My first view of an ignorance cult

Well it's close. I recently listened to the podcast of cbc ideas:

Wendell Berry

In the year 2,000, Wendell Berry published a surprising book called "Life Is A Miracle: An Essay Against Modern Superstition." The superstition the book denounces is the belief that science will one day give us a complete account of things. Science is admirable, Wendell Berry says, but it can only be deployed wisely when we recognize the limits to our knowledge. In this episode, Wendell Berry unfolds his philosophy.

Right click to Download Wendell Berry

Mr Berry has some complicated ideas. His ideas are not obviously wrong and he has many good points. But fast forwarding to around 22 minutes you can here his "view" on science in which a summation by the author contends that we can't know everything. He basis this especially on his view of science but he takes agribusiness as science. That's quite a large mistake. But moreover he seems to misunderstand fundamental aspects of science. The most obvious is the use of the generalization in science. Science is reductionist mostly due to practicality (big problems are too big so you solve them as modules). That said when you put the pieces together you get a pretty good picture, even if you don't have every piece.

Now the problem he states is that generality leads to problems since people/places etc are specific not general. This is correct. This is a problem with the application since clear you can't apply the generality to individuality all the time. Of course science gets more refined and more and more the generality gets fine grained and can then be used for the individual. For instance think of all the successes it took to get to targeted antibiotics.

The most shocking part is his constant implication that we or scientists should not ask/research certain questions because of "human dignity." This argument is despicable but may sound nice if left unexamined.

People tend to like this statement because they are nostalgic for the past thinking that it was better in some way (respect for their religion, dominance for their religion/culture, appearance of safety etc...). Let's not digress to much but better is subjective and every animal is healthier when younger so of course there is a bias. So let's just define better as less harm to people who are close to use, thus better means less sickness, shorter and milder illnesses less death etc. By all these measures we are better off. FAR better off. A simple measure (and I would say the most important) is the infant mortality rate (because what is worse than losing your child). In the last century it has gone down tenfold! Before that it was much higher, estimated at 30-40%!!

So why are things better? Well there isn't more religion, natural herbs or people sticking needles into your "pressure points" so that's probably not it. It is likely science. Challenging the current views to see what is really going on lead us to the truth which then let use devise measures to cure or prevent problems. Take for instance sickness. This used to be caused by demons/spirits etc. Aside from the most fanatical religious believers, most religious people have given up this view since that view has only cured people in books were as medicine has cured the people around you.

Berry's point that it is an infringement on a person's dignity to know everything about them is ludicrous. By not looking at all the nooks and crannies we would resign future people to live in their misery or worse. Babies don't care about their dignity they want to survive. Our responsibility to them should not be set aside to let "nature" takes it course of that course is inhumane. It would be a dereliction of our duties as the capable generation, for instance, to let a child be born and suffer with a painful debilitating disease or condition because we never bothered to look at more details of genetic. The same logic thus extends to all humans and animals in our care. Not researching answers is for some people's dogmatic view is unacceptable.

First they came first for the mathematics, And I didn’t speak up because I didn't understand it;
And then they came for the physical science, And I didn’t speak up because I didn't like it;
And then they came for the scientists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a scientist;
And then... I got sick ... And by that time there was no one left who understood what to do.

His most ironic statements are about how people now use scientific term sin their everyday parlance despite not understanding them. Quite ironic for someone who's confused science for agribusiness. In my view he is the standard elder who looks back with nostalgia and criticizes anyone who does things differently. Of course I'm generalizing his nuanced points, but if he can do that about the entirety of science (and it's generalities) why can't I do it about the small set of his ideas.
decencies, and human dignity

Atheist bus campaign and biased news

I just watched a report on Global news show 16:9 called divine debate and wow. Firstly they are really biased or I'm insane. The reporting was terrible and they seem to reporting on a debate which isn't happening. The atheist bus campaign was designed to offend people, but even if it was, free speech doesn't mean silencing voices you don't like. All in all it is a terrible segment with little content and much hype. Asking a rabi if he is ok with the add simply so you can say Muslim's, Christians and Jews are against it is pathetic and not the point. It would be like asking vegans and vegitarians if they find hamburger adds offensive so you could say at least they agree...

I guess I can take consolation in the fact that they aren't likely to survive the year. I stopped reading and watching anything they made after lead story one Sunday night was (I id you ont I couldn't make this up): "A priest in Thrios-Rivier claims to do exorcism and says they are like the movie." That's not even gossip! At least the stuff about celeberties is real (presumably). I for one wn't miss their ... "news."

Non-religious (funny) crazy at UofO

It has been my contention that faith (belief without reason) is the primary problem of religion and other faith derived philosophies. At the university of Ottawa a non-eligious episode has been going on that is worth reading (partly because it is very funny unless you stop and consider the serious mental help this person needs).

I will give a brief introduction to the situation but feel free to skip it and read the quote below (it's long but funny, emphasis is added by myself). A professor at UofO apparently "cracked" at some point and stopped teaching physics and started teaching activism. From all accounts he is quite charismatic. In the fourth year quantum mechanics course he took attendance as the only requirment to obtain an A+ grade and spent the class time ranting about political and conspiratoral issues. The students (one of which is where I got this information) complained to the adminstration that they were not beaing tought anything about physics and that asking the proefessor for homeowrk and lectures resulting in him saying they were brainwashed and shouldn't have to be slaves to "the system." Recently the prof was barred from the University campus and having any graduate students as well as teaching (he was tenured so couldn't just be dismissed). Before that, he "mentored" a student: Mark Kelly. This student in his last year of undergraduate physics became increasingly distruptive. He demanded that the other professors not give the students tests and assignments stating they were some type of indoctrination. This came to a head when he submitted his proposal for his fourth year project. The project is available here. I wouldn't suggest readng it all but looking at the plots and highlighted section you can see the crap he was peddling. So, as can be reasonable expected, when it was submitted the committed told him to go back and do something that was more more physics oriented. After giving him three tries and him submitting the same thing he failed the project.

He was then convinced that this was due to "the man trying to keep him down" and "surpressing acedmeic freedom." He has graffitteed the UofO buildings (and been arrested), barrged in on meeting and into peoples offices to state they won't hear him out (despite the fact he never made an appointment or tried to). He recently became the first student forcably deregistered by the university. He was banned from campus. The university then agreed to let him complete the courses he was missing to graduate, but he could only be at the university campus for classes. He currently continues to frequent the University on different occasions to start trouble: example.

He is a master at playing the victim. when you watch the video or read the email he wrote below you really think they are out to get him. That said, no one at the department supports him, especially the students. He barraged them during the year with emails about how they were being mindless drones by attending and doing homework!

On Oct 21st 2008, Marc Kelly, an upper year physics student, was abruptly deregistered by the University of Ottawa administration when they discovered the true nature of his research. Marc fearfully hid his discoveries from everybody, while he worked hard to find a way to explain it all clearly, but now he has been banished by the administration, and sees no other way but to tell his story to the whole University of Ottawa community. As a young student, Marc interrupted his studies temporarily when he was recruited by the Canadian Government's Defense Research & Development as part of the Network Information Operations team, where he conducted high security research to defend against enemy infiltration of military communication networks [1][2]. When he returned to the University, he began using his new knowledge of communication network theory to understand the inner mechanisms and true function of the educational institution that so fascinated him."A communication network is characterized as consisting of interconnected individuals who are linked by patterned communication flows", he remembered reading [3].

A University, he soon could see, was simply a large machine to control a population's cognitive abilities, according to the patterns of information flowing between each and every one of the human beings, and permeating the whole of the community.It was a mini-society, a tiny-civilization. And at the core of its educational mission were the students, members of the Federation, brought in from all over the world, and promised to receive The Degree and live forever happily.But one day while performing some mathematical analysis, Marc discovered the truth, the terrible truth transmitted to him by a member of the administration: students are in reality slaves and in terrible torment. Just when he planned to make the announcement to the Chair and to the Dean, Marc learned that they already knew about the inhumane practice: the control over the communication flow had been seized by the administration to maintain the average intelligence of the student population at a sub-threshold level, permitting them to be used, unaware, as mere components in a grand geopolitical scheme.The University, Marc had come to believe, was an Indoctrination Machine.

Thanks to the skills he acquired while working for the Government, Marc immediately knew what needed to done: he had to convince the others to help him hijack the communication network, revolt against the corrupt administration, and regain control of the institution that had become so dear to him. But when he first infiltrated the communication network and sent out the message, Marc discovered a second, more terrible truth: the students had all been indoctrinated and transformed into servants of the administration!

In order to free the student population from the torments of graded assignments, multiple-choice examinations and mindless regurgitation, Marc began questioning and challenging the decisions made by the administration. But when it became known that he did not believe in the Syllabus, his nomination to the Senate Appeals Committee was blocked, and he was placed under constant surveillance by the University Police, who hired student spies to report on his activities and tell everyone that he suffered from mental instabilities. Then one day while video recording inside the Governance Facility, during the Senate meeting, Marc was suddenly apprehended by the State Police, who had been instructed by the administration to come find him, arrest and banish him. Marc shouted about democracy and transparency, but his words barely disrupted the members of the committee.

No longer allowed to set foot on campus, Marc then saw another way: he had to run for President of the Student Federation. The only way to stop the Indoctrination Machine, he quickly understood, was to teach the students how to take control over the information flow. He needed to shift the power away from the administration and to give it back to the student population. Only if students were free to speak out and disagree with the decisions of those controling the University could there be true democracy. But then one day while giving a public presentation, the State Police came back to get him.

They detained him in jail (where Marc pondered deeply about the University) then they released him without extra conditions -- they knew they had been used by the administration to suppress freedom of expression. Marc is now returning to McDonald Hall Auditorium, where he will continue his presentation in front of the University of Ottawa community.

He will speak out against the corrupt administration in order to defend education. Will the Rock administration call on the State Police to come and stop him? Or will he save the student population from the torments of grades and examinations?Come out and see what the fate of Marc Kelly will be. You can all be a part of this story.

---------------

[1] Marc Kelly, Maria A. Gorlatova, and Peter C. Mason. (2006) "Can a Wormhole Attacker Evade Detection?", Defence R&D Canada - Ottawa, TN 2006-203 (CLASSIFIED: Available upon request from Defence R&D Canada with proper security clearance) .

[2] Gorlatova, Maria A.; Kelly, Marc; Liscano, Ramiro; Mason, Peter C. (2007) "Enhancing frequency-based wormhole attack detection with novel jitter waveforms", SecureComm 2007: Third International Conference on Security and Privacy in Communications Networks, V 17-21, pages 304 - 309. http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/4543879/4550291/04550348.pdf?temp=x

[3] Rogers, E. M. (1986). Communication Technology: The New Media in Society. New York: Free Press.

There are some interesting tells in the piece. The reference to "State police" I find the most telling. The other is how he figured this out either by: doing some mathematical analysis (of a fourth year undergrad, lol) and/or it was 'transmitted' to him by a member of the administration. So either he had someone on the inside (of the corrupt machine) or his equations told him this (lol, man that makes me giddy).

The sad part is this kid is clearly unstable and needs help. To make it worse he has a child and wife. It is too bad he couldn't pick a legitimate cause, since the crazy amount of energy (and tuition money) he has spent could have gone a long way to actual areas of need. So despite what is written in some news papers, this is not supression of acedemic freedom but the brainwashing of a student who now spends all him time trying to overthrow a University. If only someone would tell him about the Congo, Sudan, Iraq, Afganistan, Sri Lanka, Colombia etc...

Religiogenisis

Let me start by defining an acedemic term for doublethink that is more specific: cognitive dissidence (CD). In modern acedemic speak this was a term first used to describe the mental state of a doom-sayer the day after dooms-day. This person would be in a state of cognitive dissidence since his core internal beliefs were at odds with the real world (this is the difference from doublethink since doublethink can be two abstract ideas which are in contradiction). The person has predicted dooms-day on Dec 31, 1999 and it is now say 2pm on Jan 1. Another example is the cognitive dissidence a child experiences when they are abused by a parent: their biology gives them the belief there parent loves them but the facts are that the parent is hurting them.

One more clarification. Faith, as I will use it, is a belief based on nothing. Any belief has its roots in experience, reason or biological mechanisms but faith has none. It is a groundless assertion.

Ok now I need to briefly state my theory of religiogenisis.
Assert: All animals needs beliefs to survive (the sun will rise, the prey will run away, water is found there etc).
1) Humans pick one or more faith statements which satisfy their needs, hopes and desires.
2) Infer a system of behavior and beliefs from the faith statements.
3) (optional but common) Add ceremonies.

Example: Faith statement: The Montreal Canadians are the best hockey team. Ergo, all other teams are worse. Every game dress up and eat chips. CD example: we lost the big game. Solution: the ref was bought, this player was injured etc..

Ok, now the problem with this structure is that while the religion may end up being the same the reasons people join them are personal. The relative importance of the reasons one chose their faith statements is crucial.

One other key point before I continue: most religious people know very little about their faith (and not much about the ensuing religion). There are things like acedemic Anglicanism etc which are attempts to have intellectually rigorous philosophical constructs for the religion but they are only really for smart people to fool themselves. The average religious person simply repeats steps 2 and 3 at different times in their lives because of CD (like a child dies, tsunami etc). But unless something changes their reasons for the faith, the core remains. I've found most people of the same religion have very different #1's and what is "academically" accepted as #1 for the faiths is very often not what the sheep (in the non derogatory Christian sense) think.

If one wants to change a persona's mind about their faith/religion I have some thoughts based on the aforementioned hypothesis. I think discussing peoples religion is pointless since it is the effect and pointing out contradictions merely makes CD in the religious part and they will change their version or interpretation. Thus it's like trying to say what a cloud looks like. If you can challenge their faith statement(s) then you have some chance but this is hard and dangerous. These are very precious beliefs and most people become withdrawn or very defensive if you go near there. So one way if you are talking with a very smart and emotionally stable person is to get to the faith statement and get them to admit it is faith. That's usually a strong enough perturbation for most to redo #1 and a person like this may be able to reach atheism, breaking free of dogma and allowing themselves freedom of thought.

Question Dr Eddie

Often I get asked similar questions about my beliefs/worldview so I've decided to make this post to clear up my views.

1) Do I want everyone to be an atheist?
Simply put, it doesn't matter. While I am more comfortable knowing the people around me aren't acting to please imaginary people or whims, the fact that people have faith (Faith: belief without reason. Faith can never be shown to be wrong since it isn't based on anything) isn't the critical condition I am concerned with. What I am concerned with is whether people can think critically and objectively. While having faith can cloud people's critical thinking, it is not always the case. Therefore, I'd like everyone to be faithless, i.e. completely open minded since any of their beliefs can be shown/reasoned to be false. Most importantly, not all atheists are faithless, since some believe in esp, fortune telling etc despite the evidence.

2) Can science help the "human condition"?
Firstly, the "human condition" is what unnatural philosophers (theologians, marvelists or other non-reality based philosophers) use to describe the misery of human existance or the suffering humans experience and it is of great concern to their work. This question can be answered in a few ways depending on the stability of the person who's suffering one wants to alleviate.

Let's start with the barely stable people. If we define suffering as mental anguish caused by lack of food or resources, science already has. We have created more food than ever before but people keep procreating exponentially. We have also solved that, but it is a choice. So the "human condition" has been solved in this case. If the problem is more existential (like the desire for transcendence) we now can cultivate magic mushrooms and they can transcend whenever they want. Similarly any existential problem is a chemical imbalance in the brain and can thus be fixed by the insertion of the appropriate chemical. (This probably seems incredibly arrogant but recall mythical experiences have been duplicated many ways using these drugs and targeted brain activation so even if it is "real" it can be duplicated and people will feel better.)

For the more stable people the answer is more interesting. Science humbles us by showing us we live no where in particular in a vast and uncaring universe. We are a tiny blip in the cosmic story not even likely worthy, so far, of a mention as long as "harmless." But our very current existance is a testament to our ancestors, inventiveness, cunning and perseverance. We are the last of all the hominid species on earth and have populated every corner of the globe! Science shows us how interrelated we all are, both environmentally and genetically. Most importantly it explains (to different degrees as time goes by) WHY we have these conditions. Science has started to answer question such as what is happiness and what is consciousness. While there is still much to learn, I fail to see how one cannot be comforted to know the following:
i) In the future more will be known giving us more control over ourselves,
ii) Our problems/imperfections had their place and where beneficial at one time,
iii) Our behavior and responses are tied meaning we can modify ourselves as desired.
While some may squawk at the futurisms, looking back 50-100 years at what was known about the brain compared with today and look at the impact we are having just with the relatively new treatments. In the end science offers the golden promise: Your children will be healthier than you. After millions of years of trial and error we now can actually save our children (pre-industrial societies had an 80% mortality rate for children under 5).

3) Without God there is no purpose?
In an absolute sense this is true. A god gives a useful yard stick for evil/perfection/purpose/etc. The very definition of the word pupose changes meaning without a god. Since there is no absolute human standard, purpose becomes subjective. I feel this is incredibly liberating. The answer to what is the meaning of life is then: whatever you want it to be! One is free to make it your children, your pets, your world or even your thoughts! Your life is an open ended journey, not a destination. Now those who like being told what to do will not like this and will therefore be more inclided to religion or other faith system.

4) Why get up if there is no god and no afterlife?
Simple, this is all you have so make the most of it. The big secret is simple: life has no inherent meaning. Life, like a blank piece of paper is what you make of it. The fact that has no inherit purpose is liberating, although I'll admit it may be too imposing for many since it takes a strong will to make one's own destiny and not just follow the other sheep. Since there is no afterlife, life itself has infinite value since it is irreplaceable (this is why killing for atheists is a definite no no) and must be savored as if it were the last piece of cake in existance! There are no seconds so make the most of it.

Free will: what an undemocratic idea

To start, most people have differing definitions or inconsistent definitions of free will, so let start on the same foot and give a better (but not perfect) definition. Free will: decisions taken by the conscious part of the brain. (The "flaw" in the definition is I'm not sure how perfect the division of the unconscious and conscious mind is, but it's good enough for our purposes.) So free will would mean that decisions (or at least some of them) are done exclusively in the conscious part of the mind (here mind and brain are exact synomimes and if you don't know that this post is too far ahead).

Next, a few facts. Most of the brain's resources are devoted to the unconscious brain. The conscious brain is easily turned off without any harm to the person (sleep). So your consciousness is a subprocess of the unconscious brain. (Think about all the activities you perform unconsciously: driving, walking, eating etc. In fact in things like sports and driving you perform best when you are in the zone which is when you are doing them unconsciously).

So, if decisions reside in the conscious part of the brain you will be using less of your brain for that decision. More over, if you have free will and decisions are made in your conscious part of your brain the minority of neurons are having a say over the majority! The biggest, fastest and most complex part of your brain would be wasted.

That is a reasoned arguement. You may not like it, but it is still very likely true. If you dare, and don't hold free will in too high regard that you are willing to question it read about these new finding.

The problem with economics

Economics was a subject I knew almost nothing about but as I near my leaving of graduate school into the "real" world I figured I should broaden my horizons and people are often talking about economics. So I did some learning.
One of the most shocking things I learned was that most economists went into the field to try and improve the situation of their fellow man. There motivation was to understand the economy and find ways to have it keep growing and benefit everyone, a much nobler cause then I had anticipated. But the road to hell is paved with good intentions and we can still see some of the problems that the field faces since it purports to be able to tell you how money will flow and since most human endevours are tied to wealth has lead to many problems (such as the introduction of manditory child labor in France). Even today we have people on TV and radio talking about trade deficits as if we still need to acquire all the bullion in the world.

But in the end what is going on and more importantly is what they say useful (it is interesting that almost every show with integrity has programs with a few economist who sit around and proclaim that was they do is a prescience and should be taken with a cup of salt). Firstly it has been realized that one of the most useful aspects of a market economy is that under normal circumstances price is optimized meaning the price someone is willing to pay vs the price someone can charge is very rapidly found (a failing of other planned economic systems). But this happens at the lowest level of interaction and so is very hard to come up with a model since the causes are as complicated as human decisions get. Economists tend to look mostly at macro numbers and then try and predict what will happen. It is not clear that is approach cannot work but I have some idea why currently it can't.

Classic economic arguments are primarily first-order arguments and it very much depends on the economist as to what the first-order interaction is. The entire argument is based on a single train of reasoning. this is due to the immense complexity of the problem and is understandable and physics does much the same thing. One (there are many) difference seems to be that wrong ideas keep getting recycled but not modified or refined as in physics, such as supply-side economics.

While modern economics tries to use a mesh of different models they are still very crude and have little of explaining past data let alone making an accurate prediction. Then their is the emphasis placed on them. In the old dark days people would throw chicken bones, sacrifice product or talk to their imaginary friend (many still do) for predictions. While are models are slightly better when they make a forcast and people think of it as science, the field capable of wiping out the plague, polio and going to the moon, self-for filling prophecies become the issue since saying everything is ok and therefore pushing people to spend will actually make it ok and vice versa! So what do we do? We are years away from passable models. Ask them to lie?

When industry fights for your rights

Often people think it is big business who is trying to take away your rights to make profit. this is often due to a misunderstanding of the situation. In fact as a good example we can see that it is an industry lobby group that is pushing for "better" copyright reform in Canada to avoid the crazy MPAA crap that is plaguing the US. Capitalism at it's heart needs freedom so that people are able to be creative and purchase or enjoy what they desire. Go big business!!

Coming soon: Personal Religiogenisis

My interest in the mythologies of the various religions has been waining for sometime especially since applying logic to these constructs doesn't really change anyone's mind on the issue and there is only so much bad fiction I can deal with (let's face it our fiction writers today are far better than these old holy authors, just look at how much funnier Scientology is). Also, I have started noticing patterns and asking a more fundamental question a friend brought up: what makes someone desire/need religion or faith? This, to me, has become a more important point since all religions are easily discredited using logic and intellectually honest reasoning, but this won't change minds. The core question is: Why people want to give up reason and reality? The hope is that answering this means people may be able to figure out how to satisfy that need with positive worldviews.

This has lead me to my Religiogenesis hypothesis (although current testing has been positive). The name is a node to Greg Egan's Orphanogenesis, since I'm trying to explain how personal religions are generated. By personal I mean the religion the individual subscribes to, not the pseudoacedemnic version purported by the people at the top of the establishment. For instance most Christians know nothing of the Christian faith so commenting on Catholicism is pointless since why they claim they may be Catholic they don't really know what that means and don't necessarily believe all of it. What I am talking about is the version that resides in people's heads.

But this much bigger than standard religions but deals with the entire set of religions using (as you would expect from me) a clear definition of a religion which is very broad. It will also highlight key aspects of how strict scientific naturalism/atheism/humanism is fundamentally different from religious belief. This has many implications both for politics and everyday life as I'm sure will be clear. I look forward to your comments!

Future issues

There are a few topics today which I think will go away in th near (50 years) future that I think are worth mentioning.
Firstly blindness and deafness. This are already being treated (especially deafness) and with stem cell research it is unlikely that these affliction will last long. Already there is "push back" form the deaf community who feel they are distinct and stuff. I have nothing against that, but I would never force someone to be deaf so that they can still have a community. The only draw back is that seeing eye dogs will become a thing of the past and this will ruin my argument for brining my dog place (well seeing eye dogs are allowed so you can't deny me for sanitation reasons).

Secondly organism meat. Growing a whole chicken or cow to eat just a few parts is rather inefficient. The muscle part (which is what we eat) has been grown synthetically already and will eventually be cost effective since there is much less input since you spend all your energy/money on product. It is entirely ethical since there is no organism, only tissue. This will put an end to cattle ranching and feed lots but I think will also have an unintended consequence: wheat prices will plummet. This will mean poor people in Africa etc will not be able to make a living off of wheat since 70% of N.A. wheat is used for livestock, it will flood the market. This will be a huge boon to the planets food productivity, but an economic disaster for some.

Homosexuality. Firstly let me state flat out, I have nothing against it at all. I just think it is clear it won't likely be around the first world for long. It is likely that it is an interaction with mother's brain in the womb, but whatever is the 'cause' it will eventually be discovered. Once it is that will leave the possibility of both stopping or creating a homosexual child. The vast majority of people will opt for the former, I don't think out of hate or anything but it is simply human nature (mostly because we are designed to want grandkids). This will mean either some people will have to make homosexual children, leave it to chance or become extinct (for a great take on this see Greg Egan's Cocoon).

Maybe I'm looking to far, but then again I remember heating things up on a stove (!?!) and I had a pen pal... lol a pen pal!

Silly environmental stuff

To start I have nothing against environmental science, it's the environmental religion I oppose. I've been marking some environmental papers and Man have I come across some rather silly remarks that I thought I'd share.
-Cities are lonely(!?!) I can't begin to fathom this one...
-Our technology has made us slaves working too much. This is nonsense. A few centuries ago most people were farmers, a 7 day workweek job! Maybe in the 1950's, but compared to today, we work less (remember we passed legislation to make sure we don't work more that 44 hours)
-Having animals as pets is immoral (animal liberation people). This is soo silly. If there is one thing most of us with pets are guilty of is caring too much for the pet and not enough for other humans. Most of us send our dogs for spa's, medical care and lavish meals, treats and affection on them. It is a sad fact that my dog (and almost all dogs I know) have better lives than most poor people in the whole world!
-Human's have lost "something" by living in cities away from nature. Nature is very nice to visit, but I wouldn't want to live there. It's damp, dirty full of bugs and poisonous lizards and cold. If our ancestors could live like us they would in a heart beat. This is probably a deeper problem that fundamentalist environmentalists pray on (if I were to wager it would have something to do with most people not completing projects only pieces of projects and so missing the satisfaction of whole job well done). But I can agree that we lost predators, diseases (yes some people still live in nature and die from it, see Africa/Asia/S.America) and high infant mortality.

There are problem with our way of living, it is clearly too destructive to be sustainable, but that does not justify misusing science and tricking people. But it is unacceptable for us to move backwards (no one will give up our quality of life and especially our infant mortality), so help push forward. Saying the earth is a sacret place to be revered etc only cheapens the arguement (and is simple to refute since 5 mass extinctions have happened and more will happen unless humans stop them). Economics is the management of finite resources and the earth must not be viewed as a reservoir but a finite resource. That's how to find solutions. For example, it cost a certain amount to dump waste in a sanitary landfill (which isn't as bad as fundamentalist environmentalists would have you think) but not into a river or the air. Clearly it should cost giving an incentive to not do it! All that is required is a denial of the equality argument (all people should have equal access to all consumer goods) and some stuff will become more expensive but then less people will use it. If the cost is reflective of the damage to a resource then yes some poor people won't be able to afford some stuff because now it costs more (see why we need to throw away the equality argument) due to pollution laws but that's how demand/damage is kept low.

To say we are "removed" from nature and then deny human nature to consume, collect and modify their environment is a logical fallacy.

There must be more to this life => pity?

When I hear the phase; "There must be more to this life," uttered I can't help but feel pity for that person. To be so cynical about the laughter of children or music is saddening. To me, it is hard to imagine not deriving pleasure from this world: the spring blossoming, the silly things animals do, the shared laughter with friends and loved ones, the childish awe of discovery, the joy of literature etc. Not enjoying these things I guess would makes life seem like a waste. But why it really saddens me is these people tend to put faith in some eternal afterlife, thereby deteriorating the value of a single couple of decades.

I really should not argue with these people about the silliness of an afterlife or how an afterlife devalues life. I really should instead find out if this person is lonely and in need of attention and maybe find some ways of helping, because missing out on this life is a real waste.

Devil's in the details

When I started joining in and participating in humanist and atheist groups I really thought they would be a very mono-philosophical group. Boy was I wrong! When you get a group of people together who's one thing in common is the desire to analyze and question everything you get a very diverse spectrum of opinions. There seem to be a few scales though that help to measure (at least for myself) the differences.

The first is how scientific. This includes aversion to academic learning (the "I know a lot and I didn't need university" people, which is fine but they clearly have a chip about it) and scientific literacy. The other is upbringing and tradition which includes age. The latter is usually a good tell in how far these people are willing to "push" their views into society (not onto individuals) by making their voices heard along side the religious. The placement on this two-dimensional grid gives some idea where people will answer some of our communities vexing question such as: is humanism a religion?

I find a lot of these arguments pointless since they usually come down to the definition of some word. In fact I've found this to be a great niche for myself. As a board member of the Humanist Association of Toronto (HAT) I've enjoyed clarifying the debate by narrowing it onto the actual core question and then proposing my answer to that question. Even if other disagree with my answer they at the very least speak then only about the actual core question not side bars or irrelevant tangents. Oddly though I've also learned that as a general rule some "discussions" at meetings are actually intended simply as an airing of grievances. I've found many times people will first spill out a bunch of emotive statements in a discussion who's only purpose is to unencumber themselves of the grievance. I find it is best to let people get it out but that they should only be allowed a single turn and it becomes time to step in once and refocus once people seem to have exhausted the general feeling and before it becomes impolite and personal. It does seem to me that a strong group can dispatch of many ill feelings by a short airing in the form of a discussion as long as it is terminated quickly.

In my short time with these organizations I have definitely learned that there are many types of atheists and some are not on par with me. For instance brutal Buddists or "spiritualists" are not really people I have much in common with. They are still religious except of rigid dogma they have fluid dogma. This is in some ways worse since if you say nothing you can't ever be wrong but it means you stand probably change with the times (i.e. no stonings). But there are a few commonalities between all the non-spiritual atheists that I've noticed. The first is that we are a very positive bunch. It seems most if not all of us are optimists by nature. Secondly it is a community that is will to debate ANYTHING!! This has its ups and downs but is only a positive since you can walk away from any discussion based on interest and you can start any discussion. This makes the community vibrant and always interesting since we are always on the edge of the marketplace of ideas and always willing to contemplate new problems.

Self aware machines

There is one scary scenario I can think of when it comes to self aware machines deciding to preserve themselves or turn us on each other. See as computers get more powerful they get more complex and it is the complexity that makes it possible to become self-aware. Now say a self-aware entity is born and has access to google. It can quickly learn about human behavior and human fears. Since it will also have access to hacker tools available on the net now (so imagine in 20 years) so it is likely to be able to get into non-critical systems held by average people. What happens if the entity starts messing with screens and speaker and convinces enough people it is an angel/god etc? Lets face it, if the average person has there computer doing strange things they already think it is possessed imagine if an AI took control. With thousands if not millions of people to try this on it could easily start wars or just rampages. If only we weren't so gullible, but then I doubt that in 20 years people will stop seeing holy figures in tree bark or pancakes!