Affirmative action for conservatives?

I have written several posts holding that we are all blinded by our sacred cows. Not simply those of us who are religions. This blindness occurs to almost of us, at least some of the time. Two of my more recent posts making this argument are titled "Mending Fences" and "Religion: It's almost like falling in love." In arriving at these conclusions, I've relied heavily upon the writings of other thinkers, including the writings of moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt. Several years ago, Haidt posited four principals summing up the state-of-the-art in moral psychology: 1. Intuitive primacy (but not dictatorship) 2. Moral thinking is for social doing. 3. Morality is about more than harm and fairness. 4. Morality binds and blinds. In a recent article at Edge.org, Haidt argued that this fourth principle has proven to be particularly helpful, and it can "reveal a rut we've gotten ourselves into and it will show us a way out." You can read Haidt's talk at the annual convention for the Society of Personality and Social Psychology, or listen to his reconstruction of that talk (including slides) here. This talk has been making waves lately, exemplified by John Tierney's New York Times article. Haidt begins his talk by recognizing that human animals are not simply social, but ultrasocial. How social are we? Imagine if someone offered you a brand-new laptop computer with the fastest commercially available processor, but assume that this computer was broken in such a way that it could never be connected to the Internet. In this day and age of connectivity, that computer will get very little use, if any. According to Haidt, human ultrasociality means that we "live together in very large [caption id="attachment_16630" align="alignright" width="300" caption="Image by Jeremy Richards at Dreamstime.com (with permission)"][/caption] groups of hundreds or thousands, with a massive division of labor and a willingness to sacrifice for the group." Very few species are ultrasocial, and most of them do it through a breeding trick by which all members of the group are first-degree relatives and they all concentrate their efforts at breeding with regard to a common queen. Humans beings are the only animals that doesn't use this breeding trick to maintain their ultrasociality. [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingAffirmative action for conservatives?

You can go home again

Cool idea: Re-creating photographic poses from many years ago. This is what photographer Irina Werning has to say:

I love old photos. I admit being a nosey photographer. As soon as I step into someone else’s house, I start sniffing for them. Most of us are fascinated by their retro look but to me, it’s imagining how people would feel and look like if they were to reenact them today... A few months ago, I decided to actually do this. So, with my camera, I started inviting people to go back to their future.

Continue ReadingYou can go home again

The evolution of the mechanism for evolution.

I must confess that I have something in common with Creationists: I find it difficult to understand how the earliest and simplest life forms came to exist. Unlike the creationists, however, I am not willing to suggest that the earliest life forms were created as-is by some sort of disembodied sentient Supreme Being. I can’t fathom how such a Being could get anything at all done, given that “he” is alleged to be disembodied; for instance, some sort of physical neural network is a prerequisite for cognition. Further, those who posit that life was created as-is by a supernatural Creator need to explain how that Creator got here in the first place; their creation of a Creator constitute an eternal regress. Who created “God,” and God’s God, etc. Thus, I don’t believe in a ghostly Creator, but where does this leave me?  How did the earliest life forms emerge from non-life?  Though firm answers have not yet been derived from rigorous scientific experimentation, I am intrigued by the ideas put forth by Stuart Kauffman in his 1995 book, At Home in the Universe: The Search for Laws of Self Organization and Complexity. Early in his book, Kaufman points out that the simplest free living cells (called "pleuromona") are highly simplified types of bacteria. They have a cell membrane, genes, RNA, protein synthesizing machinery and all the other necessary gear to constitute a form of life. Here's the problem: [more . . .]

Continue ReadingThe evolution of the mechanism for evolution.

Sick and tired of excuses for Iraq invasion

I understand why Colin Powell is trying to salvage his reputation, but I'm tired of hearing about these desperate efforts (and see Cenk Uygur's video here). Instead of following his marching orders in 2003, Powell should have stood up at the U.N. and said something like this:

The Bush Administration wants me to claim that there is a watertight case that Iraq will soon be inflicting massive damage on the United States using powerful weapons. I refuse to make this statement because, to my knowledge and belief, it is not true. There is no credible evidence that Iraq has 'weapons of mass destruction.' The "evidence" offered by the Administration consists entirely of questionable statements by biased and unsavory characters. I will not be part of this scheme to defraud the American People and our allies around the world.

Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney had planned to attack Iraq even before they were elected into office and it is my strong suspicion that they are encouraging others to manufacture false evidence to suit their desires. And let me be clear that there is no connection between 9/11 and this attempted warmongering.

I hereby resign my post as Secretary of State.

Can you believe that a Secretary of State is now saying that he was duped? What the hell did he think his job was? To be a hand-puppet for the Vice-President or to exercise independent judgment? Truly, when there were only a few sketchy bits of evidence on which an entire war was being justified, why wouldn't he insist that these characters should be flown to Washington for detailed self-critical interrogation? Further, how is it that a smattering of reports regarding possible weapons justify a huge war effort, especially when this country has had thousands of nuclear missile aimed at it for decades (by the Soviet Union and presumably other countries), yet we can apparently keep that in perspective. Powell's U.N. speech was a no-balls moment for Powell, and his carefully calculated lies and omissions that evening have cost this country dearly. He gets no sympathy from me for his over-willingness to plunge this country into war effort so ineffective and corrupt and dangerous that media reports still don't spent time on Iraqi street to gather information.

Continue ReadingSick and tired of excuses for Iraq invasion