According to this Economist article (http://bit.ly/btLxY8) the rise in homophobic legislation in Africa "coincided with an influx of conservative Christians, mainly from America, who are eager to engage African clergy in their own domestic battle against homosexuality."It looks like conservative Christians are spreading their hatred around the world quite well. Especially preying on the poor and undereducated. "David Bahati, the Ugandan MP who proposed its horrid [anti-homosexuality] bill, is a member of the Fellowship, a conservative American religious and political organisation."
Friday, May 28, 2010
North Korea: Soon To Become a Failed State?
Will North Korea crumble? Will there be a peaceful transfer of power when Kim dies?
If NK collapses, what will happen to its nukes?
Economist article: http://bit.ly/aujKZt
If NK collapses, what will happen to its nukes?
Economist article: http://bit.ly/aujKZt
Pakistani's Create Muslim-friendly Facebook in Response to 'Draw Muhammad Day'
Pakistani's create a Muslim facebook in response to 'Draw Mohamed Day'article: http://bit.ly/cPP6o5Link to the new Muslim facebook: http://www.millatfacebook.com/
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Global Citizenship: Transcending Nation-States
The world is more 'globalized' than it ever has been. The increase and cheapening of international communication and transportation has irreversibly shrunk the world. Westerners are watching anime and using chopsticks, and easterners are buying American debt and learning English. Needless to say, the nations of the world are more interconnected than ever before, by almost any standards. However, in the same breath, the world also faces new and different challenges than it has in the past. As a simple example, economic interdependence has reached unprecedented new levels - as evidenced by the recent financial crisis and corresponding global economic downturn. Not only economically has the world become interconnected, but also environmentally. Climate change threatens the whole world, and no nation individually can solve the problem (although, the U.S. could be doing an awful lot more to counteract global warming, but so too could Canada). Suffice to say, if we are to successfully tackle the global problems that have arisen, we will need global solutions. This is where the concept of Global Citizenship and Global Governance comes in, I think.
What is Global Citizenship? Well, I think it is a lot of things, both institutional and ideational. Institutionally, the concept of Global Citizenship entails that all people born on this planet are citizens of it, under its government. But they are not citizens under their individual nations, rather, they are citizens under the global governance structure not yet realized. But more on the global governance structure later. Ideationally, a Global Citizen embraces a common identity with all of humanity and acknowledges the urgent nature of a universal identification amongst all humanity. Why urgent? Well, I feel that the problems we currently face as a species are handled poorly when we are in-fighting and divided. Global Citizenship entails so much more, but that is for another time. The Citizenship concept is not as strong without a Global Governance framework, to which I will turn now.
Aforementioned, we, as humanity, currently face problems that transcend any one nation, or any one nation's capabilities to tackle effectively. Not only that, but there is currently very little regulation framework with which we can monitor the actions of powerful nations. The United States still does pretty much what it likes, when it likes. But, back to the point, while the United Nations and other international institutions do provide a somewhat useful and reasonably effective platform for voicing global concerns, I feel that a streamlined, far-reaching, and sovereign organization is required to confront the global challenges we currently face. An institution that is accountable to - and in trust of - all the worlds people is necessary to deal with issues that are of concern to all the worlds citizens - and which all the worlds citizens should be participants in working on, if they so choose. The concept of a World Government ties in nicely with the concept of Global Citizenship. All human beings are born as Global Citizens, and all have the right - and duty - to participate in the World Government.
This is all hypothetical, but I think the concept has strong merit. As I've explained earlier, there are problems that nation-states cannot currently tackle alone. In fact, there are problems that require the majority of the worlds participation in order to solve effectively - climate change being a prime example. Not only do we require a world governance structure, we also require a common sense of global identity. To break down religious, national, or ethnic divisions, I feel an over-arching identity would work well: Global Citizenship. Most people are already familiar with identifying as their Nationality, why not take that one step further?
More to come later...
What is Global Citizenship? Well, I think it is a lot of things, both institutional and ideational. Institutionally, the concept of Global Citizenship entails that all people born on this planet are citizens of it, under its government. But they are not citizens under their individual nations, rather, they are citizens under the global governance structure not yet realized. But more on the global governance structure later. Ideationally, a Global Citizen embraces a common identity with all of humanity and acknowledges the urgent nature of a universal identification amongst all humanity. Why urgent? Well, I feel that the problems we currently face as a species are handled poorly when we are in-fighting and divided. Global Citizenship entails so much more, but that is for another time. The Citizenship concept is not as strong without a Global Governance framework, to which I will turn now.
Aforementioned, we, as humanity, currently face problems that transcend any one nation, or any one nation's capabilities to tackle effectively. Not only that, but there is currently very little regulation framework with which we can monitor the actions of powerful nations. The United States still does pretty much what it likes, when it likes. But, back to the point, while the United Nations and other international institutions do provide a somewhat useful and reasonably effective platform for voicing global concerns, I feel that a streamlined, far-reaching, and sovereign organization is required to confront the global challenges we currently face. An institution that is accountable to - and in trust of - all the worlds people is necessary to deal with issues that are of concern to all the worlds citizens - and which all the worlds citizens should be participants in working on, if they so choose. The concept of a World Government ties in nicely with the concept of Global Citizenship. All human beings are born as Global Citizens, and all have the right - and duty - to participate in the World Government.
This is all hypothetical, but I think the concept has strong merit. As I've explained earlier, there are problems that nation-states cannot currently tackle alone. In fact, there are problems that require the majority of the worlds participation in order to solve effectively - climate change being a prime example. Not only do we require a world governance structure, we also require a common sense of global identity. To break down religious, national, or ethnic divisions, I feel an over-arching identity would work well: Global Citizenship. Most people are already familiar with identifying as their Nationality, why not take that one step further?
More to come later...
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Approaching Godhood - The Creation of Life
The creation of the first 'synthetic' life. Some hail it as a triumph, others as a rash step into an unknown - and potentially dangerous - new stage for humanity.
An article from the Economist explains: "Craig Venter and Hamilton Smith, the two American biologists who unravelled the first DNA sequence of a living organism (a bacterium) in 1995, have made a bacterium that has an artificial genome—creating a living creature with no ancestor (see article)."
This development is tremendously fascinating, and tremendously important. But, what I find most interesting is the designation of the bacteria as 'synthetic'. To be certain, the designation 'artificial' or 'synthetic' is well deserved. Indeed, the new bacteria has been engineered, and did not come about by process of natural selection. However, I see the creation of this life-form not as the creation of something artificial, but rather, a signifier that humanity has taken another step in the 'natural' progression of the human race towards Godhood.
Life began on Earth some billion years ago. We are matter and energy like the rest of the universe. However, what is special about 'life' is this: the matter and energy from which we are made is arranged according to certain information systems. These information systems also facilitate the reproduction of themselves, as well as the passing and modification of information to antecedent generations of life.
Current levels of complexity have taken billions of years to realize. The brain, that which gives us the ability to reason, design, and create artificial life, was formed by natural selection. However, interestingly enough, the development of the brain has allowed our species to circumvent the process of natural selection. For example, the capability to understand our environment and think creatively has facilitated the creation of civilization. From the first primitive tools to agriculture and animal domestication, the brain, created by natural selection, has allowed us to master our environment and make life easier. The inventions and ideas of countless individuals have coalesced into what we know now as civilization.
Since our brains are a product of natural selection, it is tremendously interesting that with our brains we can manipulate the world around us to such an extent to derail the process of natural selection. For example, because of my asthma and poor eyesight, I would probably be selected out of the gene pool if it were not for modern medicine. In fact, most people on the planet would probably not even exist were it not for the development of agriculture - amongst countless other immeasurably important inventions in the past that have allowed for the existence of more and more humans on this planet.
Getting back to the creation of 'synthetic' life, it can be discerned that, yet again, our brains have allowed us to modify reality to our benefit. We can use synthetic life to do all sorts of wonderful things, from cleaning our environment to cleaning our clogged arteries.
As our mastery of the universe continues to progress, we will be able to turn science fiction into reality. And, I don't think this is a bad thing. Any development in technology can be used for good or evil, and as long as we continue to use our brains, I don't think we will off ourselves just yet.
An article from the Economist explains: "Craig Venter and Hamilton Smith, the two American biologists who unravelled the first DNA sequence of a living organism (a bacterium) in 1995, have made a bacterium that has an artificial genome—creating a living creature with no ancestor (see article)."
This development is tremendously fascinating, and tremendously important. But, what I find most interesting is the designation of the bacteria as 'synthetic'. To be certain, the designation 'artificial' or 'synthetic' is well deserved. Indeed, the new bacteria has been engineered, and did not come about by process of natural selection. However, I see the creation of this life-form not as the creation of something artificial, but rather, a signifier that humanity has taken another step in the 'natural' progression of the human race towards Godhood.
Life began on Earth some billion years ago. We are matter and energy like the rest of the universe. However, what is special about 'life' is this: the matter and energy from which we are made is arranged according to certain information systems. These information systems also facilitate the reproduction of themselves, as well as the passing and modification of information to antecedent generations of life.
Current levels of complexity have taken billions of years to realize. The brain, that which gives us the ability to reason, design, and create artificial life, was formed by natural selection. However, interestingly enough, the development of the brain has allowed our species to circumvent the process of natural selection. For example, the capability to understand our environment and think creatively has facilitated the creation of civilization. From the first primitive tools to agriculture and animal domestication, the brain, created by natural selection, has allowed us to master our environment and make life easier. The inventions and ideas of countless individuals have coalesced into what we know now as civilization.
Since our brains are a product of natural selection, it is tremendously interesting that with our brains we can manipulate the world around us to such an extent to derail the process of natural selection. For example, because of my asthma and poor eyesight, I would probably be selected out of the gene pool if it were not for modern medicine. In fact, most people on the planet would probably not even exist were it not for the development of agriculture - amongst countless other immeasurably important inventions in the past that have allowed for the existence of more and more humans on this planet.
Getting back to the creation of 'synthetic' life, it can be discerned that, yet again, our brains have allowed us to modify reality to our benefit. We can use synthetic life to do all sorts of wonderful things, from cleaning our environment to cleaning our clogged arteries.
As our mastery of the universe continues to progress, we will be able to turn science fiction into reality. And, I don't think this is a bad thing. Any development in technology can be used for good or evil, and as long as we continue to use our brains, I don't think we will off ourselves just yet.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
What Science Is and Isn't
How do we answer the question "what is a happy life" or "what is good and just"?
A common response might involve deferral to religious authority; either scripture or institution. However, discernibly, many religious texts, while being in some places enlightened, are also riddled with hateful, ignorant, divisive, or inciting comments. If we want to live in a peaceful, non-discriminatory society, we must disregard much of scripture.
Religious institutions, in the same sense, sometimes make enlightened pronouncements, but frequently are responsible for great moral malaise. You need look no further than the current controversy that the Catholic Church has found itself embroiled in as ample evidence of the fallibility of religious institutions.
So, how do we answer moral questions if we disregard religious institutions and scripture?
The two main branches of knowledge, namely, a priori (non-experimental, or derived beforehand) and a posteriori (experimental, or discovered afterward) knowledge give us general guidelines. Personally, I find rationality to be a supreme way of generating real moral insight without deferring to religious authority. I utilize a method of rationalism, drawing upon previous knowledge, to formulate moral positions.
But, could it be somehow possible to utilize the epistemological rigor of scientific method (an a posteriori knowledge structure) to derive moral knowledge? I regard scientific knowledge to be the most sound form of knowledge - and deservedly so. The scientific method has derived descriptions, claims, and understandings of the universe that have proven fantastically reliable in myriad cases. Furthermore, any knowledge that is to be deemed 'scientific' must pass the ultimate test, whereby fact can be separated from fiction, and genuine truth can be derived. The Method realizes this rigor by living up to the qualifier of empiricism. More simply, any knowledge that scientific method produces must match up with reality. And, coupled with the principle of re-validation, scientific knowledge must not only accurately describe reality, but also must do it for everyone, everywhere.
Despite the fantastic merits of science, it is generally understood that the methods we use to generate scientific knowledge cannot be transfigured to generate moral knowledge. For example, it is generally accepted that we cannot use scientific method to answer the question "what is justice," or find out what a "moral" life consists of, as opposed to a "immoral" one.
The difficulty here was originally elaborated by David Hume, and is referred to as the 'is-ought problem'. Hume elaborates that there is a distinction between simply describing how the world is, and describing how the world ought to be. For example, the Method is extremely good at describing reality, such as the laws of gravitation, but not at telling us other things, such as what we should eat for dinner, or whether there should be a death penalty.
However, developments in science and scientific method are slowly pushing the envelope on what kind of knoweldge can be considered scientific, including, in some cases, moral knowledge.
More later...
A common response might involve deferral to religious authority; either scripture or institution. However, discernibly, many religious texts, while being in some places enlightened, are also riddled with hateful, ignorant, divisive, or inciting comments. If we want to live in a peaceful, non-discriminatory society, we must disregard much of scripture.
Religious institutions, in the same sense, sometimes make enlightened pronouncements, but frequently are responsible for great moral malaise. You need look no further than the current controversy that the Catholic Church has found itself embroiled in as ample evidence of the fallibility of religious institutions.
So, how do we answer moral questions if we disregard religious institutions and scripture?
The two main branches of knowledge, namely, a priori (non-experimental, or derived beforehand) and a posteriori (experimental, or discovered afterward) knowledge give us general guidelines. Personally, I find rationality to be a supreme way of generating real moral insight without deferring to religious authority. I utilize a method of rationalism, drawing upon previous knowledge, to formulate moral positions.
But, could it be somehow possible to utilize the epistemological rigor of scientific method (an a posteriori knowledge structure) to derive moral knowledge? I regard scientific knowledge to be the most sound form of knowledge - and deservedly so. The scientific method has derived descriptions, claims, and understandings of the universe that have proven fantastically reliable in myriad cases. Furthermore, any knowledge that is to be deemed 'scientific' must pass the ultimate test, whereby fact can be separated from fiction, and genuine truth can be derived. The Method realizes this rigor by living up to the qualifier of empiricism. More simply, any knowledge that scientific method produces must match up with reality. And, coupled with the principle of re-validation, scientific knowledge must not only accurately describe reality, but also must do it for everyone, everywhere.
Despite the fantastic merits of science, it is generally understood that the methods we use to generate scientific knowledge cannot be transfigured to generate moral knowledge. For example, it is generally accepted that we cannot use scientific method to answer the question "what is justice," or find out what a "moral" life consists of, as opposed to a "immoral" one.
The difficulty here was originally elaborated by David Hume, and is referred to as the 'is-ought problem'. Hume elaborates that there is a distinction between simply describing how the world is, and describing how the world ought to be. For example, the Method is extremely good at describing reality, such as the laws of gravitation, but not at telling us other things, such as what we should eat for dinner, or whether there should be a death penalty.
However, developments in science and scientific method are slowly pushing the envelope on what kind of knoweldge can be considered scientific, including, in some cases, moral knowledge.
More later...
Monday, May 17, 2010
Creation of This Blog, Explaination of Title
Well, I suppose this has been some time coming.
I've been publishing notes and sharing articles on facebook more and more frequently. Given the constraining nature of the facebook context, the need for a more flexible outlet became pressing.
Thus, this blog.
Anyways, the title of the blog is a tip of my hat to Albert Einstein. Specifically, his quote: "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. The mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinions courageously and honestly."
Einstein has always fascinated me, I read a book on him some time ago. My sister bought me a poster with a picture of Einstein and the first sentence of that excerpt as a caption, so the quote has sentimental value. But not only that, I think the quote elaborates valuable insight.
I have quite frequently found myself going against the grain, being the devil's advocate. Challenging the status quo has always been profoundly more fun than going along with popular opinion, for me. I suppose then that the title speaks to how I act generally: challenging the norm. Of course, being a white male, there are areas in which I do conform. However, generally, I find myself in a position similar to what Massimo Pigliucci describes:
"One side calls me an accommodationist, the other accuses me of scientism, I must be doing something right..."
The world is full of Great Spirits and Mediocre Minds, and we are swimming in a sea of ideas.
This blog is just another drop in the sea.
I've been publishing notes and sharing articles on facebook more and more frequently. Given the constraining nature of the facebook context, the need for a more flexible outlet became pressing.
Thus, this blog.
Anyways, the title of the blog is a tip of my hat to Albert Einstein. Specifically, his quote: "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. The mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinions courageously and honestly."
Einstein has always fascinated me, I read a book on him some time ago. My sister bought me a poster with a picture of Einstein and the first sentence of that excerpt as a caption, so the quote has sentimental value. But not only that, I think the quote elaborates valuable insight.
I have quite frequently found myself going against the grain, being the devil's advocate. Challenging the status quo has always been profoundly more fun than going along with popular opinion, for me. I suppose then that the title speaks to how I act generally: challenging the norm. Of course, being a white male, there are areas in which I do conform. However, generally, I find myself in a position similar to what Massimo Pigliucci describes:
"One side calls me an accommodationist, the other accuses me of scientism, I must be doing something right..."
The world is full of Great Spirits and Mediocre Minds, and we are swimming in a sea of ideas.
This blog is just another drop in the sea.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
