The fall of the Berlin Wall was one of those moments I remember vividly from my youth. I was only 13 at the time, but I remember the pictures. I remember sensing the importance of the event. It was a defining moment for me politically. Like so many of these defining moments, it’s usually the small, individual moments that are the most striking. Like the Marines raising the flag on Mount Suribachi, or the man standing in front of the tank during the Tiananman Square protests just a few months before the Berlin Wall fell.

There’s no one picture from the fall of the Wall that stands out, but I do remember video of West Berliners standing on the wall, helping East Berliners climb up over the wall. Amazing stuff.

Anyway, here’s a link to a lot of pictures from that time. I’m struck most about how dated everything looks. Yes, I know it was twenty years ago, and so they would look dated. But photos age strangely. I remember those days, and my memories don’t look so dated to me. Funny how that works. Photo number ten, of the section of wall pulled down, is another I remember from that day. But then, it was a day full of iconic images.

In the years that followed, there was a lot of justified triumphalism, as Eastern Europe pulled itself out of its long nightmare that had begun with the rolling in of Nazi tanks, and the ensuing Holocaust, followed by two generations of political oppression under the Soviets. A lost, dark half-century of misery. There was also a lot of unjustified triumphalism, nonsense about the End of History and other bullshit. Old oppressions replaced with new variations. In a lot of ways, the conflicts of the 90s and in the Middle East today can be traced back to clashes that people thought had been resolved by the wall’s fall. Aftershocks through history. Iraq and Iran and Afghanistan are what they are today, for instance, largely because of Soviet influence in the region. The same goes with North Korea.

It’s sad to think that our current world crises are, in large part, merely echoes of the decisions of the twentieth century’s greatest liberators and tyrants, but it’s true. So, 20 years after the wall, it’s worth remembering the long reach of history.

tags: culture, democracy, foreign policy, human rights, politics, whatever
No Squawks »

The New Atlantis takes on a little bit of SF, with an interesting article about Neal Stephenson’s book Anathem. Anathem is one of those great books that I absolutely cannot recommend to most people. It’s not a casual book, and to really appreciate it you need to be willing to spend some time thinking about it. That’s not to say that there aren’t some out there who would enjoy it more casually, just that there aren’t many.

It’s a great book, and deserving of attention for its attempt to explore deeper questions of science, religion, society, and (most importantly) the very idea of ideas. In fact, I find myself thinking about Anathem quite often when my head goes in philosophical directions these days. The New Atlantis article is called “Plato in Space,” which in some ways is (and in other ways is not) helpful for understanding what Anathem is. But then, the book is difficult to characterize in any succinct way.

Interestingly enough, The New Atlantis also takes on Iain M. Banks’ Culture novels. Personally, I like the novels, even though the world they portray strikes me as profoundly cold, empty and devoid of meaning. And terrifically fascistic and devoid of individuality. If Banks truly wants to live in such a world, that’s fine: but leave me out of it.Everyone talks about the Culture as if it’s utopian, but I’ve never seen it that way.

The article is a very good look at the various aspects of the Culture and its internal contradictions. The article raises the question that always sits in the back of my mind when reading the Culture novels: if everyone is so happy and content in this world, why the heck am I reading a novel about them? Life is conflict, and novels are about conflict. But there’s no conflict in the Culture. It’s all boundary issues. These are called the Culture novels, but in reality we see very little of the Culture, and that’s because the Culture isn’t all that interesting.

In any case, the articles are quite interesting, and worth a look if you’ve read either author.

tags: Books, culture, science fiction
No Squawks »

So, I’m watching The Vampire Diaries, and…

Yes. I watch The Vampire Diaries. Wanna make something of it?

So, I’m watching the show, and the protagonist good-guy vamp Stefan has yet another opportunity to kill antagonist bad-guy vamp Damon, and … doesn’t. The first time, Stefan traps Damon in a room full of vamp-bane, and now stabs Damon with a stake … in the stomach.

Damon has killed … gosh, I’ve forgotten how many. Six? Including Stefan’s “uncle” and now one of Stefan’s oldest friends, not to mention turning bad-girl Vicki, getting her killed in the process. And then, despite the fact that Damon is a killer, Stefan lets him go.

This is idiotic. There is no good reason for letting this jerk live. The only reason the writers did it is because … they have to. Killing the bad guy now would mean no more stories. So they come up with lame excuses for the good guy not to do his job and whack the bad guy. Seriously, this is dumb.

I’ll go to my more beloved vampire franchise, Buffy, and note (spoilers ahead for those who have not seen all of Season Two–come on guys, its been a decade! Why haven’t you watched Buffy yet?) that Buffy did the same thing with Angel/Angelus. She could have stopped him and it resulted in the tragic death of someone close to the main gang. Of course, Buffy actually did have a bit of a reason for doing what she did.

Still, this dithering by the good guys pisses me off. I had similar irksome feelings toward The Dark Knight for doing the same thing. Batman has the opportunity to put the bad guy down, but nooooo, the good guy can’t kill the bad guy. Sorry, I don’t see all the torment. Sure, we hate to do the moral calculation, but it’s there: bad guy dead results in one dead body; leaving him alive results in many dead bodies. Of innocent people.

I’ve pointed out this modern foible before. We think the problem is the killing. But its not. Killing is a last-resort kind of thing, but in these fictional cases, there’s almost always no other option. The burden of being the good guy means doing what others won’t do. And that almost always means taking life. Now, the burden is knowing that some day one might be called to account for that killing. If the good guy is confident enough in his or her judgment about what is right or wrong, this is not an issue. If you’re gonna be the good guy, you’ve got to know this.

In which case, failing to kill the bad guy means either: 1) the good guy is not confident that he’s really the good guy, or 2) the good guy is a coward. Coward in the sense that he knows that killing the bad guy is the right thing to do, but is too afraid to bear the burden of judgment. Now, one can certainly argue that no one should be so confident in the idea that they are the good guy that they are able to justify killing. But the results of that position are obvious: more dead innocent people. To believe that, one must believe that it is inherently more moral for many innocent people to die at the hands of an evil person than it is for one evil person to die at the hands of an innocent person.

Honestly, the total body-count approach seems leagues more moral than that. I have very little patience for characters in novels, movies and television shows that arrogate all sorts of moral authority to themselves and then back away from the moments in which they might, just for a moment, actually begin to bear the burden of the power they claim. Being a hero accrues all sorts of fame and glory, but it also means that you’ve got a massive bit of baggage to carry. In the end, that’s why I gave The Dark Knight a pass on Batman’s dithering–because in the end, the movie recognized the burden heroes carry, even if they defined it slightly differently than I would have.

I understand: the modern hero is supposed to be sensitive and not want to kill. Fine. But they’re gonna pay for not killing, and that not killing means more killing, in the end. Not less. The irritating thing is that they never seem to learn this lesson. I’d be content if they’d learn. Instead we’re given conveniently stupid good guys getting people killed because they’re unwilling to make the difficult decisions. They aren’t heroes, they’re cowards.

tags: Books, culture, ethics, movies, television, whatever
No Squawks »

Amy Wallace has an excellent article at wired.com about the anti-vaccination movement. She interviews Philly pediatrician Paul Offit, one of the creators of the RotaTeq vaccine and an advocate for mandatory vaccination, who is often one of the targets of anti-vaccine activists. Hell, my instinct is to allow people some leeway on choosing to vaccinate or not, but even I understand that herd immunity is important. And given how extensively these vaccines have been tested, I can’t see any rationale for not vaccinating save for some religious reasons.

Sorry, but the anti-vaccine people are just so damned infuriating. Right up there with the anti-DDT people. You know, the #^%!@#% who indirectly killed millions of Africans. Yeah, my blood is boiling a bit now. Time for a deep breath and a count to ten… Ah. Better.

tags: culture, science
No Squawks »

One of my favorite bloggers interviews one of my favorite authors. They spend a great deal of time talking about the technological singularity, and I’m happy to see that Scalzi and Reynolds seem to think the same thing about the singularity as I do, particularly regarding how remarkably adaptable people are when it comes to new tech. Definitely worth a viewing (it’s about twenty minutes).

tags: Books, culture, science, science fiction, technology
No Squawks »

It looks like Maine has passed a bill (signed by the governor) that makes gay marriage legal, the fifth state (I believe) to do so. It looks like my native New Hampshire might be up next, and I can’t imagine that it would fail there.

As far as these things go, I’m happier to see this done by legislation rather than in the courts. That’s not to say that imposing things like gay marriage is necessarily bad when done by the courts (my evangelical friends will howl at that). Of course, it’s not a problem for them to impose a solution to abortion with the human rights amendment, but I’ve long noted that evangelicals have a tendency to make convenient political arguments when moral questions are on the table. That’s fine, by the way, if they want to make moral concerns the guiding principles of their politics. I’ve just never been comfortable doing that.

Since Federalism has always been my political guiding light, I have no particular problem with states recognizing gay marriage. I’ve long suspected that complaints about damaging the institution of marriage are a bit overblown. I suspect even in the Northeast, where liberal values prevail, that gay marriage (when available) would be taken advantage of in virtually no instances. Over the years, I’ve seen very little evidence that gay couples actually want to marry (nearly all the benefits of marriage are already available to gay couples if they go talk to a lawyer). So, not to put a fine point on it, gay marriage will probably wind up safe, legal and rare in the US … eventually.

The question remains about protections for private, civil society institutions (read: churches) in terms of their own teaching. And here I am equally adamant: traditional churches have every right to maintain their own theological standards when it comes to solemnizing marriage. In fact, I find them weak-kneed and pathetic when they cave to cultural pressure on these issues. And progressives who try to impose those values on traditional institutions ought to be ashamed of themselves for trying to do so.

As I said, I prefer these things to be done by the legislature if for no other reason than added force of legitimacy. When imposed by the courts, these sorts of decisions only inflame passions. They should be done, when possible, through bills in individual states.

As for conservatives who oppose this, I’ll merely point out that the key determining factor here is culture, not politics. Churches have been losing this argument for two generations now. Ask yourselves why this is. When I was working on this issue in churches, I saw those questions being asked, but not answered. I’m not sure if that’s changed or not (I rather suspect not).

So, good for Maine for doing it right, even if I’m ambivalent on the actual result. For conservatives I’ll just say that the victory is a sign that pluralism has won over traditional values. It doesn’t mean those values aren’t a majority in the US (I’m sure they still are), but there is no longer a political will to enforce them. Any change will come through culture, not politics. But a warning to gay and lesbian people out there: if you think gay marriage will significanly change the cultural calculus, you’re probably wrong. Lack of political will does not mean the nation’s religious values have changed substantially. You may get marriage, but unless you’re willing to actually use it (which I doubt), then it will be seen by most Americans as a political ploy. A fight about nothing.

Which is why I’ve long been tired with these political/cultural clashes. It’s all a proxy battle. In the end, these things aren’t settled in state capitols, if they’re ever settled at all. They are endless, fruitless messes. When the pendulum swings again (and it will), we’ll be right back where we started. How can any of us relish that?

tags: culture, democracy, politics
No Squawks »

I’ve talked about this before on this blog, but I recently came across a post at Skepticblog that kind of irritated me because it demonstrated all the problems over the debate between evolution’s defenders and its critics. In particular, it was this post about a debate, of sorts, between the Discovery Institute’s Dr. Jonathan Wells and his critics.

My point here is not to rehash the debate. I have no problem with evolution, as I’ve said. The key element for me was my discovery that the common claim of there being no observed speciation events was simply wrong. Since scientists have indeed observed the emergence of various species through a variety of pressures (including naturally induced changes) it seems rather foolish to me to object to evolution as a theory.

That said, evolution’s defenders need to stop being pricks.

The skepticblog post, by Brian Dunning, starts off its criticism of Dr. Wells with an admitted ad hominem:

I would like to rebut a few of the things Dr. Wells said. But first, I think it’s important to understand who Dr. Wells is and what he’s about. Now, there’s no way to do this without the appearance of an ad hominem attack, so all I can do is state that I’ve got nothing negative to say about him personally (I don’t know him personally) and nothing I say about him or his background should be construed to say anything about the accuracy of his scientific claims.

If the information is not in regards to his scientific claims, then why say it? Because it is not merely the “appearance” of an ad hominem, but actually is an ad hominem attack. Sure, it makes Wells look silly to say that he is a member of the Unification Church, and that he spent time in prison as a conscientious objector. That his degree was paid for by the Unification Church. Yadda yadda.

But again, as Dunning admits, this has nothing to do with the argument. For a counterexample, should we ignore everything Sir Isaac Newton said about anything just because he was into numerology? Of course not. That’s what an ad hominem argument suggests we do, though. And despite Dunning’s argument to the contrary, that’s his purpose in including all this information. Denning thinks this information matters. But it doesn’t.

By starting off with an ad hominem, Dunning invites those he’s trying (ostensibly) to convince to ignore him. In short, he’s being a prick.

His other error stems from questioned motives. It is “obvious” that Wells is really trying to prove a literal interpretation of Young Earth Creationism. Wells is being “disingenuous” about believing in a four-and-a-half billion year-old earth.

The problem here is that Dunning is making all sorts of assumptions about both Wells and the Discovery Institute that simply aren’t true. For instance, he doesn’t seem to recognize that perhaps the Institute’s comfort with Wells (as a Unification Church member and as a conscientious objector), which Dunning questions, is because Discovery is actually being honest about what it is. Sure, most critics of evolution are going to be fundamentalists, but certainly not all of them. And opposition to evolution is not, de facto, an admission of being a fundamentalist Christian. The very fact that Wells, a Moony, is a fellow at Discovery should inform the skeptic that his assumptions about the Institute may be wrong.

Of course, it’s rhetorically convenient to lump Discovery in as a bastion of Christian fundamentalism (it isn’t). Senior Fellow Michale Behe has said that he believes in common descent, for instance. There are Catholics, Anglicans, and other Christians among the Fellows of the organization, hardly any of which are fundamentalists. There is a wide diversity of belief among the people attached to the group, and to assume otherwise is to demonstrate a distinct lack of curiousity on Denning’s part. In short, he’s being a prick. He’s assuming his opponents are ideologically driven when it’s certainly possible (even likely) that they’re not.

And by making the suggestion, Denning opens himself (and his blog) up to the suggestion that he is, himself, as ideologically driven as those he’s criticizing. Rather than taking the high road and limiting his criticism to the scientific facts, he’s taken on Wells personally, raising questions about his religious beliefs and associations. This is not how you win arguments.

Of course, being a prick about this doesn’t mean Denning is wrong on the scientific facts. But you’ve got to wade through a river of rhetorical shit to get to the real point. Few people are going to do that.

Of course, this doesn’t matter if you’re preaching to the choir, which clearly Denning is. The post isn’t meant to actually convince anyone. The problem is that nearly all criticisms of Discovery and other dissenters from Darwinism are approached the same way. It’s idiotic.

And it’s idiotic because the scientific evidence is on Denning’s side. But his attitude makes it sound like it’s not. The defensiveness by beginning with an ad hominem undercuts the strength of the scientific arguement. He makes the mistake of allowing his own distaste for Discovery lead him into making assumptions that further undercut his own credibility.

Denning wants to “entertain, enlighten, and educate” he says. But he’s really only (maybe) doing the first. If he really wanted to educate people, he would stick to the unadulterated facts. The ad hominem is unnecessary. Wells is simply wrong.

If defenders of evolution want to get their point across, they need to stop with the ideological baloney. Stick to the science. Answer the criticisms. Admit evolutionary theory’s weaknesses. Stop being so defensive. Most of the post was aimed at discrediting Wells (admittedly, not that difficult), rather than reiterating the most important points about scientific fact.

Partly I say this because I’ve worked in the past with some of these people and know them. They’re not being disingenuous. Most of them have philosophical objections to the methodological naturalism of modern science. I think that’s a legitimate point, even as I recognize that there’s no real solution to it. Science is what it is, and should remain so. Their opposition to evolution is sincere and rational. Painting them as ideologues is lazy, and in the end, counterproductive.

tags: culture, religion, science
1 Squawk »

Tim Hammond thinks so, over at TCSDaily:

To illustrate the problem, look back what we thought were the most important challenges, say, thirty years ago: a vaccination for malaria; discovering the causes of heart disease and cancer; curing genetic conditions; a workable theory of quantum gravity; new sources of energy, in particular nuclear fusion.

We have made little or no progress in any of these areas, or the dozens of others we could list alongside them. And while we have made amazing progress in the last 100 years, it has been a long time since we achieved anything of real note.

Hmmm. Well, I guess there is some truth to this. But when I think about genetics, for instance, I’m reminded that DNA was only discovered in 1953, and while the theoretical understanding of DNA and its role in human development hasn’t changed dramatically (ie., curing genetic conditions) the engineering surrounding DNA has changed dramatically. Genetic engineering is still very much in its toddler phase (if not its infancy). So I’m wondering if the complaint is really valid.

Indeed, it’s difficult to look back at the last thirty years and not agree with Hammond in the broad strokes, and yet disagree with him on the ground. After all, without the incremental developments in quantum mechanics over the years, the modern high-tech industry (including computers, cell phones, and the Internet) wouldn’t be possible. Sure, these are mostly engineering advances, but engineering is always slower than theory.

Hammond also just mentions a workable theory of quantum gravity. Einstein’s relativity is only a century behind us, of course. A real, testable and confirmed theory of quantum gravity would be a scientific discovery unmatched in all of human history. That it hasn’t been discovered yet only underscores the difficulty of it. It has been a chief preoocupation for physicists for several generations now.

And some of this is political, rather than scientific. I think a good argument can be made that had nuclear fission been embraced more widely, we might be closer to harnessing fusion. But again, that’s a significant problem. And isn’t it complaining a bit too much to say that no new energy sources have been discovered when the 20th century was not only the century of fossil fuels, but nuclear, solar, geothermal and wind? None of these were harnessed in any significant way prior to the 20th century.

I think this attitude is a good example of why I have become so negative about the idea of a technological singularity. For those of us who grew up in the last quarter of the 20th century, perhaps progress does seem to have come to a screeching halt. But when we recognize that the technology we enjoy everyday has a lifespan of, at best, that of our parents, we can appreciate how fast it has been. We are accustomed to change, to dramatic change, even, and demand faster change every day when it comes to technology. We expect change. That wasn’t always true, but it is now. And if we’re expecting change, can the singularity really happen? A moment when change becomes so fast that we can’t expect it anymore? As fast as technology is changing now, I think expectations are changing even more quickly.

But back to Hammond. It’s certainly true that there has been no fundamental shift in science or medicine for a few generations. But, then, modern science and medicine are very, very young. Two centuries, really, though more if you stretch the definition. And while I can heartily agree with the likes of Glenn Reynolds and say “faster please” for these coming breakthroughs in medicine and science, I understand that these things do take time. Change brings dislocation and as we’ve seen with transgenic crops and now nanotechnology, there are a lot of people there who cannot affirm the “faster please” mindset.

So I wring my hands over this. I would like things to come faster. I would love to see a theory of quantum gravity and a malaria vaccine (there are a number of current candidates, by the way, so it may not be long before Hammond has to scratch this off his list). But I am aware of how quickly things are going now, and I’m aware of the problems that could arise. I’m hopeful, but cautious. I don’t mind that theory takes a breather while engineering catches up (which, to me, seems to be what is happening right now).

tags: culture, science, technology
No Squawks »

Most Americans really don’t know much about economics. Economics isn’t taught consistently in high school, and is virtually ignored in college. What I know about economics I learned by reading Adam Smith and Friedrich Hayek: hardly comprehensive.

But I’m more and more convinced that macroeconomics is about as reliable as reading tea leaves. The current debate over the so-called “stimulus package” is a great case in point. Will Wilkinson explains it better than I can (read the whole thing, it’s a great post):

In the debate over economic stimulus, I hear many otherwise brilliant people making a lot of baseless conjectures about mass psychology — about consumer and creditor “fear” and “uncertainty,” and what to do about it. But, as far as I can tell, none of them has even a rudimentary theory about the causes of micro-fear or how it scales up to aggregate consumer demand or aggregrate credit supply, etc. So I feel like I’m hearing a lot of smart people talking out of their asses about a subject they’ve never actually studied –the psychology of coordinated expectations — and pretending it is “economics,” a subject with much greater rhetorical prestige and political power than amateur psychology.

I’ve probably said this before on this blog (I know Amy has heard me say it) but the economy of the last five or six years has hardly been bad, despite what the media have been saying about it. Even now, while the economy is facing some challenges, the overall outlook is hardly bleak. And much of the current hand-wringing over the economy has more to do with what people think than what actually is.

(more…)

tags: culture, markets, movies, politics, war
No Squawks »

During last year’s writer’s strike, writer and (in my opinion) creative genius Joss Whedon got together with friends and colleagues and produced Dr. Horrible’s Sing Along Blog, a three-episode musical comedy for distribution over the Internet. If you haven’t seen it, it’s available for viewing here. The production (I’m not sure what else to call it) stars Nathan Fillion, Felicia Day, and Neil Patrick Harris. It’s brilliant in a lot of ways, so long as you look past the obviously low production values (the value here is in the writing and performances, not the sets and … costumes).

Anyway, it’s yet another example of Hollywood content creators coming up with new, unique and experimental ways of trying to monetize the Internet. After all, the studios are screwing the writers and actors out of the profits they’re making off the Internet, so it makes sense that they’d try to find their own way.

Whedon talks here about the limited success of the venture. It’s an interesting read that uncovers some of the mixed results of the project (which, according to Whedon, has made at least some profit overall). Like recent experiments in music distribution, these early attempts are guaranteed to be mixed. After all, there is no solid business model for the Internet in terms of media distribution. Whedon took advantage of a number of outlets, including iTunes, Hulu and more traditional DVD distribution. The combination seems to have worked. The question is, I guess, whether other content creators would have the same results.

I’m happy to see that some writers and actors are willing to put their talent on the line for this sort of thing. But it’s going to take more experiments like this before a real, reliable model emerges.

Lots of good insight there, and it’s worth a read if you are at all interested in the future of creative media.

tags: culture, media, movies, music, technology, television
No Squawks »