Garfield is Funnier

An insane story about invasive species, and invasive species removal.

Just read it and shake your head.

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch

This video on the ‘island’ of garbage in the middle of the Pacific is an unglamorous look at the harm we have caused without even realizing it. How do you fix the problem of billions (trillions? more?) of bits of plastic floating debris? The answer: You cant.
Sometimes preventing harm is the only choice or risk having our prayers for miraculous technology to solve the world’s problems unanswered.

A tradeoff between principles and safety

While you don’t have to agree with everything Christopher Hitchens says (I don’t always), you can always count on him giving a thoughtful, well-spoken (and often crass) argument.

Sustainable Prosperity

It seems like what we keep reaching for and aiming for is sustainable prosperity.

If that’s the case, I think we need a re-definition of prosperity.

Also, do you think that we’re mostly divided into two camps? The conservationists and the preservationists, each with a different set of ethics?

Or is there another camp – those who can’t afford to care – where obtaining life’s basic needs are the obvious and only priority.

A Problem of Knowledge

ScienceInsider, the science-policy counterpart to the journal Science, has reported that Louisiana state educators may not have the ability to teach Intelligent Design (ID) in schools. Officially, teachers have the ability to teach “controversial” scientific theories, such as evolution, origins of life and global warming. Really? While it pains me that these are considered “controversial” as science, I suppose there’s some morsel of relief that they can now be taught.

What is making many scientists anxious is that this can open the door for the teaching of ID.  Proponents of ID claim it’s a issue of censorship, and that rival ideas to Darwinian evolution deserve strong footing from where a fair comparison can be made. I see this as deceit: the issue with ID is not that it is presented (an issue of censorship), but that it is presented as science (an issue of authority). ID is a religious or philosophical stance, and that stance I cannot revoke (no matter how absurd I may think it is), but it is not a scientific stance. We live in a society that trusts scientific claims to knowledge and religious claims less so. My view of the matter is that proponents of ID want to elevate creationism to a “science” to gain authority for their belief.

There are several reasons why ID cannot be counted as science. The first is that it makes no testible hypotheses. How do you test for a cosmic creator? The second is that it is an empty explanation. You can explain anything by saying “God (…oops, I mean ’some creator’) made it”.  For each of these points I will defer to the blunt oration of Christophy Hitchens: “What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”; “a theory that explains everything explains nothing.” The third reason ID cannot be counted as science (and should not be given equal status with evolution) is that not enough scientists believe it as science. This point may seem strange, but it comes with how humans understand knowlede and truth. Theoretically, truth is indifferent to human views; truth is not democratic. Knowledge is dependent on human perception and the suffrage of those who study knowledge. String theory is an example of science that is not testible but still science because scientists believe it.

ID will require some good arguments and evidence if it should ever be considered scientific. I doubt this will ever happen though. Most arguments for ID seem to involve how incomprehendible the universe is. The problem is that in no way does the observation of incomprehension lead to the sole conclusion of some celestial creator; the problem is that ID simply doesn’t have any good arguments.

How much is enough?

The Terry site is one I frequent quite often and the last piece I read brought up an interesting question: How much should you or I fight global poverty?

For some reason, right off the bat, this question didn’t sit quite right with me. I still haven’t really found an answer but I would venture that the less our needs (that are individually determined) the more we can give.

I think it’s also important to ask why we should give and how much do we need to give and to what ends.

What are your thoughts?

Help them help you…

A short article in the October 2008 National Geographic profiled the Sargon, or African giant pouched rat. The reason? The animal’s impeccable sense of smell and ease of training for the purposes of detecting land mines. This tale struck me as particularly illustrative of the fascinating ways that biodiversity can and has served humankind. It doesn’t take much extra thought to realize that the host of species that are now domesticated and serve us also once came from wild stocks. As this example shows us, we not only depend on biodiversity but may need it to save us from ourselves.

Life and Meaning

Daniel Dennett’s response to the question, ” what is the meaning of life?” is this:

“The secret of happiness is to find something more important than you are and dedicate your life to it.”

Some less than savoury people (JT and Lopez, in particular) have asked me what my philosophy of life is.  I’ve kept this view since high school, because I’ve yet to find something better. Dennett’s answer is quite good, but lacks the whole “personal journey” aspect of life.

My answer is to live up to the compliments given to you. Most compliments given out seem overblown, and said more for civility than description.  In high school I was told by a school mate that I was noble.  After thinking about this, I came to the conclusion that this had to be wrong. How could I be noble? What does noble mean? Instead of leaving it at that – instead of leaving it as some fuzzy description of me by one of my friends (which I did not agree with) I thought that this would be a good goal to define and reach. I would eventually like to be noble. Since then I’ve collected a few other compliments that I’d love to have describe me accurately, such as “nice” and “smart”.

Oh, and the best definition of “noble” that I’ve come accross is this: living in such a way that most people respect but will not commit to themselves.

Dennett’s false demystification

If I were to give an award for the single best idea anyone has ever had, I’d give it to Darwin, ahead of Newton and Einstein and everyone else. In a single stroke, the idea of evolution by natural selection unifies the realm of life, meaning, and purpose with the realm of space and time, cause and effect, mechanism and physical law.

Daniel Dennett

I don’t think i agree with this. A darwinian perspective can be used to derive meaning and purpose, but it certainly does not provide it in any inevitable, consequential sense. I think Dennett may be falling prey to the illusion that his prefered mental aesthetic is universally ‘true.’ It doesn’t follow that because a theory describes/predicts processes with elegant accuracy it therefore embues life with meaning. Life, literally, has infinite meanings; especially in today’s social environment, the problem is parsing out what you decide to ignore! Darwinism only unifies physics and meaning for Dennett because he wants it to. That’s a-ok with me… Darwinian thought is inextricably tied up  in my meaning-system too, i’m sure, whether consciously or otherwise. But it’s more arbitrtary than Dennett seems to imply.

Hadi Dowlatabadi on interdisciplinarity

Hadi on CITR radio