Friday 29 November 2013

Nationalist dogma: Right Wing Watch!


 
Right Wing Watch

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/


Every time I want to know what the Right Wing nutjobs are up to, I put on my brave face and head over to this website. You can be sure there will be several absolutely bat-shit crazy people spouting pure, unadulterated and uninformed drivel. It is shocking that such bigotry still exists in the world today.

Just a few of examples from TODAY. Imagine the volume of pure bovine excrement emanating from the jaws of these right wingers over the course of a full year!

Anti-gay activist Robert Lopez has claimed gay marriage leads to human trafficking. That is disgusting. How dare he - and it's complete nonsense of course. But, even if he were right, he could make even that problem go away by making it easier for gay couples to adopt. But I bet he's not really for that either - the root of his "concern" is of course, homophobia, not children's human rights.

In the US, the Family Research Council (FRC) are basically a right-wing think tank that come up with all sorts of meaningless and unfounded claims. That fact that they call for prayers, for example in this bonkers article, should tell you the value they put on actual evidence.


LOL. It's all one big conspiracy for these people, isn't it? BIG GOVERNMENT BAD is about the extent of their vocab. If only we could trust that the "local government" advocates were competent to manage their own areas!


Now THIS sounds like real "Islamophobia" to me. Unclean spirit indeed! 'Cos praying to Allah is so much inherently worse than praying to the Abrahamic god ;)



Nationalism and Dogma
One of the features that I commonly encounter from the Right Wing is their ardent nationalism. It's really easy to label people with the "un-nationalistic" tag, which carries its own stigma and can rapidly lead to accusations of "treachery". I've recently been thinking about the ethics of nationalism from a consequentialist or egalitarian perspective, and asked myself the big question: can I be a "patriot" and also care about people all over the world on an equal basis?

The problem with caring too much about your own country is that it becomes hard to determine where to draw the line. We all automatically focus our attention on matters close to home, be it our own families or our own country. The UK is most important to me, for example. Most people want their own country to succeed, from an economic and cultural perspective. Knowing that this often results in another rival nation suffering from this success in some way, for example in terms of economic growth - so at what point do we decide to stop pushing our own success and think about helping our neighbours?

At the end of the day, I decided, I attribute my most important moral duties to humanity in general, and not only the citizens of one country. If the country I live in does wrong, it needs to answer for its crimes - it can't just assume to be in the right and be worthy of unflinching support. This is not treachery, it's fairness. To me, the All Things Considered approach is usually best.



"You'll have to prise my gun from my cold, dead hands"
The right wing are fond of their "slippery slope" arguments. One of their common forms of discourse could be summarised as:


"I'm concerned about X. Traditionally, we haven't allowed X. If we let X happen now, then it surely follows that Y will happen and then before you know it, we'll have Z."
The problem with small-government, right-wing nationalists and the "slippery slope" argument, is that rampant nationalism is eventually subject to the ultimate "slippery slope" argument itself: Continuing devolution of power can lead to parochial absurdity ad-infinitum. Consider the following.

----------

We start with raising our country up on a pedestal above others. This, and the fear and distrust which characterises the heart of right-wing sentiment, will lead to growing suspicion of outside influences ("foreigners") and pressure to become more isolationist. So certain ties are cut. But such old habits die hard.

Soon it will be intra-national concerns. It's the northerners now, for example. They are bringing the tone of the country down. Let's split into a two-tier system. We want to preserve the southern way of life.

Next, it's those weirdos in the next town. What a dump that place is. I refuse to shop there, we want nothing to do with it.

And finally, it's the neighbours across the road. They were always the real problem. They are NOT being a part of OUR group.

----------



UKIP
We can see the influence of excessive nationalism everywhere. In the UK, the UKIP political party want to pull us out of the EU.

Scotland are having a national debate and referendum on separating from the UK and becoming an entirely separate country.

It seems to me that this sentiment most often tends to be rather regressive.

Here is an example of extremist nationalism and dogma from earlier this month. The left-wing are hardly free from blame either where it comes to nationalism:

Communist dogma in Cuba is strictly nationalistic, eschewing any free market trade or private enterprise. I'm not a huge fan of unbridled capitalism, but jeez...

In fact, I've asked myself the question: can we even justify pulling out of the EU from the standpoint of moral responsibility? A great many people's livelihoods and wellbeing may depend on the continued survival of the EU. It seems callous to think that we would just leave it as a rat might jump from a sinking ship. I've heard some people even say that they actually want the EU to fail. Wow. Now that's heartless.

I want the EU to survive and prosper, but in doing so, it must take this opportunity to clean up its act. The whole institution needs to become less profligate, more accountable and preferably, financially auditable. The "fat-cat bureaucrat Eurocrat" culture must end.

In support of EU exit, the right-wing often push two ideas: that 1) foreign workers are coming to our shores, taking our jobs; and that 2) foreign families are coming to our shores as benefit and health care tourists. Aside from the vaguely racist overtones here, my objections to this are summarised below.

Firstly, it is most likely that statements 1) and 2) are mutually exclusive. Most families with decent jobs shouldn't ideally need to be on benefits (which is another argument for the living wage).

For 1), I'd say that those jobs are just that: jobs. They are not "ours". Anyone who perform them can be employed to do so. The real concern is that companies are not able to undercut prices too much by hiring overseas workers for too little pay. Also, we are equally able to go to their country and work as well. In fact, this is the obvious solution.

By demanding higher pay than their country normally offers its own workers, we can improve the state of the economy and drive social cohesion at the same time. Although this might require political lobbying to the companies present, it is part of the wider capitalist agenda and can work in both countries simultaneously.

Synergy can also work to all our benefit. When some of the foreign workers return home, they should have a positive image of our country, and strive to emulate that attitude in theirs.

For 2), aside from the evidential burden for this "problem" not being met to my satisfaction, we can't just deny health care to those who need it. The burden is on all of us to ensure that the apparent "gap" in wealth between our country and theirs is minimised. Then we might not feel so bad about going over there and using their health care system. And all these unfounded fears of eastern Europeans can be allayed.


Normative dogma in relationships: Pornography and Marriage


The Family "Research" Council (FRC) are at it again. Their stance on pornography is, as expected for a right-wing group, completely biased and not based in any kind of reality. They endorse the following link:

http://marri.us/get.cfm?i=RS09K01


Among the dubious assertions offered here, is this gem:

"Both spouses perceive pornography viewing as tantamount to infidelity."

This statement makes 2 implicit assumptions. Firstly, that it is not permissible to desire another person sexually once married to your spouse. Yes, that's why couples NEVER break up and affairs NEVER go on for years. Better to accept the reality that getting married doesn't actually change one's sexual desires per se, and that many factors can cause the need to "look elsewhere". Properly considered, and with the prior understanding of both parties, I see no reason why this need even present a problem. Also, this logic fails to consider that fantasising about having sex with someone can be preferable to actually having sex with someone. You know, if you actually hold that whole physical "fidelity" thing in such high esteem, as these people seem to. That's right folks, porn can sometimes help couples stay together too! Who knew?! In cases of prolonged absence or difficulty in the bedroom, viewing porn can be a boon to a relationship. Of course, such nuance is beyond the ken of the geniuses at FRC.

Furthermore, people against their spouses viewing pornography face the significant philosophical problem of whether they actually want their spouses to be happy or not. When they married, they accepted them for who they were. Surely the aim of marriage is not to mould one's spouse into something more appealing to your own tastes, whether they like it or not? And if it is, how can this balanced against the spouse's own wellbeing?

The second implicit assumption in that statement is that infidelity is inherently bad. This is primarily a normative presupposition, and as such has its real basis in tradition, rather than in evidence. Evolutionary psychology and evolutionary biology have demonstrated that early human relationships likely comprised polyandry and polygamy, as well as monogamy. Studying our closest biological cousins, the great apes, reveals that there are many viable options for the formation of structures in relationships, and that monogamy is just one of these options.

Besides the pressures to conform to tradition, there is little reason for couples to not engage in extra-relationship sexual activity if they both agree to accept it. There is also little reason to hide from or be ashamed of such behaviour in an increasingly progressive world.

That's where right-wing institutions like the FRC and anti-gay individuals like Peter Barbera go wrong.

In trying to support traditional marriage, they would force otherwise stable marriages to become unhappy ones, for example by having no solutions for the sexual problems I discussed, or from "infidelity", or from gay people having to marry the "opposite" sex. That is what really harms marriage, forcing people into normative solutions that just add to their woes. This only serves to increase the divorce rate and break up relationships that really need to last, "for the kids". The fact that the divorce rate is so ridiculously high should immediately tell us that the current way we view relationships (or the traditional, right-wing view) is deeply flawed.

In Australia, nearly every third marriage ends in divorce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce)

In the UK, 42% of marriages eventually end this way (http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/vsob1/divorces-in-england-and-wales/2011/sty-what-percentage-of-marriages-end-in-divorce.html)


I hope I don't need to state the deleterious affects that divorce has on the couple involved as well as any children they may have.

But no, the solution is not pragmatism, but gushing about how bad things are these days, and desperate and pathetic attempts to go back to the way things were. Like, you know, hundreds of years ago when they had, um, slavery and, um, no divorce. Wait. What?

Ever consider that instead of infidelity itself being the problem, it may be that our attitudes towards infidelity are the real problem? I just wanted to point that out.

The real solution to the divorce problem likely includes at least some kind of social encouragement for, and a degree of obligation for, a pre-marital discussion of a grown-up and serious nature. Here both parties voice their expectations, presumed commitments, and actions to take in a wide range of scenarios. Honesty and candour are essential. The notions of fidelity and child-rearing should be raised. Broad agreements should be reached before the relationship progresses to marriage. Whilst this probably occurs behind the scenes a lot of the time, I can't help but think it should be more formal, as a foundation for something that so deeply affects people's lives.

And of course, challenging normative assumptions of what level of fidelity is best in a relationship never hurts!

Contrary to what some of you may believe, I do not regard responsible porn as an anathema to feminism. In fact, the rights of sex workers (many of whom are women) would be well served by increasing regulation of the industry and encouragement of discussions of boundaries for what will be performed. In fact I have heard even radical feminists (somewhere on this blog) advocate for visible boundary discussion from actors at the start of scenes. This is a grown-up, sensible and progressive idea.

Another notable feminist advocate for responsible porn is Greta Christina.

The real threat to human rights and overall wellbeing comes from the prohibition of porn. Like with the disastrous attempts to prohibit alcohol sales in the US in the 1920-1930's,
stifling porn will only drive it underground, with very negative results for the sex workers involved. One of the positive aspects of porn is that the women are chiefly held up as the stars, and are incredibly well paid in the mainstream, or as a contract star, as they should be. This is a valid choice of career, and it works, with the proviso that they can leave at any time. Of course, in underground porn, this would not be the case.

One of the most shocking and unthinking observations I've heard about porn is "Only an idiot pays to watch porn".

Au contrare. In my opinion, only an idiot would NOT pay for it. You cannot support a sustainable and responsible industry on will alone. We need to pay our hard earned cash, to ensure the actors are well paid looked after. This is why regulation is so important.

The prevalence of free porn is not only what drives down standards and wellbeing, but what is the most visible and pushy form, the type that is most despised on Netmums - as free porn must aggressively promote itself to achieve advertising revenue. Paid for porn is happy to restrict advertising to its own site networks and past members.

In my view, the solution for "dealing" with pornography is similar to that for other "vices" (like drugs) as they would say: Regulate the industry to monitor the conditions and watch for abuses of rights, whilst establishing clear boundaries and increasing standards.


Sunday 10 November 2013

Philosophical Arguments from Evil


I just wanted to put across a couple of commonly-themed logical arguments that I heard on podcasts recently, that really caught my attention and resonated with my own logic. They certainly support the atheistic position for me.

The Evil God Hypothesis

Thanks to Professor Stephen Law for this one.

How can God allow evil such as we witness daily on the News channels, to exist in the world? It is a good question, and one I don't think the theists have a satisfactory answer to.

Of course, the standard response might involve the following.

If God is Good:-

-Evil is necessary because humans have to have free will in order to follow their own devices and not be God's puppets

-Evil is necessary in order to show a contrast for Good. If no evil existed, we would not be able to define anything as “good” because there would be nothing to compare it to

-Evil may be necessary because there is a long-term plan in place by God's Divine Will which involves the prior necessity of these evils having taken place.

However, the weakness of this reasoning can easily be demonstrated. It turns out that exactly the same arguments can be used in a directly opposite scenario where God is Evil, and evil is expected – here good is the thing that needs to have its existence explained.

If God is Evil:-

-Good is necessary because humans have to have free will in order to follow their own devices and not be God's puppets

-Good is necessary in order to show a contrast for Evil. If no good existed, we would not be able to define anything as “evil” because there would be nothing to compare it to

-Good may be necessary because there is a long-term plan in place by God's Divine Will which involves the prior necessity of these “goodnesses” having taken place.

That makes just as much sense as the theist's original arguments. The notion that it is really “Satan” who is in charge (consistent with the “evil” God hypothesis), is in fact, arguably more representative of the real world, in that certain features are as we would expect if that model held. In particular, the existence of other proposed gods, the notion of Hell, and the whole idea that the “good” God is actually in charge in order to avert suspicion sound like exactly the sort of thing a Machiavellian dictator would do.

At the very least, the “Evil” God hypothesis throws enough doubt and discredits the good God hypothesis to such a degree as to make it pretty worthless in my book.

-

The problem of Gratuitous Evil

Erik Wielenberg came up with this (or at least this refinement).

  1. An all-knowing, all-loving God wouldn't allow Gratuitous Evils to take place
  2. Gratuitous Evils probably do take place
  3. God probably does not exist


http://freethoughtblogs.com/reasonabledoubts/2013/11/05/episode-121-divine-deception-with-guest-erik-wielenberg/

Let's think of a bad situation, which leads to unnecessary death, and which God could have prevented if He so chose. So bad in fact - and caused by natural circumstances, not humans, so no issues of “free will” involved - that it is a gratuitous, or unnecessary and unjustified, evil. The example given is that a foal is trapped in a forest fire, is horribly burned but escapes the edge of the inferno only to die from its injuries or dehydration some days later. Nobody could possibly benefit from this event, it only has negative connotations. Of course the theist's answer to these sorts of issues would often be “God works in mysterious ways. We cannot hope to know his bigger plans or intentions”. However, we shall see that this is a facile and illogical answer, inconsistent with the facts.

The argument that God (or his intentions) are unknowable is commonly used. I've stated elsewhere in my blog that I find this message inconsistent with the notion that we can have private conversations with Him whenever we choose. That we can explain exactly what we want and He hears it (why He wouldn't just know it already, being the omniscient deity that He is, is anyone's guess) with no errors or loss in information, and yet when we do get acts of nature or events that cried out for intervention, and many people prayed for just such interventions, God is conspicuous by His absence. Then, it's always “Oh you didn't pray hard enough”, or “you weren't faithful enough”. Yes, folks, isn't it odd that the answer to crises of faith, is always more faith. Never more insight.

“So at 5 p.m. when the storm hits and everyone is praying for deliverance, God has his fingers in his ears, going “la, la, la, I can't hear you”. But at 6 p.m. when those same people who have just had their homes and lives devastated, are praying to God for help with recovering from the thing he just allowed to happen, we're expected to believe He's listening and willing and able to assist? 'Kay”

Kasparov the Deity

The idea that we are God's children and that He is a father figure, some kind of master or expert, is pretty absurd to me. One explanation that is used to support the “Unkowable God” hypothesis is the analogy that we are taking part in a game of Chess with God. He makes a seemingly crazy move, opening up the board and making a victory seem imminently possible for us. And yet, this might be exactly what a Grand Master would do to an initiate to get him to play his hand, only to reveal some yet unknown move which could snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. It sounds good, doesn't it?

Except, God doesn't exactly have a great track record at being a Grand Master of anything, if you don't pre-suppose that he created the Universe in the first place. He is nothing if not predictable in the Old Testament. He has shown in the Bible that he shares human emotional traits and weaknesses, using deception and hate to his own ends. There are so many examples I don't know where to start. The “unknowable” aspect of his character is where things get really interesting in this argument though.

It follows that with time, we bear witness to an ever greater number of Gratuitous Evils, as terrible events occur somewhere in the world. In order to allow these to happen, it logically follows from the theist's own reasoning, that God must become more and more “unknowable” with time, as in order to compensate for these Evils, there must be a colossal number or amount of “goodnesses” due to take place somewhere in future, as yet unknown to us. And yet, as a species we are constantly learning and making technological advancements, increasing our knowledge and understanding of the universe. This fact is in direct contradiction to God becoming more “unknowable”, as everything else is becoming less “unknowable”.

In order to satisfy this conundrum, the theist must allow God to retreat into theoretical realms beyond the purview of the universe, and so beyond all effective relevance to the world.

Tuesday 8 October 2013

Shelley, Malala and trouble with those pesky skeptics!

Music Album review - Shelley Segal - An Atheist Album

I recently discovered Shelley Segal whilst listening to a podcast called the Bar Room Atheist. It's a good listen, Bill and Suzy are great people and I'd particularly recommend their Bible segment on each show.

Shelley Segal is a young Australian singer-songwriter who has released an album of atheistic songs. I bought it and it is fantastic. Here is the iTunes review I posted for it:

*
Absolutely Wonderful

Don't let the title of this record put you off.

The beautifully constructed "An Atheist Album", whilst containing songs about atheism, freethought, women's rights and scathing criticism of the dangers of dogma , manages to retain a wonderfully positive message of how freethinking people can live happily working for a better world (as in "Apocalyptic Love Song").

The clever, cutting lyrics of "Saved" will leave anyone who has "escaped" from oppressive religious influences thinking "I couldn't have put it better". In all the tracks Shelley brings up some of the seemingly insurmountable logical problems of religion which are commonly among the reasons people de-convert.

As a non-believer myself this album brings a tear to my eye every time I hear it. Each and every track is brilliant - there are no fillers. About the only criticisms you could level at this record would be that at just 8 tracks, it's a bit short, but you do get quality over quantity.

Overall it's a beautifully crafted album from a very talented singer/songwriter which is bound to resonate strongly with non-believers. It's also worth listening to for religious people, just for the gorgeous tunes alone, even if they don't agree with the sentiments.

*

Please buy the album on iTunes or on Amazon here:
 
 
-

Malala Yousafzai

The inspiring young Afghan girl Malala is back in the news again. If you recall she was blogging/reporting on her education in Afghanistan, when the Taliban carried out a cowardly attack on a bus and shot her in the head. She then came over to Britain for life-saving surgery and now lives in Birmingham. This is a great summary article of her whole story so far if you need a reminder.
 
 
 
Even though she is a Muslim, I find it hard to find anything bad about what she is doing, in trying to promote education for girls. I've mentioned this before in a previous post, but it bears repeating. Education should be a basic right for everybody, and is key to improving the world in almost any way we may care to. The fact that the Taliban are opposed to education tells me all I need to know about them, even if they didn't go around shooting schoolchildren in the head.

Such a terrible thing happened to Malala - and everybody, literally, everybody (except the Taliban) knows it was wrong in the most basic and inherent way. There is no possible Universe in which using brutal violence in trying to stop young people learning can ever be justified. To hell with relativism here.

This is why the bravery of Malala will always triumph over the barbaric cruelty of Islamic dogma taken to the extreme.

There are now 2 notable positives for Afghanistan amidst all the awful things that country suffers - Malala and also the Afghan cricket team, who have reached the next World Cup competition against all odds.

 
Supporting Afghan cricket is worthwhile, since the cricketers are among the more moderate, progressive and least extreme followers of Islam in the country. Again, the fact that the Taliban are against Afghan cricket should be reason enough to support it. I will be cheering for the Afghan team (after England of course) when the competition starts proper in 2015.

If only we could get an Afghan women's cricket team together and playing International women's cricket, that would be a real sign of progress! Something tells me there is a little way to go yet, although I'd like to imagine the thought may be passing through the minds of the most liberal Afghan sports fans...

I'd like to see some of their faces when they finally realise that women are capable of playing sport to a very respectable standard even at non-professional level, and that their women, so long castigated and demeaned into uneducated lives of worship and ceaseless childbearing, can compete against and beat some established teams, bringing pride to the nation. It will happen one day.

And I'll say "Yep, I told you so".

-

Sexual Assault allegations in the Atheist / Skeptic community

The plot thickens in the ongoing saga of self-destruction that is the eternal battle amongst feminists in the skeptic community. I've twisted and turned, looked one way and another in recent months but have ultimately decided on a couple of basic principles in trying to best determine who may be more in the right in any given circumstance.

1) Whoever is being most reasonable, listening to others' concerns and not casting aspersions against those with conflicting opinions instead of discussing those opinions.

2) Whoever is using more critical thinking and not being unduly dogmatic

I've come to trust people like Atheist Mel who blogs at http://reasonlogicreality.wordpress.com/



She is a wonderful person and really great example of how to be an individual standing up for equality on her own terms. I will not accept ad-homs and unfounded accusations of misogyny against her and the great bunch of fellow atheists that are around on twitter at the moment. We want equality and we can't rule men out of the equation in trying to get that.

On the other hand I still like Rebecca Watson, PZ Myers and the Freethought Blogs guys, although I now see a few of the problems they sometimes have. I want to quickly bring up the now-infamous PZ rape-accusation episode that happened back in August.

I don't think that publishing the rape allegations on his blog was the most responsible thing to do.

The point has been made that the cases of systemic rape of children by members of the Catholic clergy were often broken on blogs. Although this may be true, all it really tells us is that this was a means to an end. The fact that these individual cases turned out to be the tip of a particularly vile iceberg, overshadowed the method of exposure. The sheer horror of the magnitude of the abuse that had been going on, when more and more victims found the bravery to came forward, excused the dubious way in which some of the initial allegations may have surfaced and been brought to the public's attention.

I'm not saying that one should never use blogs as an exposee to others' disgraceful behaviour, just that it is inadvisable, and hardly ideal. In the case of the skeptic community, the notion that the scope of the sexual abuse scandal would be of the same order of magnitude as the Catholic church abuse cases, is patently absurd. No doubt there may have been quite a few incidents over the years, but I can't imagine it would be the same "epic" magnitude. The validity of blog post accusations is therefore reduced.

What we really need to rail on about here is police and conference organisers not taking accusations of wrongdoing seriously enough.

1) It is entirely unacceptable for police to not thoroughly, independently and open-mindedly investigate all reports of sexual abuse and rape. This kind of incident warrants scene of crime studies and meticulous interviews with all concerned. Findings and chances of prosecution must be brought to criminal court authorities quickly and efficiently. Failure to do this is clearly contributing to impressions of a "rape culture".

2) It is entirely unacceptable for conference organisers to a priori dismiss accusations of inappropriate behaviour or worse at their events. The stories that they might try and intercept police and try and persuade them to not investigate the incident are utterly outrageous if true. They have no right to interfere in matters of criminal investigation.

These people responsible in this case should be investigated for their clear shortcomings, and if possible, be charged with obstructing the course of justice.

What we really need is a system where the consequences of being accused of rape are less severe than they currently appear to be in the interim period leading up to court - but the chances of being convicted, and punishments, are greater. It is too easy at the moment for a man accused of rape to be sacked or dropped from the organisations he is associated with, before the case is finished and a verdict reached.

Maybe suspensions to the accused are reasonable, but going punitively overboard before he is proven guilty is also leading to problems of victim blaming, reprisals and is playing into MRA's hands - with the idea that there could be reasons to falsely accuse someone - if the consequences for merely being accused were less severe, the reasons to falsely accuse evaporate. I'm not saying that false accusations are common, by the way. They're pretty rare. But the current arrangement of the victim being kept anonymous whilst the accused is named is the best approach in my view.


Saturday 28 September 2013

World Over-Population

Dan Brown's Inferno
I recently finished listening to a new audiobook, that of the novel Inferno by popular author Dan Brown. I wanted to post about this because the issue of population features heavily in the book, and it is one particularly close to my heart as it were.


In the story, returning protagonist and art historian Robert Langdon faces a race against time to stop the release of a virus developed by seemingly crazed transhumanist (see below) scientist Bertrand Zobrist. The story is not the main subject of this post but I'll just say that I did enjoy the book. It was fast paced, exiting and well written with Brown's normal riddles, puzzles and symbol-based challenges for Langdon to solve.

I hadn't previously heard much about transhumanism

The Wikipedia definition: Transhumanism (abbreviated as H+ or h+) is an international cultural and intellectual movement with an eventual goal of fundamentally transforming the human condition by developing and making widely available technologies to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities.



Inferno no doubt paints a bit of a straw man concerning transhumanism - it would be easy to read the book and go away with the impression that it is a dangerous movement, that needed to be stopped. My own views are somewhat sympathetic towards transhumanism. I am very much for the development of technology that would allow us to transfer those aspects of our minds that make us human into another form, be that genetically engineered, or digitised, that was better able to survive the unknown challenges of the future.

This thinking is aligned with the notion that quality is better than quantity, i.e. at the moment we are over-populating the planet, whereas what we should really be doing is concentrating technological development towards transgenic or artificial intelligence solutions, to the problem of survival in inhospitable environments for instance.

The virus deployed by the transhumanist in Inferno, touted at first as something to control the world's population, we assume by recreating the effects of the Black Plague, actually turns out to be a sterility plague. Its only effect is it causes about one-third of humans to become sterile - so nobody dies as a direct consequence of the virus.

The notion of a sterility plague is explored in some depth in the Mass Effect series of video games. Here a prolific and violent alien race called the Krogan are affected by a genetically engineered virus called the genophage, that effectively renders 99.9% of krogan infertile (only 1 in 1000 pregnancies is viable). This is widely seen as a big mistake and overly harsh punishment; ethnic cleansing and a despicable act. Although it is possible to take a more pragmatic view (the Krogan did need to be controlled at the point when the virus was deployed) the game leaves you in no doubt that it was nothing more than a morally questionable means-to-an-end. It even goes so far as to make you reverse the effects of the virus (or at least appear to) in order to get the krogans' help later in the series.

With a much lower efficacy than the genophage, Zobrist's plague in Inferno is not as extreme. It is only intended to curb population growth rather than quickly bring numbers under strict control. And the krogan have a short life span and are very war-like so the lack of replacements for their high death rates rapidly reduced their numbers in Mass Effect. The situation is thankfully different for humanity in Inferno.

I did like the way Inferno asked the grown-up question of whether we should even try and stop the effects of Zobrist's plague once they had been unleashed. In other TV shows etc. I have seen any hint of sterility enforcement has been met with utter rejection and demonisation, so I was pleased to see the book push the real need and possible benefits of it. Of course what we should consider when exploring these ideas is the need to make the effect of such a virus indiscriminate, so as not to be seen as trying to influence the racial composition of the population.

The fact that no-one really wants to discuss the serious need for population control, in the world today of over 7 billion people, is extremely concerning to me. If ever there were a massive elephant in the room, this is it. Just as I don't want to see religious people wallow in their comfort zones - and challenge their beliefs, we shouldn't rule out any thinking not aligned with the biblical "go forth and multiply" mantra.

From a consequentialist perspective, such a plague as described in Inferno is not as bad an idea as some people may think. Whilst it may ultimately be too extreme an answer to the population problem, the thought of such a virus not being the worst possible solution (as in worse than wiping each other out in the future over acquisition of resources) is a sobering thought that we should all consider.



Population Matters
Formerly the Optimum Population Trust, Population Matters are a group advocating for a lower world population enabling more effective and rapid solutions to problems of environment, ecology and sustainability.

I wholeheartedly agree with the aims and goals of Population Matters and follow them on Facebook. They are doing important work in challenging the conventional view that technology will ultimately provide all the solutions to these problems. Whilst this is certainly possible, I can't see how trying to effectively manage population and limiting growth rates would not assist in this regard, either lowering the scope of the "damage" or giving us more time to find technological solutions, or both.

I accept that it is unreasonable to expect the population of developing countries to fall into line with these aims - that's why we in the Western world should be setting the example and be attempting to slowly reduce our national populations. This is one of the few areas where I don't completely agree with reformed environmental activist Mark Lynas, who has now taken on a more scientific approach to environmental advocacy. I'll hopefully return to this later when I review his book The God Species.

You might want to take a look at their website. It makes it all too obvious the challenges that the environment, standards of living and resources all face with continuing population growth. We cannot continue on this path forever.







Advocating for anti-procreation
 
Recently I've started following this Facebook group:

https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Advocacy-for-Anti-Procreation/250119691710353?fref=ts



They have some very interesting posts and ideas.

I would like to raise some pretty controversial questions: Do we have a right to expect to be able to have children?

I would argue, no we don't. With the spiralling world population in mind - Bearing children and raising a family is a luxury that we will probably not all be able to engage in, in future generations. I am for researching the technology for fertility treatment, but not necessarily making it available for people who can't naturally have children - certainly not for free on the health service. Explain to me - rationally and objectively, without resorting to heteronormative, ideologically motivated or religiously rooted reasons, why it is worse than being a "family man" to be someone who works all their life paying into the state and does not leave a genetic legacy? Why is the latter not a viable and accepted alternative?


Is it too easy to become a parent?
I would say a most definitive yes. We only need look at examples of people who are parents who are so obviously not suitable to be such. It's hard for me to avoid the conclusion that us humans are just too fertile for our own good.



Furthermore, the low rate of adoption around the world is shameful, being hampered by incredibly strict requirements that simply do not exist for erstwhile parents of newborns. Is it even ethically acceptable to bear your own children, all the while knowing that many thousands of children already exist that you could love and give a fulfilling existence? Are we still so tied to leaving our own genetic legacies to the world? This is a perfectly reasonable question for a consequentialist, which no-one seems to want to answer.

I have also witnessed a curious and vile hatred towards those few women who announce whilst at "child-bearing" age that they do not want any children, ever. The so-called childfree. They are routinely abused and demonised - but these are the same women I know to be fantastic individuals who are responsibly making a positive choice, to try and help reduce their environmental and financial impact on the world. I have a huge respect for them. This hatred to such a noble goal simply is unacceptable behaviour.

Strangely enough there seem to be quite a few of these great women in the skeptic, atheist and humanist communities. Being so sensible must go with the territory!

I am just asking questions here, and challenging the behaviour that everyone seems to take for granted. We all just seem to think it's OK to just have as many kids as we want or can support - I don't necessarily share this opinion.

This post is not about telling people what they should or should not be doing. It's about challenging existing preconceptions of acceptable social norms and asking if there are alternatives.


Tuesday 24 September 2013

Word processor woes

Well, I had written some nice long detailed posts which were getting close to completion and I was reviewing prior to putting on here.

One was about Atheism+ and rape allegations in the skeptic community.

The other was about Dan Brown's novel Inferno and advocating for anti-procreation.

However the word processor on my laptop saw fit to delete all my work, so the files reverted back to their state about a week ago. All I had written is lost!

Oh no! Bloody Apache Open Office is to blame...

I'll see what I can recall and recover in some shorter posts, over the weekend hopefully.

Huh! From now on I'm just using Wordpad and backing up after each session on 2 drives for safety.

Damn technology! :-(


(This is as much a reminder for me as anything. I save the files so I don't have to remember what I write!)

Wednesday 18 September 2013

Video Game Violence

(Contains some spoilers)

I have to say, it always really annoys me when someone, usually a "concerned parent" or a bored journalist, decides to take it on themselves to put the digital world to rights, and launches a crusade to "ban violent video games". These people seriously lack perspective on this issue, that much should be clear. One of the main problems here include the notion that all "violent" games can be painted with the same brush.

Video Games have been blamed for: the descent or decay of society, increases in violence, obesity, social exclusion, individual acts of violence and more. Irrespective of the merits of each individual claim, these notions usually have one thing in common: the assumption that video games are a homogeneous entity - non-thinking, one-dimensional, profane kill-fests which, lacking any moral direction, skew the mindsets of their gamers towards those of a nihilistic, uncaring, cold, lazy couch potato.

With maybe a notable exception or two, this couldn't be further from the truth.

Violence is increasingly being seen in some games as a means to and end that is not justified. Big-name Games like Portal are refreshingly violence-free for the first-person perspective, and successfully use the laws of physics to produce puzzles which prove to be inventive and fiendishly cunning. Deus Ex: Human Revolution was a recent game that not only offered players non-violent solutions to confrontations, but actively rewarded players for choosing them. And non-lethally subduing enemies was preferable to killing them. Games like this find clever ways of bringing the player to account for his or her destructive actions, and make it clear that you pay a penalty for not thinking, and not weighing up the morality of actions and their consequences.

This can be achieved in several ways, for example, by attaching agency to the player, and making it clear that you represent some authority and must live up to certain standards. Or in games like The Last Of Us, the player develops such a strong attachment to the characters in the story that you could never do anything to put them at risk. That's right, they almost become a real family.

In the Bioshock series of retro- science fiction games, one game element involves players rescuing young girls from the harmful effects of sea-parasites living inside them that contain a valuable resource. You can harvest the resource for maximum reward, killing the child, or save them, resulting in lesser rewards. This is your choice, however it is obvious what the correct moral decision is. The game later rewards you for the moral choice - but there is a delay involved in receiving it.

The original Bioshock is famous for one of the best ret-cons ever seen in a game - the exposition of a simple spoken phrase (a la The Manchurian Candidate) "Would You Kindly?" that hits with the sledgehammer force of realisation of what this was about all along, akin to THAT classic "Rosebud" moment in Citizen Kane. You have to play it to believe it.

Commonly when playing popular modern games such as the epic science fiction Mass Effect franchise, I find myself spending more time talking to my shipmates and considering the ethical consequences of available options than I do fighting enemies.

The Elder Scrolls series of fantasy-role playing games (the latest instalment of which is called Skyrim) offers a colossal open world (many square miles in game size) to explore down to the smallest detail, with caves, mountains, rivers, oceans, icebergs, towns, cities, whole underground cavern networks, even economies. Yes, you can pick up a flower from a mountainside one minute, then battle a dragon atop a crumbling stone tower the next.

Games these days can be glorious forms of high entertainment; stunning interactive masterpieces of storytelling, riveting fiction and role-playing, with amazing graphics and sweeping theatrical scores, that immerse you in a world almost as real as, well, the real one. And the life you get to lead is invariably more interesting than the real one!

The gaming community has come a long way in recent years. Despite the seemingly ever-present issue of sexism towards female gamers, discussions on topics as wide-ranging as feminism & the role of women in games, sexual orientation, drug use and objective morality in games are going on even today.

Playing devil's advocate, I do have an issue with seemingly lawless, destructive and morally unaccountable games lacking ethical nuance, chief among the culprits of which are the Grand Theft Auto and Saint's Row series. I've played just enough of these games to harbour a deep dislike of them and the lack of balance between right and wrong in the game play. If there is a target for debate and criticism, it should be centred squarely here in my view.

Video games can show us so much more than mere violence. They are a statement of the struggles present between ideological perspectives at a societal level. By playing them, you can attempt to see some of these possibilities through to their logical conclusions, through a variety of lenses. And this often yields unexpected and challenging consequences. If you still don't agree, I have one last thing to say to you.


If you don't think video games can offer us anything:

I'll think about that the next time my black lesbian heroine in Skyrim is ridding the world of a scourge of dragons, settling a civil war, then marrying my long time love with not a hint of homophobia around;

I'll think about that the next time my female Commander Shepard in Mass Effect 3 is busy uniting the warring alien races of the Milky Way galaxy against an ancient, malevolent machine intelligence intent on annihilating us all, overcoming ideological barriers thought insurmountable;

I'll think about that the next time that I as Lara Croft in the new Tomb Raider game, beat my would-be abusers, rapists and killers and travel through hell and back using only wits and skill to escape from a doomed island, all the while exhibiting more vulnerability than spectacular looks;

I'll think about that the next time I'm playing Bioshock: Infinite and I learn that a young girl I was sent to rescue has miraculous powers, and can be the most powerful and awesome person in the world, and ends up rescuing me;

I'll think about that the next time I'm playing The Last Of Us, after many hours of surviving unthinkable horrors whilst journeying across the American Midwest on foot, as unwitting guardian to a young girl who holds the secret to a cure to a zombie-like plague threatening the future of humanity. I become so attached to her, after all we've been through together, and she saves my life; that I find myself at the end, against the purpose of the whole game up to that point, horribly conflicted over letting the plague continue rather than curing it, if it would mean her death. The protagonist Joel saves Ellie rather than letting her die in the process of curing the plague, and I... don't blame him for it. Such emotions really show us a lot about ourselves and the ethics of right and wrong.

After all that, I'll think about video games being the bane of society, and I won't know whether to laugh or cry.

 

The Madness Of... U.S. gun laws


On Monday 16 Sep, former US Navy reservist Aaron Alexis was suspected of going on a shooting rampage at Washington Navy Yard in the US, killing 12 people before being shot dead by police.

See more on the dreadful story and a profile on the shooter here.
What is going wrong in the US, that attacks like this can still happen, and why is no-one doing anything about it?

Well it turns out some people are trying to, but America just loves its guns!

It's easy to see why some people in the US, particularly those in southern, formerly Confederate states, still harbour a deep distrust of the Government and of authorities in general. It was only around 150 years ago that the Northern states basically invaded them in the US civil war. You'd think the fact that they had been on the wrong side (the slavers' side!), and the emancipation of their former captives, you know, little things like that, might have swayed all of them by now, but unfortunately a hardcore residue remains stoically tied to their guns and their paranoia concerning authority.

Such churlish obstinacy, in a time when clear rational thought is required, is misplaced. President Obama has sensibly tried to enact bills that would try and control the purchase and use of firearms. But groups like the NRA and their supporters, who make a lot of money from memberships and gun sales, want none of it, despite all the evidence that gun rampages simply happen more often in places where there are more guns.

Strange that, isn't it?

It should be painfully obvious to all involved the benefits of a gun armistice, leading to a lower availability of firearms. Less guns means less deaths from guns. In Europe, we don't have a fraction of the problems that the US have with gun deaths each year.

In 2010, about 30,000 people in the US were killed by guns. Sure, a lot of them would have died anyway without the presence of a gun (suicides, and some murders), but to claim the number would not be significantly reduced by having to rely on more personal methods, such as a knife, is patently ridiculous.
Guns make murder so quick, easy and impersonal.

It's quite clear to me that letting people with serious mental health issues wander round with loaded firearms is FAR more of a risk than the chances of being targeted by determined individuals (be they government agents, criminals or whatever) and not being able to defend yourself on equal terms.

The notion that hordes of soldiers will come to your house trying to detain or kill you, or that if they did you could (or would even want to?) fight them off even if you had 100 guns, is ludicrous.

But we only need to start small to help stop this madness.

What harm could there be in simple background checks for people wanting to purchase firearms, so that a short delay is involved of a few days between requesting the weapon and obtaining it - enough time for tempers to cool and calm thoughts to return?

And what harm could there be in limiting the number of rounds in a clip, so that the potential destruction that can be wrought before the delay for the necessary reload, is reined in?

Guns are killing machines, specifically designed to take life. They are not directly responsible or accountable for any deaths they cause (that "honour" goes to the person pulling the trigger) but they are so much more than just tools.

A gun becomes a tool, if and only if you use it to hammer in a nail with a pistol-whip. And nobody does that.

This short post leads directly into my next, a ranty piece about video games, by way of this rather clumsy segue.

I expect it won't be long before video games will be called into question, with a journalist irresponsibly claiming that a diet of "Call of Duty" led this poor man directly to his death, and hence "ban violent games". I can't state strongly enough how much I object to this opinion, with a couple of potentially notable caveats.


Saturday 7 September 2013

All things Dragon Age

Yay, yipee! I just found out last week that a new Dragon Age game is coming out next year!

I love Dragon Age!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Age



The new game: It's going to be called Dragon Age: Inquisition and here are some previews:

http://www.videogamer.com/ps4/dragon_age_inquisition/preview-3499.html?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=t.co

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/428051/previews/preview-dragon-age-inquisition-goes-after-skyrim/



It looks fantastic and I can't wait to get my hands on a copy or two! As the hype surrounding Dragon Age: Inquisition builds, I realise I never did quite understand the dislike of the gaming community toward Dragon Age 2 (DA2). It's what I'll focus on here.

I remember having some negative interactions with a few people about the time when it came out. I posted a comment on the game's Amazon UK comment thread (not the reviews, just the comments) saying that it had scored 94% (or something like that) in PC Gamer magazine. Wow, was that a mistake. I had this guy replying to say he would never buy it, and accused reviewers of bias and even being paid off by Bioware /EA. For the uninitiated, Bioware are a famously good developer of role-playing games (RPGs) and EA (Electronic Arts) are one of the main video game publishers who have owned Bioware for a few years now.

The crazy guy then went on to suggest that fake reviewers were being employed by the game's marketers to write favourable reviews for the game. Whether this crackpot notion is true or not, it doesn't really matter too much in my opinion. There are at least a couple of reasons for this:

*Weight of numbers.
The marketing company really would have to put out one heck of a big pile of cash to hope to make a dent in the shape of the group-think of your average opinionated Joe reviewer. There are so many young gamers out there with a game pad and a voice, trying to turn the tide against what they are saying would be like taking a scoop out of the ocean, or some less savoury metaphor I can also think of. Furthermore, it is often possible to tell fake reviewers apart, as the quantity of postings they need to make in order to get paid means that

*Trusted sources.
After reading through game reviews for a while you start to learn which publications and websites have opinions you trust and respect, those whose feelings on a game generally mirror your own. You take a look at these sources first when deciding whether or not to purchase a new game, and perform some sort of mental weighted-average calculation to come to your determination. Suggesting that fake reviewers could infiltrate their way past the quality control of these sources to any significant extent is pretty far-fetched.

You've certainly no skeptical brain if you can't tell what are genuine reviews and what is fake, and which sources to trust more than others.

He didn't quite go so far as to suggest I was being paid for promoting the game, but it felt like that was what he wanted to imply.

Yeah dude. I'm still waiting for that cheque I'm owed. Oh, and I never did post a 5* review for it, so he can stuff off. He obviously wasn't being fooled, so why care?

I'll examine some criticisms of DA2 after I go over...

My thoughts on Dragon Age 2

I really loved the game, and all the extra downloadable content (DLC) that was published! It was an excellent, nuanced story with great characterisation, epic battles and a decent ending (well better than Mass Effect 3 anyway!)

The combat was hard-hitting and fast paced compared to the first game, Dragon Age: Origins (DA:O). I thought that the combination attack system worked well. To do large amounts of damage, for instance to a boss enemy, you had to exploit a combination system whereby a number of set-up attacks applied a status effect to the enemy. You then had a limited time to affect a specific follow-up attack to the same enemy, which then applied a large damage bonus. It really was the only way to take down tougher enemies. The greater number of skill choices and power-ups available made choosing your skill tree selections when levelling up more tactically important and challenging.

I for one really enjoyed re-exploring Kirkwall in each new act and noticing all the little details that had changed. All the characters you could bring into your party were well-realised and voice-acted. My favourite was probably Isabella, she was ultra-cool and so hilariously funny I was genuinely laughing my ass off at times listening to her jokes. And some of her dialogue with Hawke was pure gold! This brings me to one of my favourite aspects of the game: the conversation system. Taking it further than Mass Effect's conversation wheel, the system in DA2 had a green (co-operative or diplomatic) option, a red (aggressive or negative) AND a purple (humorous / witty / charming) choice as a response in most conversations.

My favourite responses were often the purple ones! There were some great one liners in there, and Hawke had this uncanny ability to put across a killer line with faultless timing. To this day, sometimes when pressured, or if someone slights me, I think to myself "What would be the purple response?" I've found it's a great way to diffuse situations that may have otherwise erupted into something more incendiary.

For example, if, whilst driving, someone cuts me up at a roundabout, instead of beeping angrily, shouting or making unsavoury hand-gestures, I will say the "purple response", something like, "Well, that's ONE way to drive!" It's great fun. You should try it!

Overall I felt the game improved most of the weaker aspects of DA:O that needed it. The predictable and stereotyped story, the slow and ponderous action, the samey-samey talents of each class, the lack of options in levelling up and the way some supposedly epic items became trash as you advanced through the game.

Unlike most people, I didn't really feel that DA2 failed in any new way, significantly. Hence I loved it and much preferred it to DA:O (which was a really great game in its own right, don't get me wrong).

Here are some common complaints of DA2. They are fairly universal and most review sites are now saying they found the game disappointing.

* Over-Appreciation of DA:O

This is one of the main issues. It was a great game, but hardly flawless. There were a few significant complaints which in my view are more justified than those levelled at DA2. I highlighted some of the main problems above. In addition, parts were tedious. The Mage Tower stage in particular is a real chore to have to repeat one you've already completed it, because it's very linear, and incredibly long.

If you played as a warrior, you basically had 2 choices, be a sword-and-shield tank type character, or a more aggressive double-handed weapon wielding fighter. As there were a very small number of talents that were exclusive to each, the only real choice you had was what ORDER to put your skill points in, and which prestige classes to select later in the game (and some of the combinations of these weren't very compatible, to make things worse).

The variety of the Origins stories were nice but pretty low on content that couldn't be found in a playthrough with any other character. I actually found this to be a bit of a gimmick.

Finally, the way that the expansion pack "Awakening" integrated with the original game was really disappointing. The extra skills and item levels featured in the expansion were not available in the original when both were installed, even if you reached the requisite level in DA:O that would have meant you could have accessed them if you were within the "Awakening" environment. I found this a significant problem for motivating subsequent playthroughs of DA:O.

And yet you still get things like this written:

"I genuinely believe that Dragon Age: Origins is a 10/10 experience. While it didn't do anything drastically different to what BioWare had done previously (I don't think many would be too offended by calling it 'KOTOR with fantasy'), it was so superbly put together - with characters you actually cared about - it still stands as one of the best RPGs this generation. And then we came Dragon Age II…

While the sequel was certainly not a bad game, it seemed to lack many of the qualities its predecessor possessed. Familiar faces you'd grown to love appeared in mere cameo roles (1), you never did find out what happened to your demon spawn (2), and the changes to combat and the world didn't feel as impactful as we were all first led to believe (3). If it was by any other developer, or part of any other series, it may have gone down far better than it did. Given the expectations set by Origins, though, II felt like it never fed off the ambition that had been put in place (4)."




(1) Developer's prerogative. They are under no obligation to include (or exclude) any character that may or may not have appeared previously in the series. What's wrong with "well they could just be in the next game?" HINT: There were always going to be 3 games, at least. Why did DA2 have to finalise every burning question from DA:O? In my opinion, it was about time they introduced some new faces.

(2) Firstly, your character(s) may not have necessarily sired the demon spawn (it was one of many outcomes) and secondly, see (1) above.

(3) Well that was a remarkable slight-of-hand by the marketers then, wasn't it? They should take up stage magic. Just don't be so credulous. This really says more about the reviewer than it does DA2.

(4) A vague and fairly vacuous sentence. What expectations and ambition? DA2 was a different type of game. It was always going to be. Get over it.

*Marketing and over-hype

Why believe it? Aren't developers allowed to advertise their games anymore? Surely I don't have to tell you to take ANY AND ALL adverts' claims with a metaphorical pinch of salt?

There was this big "I want my money back" thing with DA2. What is this, a faulty vacuum cleaner?!

I never got it. And I was very happy with my purchase (PC version).

If there's any hyperbole to be had here, it's up above in that piece about DA:O. I'm sorry but it was never a 10/10 experience in my book.

*Icons Yep, seriously. The ICONS used for items and skills in the game's UI weren't pretty enough for some people. Please, grow up.

*Follower armour This was a concession to realism that I thought worked really well. In real life I doubt you could make your party members wear something they didn't want to. This approach gave visual changes between acts, level-up improvements AND personalisations by being able to buy upgrades and affix gems to give different resistances to elemental attacks for example. In my view, it was an effective and complete system.

*Size Yeah, not an issue for me. Apart from Kirkwall which was pretty sizable in my book, each act had a number of large outside zones that changed between them, and also an act-specific area or two. The fantastic story made the game epic enough to me.

*Repeated Areas Linked to size. OK, maybe it wasn't ideal, but remember DA:O also used repeated areas and layouts played in reverse quite often. Each act, you stayed in Kirkwall for the main part which had changed slightly in layout and populace etc. from the last act. I actually enjoyed the familiarity of the city areas and liked the subtle changes they put into the feel and atmosphere.

In conclusion, is it just me or do some of these "problems" feel pretty weak looking back now?

I really do feel that some of these complaints are pretty minor and pretty irrational. Talk about scraping the barrel!

But I doubt anyone will come out and say "I was wrong!"

Well, in any event, I'm off to play through DA2 again before the third instalment is released!