[This is a beta version of the story. Please tell me how it can be improved, what is lacking, what you want to know more about, even typos. Your help is much appreciated.]
I opened my eyes and it was dark. Very dark. Too dark. Where was I?
I was lying down and it was cold. I sat up and felt around. It seemed that I was sitting in what felt like a bathtub. I felt that there were some wires attached to stickers on my chest. EKG leads? Perhaps a hospital? Where was I?
I tore them off and stood up, trembling. I had seen enough movies to know that waking up in a darkened medical facility with no recollection of why you were there was a bad sign. I felt around the room and discovered it was small, the size of a bathroom. A door! I turned the handle and it opened. But it was still too dark to see. I looked left but saw nothing. But wait! To my right was something, maybe. I walked right, leaning on the wall with my left hand, my right hand in a fist, ready. But ready for what?
My left hand passed over door after door. This was evidently a hallway. The something ahead of me got brighter. I could faintly make out the corner of the hallway. I approached it cautiously and looked around it. In the darkness, I saw a lobby lit by starlight through two large glass doors. Nothing looked awry. No broken glass. No corpses. Everything was in its place; it looked like it would be opening in the morning. The glass had the building name engraved into it: “Abundant Life Suspended Animation Center.”
The jingle for this place came to mind, “Don’t Die, Delay!” I remembered the reports that the technology was new, and could not be guaranteed to keep a person’s memories intact. The hope was that people would be woken up when their terminal diseases had cures.
As I reflected, a shadow crossed by the edge of my vision. I picked up the heavy slab of stone that the secretary was using as a paperweight. Then I waited for the moan of grief and horror. But it never came. I was prepared for it if it came, but it never did. It just walked in silence. The anticipation drove me crazy. My confidence immediately evaporated, and I hid behind the desk. No movie could have prepared me for what I saw. It was hideous, covered with filthy clothing, its face obscured by a tangle of blackened hair. Long fingernails grew from skeletal hands. My courage broke, and I tried to run; I knocked the stapler onto the ground. It hit with a loud clang, echoing in the silence. It turned at me yellowed eyes. And I had a split second to wonder what kind of zombie it was.
Over the ages, many types of zombies have been described and imagined. My hope was that this would be a classic Day of the Dead zombie, slow-moving and stupid. They are powerful only in great numbers and can be re-killed rather easily with head trauma. Their bite is infectious, but I figure once you’re a zombie, you don’t care too much about wishing you were human. My worst fear was that this would be a 28 Days Later zombie. It was also infectious, but it had superhuman strength and speed.
My split-second question was immediately answered as it began running toward me with terrible speed. I realized my weapon would be useless, and I would certainly get bitten even if I did manage to kill it. There was only one way out, and it was coming through it. Once it was inside, I threw my slab of rock at its head and ran for the door. It must have glanced its head, because it wasn’t able to catch me as I ran past, but it lost only a few seconds in its pursuit of me.
I was on the street and I ran with all my strength. Fortunately, the suspended animation process, with the use of high-dose steroids and electrical muscle stimulation, had left me in decent shape. I ran down the street, looking for some place to bar myself into. Maybe a mall? There are all kinds of ways to beat zombies in a mall. But there was no mall.
The zombie would certainly gain on me on this straight street. Perhaps being a zombie wouldn’t be too bad. Maybe I wouldn’t even know I was a zombie. Maybe being a zombie was better than being a human. But my animal survival instinct overrode my philosophizing when I saw a manhole cover ajar. I climbed down the ladder, and replaced the cover just in time. It clawed in vain at the cover.
To my surprise, I could see. It was not completely dark. There was a little bluish light at the base of the ladder. I climbed down and saw a little camp: an open can of beans, a handle of whiskey and a little LED light! Signs of human life! Maybe that’s why the manhole cover was off. Smelling the beans I realized I was ravenously hungry, and feeling cold, I eyed the whiskey. I helped myself to the remainder of the beans and washed them down with the whiskey.
I noticed a little book by the light and I opened it. It was a journal. “Day 37: The zombies have overrun the city. I have taken refuge underground. They don’t go underground… I hope.” I flipped ahead, “Day 337: I have finished the last of the vegetable cans. I dare not leave the city where there is no underground, and there are no supermarkets that are safe. The abandoned liquor stores are plentiful, so I must resort to getting my calories there. This will make my reflexes dull and decisions clouded, but I need the food.” “Day 971: The jaundice is getting worse. I know I cannot survive much longer like this. Perhaps things will change. This cannot last forever, can it? After all, how long can zombies live?”
And then everything went black. It must have been instantaneous because I woke up and saw the zombie standing over me, its long, hideous teeth, sunken cheeks and terrible yellow eyes. The reek that must have come from his rotting flesh was overpowering. I gritted my teeth and prepared to be eaten.
“Who are you?” asked the zombie.
I was on my side and I saw the rock that had bounced off my head; it seemed that he had returned the rock I threw at him earlier. Then I saw that he wasn’t alone. There was not just one zombie, but ten. All of them looked as he did. Some, perhaps, had been female in their real lives.
“Pardon me?” I said by instinct.
“Who are you?” repeated the first zombie.
Maybe dementia is the first sign of zombie infection. Maybe he already bit me and this was the beginnings of my brain being eaten away by the zombie virus. So be it. No sense in fighting it now. I might as well play along.
“My name is Joel. It’s a pleasure to meet you,” I said.
“I’m Robert. These are my friends, and the pleasure is mine,” replied the zombie who was apparently named Robert. “You’re not a zombie,” he said, looking deep in thought. This impression of so hideous and obviously mindless a creature looking thoughtful further convinced me that I was approaching zombiehood at an incredible rate. But I wasn’t there yet. I was still self aware, still thinking myself.
“No. At least not yet,” I replied.
“How did you escape the Zombie Apocalypse?” he asked.
“I think I slept through it. I woke up an hour or two ago at the Abundant Life Suspended Animation Center,” I said. He looked at me accusingly. “From there, I was chased by a zombie into this sewer. And if I’m not mistaken, the zombie looked very much like you, good sir.”
“Yes, that was me who chased you. I needed to get you underground and safe, away from the real zombies,” said the zombie.
I laughed. “Do I look like a zombie? I have full muscles and skin that is not rotting. I have white eyes and clean teeth. I don’t have a ghoulish reek about me, as you do.”
“You must be from a time where you thought of zombies only from the outside. The true zombie is not the man who is a zombie on the outside, but who is one on the inside. The man who has lost himself, the part that makes him human, is a zombie. I am no zombie,” the zombie said. But its philosophical assertion made me think. It was probably right: the rotting flesh was only a symbol for what had happened to his personality.
“So Mr. Zombie, why do you think you’re not a zombie. How do you explain the rotting flesh and yellow eyes?” I asked with a smile.
He smiled back, “Because I make choices. I choose to live in this sewer with my wife and friends.” He gestured to the zombies standing around him. “I choose sacrifice. I chose to risk my life above ground, looking for survivors of the apocalypse. Zombies do not make choices. My skin is rotting because I likely have scurvy, my teeth are rotten and long from gum disease. We have run out of food and have been getting most of our calories from alcohol. I look like a skeleton because I am very, very hungry and my eyes are yellow from jaundice. The liver disease also has given me very, very bad breath. Before Z-Day, I had an alcoholic friend whose doctor said he had Fetor Hepaticus, medical jargon for ‘breath of the dead.’”
“Come, now, Mr. Zombie,” I continued. “You have bitten me and I will soon be a zombie. It’s as simple as that.”
“You are confused. My name is Robert and I am a human being. I have not bitten you; you cannot become a zombie through a bite. Check yourself and you will find no bite marks. Zombie is not a disease of the body, but of the soul.”
I checked myself all over, and I could not find any marks. Maybe he was right. “OK, Robert. Maybe I’m not a zombie, and maybe you’re not a zombie. But then who is a zombie?”
“Everyone else.”
He said it with a doom that hung in the air, as heavy and rank as the breath on which the words traveled. I had
“What happened?”
“The Zombie Apocalypse. Or, more accurately, the P- Zombie Apocalypse. It was an event that was a century in the making. It started toward the end of the Twentieth Century. People began to realize the grave consequences of freewill and choice. After the death of God in the University and the passage of the 66th Amendment, the so-called ‘Freedom from Religion and Liberty for All Amendment,’ society had no ability to inspire people to virtuous living. The only legal way to change the behavior of people was through rational ‘evidence-based’ incentives. Preachers and salespeople were both neutered. The leaders of the free world realized that freedom could only exist if people behaved properly. People, it seemed, would not choose to behave properly. So, little by little, choices were eroded. It started innocently enough. They fined people who didn’t wear seatbelts. Then they started taxing ‘unhealthy’ foods. But they cut away at the freedom of humanity through things more subtle and powerful than these. For example, everyone had to go to training centers called ‘college’ to gain employment; there they were taught about how there was no soul, no will and no choice. To have standing in society, they required people to take enormous burdens of debt to buy houses. The debt then made sure that people behaved properly and kept working. They were kept from most choices through financial pressure.”
“But people still had choices. I made plenty of choices. For example, I used to give generously to charity,” I interjected.
“Really? How generously? Up to 1% of your income?” Robert inquired.
“Well, not that much. But I was extremely generous!” I argued.
“You are like your people. You haven’t chosen charity, only the appearance of it. And it’s not your fault; you had no choice but to give either 0% or 0.5% of your income. The other 99.5% had to go to home loans, car payments, insurance and taxes; or at least this is what they convinced you of. You didn’t choose charity, so the government mandated it. It took money from the rich and hired people to do charity. People didn’t choose courage, so it paid them well to take the dangerous jobs in the military. People didn’t choose temperance, so it taxed intemperate options. People didn’t choose prudence, so they were fined for imprudence and their place in society was withheld until they attended a learning institution to gain it. People didn’t choose justice, so they instituted a progressive tax. These pressures increased through the Twenty First Century and precious few choices were left. But then came the master stroke.”
“What was the master stroke? Was it a mind-eating virus?” I asked.
“It was a virus of sorts. It wasn’t a mind-eating virus, but a soul-eating one. The people were infected with pleasure, and the entire society ended up bending itself around to maximize it. The mechanism was a technology that gave immediate feedback, immediate punishment and reward for behavior. This is what finally laid freedom to rest. The brain sciences developed a wearable device which measured brain-waves in real-time that could tell what people were thinking about. Employers bought these NeuroScan devices, and employees were required to wear them at work. They paid employees for high mental performance and right thought. Employees had a small display that showed them their hourly wage multiplier with alerts and alarms which informed them of their good or bad thoughts. There were legal fights, of course, but ultimately the evidence showed that people that had them were more productive, got paid more, and worried less than those who didn’t (after they got used to it).
“People argued this didn’t increase productivity in ‘creative endeavors’ but since the artists couldn’t quantify what they meant by ‘creative endeavors,’ they were ignored. People argued that life wasn’t about maximizing output and the pleasure that resulted; they said that ‘right thought,’ could not and should not be rationally decreed by an employer or a government. But they couldn’t provide objective evidence for their subjective ideas, like ‘freedom’ and ‘virtue’ and so they were ignored.”
“The government got into the game and, with a huge tax cut to those who agreed to be monitored, incentivized ‘proper’ behavior. It taxed improper behaviors and thoughts (everything from speeding to buying unhealthy foods). For the particularly resistant, they gave them a heroin drug pump that released low-dose heroin throughout the day. Proper behaviors were rewarded with a shot; improper behaviors were punished with withdrawal. Many tyrants tried to subdue the will of men, but they always resisted. But it was because they lacked the technology allow man to do what he always wanted: to sell his freedom for comfort.”
“With immediate reward and punishment, people no longer had to make decisions. People had only to do their duty, nothing less and nothing more. There was no place for sacrifice; all that was needful was provided. People no longer needed to exercise their freewill. Any deviation from the proper resulted in immediate pain, and so there were no deviations. Parents realized they could also use these tools, and an entire generation was born that lived their entire lives without making a decision.”
“The soul of man shriveled, and virtue was lost. But the greatest tragedy of all is the death of love. That ages-old wonderful thing written of by the poets has perished up above. There is perfect comfort; no one can do anything for anyone else. No one can lay down his life for his friend, because there is nothing to lay it down for. Violence and crime are ended, so there are no bullets to jump in front of. There is no poverty, so there is never a need to sell your car to provide for your friend. Sacrifice is ended, and so too is love. The old saying, “No greater love hath a man than this: that he lay down his life for his friends” became “No greater love hath a man than this: that he benefit his friends maximally.” People marry, but it is a relationship of convenience and mutual pleasure. Their NeuroScans make sure that they never think badly about the other, and that sex is maximally pleasurable for both. “If you want to save your life, you must lose it,” has become, “If you want to save your life, you must
save it.”
“But a world without crime and poverty is everything we hoped and dreamed we could achieve! Perhaps it was worth it?” I exclaimed.
“And because the world was convinced that pleasure was the purpose of life, our race has ended. The idea that the Good is comfort is a plague that has infected us and, but for we few survivors, has driven us to extinction. Zombies now rule this planet. Either you are hiding underground with a wasted and inhuman body, or you live above ground with a wasted and inhuman soul.”
There was a great silence. I couldn’t keep from staring at the hideous creatures around me and thinking about how sad they looked. Not that they looked sad; they looked rather alert and strangely content (if such an expression could be used of a zombie). Perhaps I mean to say that I was sad for them; they were pitiable.
Robert continued, “You now have a choice to give up choosing. What will you choose? Freedom or slavery? Do you want to join us and remain a human, or will you forsake your race and become a zombie?”
I stood there, looking at the degenerate form before me. I saw his little camp and the misery in which he lived with his fellows. And I then I saw in my mind’s eye the glorious pleasures to be experienced up above. Above our heads was a Garden of Eden, expect without the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil to tempt. What is my will and why is it important? I don’t remember having used it much in my old life anyways. Perhaps Robert’s was something worth saving; it must be, if he was willing to live as he did to keep it. But I don’t think I’ve got what he does.
Don’t get me wrong; I’m a pretty good guy. I’ve made my mistakes, but I’ve never really hurt anyone. Am I virtuous? Probably not in the sense that he means it. But why does he care so much about it? People up above were living with far better behavior than this zombie clan. In fact, if he describes them properly, they were living perfectly. What did he think he had that they lacked?
He’d probably say something philosophical. But philosophy isn’t something I can hold onto. I can hold onto clean skin and full flesh. I can hold onto a green, juicy apple; a soft, warm bed; a hot steak. I can hold on to health. I can hold onto comfort. And I think I will hold onto them. Philosophy hasn’t gotten him very far.
“Thank you, Mr. Zombie, sincerely for your concern, but I think I’d better be going.”
Then he said something that I will never forget. It sent shivers down my spine, more than on first seeing him. Ten years have passed since that day, and I still don’t understand what he meant. Maybe I never will. He said to me, “May the chains of comfort rest lightly upon you. Goodbye, Mr. Zombie.”
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Sunday, November 7, 2010
Monday, October 25, 2010
How Glenn Beck convinced me to leave the Republican Party
Yesterday, I was a Republican. Today, well, I’m still a Republican, but that’s only until I can re-register. Glenn Beck, the anathema of everybody and the very popular host on Fox News, convinced me to leave the Republican Party. If you’ve read this far, it probably means Glenn Beck wasn’t who you thought he was: just another crazy Republican. He’s not who you think he is, and his ideas aren’t as crazy as you think they are. He wrote a book called “Common Sense,” and is what it claims to be. Before you make another snipe at everyone at Fox News or call him crazy, read this book; see if it makes sense. Try to understand him and this position; it’s the Democratic thing to do. But even if you care only for Democrat/Republican power, this opinion is surging in popularity and it would be prudent, even for strategic reasons alone, to read it so you know how to fight it.
The great thing about being convinced through reason is you don’t have any hard feeling about it. In fact, you’re somewhat grateful to the convincer because your old ways were wrong and erroneous. This has happened to me many times, but it has happened acutely twice. The first time was in listening to Bill Clinton on a proposition for clean energy a few years ago. I wanted to see him speak (convinced that I would vote against the bill). After his speech, I had completely changed my mind. And I was happy I did it.
Today, a similar thing happened. Glenn Beck talked about the Corrupt Two Party System. I’ve often talked about the Corrupt Two Party System. You’ve often talked about the Corrupt Two Party System. It’s bad. Congress has 13% approval ratings, 95% of incumbents get reelected. There is a serious problem with this system! Beck asks why we are playing into it. He says we’re playing into it every time we vote against someone or some party. We’re not voting for leaders; we’re voting for colors. We ought to judge candidates not by the color of their party, but by the content of their character.
It is all a game. They’re both the same. They both want the government bigger and you more dependent on it. The vilification of the other side is a red herring. The issues which make blood boil (gay marriage, abortion) are making us hate each other and not see/notice/have time to care about the massive increases in debt and spending that are going on, the erosion of our rights and incomes in exchange for peace, safety and comfort. We owe $13 trillion (every one of us owes ~$43,000). We have another $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities (e.g. social security). We have a spending problem, and this problem is turning us and our children into the servants of our debtors.
Bush spent trillions on a war because it, “woulda’ been worse if we didn’t.” Obama spent trillions on a bailout because it, “woulda’ been worse if we didn’t.” This game has been going on for a century. One crisis to the next, there is always some urgent need for our money. And when that ran out, the crises didn’t. We started spending our children’s money. There always has to be a crisis for the system to survive. It reminds me of the need for perpetual war in Orwell’s 1984: “War is Peace.” But instead of wars with guns (we have some of those, too) the war is Red vs. Blue. “Sure my party lacks principles, but at least the right color is in power.”
Make politicians into public servants again. Give them term limits (some of our congress people have served longer than Fidel Castro). Fairly redistrict. Move tax day right before election day (ever notice how they’re as far apart on the calendar as can be?). Hold them equally accountable for the laws they pass (no get-out-of-jail-free cards for ‘errors’ on taxes).
All that to say: I’m independent. I want out of the Corrupt Two Party System. I’m returning to common sense and I’m voting for people who can balance a budget, red, blue or neither. I’ll start there. Once we’re out of the spending tailspin, we can start to talk about other issues. I want comfy incumbents, safe with campaign contributions and gerrymandered districts, to be afraid of We the People; I want unaffiliated candidates to be viable. And I will work to bring this about with my pen and my ballot. All the other issues which the parties talk about are important, but not if our country collapses under the weight of its own debt or if our freedom and livelihoods are corroded away, right by right, dollar by dollar, into nothing, by fear of class warfare/terrorism.
There is a way out of the Corrupt Two Party System: leave your party.
The great thing about being convinced through reason is you don’t have any hard feeling about it. In fact, you’re somewhat grateful to the convincer because your old ways were wrong and erroneous. This has happened to me many times, but it has happened acutely twice. The first time was in listening to Bill Clinton on a proposition for clean energy a few years ago. I wanted to see him speak (convinced that I would vote against the bill). After his speech, I had completely changed my mind. And I was happy I did it.
Today, a similar thing happened. Glenn Beck talked about the Corrupt Two Party System. I’ve often talked about the Corrupt Two Party System. You’ve often talked about the Corrupt Two Party System. It’s bad. Congress has 13% approval ratings, 95% of incumbents get reelected. There is a serious problem with this system! Beck asks why we are playing into it. He says we’re playing into it every time we vote against someone or some party. We’re not voting for leaders; we’re voting for colors. We ought to judge candidates not by the color of their party, but by the content of their character.
It is all a game. They’re both the same. They both want the government bigger and you more dependent on it. The vilification of the other side is a red herring. The issues which make blood boil (gay marriage, abortion) are making us hate each other and not see/notice/have time to care about the massive increases in debt and spending that are going on, the erosion of our rights and incomes in exchange for peace, safety and comfort. We owe $13 trillion (every one of us owes ~$43,000). We have another $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities (e.g. social security). We have a spending problem, and this problem is turning us and our children into the servants of our debtors.
Bush spent trillions on a war because it, “woulda’ been worse if we didn’t.” Obama spent trillions on a bailout because it, “woulda’ been worse if we didn’t.” This game has been going on for a century. One crisis to the next, there is always some urgent need for our money. And when that ran out, the crises didn’t. We started spending our children’s money. There always has to be a crisis for the system to survive. It reminds me of the need for perpetual war in Orwell’s 1984: “War is Peace.” But instead of wars with guns (we have some of those, too) the war is Red vs. Blue. “Sure my party lacks principles, but at least the right color is in power.”
Make politicians into public servants again. Give them term limits (some of our congress people have served longer than Fidel Castro). Fairly redistrict. Move tax day right before election day (ever notice how they’re as far apart on the calendar as can be?). Hold them equally accountable for the laws they pass (no get-out-of-jail-free cards for ‘errors’ on taxes).
All that to say: I’m independent. I want out of the Corrupt Two Party System. I’m returning to common sense and I’m voting for people who can balance a budget, red, blue or neither. I’ll start there. Once we’re out of the spending tailspin, we can start to talk about other issues. I want comfy incumbents, safe with campaign contributions and gerrymandered districts, to be afraid of We the People; I want unaffiliated candidates to be viable. And I will work to bring this about with my pen and my ballot. All the other issues which the parties talk about are important, but not if our country collapses under the weight of its own debt or if our freedom and livelihoods are corroded away, right by right, dollar by dollar, into nothing, by fear of class warfare/terrorism.
There is a way out of the Corrupt Two Party System: leave your party.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Poverty of Liberty
I was considering the best way to define poverty, and I think I may have stumbled across a very old idea that might fit the bill:
The lack of liberty can come in many forms. It may not just be liberty in the sense of suffrage, but also in terms of education and beliefs about your own capacity. A slave working on a plantation certainly lacks liberty, but so does a factory worker who cannot leave his situation or promise a better one to his children. Likewise, a person with the ability to better his situation may have been convinced that he is unable, and perception becomes reality.
The same is true of a poor person. A person may not have liberty or the ability to pursue happiness because they are physically unable (they lack the food to survive), mentally unable (they do not know or believe they can advance), or spiritually unable (they are unwilling to better their situation). To truly have liberty, all three kinds of barriers must be removed.
Most poverty work centers around the first one. We boost income, and build clinics. Most people believe that’s all there is to poverty. But, if liberty is the concern, then simply addressing physical barriers is insufficient.
There are many places with an overbuilt medical infrastructure; physical barriers are reduced. But the buildings remain empty. Mothers still birth their children at home and rarely use the clinic. In many of these places, they know that they’re supposed to give birth in a hospital and that it’s safer. But they prefer their homes. They have every physical and mental barrier removed; some simply lack the willingness.
Mental barriers are also sometimes addressed in development work. And even those who do trainings to address mental shortcomings will not be fully successful if they stop simply at information transfer.
Do we stop because it’s hard? Or because we’d have to address a culture and a preference (both of which are off-limits to relativists)? Changing minds like this is really really hard. But it’s what pastors, motivational speakers and advertising executives make a living doing: affecting people’s willingness to do things. Some of their job is removing physical or mental barriers; but most of it is giving people a spirit or desire to do a certain thing. And we cannot forget this very important piece of liberty.
Pursuit of Happiness
The ability to pursue happiness is a beautiful thing. It is not a guarantee of happiness itself. It is not the ability to hold property (Locke’s version). It is the abstract idea that one can seek happiness in whatever way one wants. Nobody can provide or force someone to be happy; the farthest one can go is to give another the ability to pursue happiness. This is a particularly hard place to stop, but a critical one. We can give liberty and freedom, but we cannot in the next moment take it away to force what we think will bring happiness. Happiness cannot be coerced. People must be truly free to choose misery, and we must not stop them, for to do so would be to undermine liberty and subverting the deeper happiness it brings.
We can build clinics, teach mothers about them, and advertise them. We can work with chiefs and elders to open their minds to the benefits of clinic birth. We can remove economic, social, and cultural barriers. But if a woman still chooses to give birth at home, we must let her.
Freedom and Its Spread
The poor need a Declaration of Independence. They wouldn’t be throwing off an oppressive government, but an oppressive system. Parts of that system are sentient and malicious (dictators, oppressive companies) and parts of it are non-sentient (viruses, climate). And just as the Declaration of Independence wasn’t itself a new system, it made it clear that one would soon be necessary. The War of Independence that must inevitably follow will be fought on the soil of many foreign nations.
I pray that I may fight as their ally.
The Challenge of Liberty Poverty
The challenge with this definition is that it is the most difficult to quantify. It is the most abstract (which, if you believe Plato, means it’s potentially closer to truth than the less abstract ones). Donors don’t want abstract concepts. They, increasingly, want numbers. But this can be our ideal, the thing we really have in mind when we enter a community and want to help. It’s not about money, or property, or even improving conditions. It’s about Liberty.
“ …all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Perhaps “poverty” is when you lack life, liberty or the ability to pursue happiness?
Poverty can certainly limit these human rights. Life can be limited by starvation the same as it can be provided by an invading nation or a murderer. The government has a commission to prevent the violation of the right in the case of the latter, but which it is the job of the government to prevent.
Poverty can certainly limit these human rights. Life can be limited by starvation the same as it can be provided by an invading nation or a murderer. The government has a commission to prevent the violation of the right in the case of the latter, but which it is the job of the government to prevent.
The lack of liberty can come in many forms. It may not just be liberty in the sense of suffrage, but also in terms of education and beliefs about your own capacity. A slave working on a plantation certainly lacks liberty, but so does a factory worker who cannot leave his situation or promise a better one to his children. Likewise, a person with the ability to better his situation may have been convinced that he is unable, and perception becomes reality.
Limitations of liberty
If a person wants to run a marathon, three things can limit her. The first and most obvious is physical ability; can the person’s legs last for 26.2 miles? Secondly, does a physically capable person believe she can run the distance? And finally, is she willing to do it? She needs physical ability, belief in her ability, and wiliness to actually run. If any one of these things is lacking, she will not be able to complete a marathon. Her freedom is to run a marathon is limited by her body, her mind and her spirit.
If a person wants to run a marathon, three things can limit her. The first and most obvious is physical ability; can the person’s legs last for 26.2 miles? Secondly, does a physically capable person believe she can run the distance? And finally, is she willing to do it? She needs physical ability, belief in her ability, and wiliness to actually run. If any one of these things is lacking, she will not be able to complete a marathon. Her freedom is to run a marathon is limited by her body, her mind and her spirit.
The same is true of a poor person. A person may not have liberty or the ability to pursue happiness because they are physically unable (they lack the food to survive), mentally unable (they do not know or believe they can advance), or spiritually unable (they are unwilling to better their situation). To truly have liberty, all three kinds of barriers must be removed.
Most poverty work centers around the first one. We boost income, and build clinics. Most people believe that’s all there is to poverty. But, if liberty is the concern, then simply addressing physical barriers is insufficient.
There are many places with an overbuilt medical infrastructure; physical barriers are reduced. But the buildings remain empty. Mothers still birth their children at home and rarely use the clinic. In many of these places, they know that they’re supposed to give birth in a hospital and that it’s safer. But they prefer their homes. They have every physical and mental barrier removed; some simply lack the willingness.
Mental barriers are also sometimes addressed in development work. And even those who do trainings to address mental shortcomings will not be fully successful if they stop simply at information transfer.
Do we stop because it’s hard? Or because we’d have to address a culture and a preference (both of which are off-limits to relativists)? Changing minds like this is really really hard. But it’s what pastors, motivational speakers and advertising executives make a living doing: affecting people’s willingness to do things. Some of their job is removing physical or mental barriers; but most of it is giving people a spirit or desire to do a certain thing. And we cannot forget this very important piece of liberty.
Pursuit of Happiness
The ability to pursue happiness is a beautiful thing. It is not a guarantee of happiness itself. It is not the ability to hold property (Locke’s version). It is the abstract idea that one can seek happiness in whatever way one wants. Nobody can provide or force someone to be happy; the farthest one can go is to give another the ability to pursue happiness. This is a particularly hard place to stop, but a critical one. We can give liberty and freedom, but we cannot in the next moment take it away to force what we think will bring happiness. Happiness cannot be coerced. People must be truly free to choose misery, and we must not stop them, for to do so would be to undermine liberty and subverting the deeper happiness it brings.
We can build clinics, teach mothers about them, and advertise them. We can work with chiefs and elders to open their minds to the benefits of clinic birth. We can remove economic, social, and cultural barriers. But if a woman still chooses to give birth at home, we must let her.
Freedom and Its Spread
Freedom is not just government type; it’s not just being able to vote. It’s the ability to make choices and to live a full life. It’s climbing upward and giving your children a better situation you had. There are still billions lacking the promise our Founding Fathers sought to give to us.
But how does the flame of freedom spread beyond the shores of the United States? It’s no longer as simple as throwing off a single oppressive king with an eloquent letter. The oppressors are more than political, and so the solutions must be also; the answer is no longer simply in government or a good constitution.
But how does the flame of freedom spread beyond the shores of the United States? It’s no longer as simple as throwing off a single oppressive king with an eloquent letter. The oppressors are more than political, and so the solutions must be also; the answer is no longer simply in government or a good constitution.
The poor need a Declaration of Independence. They wouldn’t be throwing off an oppressive government, but an oppressive system. Parts of that system are sentient and malicious (dictators, oppressive companies) and parts of it are non-sentient (viruses, climate). And just as the Declaration of Independence wasn’t itself a new system, it made it clear that one would soon be necessary. The War of Independence that must inevitably follow will be fought on the soil of many foreign nations.
I pray that I may fight as their ally.
The Challenge of Liberty Poverty
The challenge with this definition is that it is the most difficult to quantify. It is the most abstract (which, if you believe Plato, means it’s potentially closer to truth than the less abstract ones). Donors don’t want abstract concepts. They, increasingly, want numbers. But this can be our ideal, the thing we really have in mind when we enter a community and want to help. It’s not about money, or property, or even improving conditions. It’s about Liberty.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
To Promote the General Welfare
Or Why Utilitarianism works better than Kantianism in Government [4]
The classic story goes like this. Jim is in Venezuela on vacation. He come to a village where there are twenty villagers tied up and standing against a wall. An armed man in camouflage approaches him and introduces himself as Pedro. He tells Jim that the villagers are being rebellious and these twenty would be executed to punish the town for its political leanings (for the sake of argument, they’re pro-Democratic). But, he’d let nineteen of them go if Jim would himself do one execution (to prove that even America doesn’t support this ‘rebellion’). What should Jim do?
The Kantian answer is that he should not kill the one and let the twenty die. Jim should follow a universal maxim like “You ought not murder innocent people,” regardless of the circumstances. The Utilitarian reasons that 1 dead < style="font-style: italic;">because of the circumstances. The Kantian’s concern is the soul; the Utilitarian’s concern is the body.
Kantian morality is very appealing when absolute rules are available. This is usually when it’s a matter of individual decision. For example, I believe that the following is universal maxim: “A man ought not sleep with a woman he is not married to.” I obey this and, if I violate this maxim, I believe I have done wrong. But the question gets much harder when it goes from a question of conduct (relating to oneself) to a question of governance (relating to others). Even if it is absolutely morally wrong for me to have sex with my (theoretical) girlfriend, it does not follow that the best thing is for such an act to be illegal in a free society. Moral maxims don’t translate well to governments. “Governments ought to pass laws forbidding men to sleep with women not their wives,” isn’t a self evident universal maxim.
Part of the problem is that governments are not themselves the same kind of moral entity that men are. Another serious problem is the inefficacy of such a proposal. It’s very difficult to compromise about Kantian morality (a thing very important in government). Also it’s nearly impossible to, in political discourse, change another’s worldview upon which these moral laws are founded.
For questions of governance (where moral absolutes are elusive), Utilitarianism makes more sense. How do we maximize the good? Should we pass Law A or not? Principles of justice and equity certainly shouldn’t be violated, but it’s dangerous to put a political discussion in moral terms when there are two good ends. Certainly there are things which governments do which are truly evils (e.g. genocide, taxation without representation); but most governmental decisions aren’t so clear. Entitlement programs have the good ambition to give to the poor, but they also unfairly (in the strictest sense of the word) take from the rich. “Is Kindness more important than Justice?” is not practically answerable. However, “How do we optimize real GDP growth and provision for the poor?” is. We may disagree on the relative importance of the two, but at least we’re having a meaningful discussion. We can compromise on real GDP growth; we can’t compromise on Justice.
But we (particularly in medicine) have drifted back to Kantian, moral language in politics and policy. We say, “Do no harm” as a Kantian and Universal good. We repeat it as a mantra, as if to ward off the spectres of labor in thinking. When asked, “Is it just?” we reply, “Do no harm!”; when questioned, “Isn’t that harming someone?” we just shout “Do no harm!” louder[6]. We assert things like “Nothing but the highest quality,” and “Healthcare is a Right,” and we insist on “Evidence Based Medicine” and trust that (without even evaluating them) they are unquestionable, objective and universal truths. These things do indeed sound great, but we skip right over their cost. [5] [Ironic and Very Tangential Note]
When we say “Nothing but the highest quality” we also mandate “Nothing but the highest cost” and thus violate our second universal law by depriving the poor of healthcare (as a side note, Kant said these things were actually supposed to work together; direct contradictions are a bad sign). We insist on billion-dollar experiments (this is literally the cost of some of the bigger ones) to prove that our medicine works (we call it “evidence based medicine”; we want “highest quality,” after all). But when we get the bill for these (those of us who can afford them, that is) we’re outraged by the abuses of Big Pharma which we, by our demands for “evidence based medicine,” have created. We hop on our “Healthcare is a Right” soapbox and accuse the drug companies of greed (which is probably true) and oppressing the poor (which is probably true), forgetting that it was actually our own greed for perfect drugs which actually deprived the poor of their use.
Instead of trying to guess at universal truths of governance[2], we ought to come up with practical, goals. We cannot all agree that “Healthcare is a human right”; we can agree on “It’s good for everyone to have healthcare.” Instead of asking “How do we guarantee healthcare for all?” we can rally around the question “How do we optimize the distribution of healthcare?”
It is very important to note that the two questions usually have different answers. According to one of my professors, settling for nothing less than “Primary healthcare for all” is leading to “Primary healthcare for none.” Instead of focusing on what could practically be done with available resources (my professor’s goal was to “eradicate Polio,” a goal we are approaching), some people’s zealous attachment to an ideal has actually led to more human suffering. Instead of spending limited money on vaccines to help a million children, they build clinics for a lucky hundreds while thousands die of polio which could have been prevented. And if you really believe that it’s a universal truth that “All people ought to be provided primary healthcare,” you should praise those people. Those people, whose actions ended in the deaths of children by Polio, were Good with a capital ‘G’. They did what was Right. The consequences (dead children) should be irrelevant.
But we don’t really believe that. Kantian ideals and absolutes are wonderful for a podium, but not for real governance. “We ought to fight the Axis of Evil!” as a moral imperative is a lot more motivating than, “It would be in the world’s best interest, including our own and that of the Iraqi people, to war with Saddam Hussein.” And if the Iraq War cost $1,000 and the only casualty was a hangnail, nobody would complain. When it really comes down to it, we’re political utilitarians deep down; we all compare costs and benefits. Internationally, we praise a government that saves children much more than one that nobly tries and fails to provide universal healthcare.
Centuries ago, the wisest of men once assembled to answer this very question: What should a government do? They did not put it in moral terms [3], but practical ones:
Now if only we in the US had a set of things we agreed to strive for…
[1] Preamble to the Constitution of the United States.
[2] By the way, it’s really hard to come up with Universal Truths without actually thinking about it… guessing usually doesn’t work. Crafters of Universal Truths should at least try to visit the philosophy department every now and again.
[3] These men were certainly extremely Kantian when it came to personal duty. But this did not seem to translate to the Government itself, at least not in the Constitution. In the Declaration they make it clear that, regarding oppressed men, “it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government” and in the process they were, “appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions.” They, as men, believed they had clear and strong moral obligations. In contrast, a government has pragmatic aims. I have not developed this theory fully; it may be worth another post.
[4] How did I end up on this side of the argument?
[5] Ironic and Very Tangential Note: I cannot miss the chance to point out a great irony. These arguments for universal truths on what government ought to do are being made by people who are almost universally self described “Moral Relativists.” The same people who bemoan the close-minded Christians who ‘impose their views’ about sexuality or abortion on others are imposing their own views on healthcare. When I’ve pointed this out to people, they tell me that the great difference between “Everyone a right to life” and “Everyone has a right to healthcare” is that the latter is not based on religion. In other words, the only valid arguments are ones made from the Humanist perspective; the Christian one is invalid for governance (Christianity should only apply to Christians; Humanism should apply to Humanists and Christians). So the difference is that “Everyone has a right to healthcare” is actually True (so should be imposed, though the word ‘imposed’ is always heavily euphemized) and “Everyone has a right to life” is a religiously motivated opinion which should be disregarded. I've even talked to multiple educated people who believe it should be illegal and have said, "Any law motivated by religion should be ruled unconstitutional as a violation of the separation of church and state."
[6] Not-defining ‘harm’ is a hard enough problem to avoid; our brains might explode if we actually had to answer “Why is ‘Do no harm’ the only and overriding thing a doctor ought not do? On what basis ought you 'Do no harm'? And why define your profession on not doing something? Wouldn't it be better to say 'Do heal' instead?”
P.S. I can lie about the post time. But, being a Kantian in my personal ethics, I won't. The time is 1:50am and staying up late is a birthday present to myself.
The classic story goes like this. Jim is in Venezuela on vacation. He come to a village where there are twenty villagers tied up and standing against a wall. An armed man in camouflage approaches him and introduces himself as Pedro. He tells Jim that the villagers are being rebellious and these twenty would be executed to punish the town for its political leanings (for the sake of argument, they’re pro-Democratic). But, he’d let nineteen of them go if Jim would himself do one execution (to prove that even America doesn’t support this ‘rebellion’). What should Jim do?
The Kantian answer is that he should not kill the one and let the twenty die. Jim should follow a universal maxim like “You ought not murder innocent people,” regardless of the circumstances. The Utilitarian reasons that 1 dead < style="font-style: italic;">because of the circumstances. The Kantian’s concern is the soul; the Utilitarian’s concern is the body.
Kantian morality is very appealing when absolute rules are available. This is usually when it’s a matter of individual decision. For example, I believe that the following is universal maxim: “A man ought not sleep with a woman he is not married to.” I obey this and, if I violate this maxim, I believe I have done wrong. But the question gets much harder when it goes from a question of conduct (relating to oneself) to a question of governance (relating to others). Even if it is absolutely morally wrong for me to have sex with my (theoretical) girlfriend, it does not follow that the best thing is for such an act to be illegal in a free society. Moral maxims don’t translate well to governments. “Governments ought to pass laws forbidding men to sleep with women not their wives,” isn’t a self evident universal maxim.
Part of the problem is that governments are not themselves the same kind of moral entity that men are. Another serious problem is the inefficacy of such a proposal. It’s very difficult to compromise about Kantian morality (a thing very important in government). Also it’s nearly impossible to, in political discourse, change another’s worldview upon which these moral laws are founded.
For questions of governance (where moral absolutes are elusive), Utilitarianism makes more sense. How do we maximize the good? Should we pass Law A or not? Principles of justice and equity certainly shouldn’t be violated, but it’s dangerous to put a political discussion in moral terms when there are two good ends. Certainly there are things which governments do which are truly evils (e.g. genocide, taxation without representation); but most governmental decisions aren’t so clear. Entitlement programs have the good ambition to give to the poor, but they also unfairly (in the strictest sense of the word) take from the rich. “Is Kindness more important than Justice?” is not practically answerable. However, “How do we optimize real GDP growth and provision for the poor?” is. We may disagree on the relative importance of the two, but at least we’re having a meaningful discussion. We can compromise on real GDP growth; we can’t compromise on Justice.
But we (particularly in medicine) have drifted back to Kantian, moral language in politics and policy. We say, “Do no harm” as a Kantian and Universal good. We repeat it as a mantra, as if to ward off the spectres of labor in thinking. When asked, “Is it just?” we reply, “Do no harm!”; when questioned, “Isn’t that harming someone?” we just shout “Do no harm!” louder[6]. We assert things like “Nothing but the highest quality,” and “Healthcare is a Right,” and we insist on “Evidence Based Medicine” and trust that (without even evaluating them) they are unquestionable, objective and universal truths. These things do indeed sound great, but we skip right over their cost. [5] [Ironic and Very Tangential Note]
When we say “Nothing but the highest quality” we also mandate “Nothing but the highest cost” and thus violate our second universal law by depriving the poor of healthcare (as a side note, Kant said these things were actually supposed to work together; direct contradictions are a bad sign). We insist on billion-dollar experiments (this is literally the cost of some of the bigger ones) to prove that our medicine works (we call it “evidence based medicine”; we want “highest quality,” after all). But when we get the bill for these (those of us who can afford them, that is) we’re outraged by the abuses of Big Pharma which we, by our demands for “evidence based medicine,” have created. We hop on our “Healthcare is a Right” soapbox and accuse the drug companies of greed (which is probably true) and oppressing the poor (which is probably true), forgetting that it was actually our own greed for perfect drugs which actually deprived the poor of their use.
Instead of trying to guess at universal truths of governance[2], we ought to come up with practical, goals. We cannot all agree that “Healthcare is a human right”; we can agree on “It’s good for everyone to have healthcare.” Instead of asking “How do we guarantee healthcare for all?” we can rally around the question “How do we optimize the distribution of healthcare?”
It is very important to note that the two questions usually have different answers. According to one of my professors, settling for nothing less than “Primary healthcare for all” is leading to “Primary healthcare for none.” Instead of focusing on what could practically be done with available resources (my professor’s goal was to “eradicate Polio,” a goal we are approaching), some people’s zealous attachment to an ideal has actually led to more human suffering. Instead of spending limited money on vaccines to help a million children, they build clinics for a lucky hundreds while thousands die of polio which could have been prevented. And if you really believe that it’s a universal truth that “All people ought to be provided primary healthcare,” you should praise those people. Those people, whose actions ended in the deaths of children by Polio, were Good with a capital ‘G’. They did what was Right. The consequences (dead children) should be irrelevant.
But we don’t really believe that. Kantian ideals and absolutes are wonderful for a podium, but not for real governance. “We ought to fight the Axis of Evil!” as a moral imperative is a lot more motivating than, “It would be in the world’s best interest, including our own and that of the Iraqi people, to war with Saddam Hussein.” And if the Iraq War cost $1,000 and the only casualty was a hangnail, nobody would complain. When it really comes down to it, we’re political utilitarians deep down; we all compare costs and benefits. Internationally, we praise a government that saves children much more than one that nobly tries and fails to provide universal healthcare.
Centuries ago, the wisest of men once assembled to answer this very question: What should a government do? They did not put it in moral terms [3], but practical ones:
…form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…[1]Let us follow their example. So let’s drop the moral language and get to work. The ends we are seeking are common. Rather than fighting over what is the moral thing for a government to do, let us seek to do things like “promote the general Welfare.” Let us agree on a set of things that we can all strive together for: Humanists, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, Muslims; Democrats, Republicans, Independents; Atheists, Deists and Theists alike. Let us set out for ourselves what things we would like to accomplish tangibly and find ways to do. Let us together war against suffering; let us not each die defending an ideological hill from the other.
Now if only we in the US had a set of things we agreed to strive for…
[1] Preamble to the Constitution of the United States.
[2] By the way, it’s really hard to come up with Universal Truths without actually thinking about it… guessing usually doesn’t work. Crafters of Universal Truths should at least try to visit the philosophy department every now and again.
[3] These men were certainly extremely Kantian when it came to personal duty. But this did not seem to translate to the Government itself, at least not in the Constitution. In the Declaration they make it clear that, regarding oppressed men, “it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government” and in the process they were, “appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions.” They, as men, believed they had clear and strong moral obligations. In contrast, a government has pragmatic aims. I have not developed this theory fully; it may be worth another post.
[4] How did I end up on this side of the argument?
[5] Ironic and Very Tangential Note: I cannot miss the chance to point out a great irony. These arguments for universal truths on what government ought to do are being made by people who are almost universally self described “Moral Relativists.” The same people who bemoan the close-minded Christians who ‘impose their views’ about sexuality or abortion on others are imposing their own views on healthcare. When I’ve pointed this out to people, they tell me that the great difference between “Everyone a right to life” and “Everyone has a right to healthcare” is that the latter is not based on religion. In other words, the only valid arguments are ones made from the Humanist perspective; the Christian one is invalid for governance (Christianity should only apply to Christians; Humanism should apply to Humanists and Christians). So the difference is that “Everyone has a right to healthcare” is actually True (so should be imposed, though the word ‘imposed’ is always heavily euphemized) and “Everyone has a right to life” is a religiously motivated opinion which should be disregarded. I've even talked to multiple educated people who believe it should be illegal and have said, "Any law motivated by religion should be ruled unconstitutional as a violation of the separation of church and state."
[6] Not-defining ‘harm’ is a hard enough problem to avoid; our brains might explode if we actually had to answer “Why is ‘Do no harm’ the only and overriding thing a doctor ought not do? On what basis ought you 'Do no harm'? And why define your profession on not doing something? Wouldn't it be better to say 'Do heal' instead?”
P.S. I can lie about the post time. But, being a Kantian in my personal ethics, I won't. The time is 1:50am and staying up late is a birthday present to myself.
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
A Far Cry From Communities
We have forgotten the community. We think of problems as either being solvable by governments (through public policy and politics) or by the individual (microfinance, ‘grassroots’). We don’t think much about the community, but it is the location and society where most of humanity has its existence. What is a community? Many a debate can be had on this, but I’ll give a practical definition. I mean the people you will reasonably run into at the grocery store or pass on a sidewalk. This is your community. Sure you live in Los Angeles, but the 10,000 or so people in your immediate vicinity have a bigger impact on your life than the 3.8 million others.
Sure you’re an American, but there’s vastly more variation from West LA to East LA than there is between “America” and “Britain.” Your community, not your country and not even your race, is more predictive as to whether you’ll get diabetes, graduate from high school, or get killed by gang violence.
In light of that, how many of us vote in our local elections? We think about changing America or the world, but how many have thought changing the community a valid ambition?
When we think about Global problems, we think of it in terms of governments and individuals. I can’t name you a single village or town in Africa. But I know that Zimbabwe is suffering from Cholera, and that Malawi is dealing with HIV. I know that DRC has unstable governance and that Sudan has a refugee problem. We pass laws and give aid to governments and countries. We don’t care about communities.
Also, I’ve seen pictures of a starving child, or an AIDS patient, but I can’t tell you a thing about the community from which they came. We give microloans to individuals and sponsor individual children. But what about their communities?
But what has been shown to be effective? In banking, much expert opinion is suggesting locally administered financial institutions (not the huge mega-global banks). Centralized administration in education, government and even taxation has been shown to be far less effective than local administration, closer to the community. Why have we ignored so crucial a part of our human experience? Why do we think solutions lie in a single individual (the Republican ideal) or in governments (the Democratic ideal), when we live and work in communities?
I propose we bring back the community. We, as a community, work with others in communities to change the world. Let us remember how we, humans, operate. Let us hear the call of our community, far away and faint, and let think rightly about what kind of creatures we are.
Sure you’re an American, but there’s vastly more variation from West LA to East LA than there is between “America” and “Britain.” Your community, not your country and not even your race, is more predictive as to whether you’ll get diabetes, graduate from high school, or get killed by gang violence.
In light of that, how many of us vote in our local elections? We think about changing America or the world, but how many have thought changing the community a valid ambition?
When we think about Global problems, we think of it in terms of governments and individuals. I can’t name you a single village or town in Africa. But I know that Zimbabwe is suffering from Cholera, and that Malawi is dealing with HIV. I know that DRC has unstable governance and that Sudan has a refugee problem. We pass laws and give aid to governments and countries. We don’t care about communities.
Also, I’ve seen pictures of a starving child, or an AIDS patient, but I can’t tell you a thing about the community from which they came. We give microloans to individuals and sponsor individual children. But what about their communities?
But what has been shown to be effective? In banking, much expert opinion is suggesting locally administered financial institutions (not the huge mega-global banks). Centralized administration in education, government and even taxation has been shown to be far less effective than local administration, closer to the community. Why have we ignored so crucial a part of our human experience? Why do we think solutions lie in a single individual (the Republican ideal) or in governments (the Democratic ideal), when we live and work in communities?
I propose we bring back the community. We, as a community, work with others in communities to change the world. Let us remember how we, humans, operate. Let us hear the call of our community, far away and faint, and let think rightly about what kind of creatures we are.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Proposition X
What if Proposition X was on the ballot? It would take volunteers from the overcrowded prisons to work on the San Andreas fault. The evidence shows that it would greatly benefit California. It would turnaround the economy, lower crime, reduce prison overcrowding and best of all, reduce the frequency of minor earthquakes which were costly to our infrastructure. On first glance, the naïve voter would surely vote Yes on X. But the opponents of X come out and show that with all the good, it will cost the lives of 1000 Californian inmates, many of whom were imprisoned for non-violent crimes and some of whom that may be wrongly imprisoned.
How would we make this decision? Even if we agree on the facts of the situation, what is the moral thing to do? What is the good thing to do? Is there a difference?
My position is that this, like almost all political matters, is an amoral issue. The “Yes on X” and “No on X” are both supporting their side for good moral reason: for California and for inmates. Their intents are good. There’s nothing immoral with allowing people to voluntarily work a dangerous job. There’s nothing immoral with not doing a public works project. Moreover, the foundations for our moral beliefs are difficult to discuss, particularly in public. What is accessible and much easier to discuss is the amoral (that is, not regarding morality) facts of the situation.
Benefits: Good commerce, better infrastructure, less prison overcrowding
Costs: 1000 deaths
We’d need to discuss which of two possible societies is better. We’d need to weight the lives of 1000 volunteer inmates against the good that will come from the work project. We can be Society A, which allows a few people to choose dangerous jobs for the benefit of all of us or Society B, which values the lives of its citizens so highly that it does not permit them to take such jobs, even though it is costly to all. I hold that we are almost always choosing between two amoral ends and trying to determine which makes for the best society. Certainly there are exceptions. There are no two ways about the Holocaust. Slavery is not an amoral issue (though even Lincoln saw it that way at times). But most everything else in politics falls into a moral gray area in my own worldview. When we make laws, we ought to talk about what we agree on (Society A vs. Society B) and not taking our own position to be the moral one and condemning those who disagree. At least this is how I think we’ll get things done. We can judge each other in the privacy of our own homes.
It is from that framework I’d like to reconsider Prop 8. I guess this is a little late to be directly relevant, but I had a very stimulating conversation gay marriage about an hour ago and felt inspired to write. The central question in my mind was “What is good for society?” In considering Prop 8, the conservative thinking (not Libertarian, which I tend to be…I’ll pretend to be a conservative for the purposes of this paper) supporting Prop 8 goes something like this:
Benefits: Stronger families.
Costs: Perception (though not reality) of disenfranchisement against gays.
My friend saw the world this way:
Benefits: None.
Costs: Weaker families; true and terrible disenfranchisement/discrimination; assault on the gay identity and worldview; massive increase in suicide and depression.
So who’s right? I think both sides exaggerate, but I think both sides are partly right. It made me reconsider the cost. I didn’t think the costs were high, myself not being deep within a social network that the proposition would affect. My accounting of the cost was much closer to the conservative position.
But what if I miscalculated the cost? Even assuming I’m right about the benefits, what if the costs were closer to my friend’s estimation? What if the cost of “stronger families” was 1000 additional suicides by people who felt disenfranchised? It would change the equation even if we assumed these deaths were collateral (that is, non-malicious; an unintended consequence). Clearly if we were considering “executing 1000 gays” for the sake of “stronger families,” then this would be one of the few clear-cut moral issues in politics. But as it is an unintended consequence (if this remained an amoral issue), the deaths (assuming they were real; I haven’t seen the data) would still need to be considered in the “Cost” section of the analysis.
Another miscalculation I made was in failing to properly put myself in the position of another. I naïvely thought, “How would I feel if I were in their shoes?” I thought about it like this: for many gays, their core identity is their sexual orientation; my core identity is a Christian. What if people told me, a Christian, I could not have legal marriage status and could not practice my religion in public. Would I care deeply? Would it affect my identity? No, not at all. I don’t know if I’d be like the disciples in Acts 5:41 who were “rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name,” but I wouldn’t be all that sad. My identity is based on God, not on the opinions of men. The important part of my religious practice is in private alone and in small groups anyways. I’d still illegally “get married” in private and know my wife (in the Biblical sense :)) in my bedroom. It’d be tough, but as a Christian, that’s what I signed up for (and what we get blessings for enduring). (And as an aside: I did sign up for Christianity when I was about 12; a personal decision independent of parents or tradition is a key element of Protestantism, especially today).
And that is where I made my mistake. I imputed my disregard for legal status upon others for whom legal status (or more likely, “social acceptance,” legal status being symbolic of acceptance) is supremely important. I projected my indifference (or mild desire for) persecution upon others who do not see it the same way.
So with these two adjustments, my analysis becomes this:
Benefits: Stronger families
Costs: Terrible feelings of disenfranchisement, increased gay suicide rate
My friend said, “You would not hold the beliefs that you do if you had more gay friends.” I said he may be right. I now know why: talking to those who would be most affected would help me better estimate the cost of such a bill. My perception suffers from not having many friends out of the closet.
I don’t know the final answer or the ultimate benefit of Prop 8, but I do know that I make a mistake in calculating the cost. If only this argument were made to me rationally instead of calling me an immoral bigot from an arbitrary moral framework, I might have changed my vote.
How would we make this decision? Even if we agree on the facts of the situation, what is the moral thing to do? What is the good thing to do? Is there a difference?
My position is that this, like almost all political matters, is an amoral issue. The “Yes on X” and “No on X” are both supporting their side for good moral reason: for California and for inmates. Their intents are good. There’s nothing immoral with allowing people to voluntarily work a dangerous job. There’s nothing immoral with not doing a public works project. Moreover, the foundations for our moral beliefs are difficult to discuss, particularly in public. What is accessible and much easier to discuss is the amoral (that is, not regarding morality) facts of the situation.
Benefits: Good commerce, better infrastructure, less prison overcrowding
Costs: 1000 deaths
We’d need to discuss which of two possible societies is better. We’d need to weight the lives of 1000 volunteer inmates against the good that will come from the work project. We can be Society A, which allows a few people to choose dangerous jobs for the benefit of all of us or Society B, which values the lives of its citizens so highly that it does not permit them to take such jobs, even though it is costly to all. I hold that we are almost always choosing between two amoral ends and trying to determine which makes for the best society. Certainly there are exceptions. There are no two ways about the Holocaust. Slavery is not an amoral issue (though even Lincoln saw it that way at times). But most everything else in politics falls into a moral gray area in my own worldview. When we make laws, we ought to talk about what we agree on (Society A vs. Society B) and not taking our own position to be the moral one and condemning those who disagree. At least this is how I think we’ll get things done. We can judge each other in the privacy of our own homes.
It is from that framework I’d like to reconsider Prop 8. I guess this is a little late to be directly relevant, but I had a very stimulating conversation gay marriage about an hour ago and felt inspired to write. The central question in my mind was “What is good for society?” In considering Prop 8, the conservative thinking (not Libertarian, which I tend to be…I’ll pretend to be a conservative for the purposes of this paper) supporting Prop 8 goes something like this:
Benefits: Stronger families.
Costs: Perception (though not reality) of disenfranchisement against gays.
My friend saw the world this way:
Benefits: None.
Costs: Weaker families; true and terrible disenfranchisement/discrimination; assault on the gay identity and worldview; massive increase in suicide and depression.
So who’s right? I think both sides exaggerate, but I think both sides are partly right. It made me reconsider the cost. I didn’t think the costs were high, myself not being deep within a social network that the proposition would affect. My accounting of the cost was much closer to the conservative position.
But what if I miscalculated the cost? Even assuming I’m right about the benefits, what if the costs were closer to my friend’s estimation? What if the cost of “stronger families” was 1000 additional suicides by people who felt disenfranchised? It would change the equation even if we assumed these deaths were collateral (that is, non-malicious; an unintended consequence). Clearly if we were considering “executing 1000 gays” for the sake of “stronger families,” then this would be one of the few clear-cut moral issues in politics. But as it is an unintended consequence (if this remained an amoral issue), the deaths (assuming they were real; I haven’t seen the data) would still need to be considered in the “Cost” section of the analysis.
Another miscalculation I made was in failing to properly put myself in the position of another. I naïvely thought, “How would I feel if I were in their shoes?” I thought about it like this: for many gays, their core identity is their sexual orientation; my core identity is a Christian. What if people told me, a Christian, I could not have legal marriage status and could not practice my religion in public. Would I care deeply? Would it affect my identity? No, not at all. I don’t know if I’d be like the disciples in Acts 5:41 who were “rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name,” but I wouldn’t be all that sad. My identity is based on God, not on the opinions of men. The important part of my religious practice is in private alone and in small groups anyways. I’d still illegally “get married” in private and know my wife (in the Biblical sense :)) in my bedroom. It’d be tough, but as a Christian, that’s what I signed up for (and what we get blessings for enduring). (And as an aside: I did sign up for Christianity when I was about 12; a personal decision independent of parents or tradition is a key element of Protestantism, especially today).
And that is where I made my mistake. I imputed my disregard for legal status upon others for whom legal status (or more likely, “social acceptance,” legal status being symbolic of acceptance) is supremely important. I projected my indifference (or mild desire for) persecution upon others who do not see it the same way.
So with these two adjustments, my analysis becomes this:
Benefits: Stronger families
Costs: Terrible feelings of disenfranchisement, increased gay suicide rate
My friend said, “You would not hold the beliefs that you do if you had more gay friends.” I said he may be right. I now know why: talking to those who would be most affected would help me better estimate the cost of such a bill. My perception suffers from not having many friends out of the closet.
I don’t know the final answer or the ultimate benefit of Prop 8, but I do know that I make a mistake in calculating the cost. If only this argument were made to me rationally instead of calling me an immoral bigot from an arbitrary moral framework, I might have changed my vote.
Friday, January 30, 2009
The Fountain of Youth?
Medicine isn’t a fountain of youth. In America, we spend more and more and more on medicine and it’s not making us any healthier.
Scholars evaluating ‘health outcomes’ have begun to see this and are getting scared. After all, what will they have to do when more medicine amounts to giving people sugar pills. I read a paper by a scholar I respected on the availability of MRIs. The conclusion was we use them more when they’re available (in a direct linear relationship), but there is a considerable question as to whether we are any better because of it. He suggests that we may need to start looking for non-health based outcomes. In other words, we need to ask how it made people feel.
We saw another study that showed that doctors in New York visit a certain population of their hospital patients three times as many times as doctors in San Francisco. They also keep them for thrice as many days in the hospitals. “Good for them!” you may say. But when you compare outcomes, there is no difference. Those who stayed 10 days in San Francisco had the same outcome as those who stayed 30 in New York. Zero difference.
“You get what you pay for,” we say to ourselves. If we pay more for healthcare, we get more life out of it. But we’ve maxed out on medicine. There’s no more life that can be purchased for most of us. There are certainly some people who need new breakthroughs to live as long as everybody else. But for most of us, throwing more money at body scans and vitamins is just like throwing money down a toilet. Staying an extra day in the hospital. Getting that X-ray for a rib you knew was broken. Will that make us healthier? Will that add years to our lives? No.
Why do we? Because we think it will. Somewhere in our psyche is the thought that we can buy eternal life. Like Simon the Sorcerer who when he “…saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, Saying, Give me also this power…” (Acts 8:18-19a). We think life is for sale, and doctors are the vendors. I’ll let you in on a secret that, if everyone knew about it, would save us from financial ruin: Doctors don’t hold the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Giving us money just makes us rich. Save your money. Or better yet, use it to save others. Extension of your life cannot be purchased; but that’s not true for at least a billion people around the world. Buy for them the health you already enjoy.
Scholars evaluating ‘health outcomes’ have begun to see this and are getting scared. After all, what will they have to do when more medicine amounts to giving people sugar pills. I read a paper by a scholar I respected on the availability of MRIs. The conclusion was we use them more when they’re available (in a direct linear relationship), but there is a considerable question as to whether we are any better because of it. He suggests that we may need to start looking for non-health based outcomes. In other words, we need to ask how it made people feel.
We saw another study that showed that doctors in New York visit a certain population of their hospital patients three times as many times as doctors in San Francisco. They also keep them for thrice as many days in the hospitals. “Good for them!” you may say. But when you compare outcomes, there is no difference. Those who stayed 10 days in San Francisco had the same outcome as those who stayed 30 in New York. Zero difference.
“You get what you pay for,” we say to ourselves. If we pay more for healthcare, we get more life out of it. But we’ve maxed out on medicine. There’s no more life that can be purchased for most of us. There are certainly some people who need new breakthroughs to live as long as everybody else. But for most of us, throwing more money at body scans and vitamins is just like throwing money down a toilet. Staying an extra day in the hospital. Getting that X-ray for a rib you knew was broken. Will that make us healthier? Will that add years to our lives? No.
Why do we? Because we think it will. Somewhere in our psyche is the thought that we can buy eternal life. Like Simon the Sorcerer who when he “…saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, Saying, Give me also this power…” (Acts 8:18-19a). We think life is for sale, and doctors are the vendors. I’ll let you in on a secret that, if everyone knew about it, would save us from financial ruin: Doctors don’t hold the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Giving us money just makes us rich. Save your money. Or better yet, use it to save others. Extension of your life cannot be purchased; but that’s not true for at least a billion people around the world. Buy for them the health you already enjoy.
Alternative to Universal Healthcare
Explore the possibility of having “universal healthcare” through universal access to government loans instead of limitless insurance. These loans would cover the cost of medical procedures and thus allowing everyone to get care that they needed. They would function like student loans: the payments would be reasonable for all incomes (payments max out at a certain percentage of income), deferrable under extreme economic hardship, and they don’t go away after bankruptcy.
This system would have the advantage of allowing patient-consumers to choose wisely with their own money, and not simply spend without discretion. This would likely need to be aided by mandating transparency in healthcare (Ala Herzlinger’s Healthcare SEC). Whatever a person spends on his health, he is responsible for. For a very sick poor person, they will pay a percentage of his income for the rest of his life, thereby sharing in the cost he is incurring on society.
This would solve the dual problems of medical expenses causing financial ruin and expenses rocketing to the stratosphere because we are not allowed to be consumers. It would cause problems in potential overspending for the very sick. It would also make insurance companies irrelevant, because the burden of risk is upon the government. In many cases, it would be an unequal burden on the rich; they would more often pay off their expensive loans while the poor would die with government medical debt (which would have to be forgiven).
Though I am always hesitant to give the government power, the exchange of a huge government program for a moderate one is palatable. The unequal burden on the rich already exists, and the cost savings by consumers driving the market (as in the RAND experiment) would more than make up for this inequity. Overall, the system would make a person’s health his own responsibility.
This system would have the advantage of allowing patient-consumers to choose wisely with their own money, and not simply spend without discretion. This would likely need to be aided by mandating transparency in healthcare (Ala Herzlinger’s Healthcare SEC). Whatever a person spends on his health, he is responsible for. For a very sick poor person, they will pay a percentage of his income for the rest of his life, thereby sharing in the cost he is incurring on society.
This would solve the dual problems of medical expenses causing financial ruin and expenses rocketing to the stratosphere because we are not allowed to be consumers. It would cause problems in potential overspending for the very sick. It would also make insurance companies irrelevant, because the burden of risk is upon the government. In many cases, it would be an unequal burden on the rich; they would more often pay off their expensive loans while the poor would die with government medical debt (which would have to be forgiven).
Though I am always hesitant to give the government power, the exchange of a huge government program for a moderate one is palatable. The unequal burden on the rich already exists, and the cost savings by consumers driving the market (as in the RAND experiment) would more than make up for this inequity. Overall, the system would make a person’s health his own responsibility.
Monday, January 12, 2009
If American Healthcare was a Burger Joint
Imagine you work up a mighty appetite. You consider to yourself, “Self, I have a mighty appetite. What shall I do?” Upon reflection, you come up with two revelations as if from on high, “McDonalds or In-N-Out.” You certainly like McDonalds’ fries, but the fresh ingredients at In-N-Out are very tasty too (and somewhat healthy, to boot). You weigh your options, but the double-double animal style wins out.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
How to Really Care About Others
We don't really care about other people. We know so much about their friends, their hobbies, and their education. We seem to have the idea that these things are what make a person who they are. We care about their environments, but we don't care about them.
Why don't we value others' ideas? It's exactly what they value most. Have you ever tried to ask somebody's opinion on something? They're almost always elated to give it to you. They're thrilled that you think them important enough to ask their opinion on anything. We spend so much time with other people, but how rarely do we actually care about what's really important to them. How rarely do we care about what really defines them, about the thing which made Frederick Douglass a hero, about the expression of our humanity.
If you really want to make someone your good friend, ask them who they really are. Ask about the most important choices they've ever made: their beliefs. "What do you think about..." could be the harbinger of a renaissance and deepen our ever-shallowing relationships. End the sentence with 'success,' 'beauty,' 'politics,' 'God,' 'purpose,' 'truth,' 'choice' or 'science.' The deeper, the better.
And don't even try, "I'm no philosopher," because that's just another way of saying, "I'd rather have old guys who sit in musty rooms decide what the purpose of my life should be." And indeed, that's what most of you have done. Be Courageous. Liberate yourself and your friends from the terrible slavery of such unquestioned compliance. Build an underground railroad to intellectual freedom, one question at a time.
We’ve fought so hard for the freedom of thought. We've achieved it. Nobody's going to level a rifle at you for thinking or expressing your thoughts. But now that we have the freedom to express our ideas, nobody cares. Indifference is crueler than any bayonet. At least the soldier pressing your face to the dirt with his boot sincerely cares about your ideas; he would like very much that you not express them. Now that you’ve escaped the soldier, exercise your freedom to ask questions of your friends.
But what about, "Don't talk about God or politics?" Those who express such an opinion must be afraid that you might actually get to know somebody. It is exactly those things, the things which are most important to who we are, that we should talk about. The conflict comes because we behave like children when "discussing" God and politics.
"Republicans are warmongers!" "Christians are mindless!" "Muslims are terrorists!" Even if you are actually dumb enough to believe one of these statements, you can still have good conversation. Imagine hearing, "I believe in God." Would you respond as a child with a rehearsed insult ("Sheep!")? Don't be surprised when civil discourse crumbles under the great weight of your immaturity. Or would you respond in maturity and ask, "Why do you believe in God?" As a mature questioner, you could ask question after question without even expressing your own belief, let alone getting upset at your Theistic companion. You can get to know that person better in an hour of such conversation than a month of our status quo friendship.
We're so out of practice with thinking together that great progress would be made simply by starting our conversations with "What do you think?"
So, what do you think? I'd love to know: TheEngineer@gmail.com.
Why don't we value others' ideas? It's exactly what they value most. Have you ever tried to ask somebody's opinion on something? They're almost always elated to give it to you. They're thrilled that you think them important enough to ask their opinion on anything. We spend so much time with other people, but how rarely do we actually care about what's really important to them. How rarely do we care about what really defines them, about the thing which made Frederick Douglass a hero, about the expression of our humanity.
If you really want to make someone your good friend, ask them who they really are. Ask about the most important choices they've ever made: their beliefs. "What do you think about..." could be the harbinger of a renaissance and deepen our ever-shallowing relationships. End the sentence with 'success,' 'beauty,' 'politics,' 'God,' 'purpose,' 'truth,' 'choice' or 'science.' The deeper, the better.
And don't even try, "I'm no philosopher," because that's just another way of saying, "I'd rather have old guys who sit in musty rooms decide what the purpose of my life should be." And indeed, that's what most of you have done. Be Courageous. Liberate yourself and your friends from the terrible slavery of such unquestioned compliance. Build an underground railroad to intellectual freedom, one question at a time.
We’ve fought so hard for the freedom of thought. We've achieved it. Nobody's going to level a rifle at you for thinking or expressing your thoughts. But now that we have the freedom to express our ideas, nobody cares. Indifference is crueler than any bayonet. At least the soldier pressing your face to the dirt with his boot sincerely cares about your ideas; he would like very much that you not express them. Now that you’ve escaped the soldier, exercise your freedom to ask questions of your friends.
But what about, "Don't talk about God or politics?" Those who express such an opinion must be afraid that you might actually get to know somebody. It is exactly those things, the things which are most important to who we are, that we should talk about. The conflict comes because we behave like children when "discussing" God and politics.
"Republicans are warmongers!" "Christians are mindless!" "Muslims are terrorists!" Even if you are actually dumb enough to believe one of these statements, you can still have good conversation. Imagine hearing, "I believe in God." Would you respond as a child with a rehearsed insult ("Sheep!")? Don't be surprised when civil discourse crumbles under the great weight of your immaturity. Or would you respond in maturity and ask, "Why do you believe in God?" As a mature questioner, you could ask question after question without even expressing your own belief, let alone getting upset at your Theistic companion. You can get to know that person better in an hour of such conversation than a month of our status quo friendship.
We're so out of practice with thinking together that great progress would be made simply by starting our conversations with "What do you think?"
So, what do you think? I'd love to know: TheEngineer@gmail.com.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Why I eat cows.
Here is my prompt:
#1 - Morality
Christian Argument
I believe animals have souls but not spirits. They are capable of feeling emotion and pain, but not of communing with God. Thus, my opinion is that cruelty towards them is bad. Nevertheless, they were created for our sustenance and we are given explicit permission to eat them (Gen 9:3).
The Bible exhorts: "Be sure you know the condition of your flocks, give careful attention to your herds" (Proverbs 27:23) and that "A righteous man cares for the needs of his animal..." (Proverbs 12:10).
There do seem to be horrific living conditions for animals in some of the mass farms out there, and I would prefer it if my meat came from a more humane setting. However, it is not a moral evil on the same level as murder or torture of a human would be.
Secular Perspective
Making a moral argument from a secular perspective (from whence most vegetarians argue) is rather difficult mostly because of relativism. Why do you try to impose on me your beliefs about cows? The only basis for morality could be consensus, but there is clearly not consensus for vegetarianism.
The other primary problem with the secular perspective is the lack of a spirit. There is no categorical difference between a cow and a man. Usually it is argued that it is for the difference in intelligence that the man is superior to the cow, but then stupid people seem still to be of more value than smart apes.
My point is that it is very difficult to have any reasonable opinion on animal rights without believing in some sort of Morality and Spirit.
#2 - Health
I do believe it is probably more healthy to be a vegetarian than an omnivore. However, to be a healthy vegetarian, it takes quite a lot of work to actually eat right.
Bibilcally, it seems that some of the healthiest people were vegetarians. Adam was a vegetarian, though he had free access to every tree in the garden. So in his perfect state, Man did not need meat. Daniel refused to eat the meat of Nebuchadnezzar and was the healthier for it (Dan 1:15).
"Red meat is legitimately bad for you." Except after I tried to find references to back up that, I was surprised to find controversy. Among others, this AHA editorial talks about it being more complicated, and the official 2006 AHA recommendations (you can follow the link if you're at UCLA) make no mention of limiting meat intake. It seems that it is high saturated fat/cholesterol which is the culprit, not the meat itself.
I found another study on bone-breakage. If you adjust for calcium intake, vegans break their bones as often as meat-eaters. If you don't, they break them 30% more often. In other words, if vegans ate the same amount of calcium, they would break their bones as often as meat-eaters, but they don't. Interestingly, vegetarians were statistically equivalent to meat-eaters.
Vegetarianism seems to reduce your risk of colorectal cancer (here), and may increase lifespan a bit (here). However, it seems clear that vegans are not healthy people. You could argue that they could be, but the fact is that they aren't for all their hard hard work.
This has sparked interest in me; I hope to pursue this further later. I always assumed vegetarianism was much more healthy, but it's not clearly the case. Stay tuned.
#3 World Food Supply
It has been argued that we should not eat meat because it is an inefficient use of land. More calories could be gown on the same land as is required to raise and feed cattle. This is true. I was taught in Biology that each step up the food chain is a 90% loss. The Economist stated that to produce a pound of beef, it takes 8 pound of grain.
That's why a pound of hamburger may costs $3 and a pound of flour $0.50. But when the per capita GDP of the country is $44,000, we can afford to eat hamburger. It may be that we won't have cheap food for much longer (according to the Economist). Nevertheless, we do now. And as Americans and members of the global economy, we can choose to buy what food we want.
We're not running out of food. It will soon be expensive because we want to burn it in SUVs, but we're not on the brink of worldwide starvation. There have even been some very interesting propositions to solve this distant problem. The Vertical Farm project claims it is possible to make an office building into a farm anywhere. Then it would only take electricity to produce food; the land element is satisfied.
It does seem likely in our lifetimes that meat will get more and more expensive as we do run out of land. People who are concerned about the lack of land in 50 years can ease their conscience by not eating meat. The market will make the transition a gradual one, and I plan on changing my dietary preferences then.
Conclusion
I do not believe that eating meat is wrong, though some of the worse mass-farms might be. It is not unhealthy to eat meat, though there may be benefits to abstaining. I do not think that world food supply is yet a concern that ought to be seriously considered in deciding to eat meat or not.
In conclusion, I believe that cows are so plentiful, fat, and stupid because I'm supposed to eat them. They are very tasty.
And that is why I eat cows.
Do cows know they're suffering? Should I care that they are suffering? If they're not meant to be eaten why are they so plentiful, fat, and stupid? In terms of efficiency, is it a viable plan to shift production away from livestock and towards agriculture? Is it "unhealthy" to eat red meat and can we adequately supplement a meatless diet with vitamins and supplements and what not?I've had the vegetarian conversation several times and there are several things that can be said. There are several elements to the discussion. The first concern (#1) is an ethical one. Is it cruel or evil to eat animals? Another concern (I'll call #2) is the healthiness of it. The final (#3) is a more global concern for food supply.
#1 - Morality
Christian Argument
I believe animals have souls but not spirits. They are capable of feeling emotion and pain, but not of communing with God. Thus, my opinion is that cruelty towards them is bad. Nevertheless, they were created for our sustenance and we are given explicit permission to eat them (Gen 9:3).
The Bible exhorts: "Be sure you know the condition of your flocks, give careful attention to your herds" (Proverbs 27:23) and that "A righteous man cares for the needs of his animal..." (Proverbs 12:10).
There do seem to be horrific living conditions for animals in some of the mass farms out there, and I would prefer it if my meat came from a more humane setting. However, it is not a moral evil on the same level as murder or torture of a human would be.
Secular Perspective
Making a moral argument from a secular perspective (from whence most vegetarians argue) is rather difficult mostly because of relativism. Why do you try to impose on me your beliefs about cows? The only basis for morality could be consensus, but there is clearly not consensus for vegetarianism.
The other primary problem with the secular perspective is the lack of a spirit. There is no categorical difference between a cow and a man. Usually it is argued that it is for the difference in intelligence that the man is superior to the cow, but then stupid people seem still to be of more value than smart apes.
My point is that it is very difficult to have any reasonable opinion on animal rights without believing in some sort of Morality and Spirit.
#2 - Health
I do believe it is probably more healthy to be a vegetarian than an omnivore. However, to be a healthy vegetarian, it takes quite a lot of work to actually eat right.
Bibilcally, it seems that some of the healthiest people were vegetarians. Adam was a vegetarian, though he had free access to every tree in the garden. So in his perfect state, Man did not need meat. Daniel refused to eat the meat of Nebuchadnezzar and was the healthier for it (Dan 1:15).
"Red meat is legitimately bad for you." Except after I tried to find references to back up that, I was surprised to find controversy. Among others, this AHA editorial talks about it being more complicated, and the official 2006 AHA recommendations (you can follow the link if you're at UCLA) make no mention of limiting meat intake. It seems that it is high saturated fat/cholesterol which is the culprit, not the meat itself.
I found another study on bone-breakage. If you adjust for calcium intake, vegans break their bones as often as meat-eaters. If you don't, they break them 30% more often. In other words, if vegans ate the same amount of calcium, they would break their bones as often as meat-eaters, but they don't. Interestingly, vegetarians were statistically equivalent to meat-eaters.
Vegetarianism seems to reduce your risk of colorectal cancer (here), and may increase lifespan a bit (here). However, it seems clear that vegans are not healthy people. You could argue that they could be, but the fact is that they aren't for all their hard hard work.
This has sparked interest in me; I hope to pursue this further later. I always assumed vegetarianism was much more healthy, but it's not clearly the case. Stay tuned.
#3 World Food Supply
It has been argued that we should not eat meat because it is an inefficient use of land. More calories could be gown on the same land as is required to raise and feed cattle. This is true. I was taught in Biology that each step up the food chain is a 90% loss. The Economist stated that to produce a pound of beef, it takes 8 pound of grain.
That's why a pound of hamburger may costs $3 and a pound of flour $0.50. But when the per capita GDP of the country is $44,000, we can afford to eat hamburger. It may be that we won't have cheap food for much longer (according to the Economist). Nevertheless, we do now. And as Americans and members of the global economy, we can choose to buy what food we want.
We're not running out of food. It will soon be expensive because we want to burn it in SUVs, but we're not on the brink of worldwide starvation. There have even been some very interesting propositions to solve this distant problem. The Vertical Farm project claims it is possible to make an office building into a farm anywhere. Then it would only take electricity to produce food; the land element is satisfied.
It does seem likely in our lifetimes that meat will get more and more expensive as we do run out of land. People who are concerned about the lack of land in 50 years can ease their conscience by not eating meat. The market will make the transition a gradual one, and I plan on changing my dietary preferences then.
Conclusion
I do not believe that eating meat is wrong, though some of the worse mass-farms might be. It is not unhealthy to eat meat, though there may be benefits to abstaining. I do not think that world food supply is yet a concern that ought to be seriously considered in deciding to eat meat or not.
In conclusion, I believe that cows are so plentiful, fat, and stupid because I'm supposed to eat them. They are very tasty.
And that is why I eat cows.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Conversation with a Congolese Scientist
I just had a conversation with a biologist from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). He is in the PhD program at UCLA. I was over at my friend Josh Beck's apartment and we had dinner with him. I asked him his perspective on Africa, its problems and his ideas on solutions and decided to email you what he said.
Background
Neville has been working in Congo with the NIH (a US institution) on Monkeypox, an emerging disease with the potential to become as deadly as Smallpox. His advisor in Washington DC and he organized a massive sampling in the villages throughout DRC. In the end, he collected 15000 blood samples by trekking through the Congolese jungles. They are going to be processed in Oregon where they hope to track the mutation of existing diseases and identify new viruses that are emerging in the jungles.
He is one of the top scientists in DRC, which has one of the best educated populations in Africa. He was awarded a scholarship from the NIH to be trained as a PhD at UCLA.
Aid
He is critical of aid as it exists today, but believes it is very important nonetheless.
The UN works with whomever the government tells them to work for, and then the clothes or food go to the families and friends of the government workers.
He also talked about how stupidly it is given. Right before he left, he told of visiting a neighboring country and seeing a very expensive piece of diagnostic/science equipment (a flow cytometer) just sitting collecting dust. France had donated it to help in the fight against AIDS, but there were no scientists who knew how to use it. Someone stole it thinking it was a TV, but after being unable to get it to work, he brought it back. The bottom line was if the machine were given to DRC on the other side of the river, it could have actually been used.
His idea is to connect with individual and trustworthy individual Africans who would be faithful in giving aid to those who actually need it. He said when he went out into the villages, that there were naked and hungry people. Most of the aid stays in the cities or goes to greedy politicians. He said he has many trustworthy friends that could be held accountable by being expected to show pictures and stories of children helped and with occasional visits to Africa. I've gotten his email and plan to follow up with that.
Technology
There was definitely a Flat-World moment or two. When he was doing his research, he had a Land Rover that was connected with an antenna to a high-speed modem back in the city. He said he once was in a village 1000km away talking via Skype videophone to Washington DC to get advice on how to proceed in the Congolese rain forest.
He mentioned the cost of Internet was rather low, about a cent a minute. To call the US, it was 40 cents a minute.
Education
He believes education is a major part of getting Africa back on its feet. He said he would help as much as he could, but he just didn't have the money to send everyone to school. A student really wanted to go to university, but couldn't afford it. He said the cost of attendance would be less than $1000 per year and that a degree took 3 to 4 years to complete. There are 2 year masters programs, but no PhD programs.
The thing he wants to achieve to build up the scientific world is collaborations between American and African institutions. Surprisingly to me, there are many Congolese scientists. They know all about what a Western Blot would be, but have no money to do them. There are no resources in DRC for researchers or students, so he proposes an exchange program. Americans could go to Africa to study Malaria as it really is, and Africans could come to America to learn how to use equipment and get trained.
Politics
I asked him what were some of the things that were different about America's culture that he noticed. The first thing he said was, "You are very hardworking."
The second thing he pointed out and admired was our patriotism. He thought our patriotism was important in our success as a country. He said, "Without patriotism, it is the death of that country." He believes that this is a major problem in African politics: the leaders aren't patriotic and don't want their country to be great. Their patriotism can be bought, so they sell their country.
He believes our biggest failing is in our ignorance of the world. "The world is a village," and we have no idea what is going on in it.
"That is what is lacking in Africa: men of principles". He respects America for its principles, or rather the principles of our founders that exist now only as a residual (He told a proverb of using a jar to store chilies, and then even if they are taken out, the jar will still smell of them forever).
Overall
It was a really cool night. I learned so much and got such an improved perspective on the world. I hope to actually collaborate with him and have an impact on Africa instead of just feeling bad.
Background
Neville has been working in Congo with the NIH (a US institution) on Monkeypox, an emerging disease with the potential to become as deadly as Smallpox. His advisor in Washington DC and he organized a massive sampling in the villages throughout DRC. In the end, he collected 15000 blood samples by trekking through the Congolese jungles. They are going to be processed in Oregon where they hope to track the mutation of existing diseases and identify new viruses that are emerging in the jungles.
He is one of the top scientists in DRC, which has one of the best educated populations in Africa. He was awarded a scholarship from the NIH to be trained as a PhD at UCLA.
Aid
He is critical of aid as it exists today, but believes it is very important nonetheless.
The UN works with whomever the government tells them to work for, and then the clothes or food go to the families and friends of the government workers.
He also talked about how stupidly it is given. Right before he left, he told of visiting a neighboring country and seeing a very expensive piece of diagnostic/science equipment (a flow cytometer) just sitting collecting dust. France had donated it to help in the fight against AIDS, but there were no scientists who knew how to use it. Someone stole it thinking it was a TV, but after being unable to get it to work, he brought it back. The bottom line was if the machine were given to DRC on the other side of the river, it could have actually been used.
His idea is to connect with individual and trustworthy individual Africans who would be faithful in giving aid to those who actually need it. He said when he went out into the villages, that there were naked and hungry people. Most of the aid stays in the cities or goes to greedy politicians. He said he has many trustworthy friends that could be held accountable by being expected to show pictures and stories of children helped and with occasional visits to Africa. I've gotten his email and plan to follow up with that.
Technology
There was definitely a Flat-World moment or two. When he was doing his research, he had a Land Rover that was connected with an antenna to a high-speed modem back in the city. He said he once was in a village 1000km away talking via Skype videophone to Washington DC to get advice on how to proceed in the Congolese rain forest.
He mentioned the cost of Internet was rather low, about a cent a minute. To call the US, it was 40 cents a minute.
Education
He believes education is a major part of getting Africa back on its feet. He said he would help as much as he could, but he just didn't have the money to send everyone to school. A student really wanted to go to university, but couldn't afford it. He said the cost of attendance would be less than $1000 per year and that a degree took 3 to 4 years to complete. There are 2 year masters programs, but no PhD programs.
The thing he wants to achieve to build up the scientific world is collaborations between American and African institutions. Surprisingly to me, there are many Congolese scientists. They know all about what a Western Blot would be, but have no money to do them. There are no resources in DRC for researchers or students, so he proposes an exchange program. Americans could go to Africa to study Malaria as it really is, and Africans could come to America to learn how to use equipment and get trained.
Politics
I asked him what were some of the things that were different about America's culture that he noticed. The first thing he said was, "You are very hardworking."
The second thing he pointed out and admired was our patriotism. He thought our patriotism was important in our success as a country. He said, "Without patriotism, it is the death of that country." He believes that this is a major problem in African politics: the leaders aren't patriotic and don't want their country to be great. Their patriotism can be bought, so they sell their country.
He believes our biggest failing is in our ignorance of the world. "The world is a village," and we have no idea what is going on in it.
"That is what is lacking in Africa: men of principles". He respects America for its principles, or rather the principles of our founders that exist now only as a residual (He told a proverb of using a jar to store chilies, and then even if they are taken out, the jar will still smell of them forever).
Overall
It was a really cool night. I learned so much and got such an improved perspective on the world. I hope to actually collaborate with him and have an impact on Africa instead of just feeling bad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)