The Nerd Hole

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.

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

Hello, my name is Comrade Tortoise. A bit of background on me. I am a Biology major at ASU, and my philosophical beliefs are those of Philosophical Naturalism. Ethically I am a Consequentialist (not technically a utilitarian as you will see) Politically I am more or less a civil libertarian and slightly left of center economically (by American, not European rubrics)

That having been said so that people have a general idea what sorts of biases I may have (har har har) let us begin.

Most of my entries into this little blog will have something to do with Science, Philosophy, Religion, and Politics. Typically the intersections of two or more of these topics. In order to have a meaningful discussion, it is necessary to define a lot of these terms, and get some of the basics out of the way.

The first definition is that of Science. Science is the systematic process of testing ideas against reality. It is done by first observing a natural phenomenon. Then, forming a hypothesis as to what explains this phenomenon. This hypothesis must be testable in that it must make a prediction that can in principle be falsified. This means by extension that the explanation offered must be "natural" (IE. no "[insert spiritual being here]did it")

The hypothesis will then be tested via observation and experimentation. If it is found wanting, it is either rejected in its entirety or modified. If it is not found wanting, it is provisonally accepted until such a time as it is found wanting and in need of revision. If two explanations for the same phenomenon are provisionally accepted, then the simpler one which incorporates the fewest variables is probably better, but always more tests need to be done, and more observations made to weed out the truth.

A theory is a collection of tested hypotheses, and their underlying principles that are unified under one or more general principles that are well-tested and provisionally accepted with a high degree of certainty. For example, the theory of evolution incorporates and unifies all of biology under a single principle, Natural Selection. From Natural Selection, it is, in the end, possible to explain all biological phenomenon. Granted, it is the ultimate, not proximate cause.

A Law is a description. They are distinct from theories in that they do not explain a phenomenon, only describe it. For example, the law of gravity is just a series of equations that describes how gravity effects objects in space/time. It does not explain how/why gravity works.

So, philosophy, more specifically ethics. Ethics are the rules by which humans govern their behavior. The take two primary forms. Consequtialist ethics, and Deontological ethics. Consequentialist ethics deal with the effects of actions and use some standard by which to measure. For example, a Utilitarian judges the morality of an action based upon how it effects the balance of suffering vs non-suffering/pleasure in the universe. A Deontological ethical system is one which places concern on duty to others, and the rights of others. For example, treating other individuals always as an end, not only as a means to an end. Immanuel Kant's ethical system is an example of one of these.

How these are justified, and whether either one holds up is another discussion for a different day.

Then religion. Religions are systems of belief that typically incorporate some supernatural element such as spirits, universal life forces, or deities. They typically include some belief in what could be termed The Sacred. They typically incorporate an ethical system that may or may not be independent of the normal consequentialist/deontological dichotomy, or at least incorporates arbitrary rules.

Then there is the clusterfuck known as politics. Do I really need to go further? Politics is the amalgam of corruption, lies, misinformation, manipulation, and incompetence that typifies the large scale application of ethics, and religion to policy questions. No. I am not bitter or disillusioned at all. Nope, not at all.

So there we go. The primary subjects of my blog are defined.

Have a nice day

~Tortoise