucky enough to live at the top of Earth’s food chain in the incredible period of prosperity from 1945 to the present have the most to lose. You’d think people with so much at stake would pay more attention. I’ve argued that it’s precisely our experience of bounty, our sense of entitlement and exceptionalism in the post WWII period that makes Americans uniquely vulnerable to the clue-by-fouring that’s most assuredly on its way. This has been nowhere more painfully illustrated than the pathetic whining of people with disrupted travel schedules. As if being whisked across the world at will with blinding speed was some kind of basic human right. From TIME:

…the sheer number of canceled flights—and the number of angry passengers stranded in terminals up and down the East Coast—was more accurate reflection of just how common air travel had become, and with it, our expectations for our easy movement should be. On one level, after all, the global air travel system really is a technological marvel—with a few clicks, you can book yourself a ticket that can take you halfway around the planet in a day. (OK, maybe not right now, but usually.) What was once extraordinary had now become another form of commuting, and we think it our due to be able to fly thousands of miles to visit family for the holidays and fly back home in time for work….Perspective can get lost—let’s not forget, this was a major, major storm, and it shouldn’t be surprising that when lots of snow falls, travel is going to get gummed up—and then some….it’s as if we’ve become a “nation of wussies,” unable to deal with obstacles, turning a delayed cross-country flight into something out of the Odyssey.

Or the fury at government that’s so au courant, what with the Tea Party and all, as Alexis Madrigal points out in The Atlantic,

We assume that if only city government worked better, the hassles of the weather could be avoided. We blame The Man…While I’m sure weather emergencies can be handled better or worse, if the weather is crazy enough, the government-quality signal gets drowned out by the weather signal. Cities were built with certain tolerance levels in mind, certain climactic baselines, and if you go outside of them, everyone looks terrible because they’re pulling levers of power and control that are not commensurate with the task they need to fix….What you need to know is that your city — pretty much wherever it is — was built for a climate that it may no longer have. That’s going to mean tough commutes during the winter and spending more money on air conditioning in the summer. It’s going to mean that your city shuts down more often because some freaky thing happened that no one can remember happening in their lifetimes. [emphasis added] It’s going to mean the power’s going to go out because the electric system in your area wasn’t designed to handle the stresses it will be put under. Cities will have to get less efficient and more resilient. Redundancies will have to be built into systems that previously seemed to work just fine.

I can’t stress this point enough. Cities are located where they are based on human migration patterns over centuries of the basically stable climate of the late Holocene. Change the climate into what promises to be Anthropocene hell, and all of a sudden, crops don’t grow the same way the same places they used to, urban economics don’t pencil, and there’s little to nothing we can do but become poorer and more stressed as more and more of our resources go toward staying in place, replacing and beefing up infrastructure we took for granted, battling nature, and less toward things that make life better and richer like education, health care, and the arts. And that’s just us, the lucky ones. What about the billions who are only just now thinking they have a shot at getting out of the $1-a-day crushing poverty of the developing world?

It’s not like we haven’t been warned. Starting in the 1950’s, scientists began to discuss the greenhouse effect. In 1958, an amazingly prophetic Frank Capra produced an educational film “The Unchained Goddess” which included this segment on global warming. Campy as it is with its dramatic music and overstatement of immediate consequences, it was essentially right on the mark. In the late 1970’s President Jimmy Carter was run out of office for merely suggesting we connect with our energy reality by turning our thermostat down in the winter and putting on a sweater.

But Daddy Reagan told us it was “morning in America,” and Grandad George H.W. Bush agreed. By 1989 or 1990, we had missed our chance to avoid the worst of it by getting off fossil fuels. Earth passed the “safe” atmospheric CO2 threshold of 350 ppm around 1990. But in the 1990’s and 2000’s we reveled in our $30/barrel oil, and bought bigger houses, and ever-more-powerful shiny new cars, and other gewgaws.

As we did so, we happily whistled past the graveyard of old Earth, unaware we were irrevocably on the pathway to Eaarth, as described in Bill McKibben’s scary 2010 book. Then of course there’s the warnings from Al Gore, a name that’s been relentlessly vilified since the release in 2006 of “An Inconvenient Truth.” For his tireless humanitarian work, Gore’s been everything but tarred and feathered, including having a 10-foot-tall hot-air-spewing bust of himself paraded through Fairbanks, Alaska on the back of a pickup truck.  We’ve made a national sport of killing the messenger, when the messenger was saying anything other than “turn down the air conditioning” or “turn up the heat,” “crank up the big screen” and “pass the Nachos.”

Now there’s clearly nothing wrong with Super Bowl parties or large screens or indoor climate control. But what they have the potential to do is to numb us to what’s really going on in the real climate, namely that we’re burning a lot of coal to keep the beer cold, the cheese sauce hot, and make that social gathering possible. And the carbon emissions from all that partying is going to make future partying more difficult and expensive. Just like all the past on-time flights have precipitated the weather that makes our current flights late. Would the Super Bowl party be any less fun if it was being held sustainably, powered by the wind or sun? And would we pay just a little more for electricity for just a few years if we knew it would help our kids and their kids to enjoy the same privileges we do? “Of course,” it’s easy to think. “We would gladly do that, there’s too much at stake not to,” right?

When it comes to the polling booth, apparently we won’t. And we won’t stop electing people who self-righteously sabotage the future for paltry present gain–which doesn’t amount to even pennies on the dollar.

Now what exactly is happening to the future (and the present)? Well–already–things that haven’t happened for 1,000 years.

In that sense, Matt Drudge must be feeling pretty good right now. But his headline from the Daily Star: “UK Winter May Be Coldest in 1000 Years…” should move the irony meter just a little bit. For the incurious majority of Drudge readers, the conclusion is as obvious as the snowdrifts are high: Al Gore is still wrong, just like he was yesterday, just like he’s always been, and spectacularly so. ‘Global Warming, right?’ Hahahahahahahaha!

But let’s look at the kind of real sentiments we’re hearing near and far. In a facetious Facebook status update a friend said, “Snow in Arizona? Look out for raining frogs and rivers of blood next. The Apocalypse must be starting.” More seriously, the Premier of Queensland, Australia, Anna Bligh said of recent flooding, “It’s without precedent in our recorded history, with so many places in so many diverse parts of the state each affected so critically at once.” Paris’ Charles de Gaulle airport slashed flights Christmas week because of a shortage of de-icing fluid. New York’s snowbound airports (the result of a blizzard not matched since 1983) top the list of places where you hope you’re not stuck watching tomorrow’s countdown. In Los Angeles, we’ve had the wettest December on record, and howling hurricane-force winds (at 94 mph) are ringing in our New Year. Tonight it’s supposed to dip below freezing in supposedly sunny Southern California. What the hell kind of crazy is going on??

To the right-wing cohort, it’s all as it should be. The chortling over winter weather is about validating their broad view of science as enemy, and private enterprise under siege from every angle. Drudge’s banner headline screamed NYC SNOW JOB: SLOW CLEAN-UP WAS UNION ‘PROTEST’. I don’t know if it’s possible to be more wrong on more levels. At some point, such propaganda crosses the threshold from just wrong to sinister. Yes, this is the Most Important Lesson we’re supposed to take from the effects of global weather weirding: “The Unions in New York City are Just Too Powerful and Corrupt.” Gawd.

But what is science really saying about these strange weather extremes? Two phrases sum up what we know, or more correctly, what is the probable cause of some of these troubles. “Siberian Snow,” and “Arctic Oscillation.”

On Siberian Snow from Washington Post:

…Judah Cohen and colleagues which finds above normal fall snow cover in Siberia leads to cold winter over eastern North America. As a long-range forecaster with theCommodity Weather Group in Bethesda, Md., I can confirm that this relationship has some legitimacy….It is amazing to watch these powerful atmospheric waves propagate across our planet and grow over Siberia. We recently saw such a wave develop in December that helped establish the recent cold, and a new one is expected to move across Eurasia in the coming week. You can watch these waves (way up toward the top of the troposphere) via an excellent National Weather Service animation.

On Arctic Oscillation from Wikipedia:

…in February 2010 the Arctic Oscillation reached its most negative value, -4.266 (for a monthly mean), in the entire post-1950 era (the period of accurate record-keeping) and that month was characterized by three separate record or near-record snowstorms in the mid-Atlantic region, the first two dumping 25 inches on Baltimore, Md. on the 5th and 6th of February, and then another 19.5 inches on the 9th and 10th. In New York City a separate storm deposited 20.9 inches on the 25th and 26th. This kind of snowstorm activity is as anomalous and extreme as the negative AO value itself. Similarly, the greatest negative value for the AO since 1950 in January was -3.767 in 1977, which coincided with the coldest mean January temperature in New York City, Washington, D.C., Baltimore, and many other mid-Atlantic locations in that span. And though the January AO has been negative only 60.6% of the time between 1950-2010, 9 of the 10 coldest New York City Januarys since 1950 have coincided with negative AOs.

Now of course, there are all sorts of caveats, and we must be clear that Earth’s weather is an incredibly complex and difficult-to-understand system. And we can’t say that this correlation between Siberia, the Arctic and crazy blizzards is an open and shut case. But here’s what we do know: On a global basis, 2010 was the hottest year of the hottest decade since records have been kept. So something odd must be happening, and it is along these lines: Warmer air holds more moisture. A warmer atmosphere has more energy to move things around. And both tend to amplify the effects of any weather system, summer or winter.

So keep these facts in mind over the next few months as the Northern Hemisphere goes through weather disruptions in the form of extreme cold and massive snowstorms: On a global average basis, the Earth as a whole is warmer than it has ever been in the modern era, and that’s not in dispute. Therefore something must explain the strange paradox of winter nastiness. If the American public can wrap their heads around that “something,” we might actually get somewhere.

What is it Like to Be a Dog?



I am a professional dog trainer. Specifically, I train dogs to guide those who are blind. Each month, the organization I work for teaches up to twenty-four blind students (many of whom have had dog guides before) how to work with and care for their new dog guide. Recently, I had the unfortunate opportunity to pick up a dog from one of my organization's graduates who passed away. The dog was a German shepherd, an intensely loyal breed. The dog and his now-deceased master were together for a little over seven years.

Now, most pet owners who have had a dog for seven years know what it's like to lose a beloved pet that has been part of the family for that long. However, a dog guide is more than just a pet: under Federal law, a dog guide can go anywhere its master can go: they go to the supermarket, the local Starbucks, the bank, the post office, the library, and the workplace. They spend much more time with their master than pet dogs do - nearly twenty-four hours a day. Additionally, dog guides - as near as we can tell - develop a unique sense of responsibility for their master, further deepening the bond between human and canine.

Where am I going with this, you might be thinking? Well, when I brought the deceased graduate's dog back to my organization, and into my kennel, the dog seemed to simply pick up where he left off seven years ago: he merged relatively seamlessly back into the pack - not the same pack he was in seven years ago, but a pack just the same. He played, asserted his dominance, sniffed, drank water from the trough - all the things he did seven years ago with a different group of about twenty dogs.

What about his master? What about the person who fed him and loved him for seven years? What about the bond they shared for seven years, guiding his master everywhere - proud when his master praised him effusively for avoiding a car coming out of a driveway, remorseful when he brushed his master's arm against a parking meter when he was distracted by another dog? The dog shows no sign of depression. He's active - playful, even. He's socializing with other dogs. By all accounts he seems normal.

I am intensely interested in - obsessed with, really - human consciousness. It is probably the most bizarre - and intractable - phenomenon in the natural world. The 17th Century philosopher René Descartes sort of kicked things off, in terms of consciousness studies. He's the guy who said he could doubt pretty much everything about the world except himself - his consciousness. He famously said, cogito ergo sum: I think, therefore I am. From this, he basically concluded that there are two kinds of stuff: material stuff, and thinking stuff; or, material and immaterial - body and mind. It's called dualism. Since then, modern science - and neuroscience in particular - has disabused most scientists (and nearly all philosophers) of the notion of dualism. In other words, the mind is the brain: consciousness arises from material brain processes. Serbian-born American philosopher Thomas Nagel wrote a paper back in 1974 called, "What is it Like to Be a Bat?" Hence the title of my blog post. In this paper, he suggested that "an organism has conscious mental states if and only if there is something that it is like to be that organism — something it is like for the organism."

But to step back from the abyss of philosophical inquiry for a moment, consciousness is the thing all of us laypeople are most familiar with (or so we like to think). Each of us has the experience of what it's like to be us; we have a subjective point of view. Additionally, we have thoughts, emotions, and visceral feelings of pain and pleasure. I know what it's like to be me and I assume, based on observations of your actions and the knowledge that you are a human being like me, that you know what it's like to be you. Many times I can guess what you're thinking or feeling based simply on your actions or body language.

But what about a dog? The relationship between humans and dogs goes back, presumably, for thousands of years. That's thousands of years of human beings observing dog behavior. So pet owners - and especially dog trainers - enjoy a level of confidence in determining what a dog is thinking or feeling. Now, modern neuroscience has grown by leaps and bounds in its understanding of how the human brain works, but not so much with the canine brain. However, given an evolutionary understanding of life and some inductive reasoning, as well as millennia of intimate human-canine interaction, humans can be fairly confident in their conclusions about the dog's mental capacities and limitations.

Still - and this might be an obdurate anthropomorphic tendency in me - I find it baffling when a dog like this German shepherd comes back after having lost its master, acting as if nothing has happened. For me, it raises a lot of questions: what is the nature of canine memory? Do past memories intrude into the dog's consciousness the way our memories sometimes do? Does he dream about his master? If he does, does he remember them in his waking state? Is a dog condemned by nature to be stuck in the present?

A more interesting question would be: would it be better or worse if human brains were structured like canine brains, living in an eternal present?

Neuroscientists have been working on - and making steady progress with - what are called the Neural Correlates of Consciousness. Now, describing the neural correlates of consciousness doesn't yet offer a robust theory of consciousness - and may never, in fact, achieve such a thing, but understanding these neural correlates is a step toward such a theory.


Maybe someday we'll actually know what it's like to be a dog.

What is it Like to Be a Dog?



I am a professional dog trainer. Specifically, I train dogs to guide those who are blind. Each month, the organization I work for teaches up to twenty-four blind students (many of whom have had dog guides before) how to work with and care for their new dog guide. Recently, I had the unfortunate opportunity to pick up a dog from one of my organization's graduates who passed away. The dog was a German shepherd, an intensely loyal breed. The dog and his now-deceased master were together for a little over seven years.

Now, most pet owners who have had a dog for seven years know what it's like to lose a beloved pet that has been part of the family for that long. However, a dog guide is more than just a pet: under Federal law, a dog guide can go anywhere its master can go: they go to the supermarket, the local Starbucks, the bank, the post office, the library, and the workplace. They spend much more time with their master than pet dogs do - nearly twenty-four hours a day. Additionally, dog guides - as near as we can tell - develop a unique sense of responsibility for their master, further deepening the bond between human and canine.

Where am I going with this, you might be thinking? Well, when I brought the deceased graduate's dog back to my organization, and into my kennel, the dog seemed to simply pick up where he left off seven years ago: he merged relatively seamlessly back into the pack - not the same pack he was in seven years ago, but a pack just the same. He played, asserted his dominance, sniffed, drank water from the trough - all the things he did seven years ago with a different group of about twenty dogs.

What about his master? What about the person who fed him and loved him for seven years? What about the bond they shared for seven years, guiding his master everywhere - proud when his master praised him effusively for avoiding a car coming out of a driveway, remorseful when he brushed his master's arm against a parking meter when he was distracted by another dog? The dog shows no sign of depression. He's active - playful, even. He's socializing with other dogs. By all accounts he seems normal.

I am intensely interested in - obsessed with, really - human consciousness. It is probably the most bizarre - and intractable - phenomenon in the natural world. The 17th Century philosopher René Descartes sort of kicked things off, in terms of consciousness studies. He's the guy who said he could doubt pretty much everything about the world except himself - his consciousness. He famously said, cogito ergo sum: I think, therefore I am. From this, he basically concluded that there are two kinds of stuff: material stuff, and thinking stuff; or, material and immaterial - body and mind. It's called dualism. Since then, modern science - and neuroscience in particular - has disabused most scientists (and nearly all philosophers) of the notion of dualism. In other words, the mind is the brain: consciousness arises from material brain processes. Serbian-born American philosopher Thomas Nagel wrote a paper back in 1974 called, "What is it Like to Be a Bat?" Hence the title of my blog post. In this paper, he suggested that "an organism has conscious mental states if and only if there is something that it is like to be that organism — something it is like for the organism."

But to step back from the abyss of philosophical inquiry for a moment, consciousness is the thing all of us laypeople are most familiar with (or so we like to think). Each of us has the experience of what it's like to be us; we have a subjective point of view. Additionally, we have thoughts, emotions, and visceral feelings of pain and pleasure. I know what it's like to be me and I assume, based on observations of your actions and the knowledge that you are a human being like me, that you know what it's like to be you. Many times I can guess what you're thinking or feeling based simply on your actions or body language.

But what about a dog? The relationship between humans and dogs goes back, presumably, for thousands of years. That's thousands of years of human beings observing dog behavior. So pet owners - and especially dog trainers - enjoy a level of confidence in determining what a dog is thinking or feeling. Now, modern neuroscience has grown by leaps and bounds in its understanding of how the human brain works, but not so much with the canine brain. However, given an evolutionary understanding of life and some inductive reasoning, as well as millennia of intimate human-canine interaction, humans can be fairly confident in their conclusions about the dog's mental capacities and limitations.

Still - and this might be an obdurate anthropomorphic tendency in me - I find it baffling when a dog like this German shepherd comes back after having lost its master, acting as if nothing has happened. For me, it raises a lot of questions: what is the nature of canine memory? Do past memories intrude into the dog's consciousness the way our memories sometimes do? Does he dream about his master? If he does, does he remember them in his waking state? Is a dog condemned by nature to be stuck in the present?

A more interesting question would be: would it be better or worse if human brains were structured like canine brains, living in an eternal present?

Neuroscientists have been working on - and making steady progress with - what are called the Neural Correlates of Consciousness. Now, describing the neural correlates of consciousness doesn't yet offer a robust theory of consciousness - and may never, in fact, achieve such a thing, but understanding these neural correlates is a step toward such a theory.


Maybe someday we'll actually know what it's like to be a dog.

Beta Ray Bill, the atheist

I couldn’t resist sharing the following:

I am alone. I look at the heavens and think them empty. And if not empty, I find the idea of worshipping whatever dwells there obscene.

(source: Beta Ray Bill: The Green of Eden)

In but 3 panels and with little dialogue, it summarizes not only atheism — including the idea that, even if something existed, to automatically worship that something would be nothing but a cowardly and loathsome way of grovelling –, but also humanism — that one should do “good” not because one fears punishment or desires a reward, but because it’s the right thing to do, because this universe is, as far as we know, the only one we’ve got, and, if we can influence it in some way, let it be a good way.

And all of this in a mainstream comic from a major publisher (Marvel). This is not something that happens every day.


Copyright © 2012 Way of the Mind

God’s Miniscule Sacrifice

Priests and holy books love to drone on about how the son of god really suffered on the cross, in order to forgive us our sins. That must have been really tough for a being of unlimited power, knowing full well he was going to pop back to life anyway.  Truly a minuscule sacrifice.

Not that I asked or even wanted him to perform such a party trick, as I would have been quite happy to leave my sins as they were, thank you very much.

It's patently absurd to need your own created people to crucify part of yourself in order for us all to have our sins pardoned.  I don't know what they are smoking up there.

Talking about sacrifices, why does god enjoy animal sacrifices? Earlier chapters note how he was pleased with the smell of burning animal flesh, as well as very detailed methods for how to slice animals up for such offerings.

He seemed to have got bored of that in later years, thankfully, or modern religious nuts would be offering up poodles and hamsters for the almighty to snack on.

"But that was olden times," laughs the modern ignoramus believer.
Oh well, that's ok then. I suppose he is still full, after his old testament all-you-can-eat buffet.

God’s Miniscule Sacrifice

Priests and holy books love to drone on about how the son of god really suffered on the cross, in order to forgive us our sins. That must have been really tough for a being of unlimited power, knowing full well he was going to pop back to life anyway.  Truly a minuscule sacrifice.

Not that I asked or even wanted him to perform such a party trick, as I would have been quite happy to leave my sins as they were, thank you very much.

It's patently absurd to need your own created people to crucify part of yourself in order for us all to have our sins pardoned.  I don't know what they are smoking up there.

Talking about sacrifices, why does god enjoy animal sacrifices? Earlier chapters note how he was pleased with the smell of burning animal flesh, as well as very detailed methods for how to slice animals up for such offerings.

He seemed to have got bored of that in later years, thankfully, or modern religious nuts would be offering up poodles and hamsters for the almighty to snack on.

"But that was olden times," laughs the modern ignoramus believer.
Oh well, that's ok then. I suppose he is still full, after his old testament all-you-can-eat buffet.

Pharmacy Online – Prescription Drugs, Health and Beauty. » Ordering Acomplia

. Koop korting viagra. Viagra online kopen. Illinois IL Ill.. För viagra online. Cheapest viagra. Nevada NV Nev.. Iowa IA. Alternative brand to viagra. Købe viagra online. Order viagra no prescription.

Similar posts: Levitra sales. Soma order. Tramadol best prices. Price acomplia. Pfizer viagra. Order propecia online. Viagra by mail. Cialis mail order. Get levitra. Soma on sale.
Trackbacks from: Viagra for women. Accutane pharmacy. 50 mg viagra. Clomid prices. Nizoral order. Where to buy viagra. Online zoloft sales. Tramadol side effects. Tramadol by mail. 20mg cialis.