Just a little common sense

Der Wechselkurs von Rind zu Huhn

2015-01-28T11:58:00.004-08:00

Unter meinen Freunden und Bekannten auf Facebook macht seit ein paar Tagen ein Post die Runde, in dem es um eine Schweizer Statistik zu Fleischkonsum und Schlachtzahlen geht. Die Facebook-Seite Sentience Politics liefert zu den Zahlen ein kleines Rechenbeispiel:

Wie verändern sich die Schlachtzahlen, wenn 8 Millionen SchweizerInnen ihren jährlichen Fleischkonsum konstant halten, aber 1kg Rind durch 1kg Huhn ersetzen?
Ein Rind liefert ca. 200kg Fleisch, so dass 8 Millionen Kilogramm Rind etwa 40'000 Rindern entsprechen.
Ein Huhn liefert ca. 1.7kg Fleisch, so dass 8 Millionen Kilogramm Huhn rund 5 Millionen Hühnern entsprechen.

So weit, so gut: Der Rind-zu-Huhn-Wechselkurs ist 1:125. Unterhaltsames Gedankenspiel, aber das war's auch. Oder sollte es gewesen sein. Doch im nächsten Absatz wird auf eine etwas konfuse und vor Allem naive Weise versucht, diesen Wechselkurs zum ethischen Maßstab zu erheben:

In den vergangenen zehn Jahren ist der Fleischkonsum in der Schweiz stabil geblieben: ca. 53kg pro Kopf und Jahr.
Die jährlichen Schlachtzahlen haben aber um 15 Millionen Tiere zugenommen, auf über 60 Millionen. Warum? Es gab eine leichte (!) Verlagerung Richtung Hühnerfleisch, nur wenige Kilogramm: von 8.5kg vor zehn Jahren auf 11.5kg heute. Das Hühnerfleisch macht nur rund 20% des insgesamt konsumierten Fleisches aus, aber es bestimmt die Schlachtzahlen fast vollständig. - Wir müssen diese Verlagerung stoppen.

Oh nein, die Schlachtzahlen steigen, das muss gestoppt werden. Und das Werkzeug zum Stoppen dieses Trends ist, ganz klar, größere Tiere zu essen.

Bis zum Ende geführt wird die naive Gedankenkette freilich nicht. Das es der offensichtlich nächste Schritt wäre die Rinder durch noch größere Nutztiere zu ersetzen, stört den Autor nicht. Elefanten vielleicht, oder Wale? Der Vorschlag der UN, dem wachsenden Fleischkonsum der Welt durch Insektenzucht zu begegnen, wird hier wohl nicht auf viel Verständnis stoßen: Der Huhn-zu-Käfer-Wechselkurs ist viel zu ungünstig.

Recognizing Intolerance, The Easy Way.

2013-07-30T01:25:00.000-07:00

Chances are, this has happened to you too: You start feeling slightly uncomfortable while listening to somebody, like there's something wrong with something they've just said, but somehow you can't quite put your finger on it.

Take, for example, Pope Francis' recent remarks on Homosexuality:

"The problem is not having this orientation, it is lobbying," he said. "That's the most serious problem I think.

"If someone is gay and seeks the Lord with good will, who am I to judge?"

That's great news, right? The Pope promoting tolerance of Gay people - perhaps there is actual change happening in the catholic church! Except, I can't seem to get rid of that funny feeling. Am I just prejudiced after years of criticizing the Pope? Have I become so used to the role of condemning everything the Pope says that I now feel the need to find something wrong with every statement he makes, even good ones? Am I being queasy for no reason here?

Well luckily, there's an easy way to test this. It works like this: Most of us have extremely well trained alarm-bells with regards to racism - It's just one of those things most of us have very little trouble spotting. So, to exploit that fact, all we need to do is to take the above statement, and change its content from gay vs straight to black vs white. While otherwise keeping the wording intact. The result looks something like this:

"The problem is not having black skin, it is lobbying," he said. "That's the most serious problem I think.

"If someone is black and seeks to act white with good will, who am I to judge?"

Suddenly, the reason for my uneasy feeling becomes very clear.

I highly recommend doing this every time somebody makes a public statement regarding any minority. Especially when what they're saying is designed to make them seem open-minded and tolerant. Gays, atheists, women - whatever they're talking about, just write down the exact statement and then replace the minority with "black". I promise, you'll be shocked what kind of statements you almost let people get away with.

The Moral Case for Vegetarianism

2012-10-31T06:17:00.001-07:00

I have stated before that any sensible stand on ethics will inevitably lead to vegetarianism if consistently followed.
The shortest and simplest version of the argument I can think of is this:

Premise a): There is an ethical responsibility to avoid inflicting unnecessary suffering.
Premise b): In a western society, survival is not dependent on the consumption of animal products.
Conclusion/Premise c): All suffering that arises from the consumption of animal products is unnecessary suffering.

Conclusion: There is an ethical responsibility to avoid consuming animal products.

So far, so good. But I've had this discussion often enough to know that few people will leave it at that. By now I have a pretty good clue what's coming, so let me pre-empt a few of the obligatory defenses for meat-consumption that people will come up with:

The Naturalist's Argument:

Humans have been eating meat for thousands of years. Eating meat is our nature.

Humans are omnivores. We're able to digest just about anything, and that means our diet is our choice. And where there is choice, ethics applies. Also, you might wanna look up 'appeal to nature' - You'll find that it's a logical fallacy.

The Localist's Argument:

Factory-Farming's bad, but eating locally grown meat can't be wrong. (In other words: "How about we're just really nice to our cows before we slaughter them?")

You'd still kill them. Shockingly, that still qualifies as an infliction of unnecessary suffering. Of course it's better than steak from factory-farms, but it's still suffering that is inflicted on conscious beings for no other reason than that you enjoy the taste.
I'd further like to point out that by the same line of reasoning, a parent can justify eating their kid, as long as they loved him and treated him well until they decided to end his life because 12-year-olds taste just so damn good.

The Argument from Tigers:

But other animals eat meat, too! You wouldn't judge a tiger for eating meat!

That's right: I do not judge a tiger for its diet, for the same reason I don't judge a rock for falling on somebody's head. The tiger has no say in the matter. The key word here is choice, because only where there is choice there is the responsibility to choose wisely. A tiger can't help itself. You, on the other hand, you decide whether to buy a factory-farmed steak or rather eat a vegetable stew instead. Your infliction of suffering is a choice, and thus you're responsible for making it.

The Hypothetical-Plant-Suffering Argument:

You know, plants react to their surroundings, too! Not to mention all the insects and other tiny animals that are killed in the process of harvesting all those plants. As long as your diet isn't free from suffering, how dare you judge me for eating the flesh of dead baby cows?

Let's just ignore for a moment that most plant's fabled reactions to their surroundings are purely mechanical and/or chemical in nature, not unlike a flower-pot displaying the "reaction" of falling down after being pushed over an edge. Even if the claim that plants suffer is taken at face value, it overlooks the very basic fact that animals, too, require food.
So for each and every unit of vegetarian diet I consume, a meat-eater's food has eaten several times that amount of vegetarian diet prior to its killing. In the end, basic maths destroys the argument.
Eating meat is just a terribly inefficient way to process a plant diet: A cow consumes 6kg of grain to produce single kilogram of meat. So whatever amounts of plant matter I consume and whatever amount of suffering is entailed in its production, it takes at least six times that amount to feed the animal which will eventually end up as a steak on your plate. It is also worth noting that I used the words "at least" because a 6:1 grain-to-meat-conversion ratio is the most careful estimate I could find. Other estimates, taking into account the energy consumed by the transport, animal sheltering and other intermediate steps in the production of meat, run as high as 23:1.
So in order to debunk the argument I do not even need to engage the highly ridiculous notion that plants, despite their lack of nervous systems, are capable of "suffering" in any meaningful sense of the term. The question is moot, because whatever suffering there is entailed in a veggie diet, any meat diet entails that amount multiplied by six, plus the suffering of the animal itself.
To put it another way: If your argument is that both of us consume living organisms, my answer is that I consume living organisms, while you consume living organisms who consume six times as many living organisms as I do.

Where I've Been and What Happens Next

2012-10-09T06:40:00.003-07:00

As you may have noticed, I've been gone for a while. Quite a few things have happened since last I posted here with anything resembling regularity, most notably my graduation as a certified technician for bio-labs and my subsequent enrollment as a student of molecular biomedicine at the University of Bonn, Germany. My introductory courses have just started, and so far everything is looking awesome.

The past two years have been a time of near-constant challanges both personal and professional. Besides having made the decision to pursue a career in biotech and taking the first steps towards that goal, a series of events in my private life have caused me to reconsider not just my definition of friendship, but of interpersonal relations in general. It hasn't been easy, but I like to think that I've grown considerably throughout this episode. Anyway, I won't bore you with the details of my private life.

Among the abundance of changes and adjustments, one of the decisions I've made is to return to the blogosphere. I've been far from idle during my absense, collecting ideas and taking notes, so I'm hoping to ramp up my level of productivity compared to my last episode of active blogging. Further and more importantly, I'm planning to take my activism to the real world. The status of being a student brings with it some quite interesting opportunities in this regard, most noticably the option of founding a student group, which would entail not just rent-free rooms for meetings, but also extremely low-rent lecture halls for events as well as the option of receiving University funding for larger cultural and/or political projects. This is an extremely exciting prospect, provided I'll be able to find a total of four other Humanist students for the founding of the group.

So, that's my situation at the moment: Excited freshman settling into uni life, with many an unoccuppied hour in between lectures that I will hopefully spend not only learning, but writing as well.

"Pastor in Houston Publicly Comes Out as Atheist" - News Coverage Displays a Amazing Lack of Empathy

2012-06-11T10:12:00.001-07:00

I just read the story about the Houston Pastor who publicly came out as an atheist. If you haven't yet, the link can be found here. The story doesn't provide his reasons - neither for losing his faith, nor for making this public - but of course they interview plenty of churchy people who are, of course, all shocked and disgusted. So far, nothing out of the ordinary. But around the 2:30 min. mark of the video they interview some Keith Jenkins, who is described as a "Former School of Theology President". And he gives us his opinion on those still-in-closet-atheists who still serve as Pastors:

"They need to move on. They don't need to stay within the church. And especially use their position to try to take others with them."

(emphasis mine)

I find this quite sickening, for what it reveals about the speaker. The moment these people were described as "atheists", they stopped being humans to him. They became evil things, dangers that every good christian needs to be protected against. His conclusion is clear: They need to leave the church. Now. He fails to make even the most basic connection, fails to see any implication of the situation at all. Somehow he jumped to his conclusion so quickly that he forgot that a pastor, every pastor, is somebody who has made a decision. He is somebody who based his entire life on his church. Clergy who lose their faith stand to lose it all: Not just their job (that part's for sure), but likely also both their friends and their family. Worse, they never learned anything that might be even remotely useful for a different job. What are you going to do with a degree in theology when no church will hire you? But this doesn't even enter good Keith's equation; it doesn't even cross his mind. To him, atheists are evil destructive elements, which need to be kept away from church. And of course the only reason an atheist might stay in the church at all is to "[ab]use his position to try and take others with him." For the sheer hell of it, supposedly. You know, simply because that's what we atheists do: Destroying other people's faith and eating babies.

I can think of no more obvious "no way out" scenario than a priest without faith. Such a person may pretty much write a book or go hungry - there is almost no imaginable employment. There is also an enormous loss of trust by friends and family who will all feel betrayed when he tells them that he's been living a lie for who knows how many years.
Again, the fact that they are literally no options for somebody faced with this scenario is glaringly obvious. But not to the likes of Keith Jenkins. He doesn't see the obvious - he only sees evil that needs to go away.

There are very few things in the world today that I find more scary than the fact that this kind of Person earns his money preaching "love thy neighbor" but is unable to see anything but evil when faced with personal tragedy.

Why I Regret My Last Post

2012-06-05T12:41:00.001-07:00

So, it turns out that the last story I commented on was complete and utter bullshit. I failed to do some basic fact-checking before I eagerly pointed my finger, and for that I'd like to apologize.

To those who don't know what I'm talking about: There was a talk about income equality at the latest TED conference, which wasn't posted to the TED homepage. And I hastily jumped the bandwagon, adding my voice to the public outcry at this oh-so-unfair censorship.
Luckily for all of us, TED-Curator Chris Anderson has written a blog post at TED setting the record straight regarding this story. I suggest that anybody who reads this head over there now and read what he has to say, even if you were already doubting the story, or hadn't even heard about the whole deal.

Because there is a lesson here.

A lesson about PR, about public opinion, about uninformed outrage and demonization, about being quick to accuse, and most of all, about the importance of basic fact-checking before forming an opinion on any topic of controversy.

The truth is that in this case, I seized on a cheap opportunity. For once I was among the early ones hearing about a story, and since I felt bad for neglecting the blog these past few months, I took the shot at writing a quick and effortless post that had the potential to harvest some traffic from google.

The upside is, I learned something today. I realized that even though I'd like to post more often, and even though I don't do that for there exist more pressing matters in my private life that need my undivided attention at the moment, lowering the quality of my posts is not the way I want to choose for mending this situation. The situation I'm in won't change for a few more weeks - perhaps even months. I'll graduate as a Technical Assistant for Biolabs in a few days, and from there it's off to finding a place at uni, hopefully studying Molecular Biomedicine; with all the adjustments that entails. Perhaps bridging the time in between with another internship. Who knows?

So I will keep neglecting this blog a little longer. As much as I love writing, and even though my head is full to the brim with posts I'd like to write, this can't be my priority right now.

But rest assured, I will be back. As soon as the changes are done and I have some routine and security, I shall start publishing my stuff regularly again. Until then, there will be little - but at least the quality of content will not suffer for it. And if that decision will cost me what few subscribers I have, then so be it.

"Too Hot for TED" Speech: The Benefits of Taxing the Rich

2012-05-17T13:19:00.000-07:00

UPDATE: As it turns out, this story is a hoax fabricated for PR reasons. THIS will take you directly to the Statement from TED-Curator Chris Anderson regarding this story, which pretty much dismantles all accusations of censorship and sets the record straight.
THIS link will take you to my apology for failing to some basic fact-checking before I posted this. I stand corrected, and such a blunder shall not happen again.

If you haven't heard of TED, here's a short breakdown: The three letters stand for "Technology, Entertainment, Design", and name what started out as an annual conference in Palm Springs, dedicated to "Ideas Worth Spreading". They invite speakers from all kinds of fields, scientists, artists, philantropists - and give them twenty minutes to explain their most profound insights, epiphanies, and world-changing ideas. Each conference is uploaded, one talk per day, onto their homepage - free for the world to see.
All talks except one, that is. Most recently, Nick Hanauer gave a talk about income equality - and though TED is no stranger to highly controversial political ideas and uncomfortable truths, they deemed this particular talk "too controversial" to be released to the public. It is a strange move for them to make, especially since these are people who have so far understood how the internet works. And now they censor a talk, presumably knowing fully well that it will pop up all over the internet, on pages like the one you're reading now. I can think for two explanations for that, but before that, here's what you most likely came here for: The full text of the idea that was too hot even for TED.

It is astounding how significantly one idea can shape a society and
its policies. Consider this one.

If taxes on the rich go up, job creation will go down.

This idea is an article of faith for republicans and seldom challenged
by democrats and has shaped much of today's economic landscape.

But sometimes the ideas that we know to be true are dead wrong. For
thousands of years people were sure that earth was at the center of
the universe. It's not, and an astronomer who still believed that it
was, would do some lousy astronomy.

In the same way, a policy maker who believed that the rich and
businesses are "job creators" and therefore should not be taxed, would
make equally bad policy.

I have started or helped start, dozens of businesses and initially
hired lots of people. But if no one could have afforded to buy what we
had to sell, my businesses would all have failed and all those jobs
would have evaporated.

That's why I can say with confidence that rich people don't create
jobs, nor do businesses, large or small. What does lead to more
employment is a "circle of life" like feedback loop between customers
and businesses. And only consumers can set in motion this virtuous
cycle of increasing demand and hiring. In this sense, an ordinary
middle-class consumer is far more of a job creator than a capitalist
like me.

So when businesspeople take credit for creating jobs, it's a little
like squirrels taking credit for creating evolution. In fact, it's the
other way around.

Anyone who's ever run a business knows that hiring more people is a
capitalists course of last resort, something we do only when
increasing customer demand requires it. In this sense, calling
ourselves job creators isn't just inaccurate, it's disingenuous.

That's why our current policies are so upside down. When you have a
tax system in which most of the exemptions and the lowest rates
benefit the richest, all in the name of job creation, all that happens
is that the rich get richer.

Since 1980 the share of income for the richest Americans has more than
tripled while effective tax rates have declined by close to 50%.

If it were true that lower tax rates and more wealth for the wealthy
would lead to more job creation, then today we would be drowning in
jobs. And yet unemployment and under-employment is at record highs.

Another reason this idea is so wrong-headed is that there can never be
enough superrich Americans to power a great economy. The annual
earnings of people like me are hundreds, if not thousands, of times
greater than those of the median American, but we don't buy hundreds
or thousands of times more stuff. My family owns three cars, not
3,000. I buy a few pairs of pants and a few shirts a year, just like
most American men. Like everyone else, we go out to eat with friends
and family only occasionally.

I can't buy enough of anything to make up for the fact that millions
of unemployed and underemployed Americans can't buy any new clothes or
cars or enjoy any meals out. Or to make up for the decreasing
consumption of the vast majority of American families that are barely
squeaking by, buried by spiraling costs and trapped by stagnant or
declining wages.
Here's an incredible fact. If the typical American family still got
today the same share of income they earned in 1980, they would earn
about 25% more and have an astounding $13,000 more a year. Where would
the economy be if that were the case?

Significant privileges have come to capitalists like me for being
perceived as "job creators" at the center of the economic universe,
and the language and metaphors we use to defend the fairness of the
current social and economic arrangements is telling. For instance, it
is a small step from "job creator" to "The Creator". We did not
accidentally choose this language. It is only honest to admit that
calling oneself a "job creator" is both an assertion about how
economics works and the a claim on status and privileges.

The extraordinary differential between a 15% tax rate on capital
gains, dividends, and carried interest for capitalists, and the 35%
top marginal rate on work for ordinary Americans is a privilege that
is hard to justify without just a touch of deification

We've had it backward for the last 30 years. Rich businesspeople like
me don't create jobs. Rather they are a consequence of an eco-systemic
feedback loop animated by middle-class consumers, and when they
thrive, businesses grow and hire, and owners profit. That's why taxing
the rich to pay for investments that benefit all is a great deal for
both the middle class and the rich.

So here's an idea worth spreading.

In a capitalist economy, the true job creators are consumers, the
middle class. And taxing the rich to make investments that grow the
middle class, is the single smartest thing we can do for the middle
class, the poor and the rich.

Thank You.

What Nick Hanauer proposes here is essentially Socialism: Taking from those who have more than they need, in order to benefit society as a whole. Nothing shockingly new there. So why on earth did TED deceide not to publish this? What are they afraid of? As I said, I can think of two possible explainations:
a) They fear the reaction of their sponsors. TED has become very popular, and sponsoring TED has become a way for Companies to be perceived as future-oriented, innovative and even gain a connotation as being interested in the good of humankind.
So one possibility is that some very huge sponsors are throwing a tantrum and threatening to withdraw their support, and the TED organizers are caving in to that threat.
b) The other possibility is that this is a briliant PR move to get the idea out. As I said, so far these people have left the impression that they understood the internet. a bunch of tech-nerds working towards Utopia. They must have known that keeping this speech from their homepage, singling it out from all the highly controversial content as the one idea that is too controversial must generate a huge interest, and that the talk would spread through the entire web within the blink of an eye, reaching even people who have never heard of TED nor ever considered Socialism.

I cannot tell you how much I hope that the latter is the case.

How to Fight Racism (You Can't Outlaw Stupidity)

2012-03-29T12:19:00.001-07:00

So, they did it. The self-titled German "anti-fascists" (AntiFa) won what they think is a victory. In an digital call-to-arms, they organized an "online-flashmob", calling on people to visit the facebook page of the German Nationalist Party, NPD, and report it to facebook for containing hatespeech.

And just now the 8-ó-clock news reported that the page has been taken down.

Why am I not happy about this? A fascist site has been taken off the web. But for how long? A day? Perhaps even a week. How many potential readers do you think have been saved by this heroic action from joining the leagues of the neo-fascist movement? Let's be positive and estimate at least a dozen. Woohoo.

I assure you that at the NPD headquarters, the phone line is red hot right now, with calls from journalists asking for statements. I bet they've already half-finished the speech which they started writing the instant they heard about this "online-flashmob". And tomorrow there will be press conference - A young and attractive spokesperson will be given a chance to speak to the nation, styling himself and his like as Martyrs, feigning the victim who suffered an unspeakable injustice at the hands of the radical left. He will have the chance to portray the left as dangerous enemies to freedom of speech, even as enemies to all freedom.

The initiators of this debacle of course will see this spectacle as vindication, proof of how entirely justified they were in taking down the website, heroically robbing the NPD of one of their least valued channels of speech for an entirety of maybe two days. Truly, the White Rose would be so proud.

Fighting Racism Done Right

If you really want to do something against racism, support education. Join one of the many NGOs working for integration, teaching kids acceptance. Racism is a virus that children can easily be vaccinated against, simply by teching them the basic skills of critical thinking and showing them the virtues of cooperation. If you can bring children to celebrate diversity instead of fearing the unknown, you've won the battle. Curing diseases is done by eleminating the cause, not by treating the symptoms.

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

2012-02-28T13:55:00.000-08:00

Most people who dispute that climate change is caused by humans will be able to cite some scientist who agrees with them, saying that the planet periodically warming up is normal, or that volcanoes are responsible for the changes in our atmosphere, or whatever other claims there are. It's easy enough to find a credible source for claims like this. But all that that means is that there are a lot of people with good résumés out there who are propagating a mistaken belief. What allows me as a climate-illiterate person to make such a bold statement without fear of being proven wrong is the simple understanding that in science, individual opinions don't mean squat. So some eminent climatologist said that humans aren't responsible? Well, he may be the Einstein of climatology for all anyone should care.

Because for truly reliable information on a subject matter as extensively researched as earth's climate, what you should be looking for are statements of large and independent scientific organizations of good reputation. In the case of climate change, that would be national or international bodies of geologists, climatologists, biologists, geophysical unions, stuff like that. Once you check out what they have to say, you will find out that there really isn't much of a debate:

An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system [...] There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.
- Climate Change 2001: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis, IPCC, January 2001.

That is just one of the many statements of prominent organizations. Even those statements should be checked against others of equal standing: That is the level on which we determine whether there is a consensus or an actual controversy. In the case of climate change, there is an overwhelming consensus. Not a single scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion. There is no controversy; just some big money trying to dispute the facts. Kinda like creationism, only without the weird rituals.

Dear Judge: That's Not How Justice Works

2012-02-14T13:50:00.000-08:00

A priest who threatened two gay men with hellfire has just been cleared from two charges of using threatening words or behaviour. According to BBC News, his defense lawyer said he was "merely reciting a passage in the bible".

What astonishes me about this story is the complete and utter ignorance of the judge, accepting the defense that a threat of violence ceases to be a threat of violence because it is a threat of violence read from the bible.
Please note that the wording of the charge is "using threatening words or behaviour". In this situation, that is an unambiguous given. It does not matter at all who the priest said would supposedly supply the torture. Yet surprisingly, the judge seems to think it does. In an astounding act of ignorance, he somehow managed to entangle the substance of the threat with whether or not the one uttering it was actually guilty of uttering it, and defended the religious priviledge to discriminate at will.
Fact of the matter is that the priest threatened the two men with torture if they didn't change their lifestyle according to his views. Legally it is completely besides the point what book the defendant read from. There are many ways of saying "do as I say or suffer horribly". I might say "Do as I say or I'll kill you", or perhaps "...or my brother will kill you". I might even say "...or that zebra-unicorn over there will kill you". It doesn't matter whether or not the threat is credible, or even remotely believable. What matters is whether it has been pronounced openly or not, and in all of the above cases I would be found guilty (or, in the last case, insane). But for some reason truly beyond me, there seems to be an unwritten free-pass to threaten anybody I chose, as long as I make sure to substitute "God" as the source of violence.

The sad fact remains that the priest in question threatened two men with being burned by fire if they didn't change their lifestyle according to his views, in clear words. And however supernatural or figurative that fire might be, I find it incredible that an elected judge can ignore that without having his decision challanged in any way.

The priest, of course, is now now more than happy to play the persecuted victim. "Something is wrong", he says, "[when] police arrest me, a Christian preacher who cares deeply for Jesus Christ and the people of Taunton". (Emphasis added according to how I imagine his whiney voice.) As you might already have guessed, he didn't fail to add:
"Christians like me are being harassed."

Atheist Churches: I've Been to One.

2012-01-27T17:46:00.000-08:00

The proposal to build an 'Atheist Temple' in the center of London has roused more controversy among the atheist community than any other issue before. Richard Dawkins immediately respondet that the money could be better put to better use. PZ Myers has already sneered at the very thought of something like that some time ago.

Meanwhile in the town of Düsseldorf, Germany, a kind of church service for atheists already exists. And it thrives. The semi-regular series of events is entitled "Aufklärungsdienst"; a play on words: derived from the german word for religious mass, "Gottesdienst" (which literally translates to "god's service"), and "Aufklärung", the German name of the historic period of the Enlightenment. Since its conception in 2009 it's been a huge success. The Düsseldorfer Aufklärungsdienst (DA) aims to pick up where the Enlightenment of the 16th century left, eroding away the dominance of religion by offering a better alternative: Humanism.

We want to be a counterpart to religious service, but at the same time we don't want to be a dry gathering of intellectuals.

Nonreligious people account for over 45% of Düsseldorf's population, but the influence of the churches on public affairs is growing. With the Aufklärungsdienst, Ricarda Hinz and her co-thinkers want to offer a forum for those without religion, help them find an identity away from faith and superstition.

Most of the atheists who oppose the idea of churches of non-belief cringe at the idea of secular ritual. I'm not quite sure what the critics imagine such a ritual might look like - perhaps herds of people unthinkingly repeating statements like "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" in a slow chorus and with an air of solemnity (in which case I could actually understand their aversion) - but allow me to give you a more realistic impression of what it was like:

As the lights slowly dim, the band starts playing - an interpretation of John Lenon's Imagine. While the music plays, the event coordinators walk slowly down the aisle. Ricarda Hinz is leading, solemnly carrying the event's mascot on a velvet cussion. It's a golden plumber.

The plumber gets signed by the speaker and the musicians at the end of the evening, and then is sold for €100 or the highest bid. "The plumber is our saviour", explains Ricarda. "One hundred euro covers the room's rent for the evening, so the plumber has the power to release us from our financial burden."
This tongue-in-cheek-attitude is what sets the Aufklärungsdienst apart from all other secular events I've witnessed. It's not just intelectually stimulating, it's fun. There are no grave discussions of the seriousness of our societal situation, there is no frustration at the forlornness of the never-ending fight against ignorance and superstition, there is no dry lecture on the sociology of religion.

Instead there is information presented in an entertaining way, and perhaps more importantly a sense of community is offered to a group of people who often feel like outcasts in a society that is permeated with religion on every level.
The evenings are not fun and games devoid of intellectual content either; the main component is still of informational nature. Besides the main speaker, there may be secondary speakers or secular entertainers of various kinds (My personal highlight was a reading from the "rhyme bible", a revised and annotated lyrical version of the creation story). As I already mentioned, the entire thing is accompanied musically. The bands differ, but the first song they play is always 'Imagine'. Snacks are provided, and you get to stick around for a lively discussion afterwards.
Rather than just some scientist holding a boring lecture accompanied by nothing but his poor powerpoint-skills, the presentations are a collaboration of the speaker and various secular artists. Even a lecture on a topic as dry as church finances becomes exiting and even hilarious when it is illustrated by caricatures from a great cartoonist, such as local icon Jaques Tilly.
The Aufklärungsdienst has just more to offer than your average freethinker's pub meeting. The events are intelectually stimulating entertainment; they are information coupled with community-building; they serve as a hub for networking among freethinkers.

Finally, for rationality to compete with religion on the marketplace of ideas, to transform society towards a culture of compassion, tolerance and reason, it takes more than presenting ourselves as merely not them. To make an impact we need numbers, and temples and services to celebrate Humanism might be just the right thing to finally let the public know about all the riches our philosophy has to offer.

Gov takes down Megaupload, Hackers Retalliate

2012-01-20T00:30:00.000-08:00

In an international crackdown, over 20 homes around the world were searched, and four people associated with megaupload.org were arrested in New Zealand. Only a few minutes later, several websites of government agencies as well as large the sites of some of the largest movie and music companies were taken down by hackers.

In response to today’s federal raid on the file sharing service Megaupload, hackers with the online collective Anonymous have broken the websites for the FBI, Department of Justice, Universal Music Group, RIAA, Motion Picture Association of America and Warner Music Group.

Read the full story here.

Well...

Did anyone else feel reminded of this?

On Prejudice & Tolerance (Smile)

2012-01-16T07:03:00.000-08:00

Back in my gap-year, when I was travelling around Australia, I had an interesting encounter in the town of Broome. The Hostel I was staying at had a Bar downstairs, which was open to the public and frequently visited by the locals. I don't remember exactly how the conversation started, but one night I found myself talking to one of them. Even though the guy was friendly enough, he was kinda scary-looking: He weighed a good 120 kg and though he did have a proud belly, not much of those 120 kg was fat. He also had no hair and a bull neck, giving him a somewhat aggressive appearance. Most unsettling, though, was that he had apparently lost an eye. The odd thing was that while I was talking to him, I couldn't tell which of the two was the glass eye. So without me wanting to, my gaze kept flicking from one eye to the other, trying to figure out which one was looking back at me. Very distracting. It wasn't that his disability made me especially uncomfortable, it is just that I like to return people's gaze when they're talking to me, and looking a guy into an eye that is essentially not there is just like staring a non-disabled person at the ear when talking to them. It wasn't all that much of a big deal, I just felt it'd be more polite to return his gaze, rather than to stare at the side of his face incapable of returning mine.
At some point, we talked about Martial Arts. My visa was about to run out, and I mentioned that I considered going to Thailand next, to spend the rest of my time improving my kick-boxing skills - an idea that I had been toying with for some time. It turned out that he had done that in his twenties, and had brought back a wealth of stories from that experience that he didn't mind sharing. It was a very interesting conversation, but as I already said, his eye kept distracting me. At some point I interrupted him and simply asked him about it. I don't remember how exactly I phrased it, but I asked straight-forward, without much of a fuss, in a simple "sorry this keeps distracting me, would you mind just satisfying my curiosity so this is out of the way and we can move on?" -kind of way.
His reaction was somewhat unexpected: Not only did he not mind my question, he was positively delighted that I had asked. His face lit up, and before giving me an answer, he launched into a 10-minute-speech on how awesome it was that I had asked, how so many people were obviously confused but didn't "have the balls" to simply ask, and how great it would be if people were more open about their obvious insecurity instead of trying so desperately to pretend that the whole issue didn't exist.

Because physical disability is an issue. In this case, there was insecurity on my part, and I knew it showed. Asking a straight-forward question was the obvious way to deal with it, so I could focus on our conversation again. Which is exactly what we did. His eye wasn't mentioned again, I was more at ease, and although I usually am a rather nosy person, I didn't even ask how he'd lost it. Not because I didn't want to know or was afraid to ask, but simply because it didn't matter and our shared passion for Martial Arts was the more interesting topic at hand.

Pretending problems don't exist is something that never helps. And in cases where the Problem can be solved by asking one simple question in a polite manner, it is downright stupid not to do so. When you've never had any contact with disabled people before, your insecurity is perfectly normal and understandable, especially when you're faced with a particularly disfiguring disability. Trying to hide it does not work; nobody is that good an actor. What's more: Trying to hide it is dishonest. By trying to ignore the disability you imply that it is something that ought to be ignored, you're placing the whole issue under taboo, risking to trigger insecurity in the disabled person aswell. They will notice your insecurity anyhow, but what they won't know is whether your insecurity is rooted in disgust, pity, or simple lack of experience.
Simply acknowledging the issue and addressing it clears the table. Whatever they may think of your ignorance, they will at least know that your insecurity is not rooted in disgust or pity, plus you've demonstrated a genuine interest and willingness to be as understanding as possible.

In my (admittedly limited) personal experience this approach of a simple admission of ignorance plus demonstration of openness seldom (if ever) fails. The one thing you should make sure is to give the other a clear chance to say "I don't want to talk about it", in case you encounter somebody who, for whatever reason, really is touchy or just tired of the subject. Adding a simple preamble like "If you don't mind me asking..." should do the trick.

The same applies to other situations: It holds true for conversations with anybody who makes you feel insecure for whatever reason. Be it the disabled, gays, blacks, or the heavily tattooed. (Or Gingers. Gingers are scary.) It is not a shame to be discomforted by something you've never encountered before. Wariness of anything alien is evolutionary hard-wired into any living creature, for good reason. Being open-minded does not mean being perfectly free of prejudice - It means to recognize your own prejudice for what they are, and give anybody a genuine chance of proving them wrong. That is the very definition of our much-preached "tolerance" as it ought to be practiced.

Another thing I feel compelled to comment on: Staring. Most of us are told quite early in our lives that "it's rude to stare", which I don't think is true. I think what most people resent when being stared at is not the stare as such, but their own conception of what is going on in your head when you stare at them, the implications of that stare. Looking at a person isn't hurtful in itself - the implied pity or disgust such a look can convey however, is very much so.

So the next time you find yourself in a public place unable to turn your eyes away from a stranger's disfiguration, and that person suddenly moves to return your gaze, do not hurriedly look away.
Do not give them a look of pity, either.

Just smile.

Open Letter to Moderate Believers

2012-01-04T11:17:00.000-08:00

It's a common argument in discussions about faith: The atheist will bring up the atrocities committed in the names of the various religions, be it the inquisition, various genocides, wars or the burning of heretics. The believer will then fire back with naming famous "atheist murderers": Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot. The obvious flaw here is of course that religious atrocities are indeed committed "in the name of the Lord" or "for the glory of God", while Stalin committed his murders in the name of what he was fond of calling "scientific socialism", not in the name of reason, compassion and critical thinking.
Some believers have realized this and now subtly go about the other way, by saying "I don't lump you with atheists like Stalin and Mao, so don't lump me with other murderers simply because they believe in the same stuff as I do."
This has happened to me today when commenting on a christian blog; somebody telling me that lumping christians together with muslims would be as unfair as lumping all atheists together with said genocidal maniacs. That inspired me to pen a few words addressed at all religious moderates out there, who feel treated unfairly when being lumped together with "those extremists":

The funny thing about the term “atheism” is that it's a non-label. It’s negatively defined as “not being theist”. Unlike its counter part, "theist", it has little descriptive use. If you take a comparative look at me and Stalin, you will not find a single positive thing we share. Of course, we might both have hair that is not black, we might both not believe in astrology, we might both dislike horses and so on. But you won’t find much similarities that go beyond what we both not share with another.
When I look at christians and muslims though, I can easily find a lot of important and positive similarities. Just to name a few:
Both believe that there is a diety that cares about what humans do, especially about what humans do while naked. Both believe that there is a book that carries divine authority to some degree and that conveys the will of a god which, by definition, is universally true for all humankind. Both believe in an afterlife; Both believe that god can hear prayers, and a majority even believe that he answers them. Both believe in the concept of sin and atonement, and both believe in the existence of prophets with a direct link to the beyond.

And I could go on. The point is, the similarities that you can find between me and Stalin are none which are of any consequence for our respective behaviour. Our common non-belief does not lead to similar actions. The similarities I find between christians and muslims, however, do lead to similar behaviours, such as the suppression of women and the opposition to gay rights and abortions. I am aware that there are some very important differences between Christianity and Islam, and I do not deny that. However, for the point I am making those differences are irrelevant.

What is relevant is the belief in some sort of divine authority that is attributed to ancient texts that are barbaric, homophobic and patriarchical. There is a varying degree among believers as to how seriously these texts are taken, but all believers take them to be something more than fiction, and that is the key point.
So yes, I am justified in lumping together huge groups that are largely different for the sake of that argument, because they do share the relevant beliefs, and do exhibit the behaviour that I take offense at as a direct result of those beliefs.

You might well be a liberal person with modern, rational views – and still be religious. But the fact remains that the bible, among many other horrific things, does say that homosexuality is “an abomination” (Lev. 18:22 is perhaps the most famous of the many, many examples). And it doesn’t matter wether or not you personally view that as metaphoric or not relevant to your belief, because as long as the bible is viewed as having divine authority to some degree, any fundamentalist coming along will always have the power to revive the potential for barbaric hatred simply by saying “Look, you haven’t been paying attention. Right here, it says black on white that women mustn’t speak in church. That adultery is to be punished with death. That homosexuality is a sin. That sacrificing your son because you're hearing voices in your head is a good thing. This is the perfect word of our divine creator, and it says so right here.”

As much as those “interpretations” of scripture have become very, very rare in christianity today, they are still possible as long as the bible and the Qur'an are viewed as something more than just old books. As long as there are people like you proclaiming that some god, however liberal and modern in his views and demands, is real, it is you who invest fundamentalists with the power to revive the ancient potential for hatred that sleeps in those texts.

That is something that can never be said of my particular brand of atheism, Humanism. My views do not hold the potential to be abused in that way, they do not hold the potential to do anything but improve the human condition. They can be abolished at best, but they cannot be used or misconstrued to do evil. Yours can. Think about that.

My Tattooed Ode to Reason

2012-01-04T01:41:00.000-08:00

I love tattoos. I plan to be covered head to toe at some point in the future, though I'm in no particular hurry to get there. Over the past few weeks, I've become aware of an increasing number of atheist-themed tattoos out there. A quick google search for "atheist tattoo" reveals most of them as rather unimaginative: Various versions of the letter "A" prevail, some more clever ones include pictures of the flying spaghetti monster or the invisible pink unicorn. In between there is the occasional tattoo depicting the desecration of various religious symbols - rather tasteless if you ask me. Also I find it kinda weird to go through such lengths to ostentatiously demonstrate the non-identification with a single particular idea. If I were to get a tattoo about each and every topic I strongly disagree with, I'd run out of skin by the end of the week.
Personally, I derive far greater enjoyment of more positive tattoo motives: All those nerdy scientists, for example, who choose to express their love for their respective fields by displays on their skin.

Of the ideologically motivated tattoos, one in particular caught my attention:
The CEO of the British Humanist Association got a tattoo of the Happy Human - the internationally recognized symbol for Humanism - tattooed on her upper arm as part of a fundraising effort. They aimed for 20.000 pounds, any sum beyond that goal would increase the size of the tattoo she got.
I like that a lot better than depictions of a broken cross in a garbage bin. I also like it better than the rather boring "Scarlet A"-logo. What I did not like about the story was the realization that, had I read that story when it was still news, I could have copied the fundraising-idea when I got my own Happy Human tattoo in June 2009:

I love the Happy Human logo. Happiness and People are all what Humanism is about, and the symbol captures that nicely while being a simple, adaptable, and beautiful form.

The other tattoo I'd like to show you is both a little more complex and a lot larger; The motive is an 18th century etching done by a spanish artist called Goya. It goes by the lovely title 'The Sleep of Reason Brings Forth Monsters'. Here it is, in all its considerable beauty:


The Original 'Sleep of Reason'		The Tattooed Version

Above all, I chose this because I simply admire the picture. It's a masterpiece. I don't care much for what else I've seen of Goya's works, but this one has always resonated with me. The combination of the lyrical title with the rather dark motive I have always found fascinating, in particular the little details like how the cross-eyed staring of the ghostly animals conveys an atmosphere of insanity that is outright scary.

Another reason, of course, is the message. As I have written before, the simple absence of religion is not sufficient to really improve anything. "Good" requires more than just the absence of "bad". Goya nailed it (see what I did there?) when he wrote that the sleep of reason is what produces monsters. There are thousands of people out there who believe in god and live perfectly benign lives, not obstructing stem cell research, not shooting abortion doctors, nor trying to corrupt the science curriculum by demanding that biblical creation be taught in our kids' schools. Religion is merely a multiplying factor, not the danger itself. What we need is not so much less religion - it is more reason.

What American Atheists Can Learn From Europe

2012-01-01T12:15:00.000-08:00

In Europe, fundamentalism is rare. Not as rare as I’d like it to be, but still rare. Biblical literalists are laughed at. The fight against fundamentalism, one might argue, is already won over here.
Except that it isn’t. People are still irrational – they’ve largely turned from religion, but only to find pseudo-science and “spirituality”: horoscopes, homeopathy, traditional chinese medicine, weird forms of supposed "buddhism" tailored to the needs of those who are middle-aged, well-off and bored, and a wide selection of other new-age-hippie-shit. The majority of people here might be non-religious, but they're still far from being critical thinkers. Many still actively fight what they perceive as the "cold" naturalistic worldview, which they perceive as lacking in beauty and mystery.

Even though religion has largely been recognized as out-dated, people still need some values, some ideals to live their lives by. While religion slowly degenerates, it does seem to leave a gap. Religion has been (successfully) brought to its knees, but no viable alternative was presented to the people. Humanism has failed to step up and fill the void, failed to catch the attention of those who are looking for an alternative, who still seek ritual, celebration, community.

Our culture is distinctly influenced by the Enlightenment, but there is no formal acknowledgement of the values that are the basis of nearly all western constitutions and legal systems. Now that is a mistake that need not be repeated in the US – here we still have the chance. Fighting against religion is not enough, because people who stop being religious do not by default become reasonable - They just substitute one superstition for another. To win the fight, we do not only need to make people turn away from fundamentalism, but towards a culture of ethics, art and science - of compassion, tolerance and reason.

The Cause of Church Pedophilia

2011-12-31T07:28:00.000-08:00

Jokes about pedophile priests are probably as old as the church itself. It's always been an open secret that children are being molested in churches, even long before the giant wave of law-suits against abusive priests and nuns dragged the matter into the spotlight of public attention about a year ago.
I've written before about why exactly abuse is such a wide-spread phenomenon in the church, but one point in particular is worth being made again. While there was a huge outcry in the media about celibacy, and many demands that the custom be dropped, nobody ever seemed to wonder what other reasons there might be.
Nobody ever considered that the huge number of sexual deviants in the church might be a direct result of the churches' appearance.

However unpleasant it may be, please do try to put yourself in the shoes of an adolescent male who realizes that he gets turned on by children. Who realizes that, as he grows older, the age-gap only grows larger and larger. Consider this: It must be a painful process to realize you are part of a group that is despised by society unlike any other, that you are on your way to become one of those creepy strangers that Mommy always warned you about.

Pedophiles are tortured souls.
They know perfectly well that if they ever tell anybody about their urges, they’re socially doomed. They will instantly lose everything: Their job, their friends, their family, even if they haven’t even done anything wrong yet, even if their only crime so far were nothing but thoughts. Nobody will even pity them.
In such a situation, what possibilities are left to you? Suicide? Consulting a shrink? If people are your main problem, perhaps turning to personal help doesn't seem such a good idea.
So you turn to God.
It's the obvious choice: The church promises forgiveness for even the worst of ‘sins’, it promises acceptance, and most importantly: The custom of celibacy seems to promise that these are people who are in control of sexuality, who know how to defeat the urges that torture you. The church appears to be the panacea to these people, a solution to all their problems. The one way to live a benign life, to be left alone and not hurt anyone, perhaps even do good.
Devoting your life to god is not just the obvious, but for many also the only option.

The Argument From Potential

2011-12-30T08:30:00.000-08:00

I'd like to take a shot at a very popular argument that dominates the debate about two very important topics, namely abortion rights and the legislation of stem cell research. As you might guess from the title of this post, I'm talking about the argument from fetal potential. It's also an argument usually voiced by religious people, which is why I chose to include this in my Counterapologetics 101 series despite the fact that it doesn't strictly qualify as a theological argument.
The argument from fetal potential usually is presented like this:

Premise 1: All persons have a moral right to life.
Premise 2: Since all persons have a moral right to life, all potential persons also have a moral right to life.
Premise 3: The human fetus is a potential person.

Conclusion: The human fetus has a moral right to life.

Usually, neither side disagrees with premise #1. Premise #3 is also largely uncontroversial, although one might argue that the reality of stem cell research involves using embryos that are left over "spares" from in-vitro fertilization, which would simply remain frozen or go to waste if not used for research. Anyhow, for obvious reasons this defense does not apply to the abortion debate, so we'll ignore it for now and take the argument from potential at face value.

The usual defense is an objection to the second premise of the argument ("people have a right to life, so the same must be true for potential people"). It has been pointed out that the argument from potential is never brought up outside the abortion and stem cell debates. To claim that if Z is true for X, it must also be true for a potential X is seen as logically lacking. Bioethicist Peter Singer, for example, points to cases where this is obviously not the case:

There is no rule that says that a potential X has the same value as an [actual] X, or has all the rights of an [actual] X. There are many examples that show just the contrary. Pulling out a sprouting acorn is not the same as cutting down a venerable oak. To drop a live chicken into a pot of boiling water would be much worse than doing the same to an egg. Prince Charles is the potential King of England, but he does not now have the rights of a king.
(Peter Singer, Practical Ethics. Cambridge University Press 1993, page 153)

More absurd examples are thinkable: As a physically healthy young male, I am a potential soldier, yet I do not have the rights or duties of one. I am also a potential husband and father, but that is hardly enough to make me eligible for the states family support. I am also physically able to rob old women, but can't be convicted for crimes unless I actually committed them.

Pointing out examples like this is usually enough to win the average pro-life-vs-pro-choice-debate. There are some people though, who are not that easily thwarted.
I've recently stumbled across a paper by Bertha A Manninen, published in "Philosophy, Ethics and Humanities in Medicine". (All following quotes are from this paper.) In it, she seeks to refute Singer and those who share his views, arguing that in many cases potential does, in fact, matter:

The task that the pro-potentialist now faces is to explain why the fetus' potential is a morally relevant characteristic that justifies extending to it a right to life. I believe that this can be done. What I want to do now is refute Paul Bassen's point that " [n]owhere outside the abortion debate itself is there a precedent for supposing that future prospects can create a present sake [15]" by discussing examples that seems to run contrary to this assertion.

The first example she gives is the moral right to a health insurance, as demanded by article 25 of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

[...] potentially ill individuals, like my child or myself, also have a moral right to health insurance. But why do we accord this latter group health insurance, even though they are not actually sick? Because possessing health insurance, even in the absence of an impending illness, also constitutes a great benefit for potentially sick people and a deprivation of health insurance also constitutes a harm for potentially sick people. (Emphasis in the original)

She goes on to cite the moral right to an education and some other examples, to finally arrive at the conclusion that

A potential X may be granted the same moral rights as an actual X in virtue of its potential if its potential generates an interest in such a moral right; that is, if possessing the moral right constitutes a benefit for the potential X and a denial of the moral right constitutes a harm. (Emphasis in the original)

Which, I think, is spot on. The only problem is that it does not at all relate to the case of a bunch of cells that we call an embryo, not even to an advanced human fetus. The key point here is the term of "interests", which a bunch of cells cannot be said to have. In all the cases Mrs. Manninen mentions there is indeed a benefit to the potential person, but not because of its potential.
Taking away a healthy person's health insurance, for example, does not constitute a harm because the person is a potentially sick person and thus has a potential need for health insurance. A healthy person has a very current interest in health insurance, because it provides a sense of security and thus quality of life. Having health insurance is a current interest, because it is the basis of current considerations and actions. It is the mental capacity of the human of perceiving himself as a person in time, of being able to think about the future and to acknowledge the fact of dying that makes the adult human exceptional in this regard.
The harm is not in taking away a health insurance that is not currently needed. The harm is in taking away the comfort and security such an insurance provides. Being able to perceive the future makes us able to feel discomfort, insecurity and fear at the prospect of having to face every day dangers without an insurance to lessen the impact of possible accidents.

Embryos, on the other hand, distinctly lack that property. An embryo cannot be said to have an interest in its future life, while grown humans can very well be said to have an interest in health and other aspects of their future.

Finally, the center of the argument from potential remains the equation of a tiny bit of biomass to a fully conscious intelligent being. This argument must fail because the extent of "harm" one can inflict on something is depending on that something's interest in avoiding that harm. Indeed, harm can be defined as the disregard of an interest.
Slapping a person's face , for example, is generally considered to be harmful, but only because most people have an interest in not being slapped. In a consensual situation between a sadist and a masochist, however, slapping might even be considered beneficial to both parties because interests are being served rather than disregarded. Much like a stone, an embryo cannot be harmed because it has no interests - not even in its own continued existence.

On Legalizing Drugs

2011-12-28T09:33:00.000-08:00

Part I: The Idea

Before we start, I feel I should point out that I'm not a user; I don't even drink alcohol. I say this only anticipate the unhelpful reaction of "Oh, here's another junkie calling for a free ticket to get high", and hope to trigger some interest in what my reasons might be for proposing legalization of all drugs when I don't have any stake in that game. My motivation is, once more, common sense. The advantages of legalization are so obvious to me that I fail to understand why there is a controversy in the first place, and I hope for some enlightening reactions to this.

It's quite obvious that there is no winning the „war on drugs“. You simply cannot control all the borders, all the traffic and all the streets – Trying that is a pathetically doomed enterprise right from the start. Also, it is simply not necessary, since the problem of illegal drug-trafficking can be quite simply and elegantly solved by making it legal.

Here is what I propose: States ought to buy drugs right from the producers: Buy Iran's opium, Bolivia's cocaine, Brazil's pot and so on – then sell it legally either in pharmacies or special shops designed for the purpose. Keep strict control over who buys what and when – sell drugs pretty much the same way guns are sold now. Purchase would require identification, and some sort of maximum limit per person per week or month would probably be advisable. We also ought to use that opportunity to make sure users are accurately informed about the dangers of the substances they're buying. Perhaps introduce a „User's License“ akin to a driver's license – a certificate for which they would have to prove a decent knowledge of the dangers involved in the consumption of controlled substances.
That would be about the size of it. Doubtlessly there are still flaws, but there are enough people available qualified to come up with a working system. It's not that different from selling prescription medicines or guns, it would just be a different scale. Anyhow, the details aren't worth bothering with in order to get the general idea across. A legalized system to sell drugs, within sensible limits, to anybody of legal age. I propose an age higher than that required to buy alcohol and cigarettes: Perhaps 25 or so. Again, this is a detail which could be agreed upon later on. Whatever the system may eventually look like in detail, there are a number of indisputable advantages it would entail in any case. Here are some of them:

Safety & Health
Legalizing drugs would actually reduce the danger involved in their consumption, by enabling the government to ensure buyers are accurately informed about the dangers of the substances prior to use. There are various ways to go about this; for example one could introduce the already mentioned „User's License“ requiring the attendance of some lessons and a test, or introduce laws that require the user to be lectured in the shop upon purchase. I'm sure there are other workable solutions. More importantly, perhaps, it would make drugs clean. Purchasers would actually know what they bought, instead of buying mystic powder that might actually be what the dealer says it is, or might aswell contain all sorts of unknowable rubbish. Also, there would be a known concentration, reducing the risk of overdoses. Users would actually know how much they take and how strong it is, rather than having to estimate by belly feeling and rule of thumb.
At the same time, this would permit an accurate assessment of the size of a population's drug habits, rather than the pathetic estimates of just how huge the black market really is.

Economy & Humanitarianism
Third world farmers who provide the substances in the first place would likely prefer legal buyers to the crime mobs they have to deal with now. It'd make business a lot less dangerous for them. Also, it would provide a more consistent income, since unlike the illegal trade, the business would not anymore be subject to unforeseeable fluctuations whenever the borders security measures are upgraded or another drug-lord is imprisoned. Legalization would provide a considerable boost to a great many of third world economies.

Organized Crime
During the prohibition, illegal alcohol trade was huge. The moment the trade was legalized again, the black market for alcohol simply vanished. Organized crime is not able to compete with a legal market. At the moment, drug-traffickers are forced to take huge risks to get drugs across borders, around existing controls and onto the streets, but it still pays off for them because they have a monopoly and can charge correspondingly high prices. Legalizing the farming and selling of drugs would decriminalize farmers and enable them to call for the state's protection against the cartels, thus rob the drug-lords of their providers. Because the state is able to run the trade more effectively (larger and more direct shipments, not having to bother with cleverly hiding tiny amounts) and with a much smaller span of profit, legal traders would be able to pay the farmers higher prices and still sell the product to the end-user for much less than the current street-price, simply because legal trade takes the risk-factor out of the equation.

Taxes
Let's not forget the point that ought to make this option incredibly interesting to governments around the world: Legalizing drugs would generate an enormous amount of tax-revenue. Just have a look at how high the alcohol- and tobaco-taxes rank among the income of most western states, and then think about what being able to tax the rest would imply. Most drugs are actually quite cheap – what makes them so expensive isn't the production, but the risks involved in the illegal trafficking. Not only would first world governments be able to make a decent profit taking over the trade and selling the drugs in the first place, but they would also be able to make huge money by taxing the whole business. Considering the low cost of production and of hypothetical legal transport, there would be the possibility to levy huge taxes without the end-product getting any more expensive than the black market price already is. At the same time, third world countries would profit from the boost to their economies, and also be able to levy taxes.

That about sums up the most important points. As I said, I'm not a user. I don't have a personal stake in this. But still the matter bothers me greatly. It's just so mindboggingly stupid that this controversy exists at all. Legalizing drugs would boost the income of all nations concerned, significantly raise the life-standard in the provider nations, lower crime rates both in provider- and western nations, make drugs more secure to use and less dangerous to get, (probably cheaper, too) allow for some amount of government-control (certainly more than now) and provide us with definite statistics on consumer habits.
Yes, it probably means many kids will try some, but if they want to, prohibition is unlikely to keep them from it. Legalization on the other hand means that it will be an informed choice, that they'll have less risk of taking stuff that was mixed into the cocktail without their intention or knowledge, that the habit will be registered and help will be advised and available if consumption becomes a habit, that they won't have to mix with the wrong kind of people just to find out how it feels to get high, and that they won't wreck their careers by getting a criminal record for being young and reckless. You won't keep them from taking drugs anyway, but this way you can at least keep them from getting in touch with organized crime.
All in all, it's a win-win situation only opposed by people in blatant denial of reality. Legalizing drugs will mean they are slightly (And let's face it: only slightly) more available, but the benefits outweigh that handicap by orders of magnitude.

Part II: Reality

For a long time I simply assumed that drugs are illegal everywhere. It was only when doing research while writing this that I noticed how mistaken I was. It seems that more than just a few people have noticed the possible benefits. While ligalization is still a long way off, decriminalization is under way in many countries around the world. The bright star leading this movement of preferring common sense over outraged and outdated notions of morality is the small European nation of Portugal.

Portugal has reformed its drug laws in 2001, removing penalties for drug possession and consumption, while the consequences of dealing and trafficking remain unchanged. This is an approach apparently called "decriminalization" and not quite the same as legalization, but driven by the same essential idea: That focusing on prevention and treatment is more effective than punishment. Since 2001, Portugal recognized drug consumption as a public health issue rather than an act of crime, and changed its law accordingly.

Portugal is not the only country to take this approach, though it notably differs from other countries in the extent to which this policy is applied. Portugal is also the most notably successful model - I quote here from an article published by the Scientific American, which in turn cites a 2009 report by the Cato Institute that reviewed the success of Portugal's new policy after five years:

Five years later, the number of deaths from street drug overdoses dropped from around 400 to 290 annually, and the number of new HIV cases caused by using dirty needles to inject heroin, cocaine and other illegal substances plummeted from nearly 1,400 in 2000 to about 400 in 2006, according to a report released recently by the Cato Institute, a Washington, D.C, libertarian think tank.

"Now instead of being put into prison, addicts are going to treatment centers and they're learning how to control their drug usage or getting off drugs entirely," report author Glenn Greenwald, a former New York State constitutional litigator, said during a press briefing at Cato last week.

Other countries are already considering to copy the successful model:
Last year, Denmark discussed implementing the Portuguese system. The Czech Republic already changed its laws, allowing the possession of up to 15 grams of Marijuana and 1,5 grams of Heroin for personal use. Mexico decriminalized a range of drugs for personal use, including some synthetic drugs, while establishing a very low threshold and a very strict definition of personal dosage. In 2009, the Argentinean supreme court ruled the prosecution of citizens for the possession of drugs for personal consumption to be unconstitutional, citing that:

the second paragraph of Article 14 of Law Nº 23.737 should be invalidated, since it violates Article 19 of the National Constitution, in the sense that it invades the sphere of personal liberty, which is excluded from the authority of state organs. [...] [The law] incriminates the possession of drugs for personal use under circumstances that do not bring any concrete danger or harm to the rights and welfare of others.

- Supreme Court Judge Elena Highton de Nolasco

The Supposed Absurdity of a Life Without God

2011-12-28T06:18:00.000-08:00

It's one of those things theists ask me: If I don't believe in a God or an Afterlife, if there is no higher purpose, why bother living at all? Might I not just as well die and save the hassle? What difference would it make if you'd die today rather than in 50 years?
For some reason, they think this to be a very profound question. It really isn't. In fact, I find the question rather preposterous. Whoever asks it is implying that if they wouldn't believe in a God/Afterlife/Higher Purpose, if they believed life was finite, if believed that life ends at the grave, they would certainly not bother living - Which I think is a rather pathetic statement to make and a testament to a lack of serious consideration of the matter.

Let's try an analogy: Why do you ever go on a holiday trip even though it inevitably ends? Even though there is no higher purpose to it other than that you enjoy it? How can you enjoy a sunset over a beautiful beach if the time you spend there is finite, if it's only two weeks before you'll have to go back to the same old life in the office again?
If theists were actually serious about this mindset, I should expect them to step out of the plane, take a look around the astonishingly beautiful place they've landed, frown, and say something like:
"Pff... yeah it's nice, but so what? How can I enjoy this stay, knowing I have to leave eventually?
Of course, if there was a book subjecting me to nonsensical rules during my stay and promising me that, if I subject to these rules, I get to go on an even better, eternal holiday after this one, then, and only then! could I enjoy my brief stay in this wonderful place."

So, does it make a difference whether I die tomorrow or in fifty years? Certainly not to the universe, that's true. Maybe not even to other people, though I like to think it does. But be that as it may, in any case it does make a rather huge difference to me, and I don't know why I should need any more incentive than that to go on living. I am not opposed to suicide; If you are in full control of your mental faculties and make the informed and well-considered decision that your life really just isn't worth it any more, I think it's your right to end it. But as for me, well, I really like living. For now at least. I enjoy my life, and I will go on living it as long as my life stays enjoyable. So the short answer to "why do you bother living?" is because it's fun. Being alive simply seems to be a more enjoyable state than 'not being alive' - so I'd rather live than not.

In the end it's simply a pretty nonsensical question to start with. Living is a bit like having sex: Affirmative is the default position. The question shouldn't be Why?, it should be, Why not?

How to Settle the Burden of Proof

2011-12-22T05:40:00.000-08:00

I want you to picture a guy, let's call him Paul, walking into an urban police-station. Beaming, he proclaims that he knows what happened to the dead body that was found in the river five days ago; that he's solved the mystery.

Let's assume that by some random chance, or maybe out of desperation, the police actually take him seriously. So they ask him in, lead him into a room, sharpen their pencils, switch on the tape-recorder, and take a statement. This is how it goes:

PAUL: "You ready? Can I start?"
OFFICER: "Sure. Please tell us what you know."
PAUL: "You see, he was murdered. Frank did it."
OFFICER: "Frank... Frank who?"
PAUL: "Well, Frank of course. Frank Frank. Who else would I mean?"
OFFICER: "..."
PAUL: "..."
OFFICER (With disappointment at the realization that this won't be the clue they'd been hoping for): "That's it? That's what you came to tell us?"
PAUL (Genuinely puzzled): "What do you mean? I told you what happened. What more could you want?"

We could imagine this going on indefinitely, but this little conversation is enough to illustrate my point. Merely tossing a name out there and proclaiming that a murder took place is not the same as truly solving the mystery of an unidentified body.
Yet, this is exactly how religious people tackle the question about the origin of our universe. They proclaim that it was "made", and that it was "God" who made it. And then they lean back, satisfied with their accomplishment of having "solved" the mystery, gaze us a beaming smile, and react confused when we reject their "explanation" as preposterous and stupid.

To complete the analogy, let's have Paul defend his thesis by proclaiming that it's more likely Frank committed a murder than that the water of the river simply morphed into a dead body.
This is analogous to the claim frequently made by theists that, due to the apparent fine-tuning of our universe, it being made is more likely than it just coming into existence "by a giant explosion". Of course, nobody ever said that a giant explosion was the origin of the universe, just like nobody at the police-department proposed that the body is actually magically transformed water of the river.
The Big Bang Theory is actually not about the origin of the universe: Like the police, we're still pretty clueless regarding that mystery; like the police, it's likely we'll solve it eventually. What the Big Bang Theory actually is about is the early development of the universe: The theory states that the universe transformed from a very hot, very dense state to a less hot, less dense state, which is analogous to the police stating that it's very likely the case that the body they found was, at some point in the past, alive. It's something we know beyond reasonable doubt. It's something we can prove pretty much for sure.

There are tons of people like Paul out there; People who really do not see the problem with the sort of oversimplified skyhook-explanation they give for complex problems. They are ubiquitous, and while they tend to be annoying, their existence does not actually bother me.

What does bother me is that my analogy fails in one very important point: Paul the potential witness is regarded as a lunatic by society, and will probably find himself in a mental institution in the near future. Paul the theologean, on the other hand, is a highly respected member of society, gets invited by TV-stations to comment on enormously important political topics and has a huge influence on public opinion regarding an incredible variety of topics.

The Morals of an Atheist

2011-12-22T04:27:00.000-08:00

It’s about time I do a post that I can simply link to whenever somebody asks me just what I base my morals on without the possibility to look to the perfect word of a divine creator. How can there be objectivity when I can’t stick to God’s written rules?
The answer is actually quite simple. My morals are based on compassion and, well, Just a Little Common Sense: “suffering” is bad, “happiness” is good – so I seek to minimize harm and maximize pleasure. Empathy makes me recognize that other people too seek happiness, each according to their own subjective definition of what “happiness” is, and reason tells me that cooperation and a mutual agreement not to stand in each other’s way is the most efficient way for all of us to achieve that.
The fact that (mentally healthy) human beings are capable of empathy is also the reason why cooperation is a better way to achieve happiness than an ego-trip and stepping on other people’s heads to climb a little higher: Seeing others suffer is a bad feeling in itself. Causing others to suffer even more so. Creating happiness for others, on the other hand, is a great source for our own happiness.
Most people would agree that not having to worry about existential problems and having a fulfilling social life fits the definition of a happy life better than making a dad you hated proud by becoming rich and despised all on your own.

So really, being good without god doesn’t really have much to do with godlessness. Coincidentally, being good with god doesn’t, either. Wether you’re a believer or not, try to just be nice to people and trust that they’ll be nice in return. As a general rule, whether one is religious or not has little bearing on this one way or the other. I’d venture to say that religious belief is more of a hinderance than a help in leading a good life, but that’s a topic for another post.

The bottom line of this one is that religion sure as fuck is not a prerequisite.

How to Shut Up Homophobes

2011-12-17T05:53:00.000-08:00

We all know the awkward situation of having to share a room with someone going off on a rant about those damn homosexuals, about how disgusting they are, how they're always parading their sexuality, always shove it in your face, why can't they keep it in the privacy of their bedrooms, why can't they just stay in the closet and let everybody be happy, it's just not natural, it's just wrong somehow, you know?

Whenever that happens, a reasonable person is usually left with only few options:

a) Leave the room
b) Stay silent and sit through it
c) Start a long-winded and probably pointless discussion about equality, values, and gay rights.

None of these are particularly pleasing. But luckily, the list is not complete. There is one more option, another way of ending the derailed-anti-gay-rant-situation. It's been my personal favorite for years. Today, I'll share it with you.
One can end this tired old discussion in a short and easy (and fun) way, simply by pointing to one of the dusty little forgotten gems of scientific research, published in 1996:

There is a strong positive correlation between homophobia and homosexual arousal.
Yup, that's right: Homophobes are closeted homosexuals in denial. I quote here from the abstract of the paper:

The men were exposed to sexually explicit erotic stimuli consisting of heterosexual, male homosexual, and lesbian videotapes, and changes in penile circumference were monitored. They also completed an Aggression Questionnaire (A. H. Buss & M. Perry, 1992). Both groups exhibited increases in penile circumference to the heterosexual and female homosexual videos. Only the homophobic men showed an increase in penile erection to male homosexual stimuli. The groups did not differ in aggression. Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies. [Emphasis added]

(Doubters may follow this link to view the publication on PubMed.)

That translates to "We showed a group of guys a lot of porn, and the self-professed homophobes were the only ones getting turned on by the gay porn."
Gotta love the phrasing, too: "exhibiting an increase in penile circumference" must be the nerdiest possible term for "getting a hard-on". The findings also explain why almost every evangelical anti-gay preacher gets caught with male prostitutes sooner or later.
The story of pretty much every homophobe is basically the same: As children these people have learned that homosexuality is evil, and then experienced a mental conflict at some point in their lives, as they felt a tingling between their legs upon seeing a gay couple making out. They then solved the ensuing cognitive dissonance by telling themselves that that feeling was actually disgust, not sexual arousal. Naturally that's not a very convincing lie, and hence the need to keep reassuring themselves by voicing their disgust so loudly and publicly.

So that's it: Now you know every homophobes dark little secret. And perhaps the next time you're subjected to one of their rants, you may consider using that knowledge to pull a little psychic on them.

What is Humanism?

2011-12-13T14:42:00.000-08:00

When it comes to concisely capturing the essence of Humanist thought, I find it hard to surpass the slogan of the British Humanist Association. It simply reads: For the one life we have.

It neatly captures the spirit of this worldview: We Humanists believe that our only life is this life, our only world is this world, our only hope is each other, and that is more than enough to lead a happy and fulfilled life. We strife to make this world a better place using the power of reason, lead by compassion. We understand that we humans only have one life, and we seek to make the most of it for each and every one of us.

For those of you who find this too lyrical a definition, I direct you to the "Minimum Statement on Humanism" by the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU), which is a tad more arid in tone and a bit more factual in phrasing:

Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality.

Well, this is essentially it. It is a simple idea, and it may not seem like much at first glance, but over the years I've come to view this little gem of wisdom as one of the best things

that humanity ever came up with (Apart from the scientific method and chocolate perhaps). Despite the simplicity of the basic idea, the implications of this worldview are extensive. The idea that the Human Standard is the only standard there is, and that we get to define it ourselves, is really quite powerful. The realization that Humans are in charge can also be frightening - that implies a lot of responsibility.

But once one comes to terms with this, it is also liberating. Many a religious person has assured me that my life must surely be bleak without the glory of god; I hold that it is only once we acknowledge our tiny roll in the grand scheme of things and start making the most of it in accordance with our personal preferences, that true freedom and fulfillment be found.

Finally, I'd like to leave you with two of my favourite quotes to ponder. Enjoy!

Treat your life as a book, filled with chapters, some dark, some bright, and continue writing each page with broad strokes of honesty working your way towards a beautiful and happy ending. Many characters will remain in those dark chapters forever and a few key players will never leave your side. It’s your life, you get to write it.

- Hemley Gonzalez, CEO of Responsible Charity

When I got untethered from the comfort of religion, it wasn't a loss of faith for me, it was a discovery of self. I had faith that I'm capable enough to handle any situation. There's peace in understanding that I have only one life, here and now, and that I'm responsible.

- Brad Pitt, Actor

Preparing to get started.

2011-12-10T13:54:00.001-08:00

I'm currently preparing to move my old blog from wordpress to blogger, because I'm annoyed with the unnecessary restrictions imposed by WP.com on its users. In the meantime, while I try to figure out how to create a page that doesn't look like it's been created by a three year old child, all content will remain available at the old location: humanizzm.wordpress.com.

As the url implies, it's a blog about Humanism. I write about all the stuff that makes my heathen life worth living; My blog is also a platform for me to share my ideas, to engage in discussions, and to rub my mind against others. I also comment on various events from a Humanist perspective.
I value constructive criticism as much as I despise mindless prosletyzing. I hope to change other people's minds and for them to change mine.

For those who wonder just what Humanism is, a page explaining just that ~~is under construction~~ can be found here.