Managed to find a discussion on SciAm related to our long-standing discussion over whether or not fundamental research (really, we mean physics research) merits effort and resources, particularly in a world where not everyone has an minimally acceptable, let alone fair, standard of living.
I think the author and one of the posters conflates the question of whether or not physics is a useful undertaking with whether or not physicists seek to better the world - the two are totally different questions! The former has been addressed before (and I won't do it again at this time), but the latter is, I believe, especially pernicious in the context of asking whether or not pure science is useful. Regardless of the utility of beanie babies, reality TV and earrings, we never ask whether toymakers, TV producers or jewelers enter their profession because they want to make the world a better place. People choose careers for three reasons - money, status and/or because they find the work personally fulfilling. Hardly anyone actually chooses their career out of a sense of duty or need to improve the world (I say this noting that the number of emergency response technicians and humanitarian workers make up a fairly small subsection of the workforce). Why, then, should scientists be held to that standard?
There's a few other interesting statements on that page. Ex. "The mark of a thriving civilization is how much it values curiosity and creativity for its own sake, whether it be science, art, music, literature — any of those 'impractical' 'frivolous' activities that enrich all our lives."
Discuss.
Charles
P.S. The title is a reference to the fact that someone else is discussing something that re-appears frequently in my conversations.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Why Are We Leftists?
Just something I've been thinking about recently: why are we leftists?
I can hear the protests right now - more than one three-percent-thinker doesn't consider him/herself easily characterized by an abstract stereotype like "leftist", but the truth is that we hold many opinions shared by those traditionally associated with, or self-identifying as, leftists. This is a little bit odd to me, as in terms of personality and personal values we're closer to libertarians than we'd like to admit. I imagine that we like to think of ourselves as self-reliant, creative, intelligent, educated and able to make informed and reasonable decisions about our lives, probably better than other people can do for us. These traits are also championed by libertarians, since it is through these values, and personal freedoms, that an individual can flourish.
I also don't think that the left has any kind of monopoly on sound policy. In fact, I don't think sound policy has any kind of ideology behind it. "Sound", in this case, means it works. Many political acts whose goals were morally atrocious were pretty well thought out, and fairly effective in execution. And I don't think any of us are naive enough to fall for the idea that our side is always right.
But nevertheless, in terms of abstract world view as well as moral values, we share most of them with people on the left.
Which brings me back to my question, why are we leftist? What personal experience or intellectual inspiration drove us to adopt our worldviews? And why, in the end, did we rely on those views instead of other, possibly more "objective" (or at least more clinical and less blindly emotional), means of making opinions?
I'll actually confess that I'm not sure I'm a leftist at all. While I believe in things like the greater good and well-being of a society potentially at the cost of some individual liberty, I'm also not prone to believing in egalitarianism. I actually DO belive some people are morally superior to others, and it is the value and works of these people I wish to see perpetuated by society. I also do not believe happiness should be considered an intrinsic good in a society. Surely we can come up with a better reason for existing than to make ourselves feel good? (No, to make others feel good is not a good answer - it just leads to the same question.) Perhaps that makes me a fascist. That's a scary thought.
I'm more comfortable with why I'm not a libertarian - I don't trust myself. I know I have failings, and I know I can be selfish, and short-sighted, and bigoted and discriminatory, and I know I fantasize about myself being right all the time despite the fact I most certainly am not. At the same time I have a good sense of what I am responsible for in society. This, I think, makes social democracy a good government for me. I get to vote on things I believe are good, but then others take me to task for doing the right thing. In a libertarian system, on the other hand, I'd be responsible for controlling myself, which I might not be able to do. Extrapolating this to other people in society (and I imagine people like me are not rare) suggests libertarianism in general is bad for society. How I see it, anyway.
Discuss.
I can hear the protests right now - more than one three-percent-thinker doesn't consider him/herself easily characterized by an abstract stereotype like "leftist", but the truth is that we hold many opinions shared by those traditionally associated with, or self-identifying as, leftists. This is a little bit odd to me, as in terms of personality and personal values we're closer to libertarians than we'd like to admit. I imagine that we like to think of ourselves as self-reliant, creative, intelligent, educated and able to make informed and reasonable decisions about our lives, probably better than other people can do for us. These traits are also championed by libertarians, since it is through these values, and personal freedoms, that an individual can flourish.
I also don't think that the left has any kind of monopoly on sound policy. In fact, I don't think sound policy has any kind of ideology behind it. "Sound", in this case, means it works. Many political acts whose goals were morally atrocious were pretty well thought out, and fairly effective in execution. And I don't think any of us are naive enough to fall for the idea that our side is always right.
But nevertheless, in terms of abstract world view as well as moral values, we share most of them with people on the left.
Which brings me back to my question, why are we leftist? What personal experience or intellectual inspiration drove us to adopt our worldviews? And why, in the end, did we rely on those views instead of other, possibly more "objective" (or at least more clinical and less blindly emotional), means of making opinions?
I'll actually confess that I'm not sure I'm a leftist at all. While I believe in things like the greater good and well-being of a society potentially at the cost of some individual liberty, I'm also not prone to believing in egalitarianism. I actually DO belive some people are morally superior to others, and it is the value and works of these people I wish to see perpetuated by society. I also do not believe happiness should be considered an intrinsic good in a society. Surely we can come up with a better reason for existing than to make ourselves feel good? (No, to make others feel good is not a good answer - it just leads to the same question.) Perhaps that makes me a fascist. That's a scary thought.
I'm more comfortable with why I'm not a libertarian - I don't trust myself. I know I have failings, and I know I can be selfish, and short-sighted, and bigoted and discriminatory, and I know I fantasize about myself being right all the time despite the fact I most certainly am not. At the same time I have a good sense of what I am responsible for in society. This, I think, makes social democracy a good government for me. I get to vote on things I believe are good, but then others take me to task for doing the right thing. In a libertarian system, on the other hand, I'd be responsible for controlling myself, which I might not be able to do. Extrapolating this to other people in society (and I imagine people like me are not rare) suggests libertarianism in general is bad for society. How I see it, anyway.
Discuss.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Children and Choice
A transcript of our developing e-mail conversation:
I tried to post a new topic on WTWT, but haven't figured out how (maybe I can't). But here is an article I would really like to share: Parents keep child's gender secret. I found it on Tiff's Facebook page. Thanks for sharing that!
Here is my comment on the "Parents Keep Child's Gender Secret":
I always find it hard to answer the question "how much freedom should parents give to their children". What I have not yet figured out is not only "should children choose for themselves whether they are girls/boys/others", but also, for example
- Should children choose for themselves which family they grow up in?
- Should children choose for themselves which specie they are?
- Should children choose for themselves whether they should be born?
-Bing
I tried to post a new topic on WTWT, but haven't figured out how (maybe I can't). But here is an article I would really like to share: Parents keep child's gender secret. I found it on Tiff's Facebook page. Thanks for sharing that!
Here is my comment on the "Parents Keep Child's Gender Secret":
I always find it hard to answer the question "how much freedom should parents give to their children". What I have not yet figured out is not only "should children choose for themselves whether they are girls/boys/others", but also, for example
- Should children choose for themselves which family they grow up in?
- Should children choose for themselves which specie they are?
- Should children choose for themselves whether they should be born?
-Bing
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Poetry on a bicycle
I took twigs and moss from the yard
and made a little landscape
I thought myself a Giant
with shoulders way up high above the land
looking down at the little trees and imagining soaring way above them
What does it look like from up there?
I can't even see over the counter without standing on a chair.
Now I am a giant
my shoulders high above the land
I stand up straight and the ground disappears down below
From up here the trees do look like moss in the sunlight
And all I can think of
is that I want to be down among them...
and made a little landscape
I thought myself a Giant
with shoulders way up high above the land
looking down at the little trees and imagining soaring way above them
What does it look like from up there?
I can't even see over the counter without standing on a chair.
Now I am a giant
my shoulders high above the land
I stand up straight and the ground disappears down below
From up here the trees do look like moss in the sunlight
And all I can think of
is that I want to be down among them...
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Reboot!
Only by posting again will the WTWT reboot ever get off the ground. Guys, let's post our responses and thoughts in the comments section of this article rather than over e-mail, for posterity's sake.
So we've had an election recently, which I'm sure everyone who reads this blog is fuming over. My first thought was (other than "ding, dong, the Bloc is dead!") what happened, Canada? Why did we give a scheming, autocratic, neoptism-prone tyrant, who's proven time and time and time again over the last five years that he cannot be trusted, a majority?
A friend and reader of WTWT said simply "because Canadians are stupid". I replied that it's equally possible they're ignorant, or apathetic, or right-winged idealists. Her response was "no, they're stupid".
To support my assertion that Canadians voted Harper back in with purpose and not out of imbecility, I started doing research Unfortunately, trawling the blogs and reading the news has given me very little insight over why 40% of voters supported Harper. The electoral map doesn't say too much either - electoral maps over-represent rural areas for obvious reasons, and so it's difficult to tell why some areas went blue and some orange without zooming in.
My hypotheses so far:
1. Canadians are apathetic and went for the sitting government. This seems false - apathetic people don't vote, and when they do vote they either select at random or vote for the Rhinoceros Party. This did not happen, unless lots of people had their hands slip.
2. Canadians are ignorant of Harper's deceptions. On the surface this is false - they probably know Harper hatches political schemes on a daily basis. The trouble is they think this is politics as usual. I'm worried that because the Conservatives came in after a decade of Liberal scandals (none of which, arguably, are as bad as the scandals of recent years) the Conservatives now have a free pass to do whatever they want, since people now expect corruption no matter who takes office.
3. The Liberal Party has no direction. A colleague of mine at work lambasted the Liberal party for their poorly run campaign this time around. He's a political afficianado, but even looking at the Liberal platform, and Ignatieff's performance in the debates, it's obvious the Liberals had no vision of Canada other than to replace the Harper government. On the other hand, the Conservatives had a fairly strong message going in: sound economic policy to dampen the effects of recession, a backing out of the government from social safety nets to destroy the "culture of entitlement", a strong legal and military arm, and job creation through tax reduction and incentives. The Liberal platform had no overarching ideal. What does the Liberal party stand for, other than standing up against Harper?
4. Canadians LIKE libertarian ideals. I mean, 30% of people did vote NDP, while 40% of people voted Conservative. Assuming we have no centrist party, this simply means more people prefer right-winged governments than left. It also might make sense that the Conservative have broader-than-expected appeal. I can easily describe why, in richer East Asian ridings (Richmond, for example), people voted conservative. Immigrants from China nowadays are largely middle/upper-class people (both from Hong Kong and the mainland). Their experience with government in general is that it is wholly corrupt and filled with entitlement and patronage at all levels, a simple money sink you deal with only out of legal necessity. It's little wonder that when they come here they gravitate toward parties that say they'll reduce government intrusion into their lives. They're also not big on gay marriage, and since Asians have cultures fairly compatible with North American culture, they don't care too much about minority "special needs". Could other unusual Conservative Party wins be explained similarly?
By the way, I imagine now that Harper has a majority his so-con base from the Canadian Alliance will demand that he bring gay marriage and abortion back on the table. I'm fairly sure he personally won't want to (since he's making a killing by being a socially moderate libertarian). We'll see how that plays out.
What are your thoughts? Discuss below.
So we've had an election recently, which I'm sure everyone who reads this blog is fuming over. My first thought was (other than "ding, dong, the Bloc is dead!") what happened, Canada? Why did we give a scheming, autocratic, neoptism-prone tyrant, who's proven time and time and time again over the last five years that he cannot be trusted, a majority?
A friend and reader of WTWT said simply "because Canadians are stupid". I replied that it's equally possible they're ignorant, or apathetic, or right-winged idealists. Her response was "no, they're stupid".
To support my assertion that Canadians voted Harper back in with purpose and not out of imbecility, I started doing research Unfortunately, trawling the blogs and reading the news has given me very little insight over why 40% of voters supported Harper. The electoral map doesn't say too much either - electoral maps over-represent rural areas for obvious reasons, and so it's difficult to tell why some areas went blue and some orange without zooming in.
My hypotheses so far:
1. Canadians are apathetic and went for the sitting government. This seems false - apathetic people don't vote, and when they do vote they either select at random or vote for the Rhinoceros Party. This did not happen, unless lots of people had their hands slip.
2. Canadians are ignorant of Harper's deceptions. On the surface this is false - they probably know Harper hatches political schemes on a daily basis. The trouble is they think this is politics as usual. I'm worried that because the Conservatives came in after a decade of Liberal scandals (none of which, arguably, are as bad as the scandals of recent years) the Conservatives now have a free pass to do whatever they want, since people now expect corruption no matter who takes office.
3. The Liberal Party has no direction. A colleague of mine at work lambasted the Liberal party for their poorly run campaign this time around. He's a political afficianado, but even looking at the Liberal platform, and Ignatieff's performance in the debates, it's obvious the Liberals had no vision of Canada other than to replace the Harper government. On the other hand, the Conservatives had a fairly strong message going in: sound economic policy to dampen the effects of recession, a backing out of the government from social safety nets to destroy the "culture of entitlement", a strong legal and military arm, and job creation through tax reduction and incentives. The Liberal platform had no overarching ideal. What does the Liberal party stand for, other than standing up against Harper?
4. Canadians LIKE libertarian ideals. I mean, 30% of people did vote NDP, while 40% of people voted Conservative. Assuming we have no centrist party, this simply means more people prefer right-winged governments than left. It also might make sense that the Conservative have broader-than-expected appeal. I can easily describe why, in richer East Asian ridings (Richmond, for example), people voted conservative. Immigrants from China nowadays are largely middle/upper-class people (both from Hong Kong and the mainland). Their experience with government in general is that it is wholly corrupt and filled with entitlement and patronage at all levels, a simple money sink you deal with only out of legal necessity. It's little wonder that when they come here they gravitate toward parties that say they'll reduce government intrusion into their lives. They're also not big on gay marriage, and since Asians have cultures fairly compatible with North American culture, they don't care too much about minority "special needs". Could other unusual Conservative Party wins be explained similarly?
By the way, I imagine now that Harper has a majority his so-con base from the Canadian Alliance will demand that he bring gay marriage and abortion back on the table. I'm fairly sure he personally won't want to (since he's making a killing by being a socially moderate libertarian). We'll see how that plays out.
What are your thoughts? Discuss below.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
