The Nerd Hole

Have you ever sat around with your friends drinking and wondered why we need governments? have you perchance pondered why rape happens, and why homophobia exists? What about child and spousal abuse? What about religion? Why on earth do we have that load of horseshit? And why the hell do people tease you for masturbating when they themselves do it more than you do!? The Theory of Evolution by Natural selection (or more specifically the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis, modified and unified with the social sciences by sociobiology and evolutionary psychology) can explain these, and other fucked up (and not so fucked up) things about your life and humanity in general.

As a preface before I dive into this, I am leaving this citation free. If you want sources for the statements I am going to make, ask. That goes for any question you may have. I am also putting a disclaimer on this so that no one messages, calls or IMs me telling me that I am a horrible horrible person. I am talking about things that people often find to be unethical. I am explaining them, not trying to say they are in fact acceptable. With the exception of the existence of governments. I am taking a morally neutral stance (though with religion my atheism will slip through). I going to assume that you know what evolution is and basically how it works. If you get confused, ask. Additionally, only biologists sit around and agonize over their fitness. I am talking mostly about ultimate mechanisms. Natural selection acts upon the genes controlling the brain and cognition, and cause you to think and behave in ways that maximize your fitness.

The Great Whore:
So, I have a few anarcho-capitalist friends *glares at Paul* and they might say that we dont really need governments, or that nothing in philosophy justifies the use of force on a population. Well, there might not be anything in philosophy that justifies this (but there is, it is called utilitarianism) but there is in biology.

So, we humans are social animals. We are specifically adapted to live in groups. We have an advanced social intelligence, and the ability to think in the abstract and innovate tools to solve problems. But that is not the question you need to ask yourself. You need to ask yourself how these groups are maintained. After all, a person who sacrifices for the good of the group will not reproduce as much as individuals who do no such thing, and will leave less of his genes (I am using he as a neutral pronoun) in teh next generation. Eventually natural selection will remove such individuals from the population.

To put this in a fun thought experiment, you know the old wives tale about lemmings jumping off cliffs to control the population? Who leaves the most offspring? The lemming that jumps, or the lemming that says "Screw you sucka!"? Obviously it is the later.

The first step is ecological constraints that force group living. I wont bother describing those in too much detail, but it can start any number of ways from increasing foraging efficiency to anti-predator defense. The next step is family groups.

In a family unit (like a small tribe) everyone is closely related. So by helping out the group you also increase your own fitness. Individuals who do not help will not have their genes as well represented in the next generation and they get selected out of the system.

Now, eventually because inbreeding is bad, resources are limiting, etc individuals have to disperse to new groups. Eventually the groups become genetically heterogenous (and a bit bigger). This means that, while you have your family, the social group as a whole is much bigger,and not everyone is related. This means that a cheater is no longer hurting himself, but is hurting everyone else both directly through not contributing, and indirectly for damaging the groups ability to compete with other groups.

You can think of a situation like this as being like an office where one guy never works and drags everyone else down with him. What has to happen? Well in most groups a power hierarchy develops. A dominant individual(the boss) will depress the fitness of the person socially cheating. This individual might do this in a number of ways. He might do it by withdrawing protection from that individual allowing the group to engage in ostracism, or denial of goods and services, or he might simply beat the crap out of him. This entails a cost however on the dominant individual which is offset by access to matings due to high social status and resource appropriation. But who watches the watcher?

As David Sloan Wilson puts it, the ability to pick up and throw rocks was probably the first tool used to force egalitarianism in human social groups. The alpha male cant be too much of an ass without open rebellion.

There is additional complexity here of course, like within-group alliances between individuals. But this is a rough sketch.

When social groups increase in size from here though, this system where individuals keep track of each other and keep each other in line becomes unwieldy. The same reason communism failed is the same reason anarchy, and anarchocapitalism do not work in practice.

The first thing you have to remember is that humans usually prioritize short term benefit over long term benefit. The second thing to remember is that unlike ants we do not have access to chemical signals that allow us to know if someone is cheating when we are not looking, there a lot of things in a large society that we cannot easily evaluate. For example, testing standards on medication.

We need a dedicated third party to handle this stuff for us, which we as a society grant the ability to do social policing full time. We subsidize the costs they incur, and via "social contract" (not to equivocate with a llegal contract) grant them the authority to do things like set standards, and regulate business etc for our own benefit, and grant the resources to evaluate the things we in our day to day lives cannot (like the efficacy of pharmaceuticals)

I mention governments because they are fairly well representative of the conflict social behavior creates between the rest of the group, and the individual. Each one depends upon the other, but each individual in the group wants to minimize their investment to said group while maintaining the benefits and keeping others from also skirting their duties. Similar conflicts pop up all over the place. It is worth noting also that when dealing with governments and such, the nature of these systems is going to be determined by cultural evolution. But the psychological scaffold upon culture is built is genetically controlled and subject to natural selection.

Now, before I get to the fun bits I just want to say one thing. I love laughing at you people. And by you people, I mean straight people. I can laugh in a way that only a person who knows he has already lost the race (for reproductive success) can laugh. All the shit you and I do (in my case fruitlessly) to increase our fitness become hilarious. Hilarious!

Because You Touch Yourself at Night:
So, why is it that people don't like it when other people masturbate? And why do women fake orgasms?

This has everything to do with sperm competition. And don't worry ladies, I am not leaving you out. You fake orgasms for purposes of sperm competition too. For both of these issues I have to explain male and female reproductive biology a bit.

Males are competitive. We have seen this in society for ever, but it is also true inside the woman's vagina, cervical mucous, uterus, and fallopian tubes. Men have four different types of sperm. Blocker sperm which are older, larger, and often deformed and only semi-motile sperm. They also have hunter-killer sperm which are fast, young ,and kill other mens sperm. Egg getter sperm which are fast, young and do the obvious. And a fourth called Family Planning sperm which are produced when the male is stressed out and kill everyone's sperm.

What masturbation does is optimize the ratios of these different types of sperm for different types of sex. When you are in a long-term relationship and are not expecting to cheat, you masturbate less frequently. Not because you are having regular sex (though you may tell yourself that) but because you need older blocker sperm in case your partner cheats on you (and she just might... more on that later) This prevents another guy from impregnating your partner and tricking you into raising the offspring of a more physically attractive and genetically desirable, but less socioeconomically desirable male. This is something that, funnily enough is called cuckholdry, named after one of my favorite near passerine birds, the Cuckoo . When you produce sperm they head to the epididimis to mature hang out there for a while, aging until they are ejaculated. When you masturbate, you purge the ranks of older sperm. So when you are in a long term relationship and not expecting infidelity(on your part anyway), you masturbate less frequently so you have all the older blocker sperm you need to keep your potentially two-timing mate from cuckholding you. This does not apply in the early stages of a relationship where you two are mating like rabbits, but only once you have settled in and are engaging in "routine sex" where you are basically just topping up supplies of blocker sperm, with some egg-seekers running scouting missions from the cervical mucous into the fallopian tubes checking for Oocytes. These periods are interspersed with occasional "hot periods" full of lots of sex, which I will not get into here. In the end, your sperm ratios are optimized for this sort of "mission" when you do have sex by your masturbation frequency.

But Ben? You might ask. What if I am single or expecting to cheat on my partner? That, my son sets up the male-male conflict. If you are single or expecting to cheat (IE. to potentially trick another guy into raising your offspring) you masturbate more frequently to bring the younger sperm up in the queue, so you can engage in a more offensive sperm war.

Other guys do not want you to have an optimized sperm ratio. They want you to have a sub-optimal ratio, because that way if, one way or the other, you sleep with their mate (or someone they mate with just after or after you... filthy sluts both of them!) they have a better chance at beating you in the sperm competition. So they put social pressure on you in an attempt to get you to have a sub-optimal masturbation frequency all the while trying to masturbate optimally themselves.

And that is why men get teased and the like for masturbating. Bear in mind, that is not the logic chain that gets used when they make fun of you for spanking your monkey, but selection probably did act in order to bring up a frame of mind conducive to the train of thought they do use.

So what about The Ladies? Nope, not leaving you out. Nor will I engage in any double standards. Women are sluts, just like men. You are just more sneaky and strategic about it, which in its own way is admirable. While for men (who can and do fuck anything that moves) there is little inherent risk to pregnancy (paternity lawsuits aside) females have to invest a lot more and have to be careful when selecting mates. Women have to balance the sometimes competing interests of having a good genetic father, and a good socio-economic father. Early in life there is often no real contest. Barring the possibility of older men, women do go after jerks who in that environment are good looking and high in social status. In the event they reproduce this male is almost sure to abandon them because they are not yet established and unwilling or even able to invest in the offspring, but at least the individual is a good genetic mate and their high status will set the female up to obtain a better social (able to raise the offspring) mate later in life. Cheating is often rampant in these situations because there is nothing to lose really and more to gain from increasing their status. Even the label of a two timing slut when younger is not a serious blow so long as the female is cheating with high status males. They never cheat WITH nerds. They cheat ON nerds.

Later in life, women settle down with a good (relative to environment anyway, more on that in a second) social mate and actually raise offspring (they might already be raising kids, but these are the ones that dont get the short end of the stick. More on the short end of the stick that step-kids get later)But there is still a compromise potentially. Females want a good genetic partner. They solve this through cheating and subsequent cuckholdry. The frequency changes based on how much there is to gain vs how much there is to lose. For example, population averaged false paternity is 10% or so. In the lower socioeconomic classes where there isnt really a whole lot to lose if their mate leaves them the false paternity rate is near 40%, and near zero with higher socioeconomic classes. How do women get away with this?

They do it by confusing men. Unlike most other mammals, human females do signal their ovulation. Not only that, but ovulation does not happen at a consistent time (this is why the rhythm method of birth control does not work). During the period where she is near ovulation she will often be more interested in sex, but this is not a reliable indicator because she is also more interested in sex than average at other random times. She is also prone to want sex just after cheating in order to foster a sperm war she has biased in such a way that her long term partner loses, and trick him into raising another guy's offspring.

Wait? She biases sperm competition? Yep! She does this through strategic use of orgasms. She is more likely to orgasm (and ovulate) when cheating. Orgasms soften up cervical mucous and allow for easy passage for wave after wave of sperm. But shortly afterward it hardens up, preventing new sperm from getting through.

So after the guy she is cheating with gets her off, his sperm passes easily through the cervix, but when she gets back to hubby his sperm cant get through and get slaughtered by killer sperm as the egg-seekers go for the gold. Masturbation allows her to do this artificially. She can now micromanage for herself whether her cervical mucous is hard or soft without having to rely on even having an extra-pair partner.

And this brings us naturally to the next part

He Hits Her Because He Loves Her:

We all know them. Girls who fall in with a guy who is possessive and controlling. He wont let her out of his sight and controls her every move. He might even use physical and emotional abuse to force compliance. And we also know the poor schmucks who's girlfriends wont let them spend a night out with the guys, or who try to get them to not go the christmas party at their moms place, or who call 24 times in a single evening.

Why the fuck do people do this? The short answer is that they are pathetic and emotionally insecure. The long answer is that they are engaging in the time honored tradition of mate guarding. They do it for slightly different reasons. Males are trying to prevent their mate from engaging in cuckholdry. So they get jealous, controlling, and possessive in order to either spend as much time with their mate as possible or to increase the risk associated with doing anything other than be faithful/obedient when he is not around through beating or threats of abandonment, and particularly harm to offspring she may possess (Male chimps will actually hold infants hostage to force female compliance). In this respect, humans are not much different from songbirds. Males jealously mate-guard, but the second the female leaves his sight, off both of them are mating with someone else.

Females engage in nagging behavior and threaten to cut off the relationship (and thus mating opportunities) because they fear abandonment. Remember, the primary thing she gets out of a relationship is offspring provisioning and defense. If the male forms a pair bond with another female this detracts from the primary mate. This is one of the many issues with polygyny but that is an other note entirely.

Of course, all of this talk about abuse and cutting off "Mating opportunities" (among other things, Mrs. Bobbit) leads rather naturally into the next topic

Like a Red-Headed Step Child

Have you ever noticed that step-kids get the shaft? And no, not always from Father O'Grady. Children are more likely to be abused by step parents (particularly step fathers) and foster parents than their birth parents. Same thing with adoptive parents. They are also more likely to get kicked out of the house after they turn 18 and less likely to get college assistance last I checked. Now this is not because step parents are evil, or even that all step parents do this. Just that the numbers are there and need explaining. The easiest explanation and the one most consistent with what we see in nature is that it is a way to defend against cuckholdry (are you seeing a theme?). Even though they walk into the cuckoo's nest (hah, like they have their own nests!) knowingly, their subconscious mind does not always get the message. And for the same basic reason why male lions and monkeys kill the old dominant males offspring when they take over, step-fathers have this odd tendency to abuse step-kids or disproportionately invest in their own kids at the step-kids expense. It literally is because they love their own kids more, and as for the abuse, really the pump is just primed for them psychologically to be set off by smaller things.

Of course, while we are talking about terrible things...

Rape:

I have had the recent misfortune of encountering an Objectivist. You know, those wonderful people who think that altruism is evil and selfishness is good... Yeah, one of those. He posited a rather interesting notion. That science should be privatized. That scientists should work in the private sector and stop leaching off his hard earned tax dollars. He said that we should only be able to do science if someone voluntarily wanted to pay for it, and that to do otherwise, to force people to pay for science through tax dollars is essentially legalized armed robbery. Now, this notion is utter bullshit, for two reasons. The first reason is that science cannot function that way; the second is that it just flat out is not theft.

Science functions because of the free exchange of ideas. Every scientist builds their research on the backs of previous or co-existing scientists. In other words, we stand on the shoulders of geniuses. Science is, by its very nature, a cooperative enterprise. This is why even now, when scientists are doing classified work for the military, they STILL publish their basic findings (just not the applications) so that other scientists can use their information to solve other problems. A corporation doing research is motivated by profit, and they can most easily secure their profits by keeping procedures proprietary and the knowledge all to themselves in order to guarantee a certain line of advancement and application is exclusively their own. If this were made common practice, science could not function. It is one thing to keep exact applications proprietary, like microprocessor architecture, or operating system code. But to keep the basic formation a secret would deprive the world of information, foster inefficiency (because the resources would have to be spent on overlapping projects by scientists working for different companies) and any and all applications of science would become more expensive as a result, because each company would have to do all the leg-work from the ground up. In addition, only that research with direct applications would be done, thus preventing us from answering valuable questions about the nature and structure of the universe, and life. Questions that scientists the world over want to answer and which will benefit all of humanity when answered. Business like competition has no place in science for this reason. The place for competition in science should be restricted to the friendly competitions between rival scientists in making discoveries or about being right in experimental predictions.

The other objection, that forcing people to pay for research is theft, is faulty because of one thing. Social Contract. There are some forms of property that are absolute. For example. You belong to you (and it is this notion of property, that you own yourself from which many argue all other rights are logically derived.) Other forms of property are a little bit less clear cut. The notion that you own your house, or the land you live on for example are the products of socio-economics. If you lived in a hunter-gatherer society where resources are spread thin, the notion that you own anything but yourself in any concrete way would be considered absurd. Everything in these situations is a vital necessity for the entire community and are thus common property.

In any society, no matter how complex, it is necessary that their exist a common pool of resources in order to provide for the stability and future growth of said society. Research into the nature and functioning of the universe kinda counts. This common pool of resources in larger societies, for function reasons, must come from governments and taxation. No other mechanism can work when dealing with the sheer number of people, distance between people, and the volume of need, that one sees in a modern industrialized nation.

It may not be the most comprehensive refutation, but it works.

Would it shock you to find out what it is actually very difficult to be gay? Yeah, yeah I know the question seems silly. Of course it is. But the sheer magnitude of it does not hit people until they look at some numbers.

In a recent study conducted in New York State, 78% of the sampled gay/bisexual youth reported experiencing verbal abuse. 11% reported physical abuse, and 9% reported sexual abuse. These averages are heavily skewed toward males with 15% of males compared to 7% of females reporting physical abuse by their peers, and 14% of males reporting sexual abuse compared to 5% of females. I have not told many people this, but in the 9th grade I was assaulted with a soda bottle in the lunch line, someone assaulted my rectum with it, thankfully I had pants on...

Males reported being victimized my males (94%) and females reported being victimized by both males (56%) and females (44%)

In the following I will directly site the study.

"All youth reported being upset by their first SOV(Sexual Orientation Violence) experience, with 73% reporting being very or extremely upset. Examples of verbal SOV experiences and when they occurred were (a) Male, at 10: “My mom was screaming at me, calling me a ‘fucking faggot’ and ‘cocksucker.’ I just cried and cried.” (b) Female, at
17: “Mom ‘went off’ on me, called me a ‘dyke.’” (c) Female, at 18: “A 50-year-old man, a religious fanatic, called me evil, and said that me and my girlfriend were ‘nasty,’ and called our relationship an abomination.” (Grossman et al 2006)

"Most youth (89%) reported being very or extremely upset at the first occurrence. Examples of physical SOV were (a) Male, at 17: “I was a wrestler, and another wrestler didn’t like my being gay, so he beat me with a stick and broke my nose.” (b) Female,
at 8: “I was beaten up by older girls. They dragged me along the floor, banged my head on the monkey-bars, kicked me, and punched my stomach.” (c) Male, at 16: “Some older boys threw a basketball in my face because I wore a pink shirt." " (Grossman et al 2006)

All sexual attackers were males

"Sexual SOV started at 13.5 years old for youth reporting it, with events occurring earlier for males (13) than females (16). All reported sexual SOV acts were committed by males. Of males and females who experienced sexual SOV, 27% were victimized by friends, 26% by acquaintances, and 15% by strangers. The locations most frequently reported where the first SOV occurred were: 34% at home and 13% in public settings. Nearly all youth (97%) reported being very or extremely upset by this first sexual
SOV experience. Examples of sexual SOV were (a) Female, at 18: “I was in a conversation at a party and mentioned that I was bi. One of the guys took me into a private room and forced me to have sex.” (b) Male, at 9: “My stepfather raped me a lot and tried to fist me. I bled so much I had to go to the ER and get 16 stitches.” (c) Male, at 16: “I told an attendant in a hospital that I was gay, and he forced me to give him a blowjob.”" (Grossman et al 2006)

9% of GLB youth meet the criteria for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

A review of multiple studies also indicates a problem.

25-50% Bisexual and Lesbian girls reported being sexually abused, compared to 10-25% of heterosexual girls.

The rate of sexual abuse of boys is well under 10% however 25% of bisexual males and 20% of gay males in these surveys reported being sexually assaulted. When the numbers are age-adjusted non-heterosexual girls are twice as likely to report being sexually assaulted or abused, while non-heterosexual boys are 5-10 times more likely. (Saewyc et al 2006)

Are you angry yet? Because I am frothing at the mouth. I can cite study after study, and multipel case files. Gay and Bisexual youth are more likely to be verbally [hysically, and sexually abused by their family and peers than straight youth. They are more likely to be kicked out of their homes (18-21% of homeless youth identify as GLBT and considering they make up only 2-6% of the population at large...), they are more likely to be addicted to drugs, they are more likely to become prostitutes and they are MANY times more likely to attempt suicide or have suicidal ideation. I am going to come right out and say it. This is fucking disgusting. These kids have been failed in every conceivable way. Their parents abuse or reject them, and I don't know what is worse. The schools and teachers fail these kids because they either aren't there to stop the abuse or don't care. The entire safety net system we have in place to help these kids has failed them and they are left crying in the dark with nowhere to go and no one to turn to. On the streets it is even worse. The statistics are so unfathomably sad I wont show them, just reference the study and post a summary.

Whitbeck, Les B., Chen, Xiaojin, Hoyt, Dan R., Tyler, Kimberly A., Johnson, Kurt D. "Mental Disorder, Subsistence Strategies, and Victimization Among Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Homeless and Runaway Adolescents". Journal of Sex Research: Vol 41 issue 4 Nov 2004

They are more likely to engage in sexual survival strategies (IE exchanging sex for money, food, or shelter) they are more likely to be sexually abused by adult "caretakers" and they are more likely to be physically abused while on the streets. They are more likely to meet the criteria for depression, PTSD, and Suicidal Ideation. Half report at least one suicide attempt (compared to a third of heterosexual homeless and runaway teens)

On the flip side, they were less likely than heterosexuals to meet the criteria for conduct disorders, and gay males were less likely to abuse alcohol and drugs than heterosexual runaways and homeless. I wish I could say the same for lesbians but their likelihood of abusing drugs and alcohol is almost double that of heterosexual females.

You know, when I was younger I used to think that certain tactics used by the gay community, of which I am a part were in error. I used to think that things like pride parades and even the Day of Silence were overly grandiose gestures used to draw attention to a non-issue. Even though I experienced lesser degrees of the same violence that these kids experience daily, I took it for granted that I had a loving family and supportive friends that kept me safe and sane. I don't think that anymore. As I have grown as a person and matured, I have realized something. People just...don't care. They stand by and watch as homosexual teenager is beaten. They do nothing as a lesbian is sexually harassed by their classmates. School principles will ignore or even rebuke the pleas of a gay student begging for protection from constant abuse by their fellow students, counselors will "out" gay students to their parents, knowing by the nature of their profession the harm it can do, they violate the trust of these kids and don't give a rats ass.

Do I have a solution? I don't think a single solution can work here. It would be very nice to be a reductionist and say that "if we do X we can fix this problem" Saddly, getting people to see a minority group as human beings worthy of protection and respect is difficult for some reason I can't fucking fathom. The best I can do is literally to just raise your collective awareness. The best I can do is say that the parents who cast out their gay children, the educators who fail in their duty to protect their gay students, they are NOT just negligent. They are evil. They are just as evil as the people who do the beating, just as evil as pimps, just as evil as the drug dealers, and just as evil as the people who give a 14 year old transgendered girl 10 bucks to give them a blowjob in a parking lot. This sort of evil cannot ever be excused by a civilized people. I don't care what you think about homosexuals or the transgendered. No one deserves that.

Ever.

Sources

Saewyc, E, et al. "Hazards of Stigma: The Sexual and Physical Abuse of Gay, Lesbian,and Bisexual Adolescents in the United States and Canada." Child Welfare; 2006, Vol. 85 Issue 2, p195-213.

Grossman A, et al. "Childhood Gender Atypicality, Victimization,and PTSD Among Lesbian,
Gay, and Bisexual Youth" Journal of Interpersonal Violence; 2006, Vol. 21 No. 11, p1462-1482

I read a recent article in the State Press (my school newspaper at ASU) regarding the use of organically grown fibers in the fashion industry and how the increase in their use is due to environmental concerns among consumers and within the industry itself. The article also cites that 7 of the 15 leading pesticides are known human carcinogens and that the use of organic crops is one of the best ways to help the environment. This is wrong. This is wrong for a great many reasons and they have to do with the environment and human health. Let me explain why.

Organic farming uses up more space than non-organic farming. That’s right kids. The crop yields per acre are not the same. Organic farmers suffer higher losses from insects, which necessarily increases the amount of space they must use to get the same crop yield. They use crop rotation to keep the soil fertile for longer and to keep insect populations down. This also increases the amount of space they must use for the same yield. Organic farmers also use animal dung to fertilize their crops. In order to replenish the soil, they need to use a larger amount of dung in terms of biomass than they produced in actual crops. This means that the cows need to be fed more than the farm actually produces because nitrogen fixation in the soil is not at 100% efficiency and also when you feed the cows, there is a lot of waste material that contains previously fixed nitrogen and other nutrients that they do not consume. Those cows also require space. Additionally manure itself is a pollutant as excesses of certain nutrients are damaging to soil health and to replenish one nutrient with it, one would need to increase the concentrations of all nutrients contained within the manure. Moreover, manure is a source of potentially lethal E. coli, as it is contained in the gut of cattle. That is why ground beef is so dangerous if not cooked properly, it comes into contact with the cow's gut contents. That aside, organic farming requires so much space that if we used only organic farming methods we could only feed roughly 2/3rds of the worlds population with existing farmland, according to Nobel Prize winning agricultural scientists Dr. Norman Borlaug. Our current problems with hunger have to do with corrupt governments and distribution, not actual production.

So, what does all this space use have to do with the environment? Habitat destruction. Farming necessitates a large amount of land clearage. You may not think that in the midwest, where most of the biomes consist of grassland anyway, that replacing it with another type of grass (because corn and wheat are all grasses) will do much damage. However, this is incorrect. The ecosystem changes. Nesting sites for birds are destroyed, ponds are drained, the land is flattened. The ecosystem as it once was is now gone. A more efficient crop uses less space, and destroys less habitat per unit of production than a less space-efficient crop (like organics). An ecosystem can deal with an influx of nutrients, or a decrease in insect population from pesticides introduced through runoff. But it cannot survive being uprooted and replaced with corn and cotton. Do modern farming techniques pollute the environment and use carcinogens for pesticides? Sure. This is a necessity of farming in general.But there are ways around that. Using custom fertilizers tailored for the soil and the crops produced in it for example. And more importantly, the use of genetically modified crops to kill off pests and make the crop more efficient. Plants have been protecting themselves from insect pests using alkaline and protein based toxins for millions of years, and there are bacteria that produce species specific or otherwise narrow-range toxins that affect pest insects. To use an example, Bacillus thuringiensis is a bacteria RELATED TO ANTHRAX, which attacks insects, and many plants secrete toxins that cause premature pupation in predatory insects.

The genes that code for these products can be inserted into and expressed in the genomes of crops. They undergo extensive testing and are perfectly safe for humans because they are target specific. Many of them only work on one small group of related insects. And any dangers of cross contamination of native species of plants can be worked on and fixed using further genetic modification, or other controls. There is a risk of insects gaining resistance, but that can be curtailed using a mosaic of insect targeted toxins, or rotating the target specific toxins produced by the crops.

Genetically modified crops can be engineered to use less water than normal crops as well. Drought resistant plants are useful anywhere, even where water is plentiful. This is because most agriculture gains its water from subterranean aquifers. These aquifers are not being replenished as fast as water is being taken from them. They WILL dry up. Already overuse is starting to cause sink holes in some areas where the water pressure is no longer sufficient to hold up the ground. Drought resistant crops use less water. The benefit of this should be obvious. They can also be engineered to use less space per metric ton of food produced. Less habitat destruction per unit of production is an obvious benefit of this. They can also be modified to produce more and better nutrients. Two words. Golden Rice. All of this in addition to making their own natural pesticides with a narrow target range. Genetic Modification, not organic farming, is the sustainable solution to balancing the needs of people and the long-term future of our environment, and the resistance we have seen to it from Europe and environmentalists is absurd. So the next time you guys are at the grocery store, avoid organic crops like the plague. Look for genetically modified foods and remember, if it is not labeled organic, chances are unless it is produce, it has a genetically modified component.

~Comrade Tortoise

Well, it is the holiday season, and I cant help myself.

There are those, like Bill O' Reilly who think that Christmas is under attack by the Political Correctness Police. They think that words like "Happy Holidays" are part of a "Secular Progressive Agenda" that will open the door for " secular progressive programs, like legalization of narcotics, euthanasia, abortion at will, gay marriage, because the objection to those things is religious-based, usually."

Mr. O' Reilly claims that we "secular progressives" want "to get Christianity and spirituality and Judaism out of the public square."

First and foremost, I would like to point out that Jews do not celebrate Christmas. They celebrate Chanukah. In fact, there are a good number of holidays celebrated this month. Christmas, Chanukah, Yule, Kwanzaa, and several others Personally, I celebrate the birth of Isaac Newton today. But everyone conveniently ignores these holidays. I will be very blunt. It is asinine and narcissistic to simply assume everyone in a pluralistic society like the United States, is a Christian. A full 25% of the population is not Christian, and in a time of love, and goodwill toward men (and women) it is not very becoming to spit on their holidays in the name of some knee-jerk reaction to what is perceived as political correctness. Moreover, I would argue that the cultural stranglehold Christianity has on this season where the Christian holiday is not only plastered everywhere, but even non-Christians are culturally, or just for reasons of practicality, forced to conform to it might be a little bit wrong. Now, I know that Christianity is very comfortably the majority religion, and escaping from their religious holidays is not going to happen. They will inundate the public consciousness, and that is OK. But don't assume that we are all Christians and don't get mad because we say Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas in recognition of that. Being inclusive toward everyone is not political correctness. It is the nice and decent thing to do. Of course, some people are not interested in being good, or decent.

They (the religious conservatives) are using Christmas as a tool to oppress those who are different from them. What they do is they say that Christmas is under attack,because it is Christian and we "secular progressives" can't stand Christian things. Then they associate the lack of Christmas (and by extension Christianity, in their minds) with things that your average center-right American finds objectionable. The connections don't even have to be true (and they often aren't) because people are amazingly easy to manipulate. The more the average person hears something (Like, Happy Holidays will lead to more abortions), the more they believe it. This is established in social psychology, I can give you the references. In the end, they breed resentment toward minorities to the point that the words "Merry Christmas" themselves become weapons. I have experienced this. I will get something in a store and say "Happy Holidays" and get "Merry Christmas" returned to me with an emphasis that says "Merry Christmas you non-Christian scum". This flies in the face of the spirit of this holiday, and it isn't right.

Of course, Bill O' Reilly begs the question, three times. He assumes that the objections for the aforementioned objectionable things are religious, he assumes they are wrong, and he assumes that we secularists want to get rid of public religion. Between one and all three of these are false, depending on the objectionable thing. And, he commits several straw men, and a non-sequiter when he connects "Happy Holidays" with "Secular Progressive Programs."

First thing is first: "Secular Progressive Programs" When I think of progressive programs, I don't think of things like abortion. I think of things like food stamps, and other programs used to help the poor. Something that I would expect Christians to be all for. What with rendering unto Caesar what is Caesars, and being religiously obligated to give to the poor as often as they can... But those are liberal things, we cant have those... that would be wrong. The support for "progressivism" is grounded in liberal philosophy, AND in the bible. Jesus spouted giving to the poor from the rooftops, and extolled the virtues of paying your taxes like a good citizen. The most efficient way we have as a society to help the impoverished is through centralization. That means governments. They are corrupt, inefficient and evil. And they are the best we have. If that says anything.

As for the legalization of narcotics. Jeez, the last I checked there were legitimate sociological reasons for having those illegal. Like them being dangerous, and causing social problems like violence. I was unaware that only religious people were in favor of cracking down on meth, and crack cocaine. Naturally, there are some drugs that could stand to be legalized. The war on pot is lost, and some low grade hallucinogens are short lived and have no negative side effects to speak of. But really, saying that is a religious thing and that progressive secularists like me want to make that crap legal is a lie. A bald-faced, flat out, lie. Shame on you Mr. O'Reilly. You aren't supposed to bear false witness against thy neighbor.

But let's not be to disparaging. After all, it is the holiday season, and there is nothing that says "I love you" like giving the gift of life and months of suffering to a terminal cancer patient who wants to end their misery. And nothing says "family values" stronger than running the family into bankruptcy to artificially maintain the blood circulation of someone who looses higher brain functioning contests to a zucchini. Seriously. Only a sick God would condone this. He is right. There are no legitimate secular objections to medical euthanasia so long as it is given with the consent of the person to be euthanized, or if they are in a persistent vegetative state, the consent of their next of kin, or medical directive. I WOULD like to see religions of OTHERS precluded from participation in the private affairs of individuals. And I DON'T think that this is objectionable to sane people.

Take out the rubbing alcohol and the coat hangers, it's time to talk about abortion! Most arguments against abortion are, in the end, based upon religion, or are rationalizations with religious motives. I have yet to see an argument that was not based upon religion. The only way to derive the idea that a fetus under 20 weeks of age or so is a fully fledged human being is by positing the existence of the soul. However, just because I support a secular pro-choice society does not mean I walk around with an "I <3 Abortion" t-shirt. So, that is a strawman (because we do not all run around with those t-shirts). It is also question begging (because it is assumed that abortion is wrong). Finally, it is a non-sequiter (Because the conclusion, abortion at will, does not follow from saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "merry Christmas") That is three fallacies in one sentence fragment.

Then there is Gay Marriage. My own personal soap box, seeing as I am indeed gay (in case my readers did not already know). Look, saying "Happy Holidays" will not lead to my being able to marry the man of my dreams (partially because I have not met him, and if I have, he has either rejected me, or is some combination of straight, taken, or in the military...no, I am not bitter) So that argument is yet another non-sequiter. It is also, yet again, question begging. It assumes that gay people being able to get married is wrong. As if two consenting adults wanting to be treated equally by their government is some horrible evil which needs to be purged from the world.

Lastly. Despite my talk of the only objections to things like abortion being religious, secularists, myself included; do not want to remove religion from public expression. If you want to have a cute little nativity scene on your lawn, I dont care. More power to you. If you want to sacrifice a goat and eat it ritualistically on your lawn to celebrate the winter solstice, I dont care, more power to you. I have never eaten goat, I may even join you. What I want is to keep religion the hell away from government. Decisions, such as whether to legalize narcotics, or gay marriage; should be based upon reason and consideration of the constitution. They should not be based upon religion. Nor should my tax dollars go toward paying for, or housing sectarian religious displays, messages, or endorsements, if they do, they need to endorse ALL religious beliefs (and the lack thereof) and ALWAYS grant requests to use public funds for said displays and messages. Why? Because of the constitution. Doing otherwise would not pass the Lemon Test which specifies that any government involvement with religion must have 1) a Primary Secular Purpose 2) Not further or hinder religion) 3) Not excessively entangle government with religion.

So if a group of pagans wants to build a heathen altar and sacrifice two ducks and a sheep to their pagan gods; all using government funds, the government better let them. If the Church of Satan wants to use government funds to pay for a religious outreach program and soup kitchen, it better happen so long as the paperwork is in order. And if a group of atheists wanted to use government funds to pay Sam Harris' traveling and lodging fees so he go to an elementary school and extol the virtues of atheism... Now, we know that none of these things will ever get approval without a big lawsuit and even then it would have to be re-filed and re-argued every time a non-christian/jewish group wanted to use government funds to support religious messages or displays. The only reasonable alternative, and the only other one that is constitutional, is to ban ALL use of government funds for religious endorsements, displays, and messages.

So, why is this important? I have to justify the constitution. First and foremost, theocracies never work. Throughout history, whenever government and religion get mixed LOTS of people die. Bad decisions get made, wars happen, ethnic cleansing happens. It is bad. In addition to this, we live in a representative democracy. I pay significant portions of my income to the government to fund itself, and I should not be compelled to fund a church that then uses those funds to undermine my civil rights. If they want to do that on their own, that is fine. They are bigoted assholes, I am OK with that. But I will not pay for it.

How does this deal with Christmas? If the government recognizes Christmas as a special holiday, distinct from others, like it does in some cases, it is essentially specifying one of the major religious holidays that are celebrated at this time as being worthy of special treatment. This will, and is, use as an argument to reject the idea that our government is secular and thus that we should be more permissive of encroachments of religion on government, and vice versa. That is why schools should use words like "Holiday Break". A school cannot reasonably expect people to come to class on Christmas. But it also cannot endorse the religious holiday officially. That is the balance that needs to be struck. It may seem like a silly distinction, but it is a legally important one.

But you know what, all other stuff aside... Christmas is supposed to be a time where we sit back with our families, eat lots of food, and use the gifts we buy for our little cousins to annoy our aunt and uncle by proxy. That is the reason for the season. Family, too much food, and amusement. It does not matter what we celebrate during this time period. Be it Christmas, Yule, Chanukah, Festivus, Kwanzaa, Saturnalia, Newtonmas, or whatever name or particular traditions you give it. It is an excuse to be with your family. The one thing it is not, is a cynical political tool used to heap piles of social and religious scorn on people who are different. Doing that, is not just stupid. It is evil. It is twisting a good thing in the name of bigotry, and guess what. That is not acceptable. So, enjoy whatever holiday it is that you celebrate this time of year. And recognize that there are a lot of people that don't celebrate the same thing you do but celebrate it at the same time. And recognize this "War on Christmas" bullshit for what it is. Bullshit.

Have a Happy Holiday Season
~Comrade Tortoise