tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-48350143949417704192024-02-20T17:13:49.845-06:00Advancing Humanism"It is the individual who is not interested in his fellow men who has the greatest difficulties in life and provides the greatest injury to others. It is from among such individuals that all human failures spring."AHShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10365755866075641026noreply@blogger.comBlogger82125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4835014394941770419.post-74029755170998486052012-03-23T17:49:00.000-05:002012-03-23T17:49:51.866-05:00Dear Conservative Friend<em>(Excerpted from an ongoing dialogue.)</em><br />
<br />
1) I think that we agree on many things, in principle. Nobody should be able to compel me to commit murder in the name of a 'greater good'. I dislike paying for other people's irresponsible behavior. What I have a problem with is that, likewise, nobody should be able to compel me to put MY life at risk for the sake of another. Nobody should be able to tell me what I HAVE TO allow or not allow to grow in MY body. (<a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/03/my-rights-as-a-pregnant-woman-or-the-lack-thereof.html">Scary blog post</a> to follow in separate message.) I take issue with the fact that people in our government are trying to force others to adopt their own particular set of values with respect to their bodies.<br />
<br />
2) I am very pro-individual freedom. I do not want to be compelled to buy crap health insurance at an exorbitant price, when I could (and probably SHOULD) be spending that money to buy better, healthier food, or otherwise improving my health PROACTIVELY. A massage once a month does wonders for my stress level (which, in turn, reduces my stress-related eating), but you can't find a health plan that covers that. Or Weight Watchers. Etc.<br />
<br />
3) I disagree with the characterization in <a href="http://www.wiscnews.com/portagedailyregister/news/opinion/columnists/article_8df60c28-717f-11e1-bf29-001871e3ce6c.html?mode=story">your link</a> of these men as "good men defending conscience rights." Heck, I had to google 'conscience rights' just to understand this supposed justification for the outlandish, boorish, offensive statements that were presented in the <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=834jIeRQd3M">War on Women video</a>. It is never necessary to demean a class of people (ANY class of people) in order to make a valid point. None of the statements in the video even had to do with conscience rights.<br />
<br />
4) The point of <a href="http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2012/03/20/conscience-clauses-vs-refusal-an-historical-perspective/">my article</a> was that it's too easy to find a reason NOT to pay for a procedure that someone ELSE needs. I hate (absolutely HATE) the idea of kids being on psychiatric meds, and I think that <a href="http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2012/03/05/are-psychiatric-medications-making-us-sicker/">scientific research</a> backs up the point that these meds are over-prescribed and prescribed for uses/ages for which they were never designed. I think it does a lot of damage, and that we will 'reap what we sow', so to speak, as these overmedicated generations grows up. I think that the 'lifestyle convenience' argument could certainly be applied to many cases of parents seeking medication for their kids. At the same time, I cannot afford to be without health insurance, like the most of the rest of this country. That means that some of my premiums will pay for procedures and decisions with which I disagree. THAT is the price of being part of a collective - ANY collective. If we let people get everything that THEY want (or think they NEED), and opt out of giving other people what THEY think they need, then we have no power as a collective at all. The entire concept of health insurance needs to be redefined, but you don't see ANYBODY refusing it because their premium payments *currently* subsidize other people's abortions. <br />
<br />
5) For collective health insurance to function wisely - i.e., minimize the cost and maximize the health of the participants - it SHOULD pay for those things which do the most to prevent future (preventable) expenses. It SHOULD pay for birth control so that there are no unwanted pregnancies. It SHOULD pay for Weight Watchers, so that the costs of diabetes and other weight related problems down the road are prevented. If your health insurance offers to pay for Weight Watchers, and your doctor recommends that you go, and you DON'T, then you SHOULD agree to assume a greater portion of the cost of your future health problems that relate to your weight. (Obviously people should be free to have the final word on what happens to their own bodies, but they should do so without putting the burden on the rest of us.) If insurance doesn't pay for the cost of PREVENTION, it can't refuse to pay the medical costs incurred from refusing to prevent.<br />
<br />
6) I agree that this country has an entitlement problem. Nobody is ENTITLED to health insurance. However, the healthcare system is so out of whack that almost nobody can afford to cover their own costs, especially in the face of a crisis. Until the healthcare system is reformed, the ONLY way that the majority of us will get healthcare is to leverage our collective power. Fighting over what we do or don't want to pay for for someone ELSE is just a distraction from the much-needed call for real health care reform. Nobody ever says "I'LL opt out of coverage for [insert *likely* condition]", but everybody wants to talk about what somebody ELSE may or may not be getting. <br />
<br />
I miss working with you too. We did have good conversation... Have a great weekend! :)AHShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10365755866075641026noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4835014394941770419.post-62902529135874839832012-03-18T07:50:00.001-05:002012-03-18T07:50:00.682-05:00Spiritual, But Not Religious<strong>Spiritual...</strong><br />
<br />
I like to think about the idea of God. I like to think critically, to doubt <em>and</em> to imagine.<br />
<br />
I like the idea of a god/higher power that sees <em>me</em>, without the intervention of a hierarchy of priests and saints.<br />
<br />
I find it more ennobling to believe myself to be a soul reincarnated here to learn, than a slight improvement on a monkey.<br />
<br />
I find comfort in the idea that there might be something more after this life, but I don't want to live my life just to get to it.<br />
<br />
I am more tolerant of other people and ideas than [insert religion here] would allow me to be.<br />
<br />
I am not blind to the mutually-exclusive nature of many religions.<br />
<br />
I wonder what it is that enables human beings to act in purely self-sacrificial ways.<br />
<br />
I think many of us have experiences that defy a strict materialist explanation; for lack of a better paradigm, we tend to think of these things as 'spiritual'.<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong>... but not religious.</strong><br />
<br />
I don't like hypocrisy. People are human, and they make mistakes, but somehow that never stops them from trying to tell others how to live. <br />
<br />
I was raised to think for myself in every other area of my life. Why should the realm of spiritual things be any different?<br />
<br />
I want to be charitable, but I want to know that I'm helping buy food for the needy, and not a new gym for a church, so I donate directly to the food bank.<br />
<br />
I find it hard to be associated with an organization/belief system that has done so much damage in the name of doing good.<br />
<br />
Don't even get me started on how women have been devalued in the name of religion.<br />
<br />
I think the world would be a better place if people were less reliant on authority to tell them what to think.AHShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10365755866075641026noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4835014394941770419.post-43599669620978716302012-02-19T06:00:00.002-06:002012-02-19T06:00:01.965-06:00Uprising<em> "Rise up and take the power back!<br />
It's time the fat cats had a heart attack.<br />
You know that their time is coming to an end.<br />
We have to unify and watch our flag ascend."</em><br />
<br />
About a year ago (on a Friday), the governor of Wisconsin introduced a Budget Repair Bill that "proposed taking away the ability of public sector unions to bargain collectively over pensions and health care and limiting pay raises of public employees to the rate of inflation, as well as ending automatic union dues collection by the state and requiring public unions to recertify annually."(<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Wisconsin_protests">q</a>) By Monday (Valentine's Day) the people of Wisconsin were already making their voices heard. The protests grew in the days and weeks that followed as the governor (and his supporters) refused to back down from the controversial position that such a move was necessary. So 'necessary' in fact, that it had to be passed with a protocol-bending slight-of-hand that catapulted even the most reticent among us out of our respective reveries.<br />
<br />
'Necessity' (or the great lack thereof) aside, what sparked outrage and indignation was the way in which people felt they were being treated by their 'representative' government. Media critic John Nichols has written a new book chronicling the protests in Wisconsin that marked the year 2011. <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Uprising-Wisconsin-Renewed-Politics-Protest/dp/1568587031">Uprising: How Wisconsin Renewed the Politics of Protest, from Madison to Wall Street</a> is a considered attempt to discuss "how one uprising inspires the next" and "what an uprising and its aftermath may mean for labor, for popular organizing, for media reform, for politics, for democracy." Nichols is not afraid to say that<em> </em>"crooked politicians [were] conniving to take away the essential rights of working people," and to liken the subsequent attempts to remake relevant legislative processes to "Orwellian fantasy" and "way stations on a road map to ruin." Prescient words from Nichols, as new information comes to light just days before his book is officially released. Republican lawmakers in Wisconsin "took the unusual step of signing a legal agreement in which they promised to not comment publicly about redistricting discussions while new GOP-friendly maps were being drafted." (<a href="http://host.madison.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/report-gop-lawmakers-signed-redistricting-secrecy-deals/article_2867657e-51a8-11e1-b647-001871e3ce6c.html">q</a>) Not comment publicly?? As in<em><strong> </strong>not answer to the public that elected you and for whom you are supposed to work?!?</em> Cue the outrage and indignation...<br />
<br />
So much has been already said about the influence of corporations on government. But corporations are built on the backs of workers - workers who are often degraded in a dozen small and not-so-small ways. Those workers are us. <strong>The future of this country isn't going to be shaped by our science or our religion; it will be shaped by what we as workers are willing to endure for the <em>illusion</em> of economic security.</strong> And in a day where corporate promises are so easily broken, unemployment is so easily attainable, and the average American is so easily bankrupted by unforeseen circumstances, <em>illusion</em> it is, for 99% of us at least.<br />
<br />
Nichols fills his book with inspiring quotes, such as this... "The question will arise and arise in your day, though perhaps not fully in mine: Which shall rule, wealth or man? Which shall lead, money or intellect? Who shall fill public stations, educated and patriotic freemen, or the feudal serfs of corporate capital?" And yet it seems as if Nichols is content to decry the current state of affairs and suggest the political changes that others might implement. He does not convincingly assume the mantle so often heard by the protesters - an injury to one is an injury to all. But then... who among us really does?<br />
<br />
What Nichols fails to identify in his otherwise well-written book: <strong>Political action, though <em>necessary</em>, will not be <em>sufficient</em>.</strong> We cannot legislate others into caring about the burdens of their neighbors anymore than we can legislate them into acting in accordance with any other aspect of our own values. Attempting to do so only provokes the inevitable rebellion. <br />
<br />
But we <em>can</em> attempt to make others see the reality of 'an injury to one is an injury to all'. And that reality is this... <strong>If there are <em>any</em> workers who can be denied benefits, a living wage, or a reasonable schedule, then those conditions can (and will) easily become a reality for everyone, because <em>everyone</em> is easily replaced with someone who is willing to put up with just a little bit more for the same (or less) compensation.</strong> That will always be the case in a society where workers outnumber jobs, and the conditions for workers grow worse as the number of potential replacements increases relative to the number of jobs. Those who are desperate for work may not be able to see past their own immediate emergencies, but those who are relatively secure in their employment bear the responsibility of seeing that that security does not come at the expense of others. It's not an easy responsibility to bear; we are not biologically or psychologically wired for self-sacrifice. We have no cultural imperative to work for the <em>collective</em> good. But perhaps, when enough of us have suffered, we will rise up and make the cultural changes that are necessary for lasting, non-illusory security.AHShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10365755866075641026noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4835014394941770419.post-86159772129259664382012-02-18T12:46:00.000-06:002012-02-18T12:46:04.355-06:00Second Bill of Rights<em>"We cannot be content, no matter how high that general standard of living may be, if some fraction of our people—whether it be one-third or one-fifth or one-tenth—is ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure. </em><br />
<br />
<em>This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.</em><br />
<br />
<em>As our nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.</em><br />
<br />
<em>We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. “Necessitous men are not free men.” People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.</em><br />
<br />
<em>In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.</em><br />
<br />
<em>Among these are:</em><br />
<br />
<em>The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;</em><br />
<br />
<em>The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;</em><br />
<br />
<em>The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;</em><br />
<br />
<em>The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;</em><br />
<br />
<em>The right of every family to a decent home;</em><br />
<br />
<em>The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;</em><br />
<br />
<em>The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;</em><br />
<br />
<em>The right to a good education.</em><br />
<br />
<em>All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.</em><br />
<br />
<em>America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.</em><br />
<br />
<em>For unless there is security here at home there cannot be lasting peace in the world."</em><br />
<br />
- Excerpt from President Roosevelt's January 11, 1944 message to the Congress of the United States on the State of the Union.AHShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10365755866075641026noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4835014394941770419.post-17219018020200690972012-02-03T07:41:00.004-06:002012-02-03T07:41:00.292-06:00The Power of Now (Pt I)<i>"I come clad only in the garments of today, with no mantle of history about me."</i><br />
<br />
Every once in a while I'll be reading a book (usually fiction) and my progress will come to a crashing halt when I come upon a totally brilliant sentence. The above quote slammed me and I had to stop reading and ponder it.<br />
<br />
I should point out that I have not yet read the <a href="http://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/The-Power-Of-Now-EckhartTolle.pdf">Eckhart Tolle book</a> whose title I borrowed for this post. I suppose that's because I see a lot of potential in the title, and I'm a bit afraid that the book itself will disappoint. (This despite <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Power-Now-Guide-Spiritual-Enlightenment/dp/1577311523">1,200+ readers' mostly high opinions</a> of the book.) <br />
<br />
I started think about the power of now not long ago while listening to a friend of mine talk about how she and her husband wanted a new camper (and the requisite class 3 tow vehicle) in the next two years. The last time I had any solid plans for the next two years of my life I was in grad school, and the plan was simply to finish grad school. (And this was about 10 years ago.) I had to wonder if I did (or should) envy her...<br />
<br />
Now, perhaps, you can understand how I came to fixate on the above quote. (To be fair, for other reasons, I was also thinking about how the past is frequently a barrier to moving forward, in relationships and/or life in general.) If one were to construct a ritual for moving beyond some painful moment, either personally or in relation to another, I can see that sentence forming the basis of such a ritual. An expression of forgiveness, in response to an apology. A more elegant way of saying "It is forgotten." (Such are the digressions of my mind, stemming, I suspect, from heavy exposure to science fiction.) <br />
<br />
Then, of course, I had to wonder exactly how far one could push the concept of now-centric living and now-centric relationships. Conventional, bald-tv-psychologist wisdom says that past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. Is it really wise to ignore the past, especially if it contains some powerful indicators of how one might be hurt in the future? What is the difference between acknowledging the lessons of the past, and being held hostage by the past? Is it as dysfunctional to cling to the 'lessons' of the past as it is to cling to idealistic dreams of a better future? <br />
<br />
I was a little surprised to see that Tolle had a section on relationships in his <a href="http://www.holybooks.com/wp-content/uploads/The-Power-Of-Now-EckhartTolle.pdf">book</a>. Though the languages they speak are quite different, Tolle and bald-tv-psychologist wisdom agree on one thing: <em>"The greatest catalyst for change in a relationship is complete acceptance of your partner as he or she is, without needing to judge or change them in any way."</em> (p. 98) Now I was curious to see what Tolle had to say about dealing with/ moving past past behavior...<br />
<br />
<em>"Millions are now living alone or as single parents, unable to establish an intimate relationship or unwilling to repeat the insane drama of past relationships. Others go from one relationship to another, from one pleasure-and-pain cycle to another, in search of the elusive goal of fulfillment through union with the opposite energy polarity. Still others compromise and continue to be together in a dysfunctional relationship in which negativity prevails, for the sake of the children or security, through force of habit, fear of being alone, or some other mutually 'beneficial' arrangement, or even through the unconscious addiction to the excitement of emotional drama and pain."</em> (p. 100)<br />
<br />
I won't pretend to be a fluent speaker of the language in which Tolle's answer was couched - "egoic mind patterns" and the "pain-body" - so I'm not quite sure how he gets to his conclusion. <em>"So whenever your relationship is not working, whenever it brings out the 'madness' in you and in your partner, be glad."</em> Er? <em>"Being the knowing creates a clear space of loving presence that allows all things and all people to be as they are."</em> Eh?<br />
<br />
But Tolle soon converges with conventional wisdom again.<em> "Learn to give expression to what you feel without blaming. Learn to listen to your partner in an open, nondefensive way. Give your partner space for expressing himself or herself."</em> (p. 102) Still... I don't see that the emphasis there is particularly <em>now</em>-centric... <br />
<br />
Every decision we make, every path taken (or not), represents an allocation of resources towards one goal at the expense of others. Such assessment of priorities is only possible in light of a hierarchy of knowledge about the past. <strong>What guides our actions in the absence of a 'mantle of history'? </strong>AHShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10365755866075641026noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4835014394941770419.post-3425899895362347452011-07-31T14:20:00.000-05:002011-07-31T14:20:51.475-05:00The Dance of the Dissident Daughter<em>"The stupidest norm was happier; he could feel that he belonged. We did not, and because we did not, we had no positive - we were condemned to negatives, to not revealing ourselves, to not speaking when we would, to not using what we knew, to not being found out - to a life of perpetual deception, concealment, and lying."</em><br />
<br />
Yesterday I participated in a mock interview exercise. (I don't really know why I did it; interviews don't scare me. <a href="http://advancinghumanism.blogspot.com/2011/07/avoiding-stultifying-affairs.html">Having to be inappropriately employed scares me</a>...) We got to the end of the mock interview, and the gentleman, in reviewing it with me, says, with all apparent sincerity, "I can tell you're a really genuine person." At which point I almost said "You <em>bought</em> that load of bullshit?!?" <br />
<br />
Admittedly it wasn't <em>complete</em> bullshit. But let's just say that the past and I have choreographed a set of moves that hides our respective flaws and that can appear quite... genuine when necessary. Upon reflection, I suspect the gentleman (whom I've known to be quite insightful) might have intentionally planted that statement to cause me to reflect on what I was <em>really</em> doing in playing this game. Why was I so good at projecting a genuineness that wasn't entirely genuine? And why was I willing to do it at all? <br />
<br />
If there has been an underlying theme of reflection in my summer thus far, it has been Authenticity. Several autobiographies that chronicle women's struggles to find and be their authentic selves have presented themselves at (one might say) oddly synchronous times. I've lately come to terms with the fact that my weight fluctuates in direct proportion with how (pardon the phrase) inauthentically I'm living at the time. And in a rather uncharacteristic display of temper, I recently lost it at the person who suggested that I "probably shouldn't tell people that you have a Ph.D." (For the record, telling people that I have a Ph.D. is <em>not</em> something I do, but in context, the suggestion was that I should 'dumb down' my level of discourse, especially if I "wanted to attract a husband.") Perhaps my reflecting on authenticity is also what caused me to give the gentleman more credit than he may deserve in making his statement about my genuineness.<br />
<br />
Living an 'authentic life' is a hot topic right now in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Living-Authentic-Life-Thomas-Legere/dp/1425978657">quasi-spiritual literature</a>. "The idea of being <i>authentic</i> has caught our attention much like the word <i>empowered</i> did a few years ago." (<a href="http://www.soulfulliving.com/authenticity.htm">q</a>) Despite the prevalence of advice on authentic living, I have not dwelt much on other people's thoughts on the subject. (What can I say? I have a general aversion to received wisdom. People's brutally honest autobiographies, however, are another story.) One meta-reflection has stood out to me though. According to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs">Maslow</a>,<em> "the most basic level of needs must be met before the individual will strongly desire (or focus motivation upon) the secondary or higher level needs." </em>Rough translation - you won't be worrying about "<em>becom</em>[ing] <em>everything that one is capable of becoming</em>" if you are worried about being homeless. That so many people (including my unemployed self) can be concerned at all with living an authentic life says something... <br />
<br />
Perhaps the struggle for authenticity isn't what Maslow was referring to in his description of struggling for/towards <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-actualization">self-actualization</a>. Maslow did describe self-actualized people as possessing <em>"an unusual ability to detect the spurious, the fake, and the dishonest in personality,"</em> as well as <em>"embrac</em>[ing]<em> reality and facts rather than denying truth."</em> Yet you could argue that authenticity is merely <em>one</em> of the characteristics of self-actualization. But if the need for authenticity does <em>not</em> emerge as a part of the need for self-actualization, then where does it come from? What gives rise to the feeling of misery when one compromises authenticity to fulfill the more basic need for (economic) safety?<br />
<br />
<em>"Being authentic is being able to say yes when you mean it and no when you need to."</em> (<a href="http://www.soulfulliving.com/authenticity.htm">q</a>) And in a world where doing so would not negatively affect your ability to meet <em>any of your lower level needs</em>, you could probably do that. Most of us are stopped from being authentic in that way because we have learned that compromise is necessary in order to meet the needs for safety and love. To suggest otherwise is to suggest a radically different view of what reality is, and leaves us with visions of a universe that rewards desire, want, and selfishness. Dissident thoughts indeed.<br />
<br />
One of the few things I remember from Sunday School is that JOY was presented to us as an acronym. In order to have joy in your life, you needed to put <u>J</u>esus first, <u>O</u>thers second, and <u>Y</u>ourself last. And indeed, to make misery bearable, we often tell ourselves that <a href="http://reluctanthousedad.com/2011/01/31/love-is-putting-yourself-last/">love is putting yourself last</a>. <strong>So which is it?</strong> Putting yourself first and living 'authentically', or putting yourself last in the spirit of service to others/a higher purpose? Ironically, both perspectives are attached to 'spiritual' ideas about what reality is - ideas that provide justification and reward for those who follow their tenets, though the rewards take radically different forms.<br />
<br />
Perhaps the truth is simply that people will be as selfish as they can comfortably be in any given situation, and will adopt whatever philosophy (or combination of philosophies) is necessary in order to feel better about their choices...AHShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10365755866075641026noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4835014394941770419.post-37573578364061192852011-07-20T16:27:00.000-05:002011-07-20T16:27:32.157-05:00Avoiding Stultifying Affairs<em>"One must avoid stultifying affairs."</em><br />
<br />
During this heat wave I'm enticing myself to get up and walk very early in the morning by listening to Walter Isaacson's biography of Einstein on the ipod while I walk. This morning I got to the portion of Einstein's life where he is unemployed after graduation. A friend offers to help Einstein obtain a job at his company: an offer that Einstein refuses with the proclamation that "one must avoid stultifying affairs." I laughed when I heard that.<br />
<br />
Currently unemployed myself, I have recently submitted a number of applications for positions that I find to be... less than optimum. I feel decidely unhappy when I do this, in marked contrast to the surprising feeling of general well-being that has pervaded my days since becoming unemployed. Past experience indicates that I should be feeling quite <em>anxious</em> given my situation. And we constantly hear about how difficult it is to find a good job these days, which should only add to my anxiety. Intellectually, I know that this means I should leave no stone unturned in my job search, including those stones that aren't so shiny, but emotionally... Emotionally, I seem to disagree, feeling anxious only when I apply for a position that I <em>don't</em> particularly want.<br />
<br />
For awhile now I've been wondering about my general <em>lack</em> of anxiety. My past experience with unemployment says that I should be feeling highly anxious. The idea that I should be feeling anxious is supported by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs">Maslow's hierarchy of needs</a>: the second need in the pyramid being the need for safety, including economic safety. And I'm certainly not sitting on a pile of money. However, instead of feeling anxious, I feel relatively calm. The disparity has been great enough to prompt some introspective spelunking in an attempt to answer the question: From what wellspring issues forth this fountain of tranquility?<br />
<br />
Have I reached a <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1581994/Believers-are-happier-than-atheists.html">threshhold of sustaining metaphysical belief</a>? Is this feeling of well-being <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/3545684.stm">externally imposed</a>? Have I been <a href="http://www.actionforhappiness.org/">doing something</a> that has managed to supplant my feelings of anxiety? Or is it simply that I currently have a day-to-day existence that is almost completely free of "stultifying affairs"?<br />
<br />
Einstein's phrase has been stuck in my head all day. It occurred to me that there are actually two possible ways to interpret it. 1) One must avoid those situations (affairs) which, by their nature, render one incapable of enthusiasm. 2) One must avoid bringing about a state of affairs that thwarts one's own interests, such as taking a job that does not represent a change for the better in one's life. Either interpretation represents wisdom, IMHO.<br />
<br />
Today I decided to avoid stultifying affairs by spending a few hours blogging.AHShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10365755866075641026noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4835014394941770419.post-8434333749992641552011-06-05T09:36:00.000-05:002011-06-05T09:36:59.405-05:00Born This Way<em>"Yes, you're struggling and you're suffering and it's hard to be you. But the flip side of that that's really exciting is...</em> [p]<em>eople like you have invented great things."</em><br />
<br />
<em>"You can tell your child that he has been given the label 'gifted' as long as he also knows that it doesn't mean he is smarter or better than anyone, just that he performs well on a certain kind of test."</em><br />
<br />
Ah, the irony of seeing (in this morning's paper) a family movie review for <em>X-Men: First Class</em> right next to a parenthood advice column containing the two approaches to take with a 'gifted' child noted above. Can you tell which one came from an 'expert' and which one came from another parent? I bet you can't.<br />
<br />
The entire plot of <em>X-Men: First Class</em> revolves around how two groups of equally 'gifted' young adults end up on diverging paths with respect to how they perceive their relationship with those who are not similarly 'gifted'. A recurring desire expressed by mutants on both sides in the movie is the desire to feel <em>normal</em>, or to feel <a href="http://advancinghumanism.blogspot.com/2011/05/let-me-be-myself.html">accepted for one's true self</a>. To not have to hide. To not feel like a 'freak'. <em>"They tend to feel different from their peers."</em> (<a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/tribu/family/sc-fam-0524-parenthood-gifted-20110524,0,6431605.story">q</a>) This sentiment is eloquently highlighted in the following trailer...<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/UrbHykKUfTM?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe><br />
<br />
There's an obvious, though not overtly compared, difference between Charles and Erik with respect to their upbringings. Charles grew up with security and privilege, while Erik grew up in the shadow of someone who used torture to motivate. Erik could not escape being a target as a result of his 'gift', and consequently believed that the only safety was in being more powerful than those who would target or oppress you. Charles, perhaps because of his wealth/security, did not acquire the same set of learned perceptions of and responses to that which Erik perceived as a threat. <em>X-Men: First Class</em> has a lot to say about the contribution of nurture to <a href="http://advancinghumanism.blogspot.com/2011/04/heromonster.html">the makings of a hero or a monster</a>.<br />
<br />
The only characters we are supposed to sympathize with in <em>X-Men: First Class</em> are mutants. There are simply no non-mutant characters of note. This works because there is some part in all of us that can identify with feeling like an outcast. Yet who but those who have felt truly isolated by an apparently unbridgeable gap between themselves and others can understand what it means to be with others who were <em>like</em> them? For the exceptionally smart - the ones who are typically labeled 'gifted' by schools - being with others like them may mean <a href="http://advancinghumanism.blogspot.com/2011/03/free-to-be-smarter-than-you.html">not having to deliberately downplay one's intellect</a>. It may mean being able to exercise the full range of one's abilities without having to worry about the social consequences. <br />
<br />
<strong>There is inherent suffering in having to hide any portion of one's true self.</strong> Yet we all make concessions of one sort or another to the social environments in which we live. The more extreme the concessions, the more extreme the suffering. Perhaps the most painful concessions are those which are predicated on the belief that something about our genetic makeup is unacceptable. The fact that you were born this way, and know no <em>other</em> way to be with respect to these traits, makes denying them especially painful.<br />
<br />
If there is something to be learned from <em>X-Men: First Class</em>, perhaps it is that the message to parents of a gifted child (or of any child who struggles with being different in a significant way) <em>should</em> be: <strong>Find your child a social environment where s/he feels accepted and safe, and where s/he is encouraged to express his/her full range of abilities and true nature.</strong>AHShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10365755866075641026noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4835014394941770419.post-87758585631850385962011-05-26T12:00:00.000-05:002011-05-26T12:00:40.332-05:00Let Me Be Myself<em>"Tell me please would you one time</em><br />
<em>Let me be myself</em><br />
<em>So I can shine with my own light"</em><br />
<br />
I've been thinking a lot about our sense of self lately. Perhaps because mine feels so... <em>different</em> right now. No, I'm not on any medications that would account for this change, but that didn't stop me from being intrigued by a <a href="http://www.springerlink.com/content/t235g88020766161/fulltext.pdf">recent paper</a> in the journal <em>Neuroethics</em> called <em>Authenticity Anyone? The Enhancement of Emotions via Neuro-Psychopharmacology</em>, by Felicitas Kraemer.<br />
<br />
Kraemer begins by extensively discussing Peter Kramer's 1993 book <em>Listening to Prozac</em> (which I own, but have not yet read). Kramer describes a woman who, by all accounts, was never particularly happy and outgoing, as experiencing such a positive change in personality on Prozac that she didn't want to stop taking it because <em>"she is not herself anymore without it."</em> She now identified with a 'true self' that hadn't emerged until she'd been medicated. <em>"...Kramer described the process as one of a redefinition of the self"</em> where <em>"the socially competent and cheerful self that is prevalent under Prozac is declared as the 'real self,' whereas the less welcome, shy and depressed one, is not experienced as real anymore." </em>The implication, of course, is that since the 'new' self conforms to a (socially-approved of) <em>"better or even 'ideal' self"</em>, then that self must be a more <em>authentic</em> representation of the <em>real</em> person. The paradox, of course, is that since we typically define authenticity as a combination of <strong>naturalness</strong> of origin and <strong>consistency</strong> with the past, how can a sense of self arising from an <em>"artificial enhancement device"</em> like Prozac lead to a <em>more</em> authentic self?<br />
<br />
Or, to reframe Kraemer's reframing of the question, is Prozac <em>creating</em> something that was never there and is thereby inauthentic, or is Prozac enabling us to access something that was always there, always possible, and which <em>can</em> thereby be deemed to be authentic? Is Prozac simply peeling back a slightly rotten top layer of the emotional onion, revealing something 'better' that has been there all along? What is the genuine article with respect to our emotions and the behaviors arising from them?<br />
<br />
Is an emotion genuine <em>because</em> I feel it, or is it genuine because it is consistent with how I have previously felt and how I think that I <em>should</em> feel? Or is the difference between the two only worth debating if I'm unwilling to accept and integrate the new emotions into my sense of self? With respect to consenting adults who have unrestricted access to these technologies, you might leave it strictly up to the individual to decide what is or is not 'authentic'. But because many self-altering medications are prescribed to minors who may have barely had a chance to develop a sense of self on par with that of consenting adults, and because social pressure is the source of most of our ideas about what an <em>acceptable </em>sense of self is, the issue of authenticity is of broader concern. <br />
<br />
To what degree do we owe it to a person to allow them to develop as naturally as possible? I have a friend whose child has been diagnosed with ADHD. The child's 'wild' behavior creates difficulties for the parents and teachers, but <em>the child</em> is boisterous, gregarious, and happy, and does not appear to be suffering. So far the parents have not medicated this child, but their doctor has put it out there as an option for the future. I wonder about whose needs/desires will ultimately take precedence in this situation. Will 'the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one', or will the child be allowed to continue as his 'wild' happy self because that is who he is? <br />
<br />
And when will the child be self-aware enough to realize that something may have been <em>taken away</em> from him if he were medicated? Kraemer claims to <em>"support the more general, conceptual thesis that people do not experience artificial emotions when taking drugs of whatever kind,"</em> a thesis that I reject. <strong>I believe that it is possible to be self-aware enough to realize (<em>simultaneously with the occurring emotion</em>) when an emotional response is <em>inconsistent</em> with one's previous history of responses to similar circumstances, and that that inconsistency is enough to cause one to deem the emotion 'artificial' or 'inauthentic'.</strong> And forcing an inconsistent emotional response upon a person is a deep violation of the very essence of our experiencing, sentient selves.<br />
<br />
Kraemer concludes (wrongly, IMHO) that the distinction between 'natural' and 'artificial' is only relevant with respect to the source or means by which the emotion is produced, and not with respect to how the emotion is experienced. (p. 55) Yet, ironically, Kraemer goes on to argue that an emotion can be claimed to be <em>authentic</em> "if the individuals experiencing it recognize their own feelings really as their own and identify with them." (p. 58) We seem to be disagreeing about the degree of equivalency between 'natural' and 'authentic', and between 'inauthentic' and 'artificial'...<br />
<br />
It may very well be possible that a person can be unaware enough of the differences in felt emotions to appreciate which ones arise from the use of an artificial technology. Further, it's entirely possible that they <em>just don't care</em> about the inconsistency between the way they responded emotionally in the past and the way they are currently responding. But this should not be considered to be a reasonable assumption with respect to <em>all</em> people, and the law should be designed to protect those who notice a difference and are bothered by it.<br />
<br />
It's entirely possible that one's sense of self will 'evolve' over time to accommodate the new set of emotional responses. It's even possible that this new sense of self will be appreciated and deemed qualitatively better than the flawed, old self that experienced emotions or had responses that were 'not desirable'. <strong>But it's my belief that such changes should never be forced upon anyone, either by the law or by social pressure.</strong> (Kraemer's article includes illustrations from Kramer's book of people who were <em>very</em> bothered by discrepancy between how they felt and how they knew they <em>should</em> feel.) <br />
<br />
Our social norms do include a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authenticity_(philosophy)">historical appreciation and respect for authenticity</a>, but how will this respect sustain itself (or not) in the face of increasingly easier (and more radical) ways to modify oneself? Kraemer critically cites transhumanist Nick Bostrom's work as an overly simplistic view of how easy making 'emotional improvements' would be. She points out that <em>"</em>[c]<em>hanging our emotional life means changing our cultural and epistemic norms."</em> Perhaps more importantly though, judgments about the authenticity of emotions reside first and foremost with the subjective experiencer, determined by the degree to which they are or are not able to integrate the emotional changes into their existing sense of self. And it is <em>inconsistency</em> that erodes our sense of self. As Kraemer puts it, <em>"</em>[o]<em>ur emotions depend on each other in a fragile nexus that can easily be destroyed by uncontrolled manipulation."</em> And without a strong, consistent sense of self, who are we?AHShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10365755866075641026noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4835014394941770419.post-33969796550980369732011-04-27T09:50:00.000-05:002011-04-27T09:50:19.877-05:00Hero/Monster<em>"Who's gonna fight for the weak? </em><br />
<em>Who's gonna make 'em believe?</em><br />
<em>I've got a hero, I've got a hero Living in me"</em> <br />
- Hero, <em>Awake</em> by Skillet (track 1)<br />
<br />
<em>"The secret side of me, I never let you see</em><br />
<em>I keep it caged but I can't control it</em><br />
<em>So stay away from me, the beast is ugly</em><br />
<em>I feel the rage and I just can't hold it"</em> <br />
- Monster, <em>Awake</em> by Skillet (track 2)<br />
<br />
I've got a lawyer living in me. And a lawyer that has been cross-pollinated by a psychologist is a dangerous thing indeed: a dangerous thing with an interest in neuroethics...<br />
<br />
It amazes me what people will attempt to use as a defense for committing a crime (or for just behaving badly). It amazes me, perhaps, because every attempted defense is a statement of sorts about what we believe it is that makes us who we are. At a very basic level, it's a statement about what it means to be human. Are we our <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128043329">nature</a>, or are we our <a href="http://kolber.typepad.com/ethics_law_blog/2011/03/robinson-on-coercive-indoctrination-and-rotten-social-background.html">nurture</a>? From whence cometh the hero, or the monster?<br />
<br />
[ASIDE: As a huge fan of multi-dimensional modeling (huge!), I once commented that, as we all agree that the truth is some <em>combination</em> of nature and nurture, the prudent course would be for science present the nature/nurture debate from an 'overlapping windows' perspective. Not all aspects of the phenotypical expression of our genetic nature are equally susceptible to the nurturing (or lack thereof) of environmental influence. Furthermore, a single aspect of our genetic nature may not be equally susceptible to environmental influence at different points within our lifespan. There are critical windows in development where the influence of nurture can have a much more dramatic impact on the way our nature develops. This really isn't news to anybody, when you stop to think about it, yet the idea that a single gene is somehow 'responsible' for our behavior persists, and convinces juries.]<br />
<br />
The dangerous idea in both cases is that we are somehow <em>not</em> responsible for who we are, and by extension, for what we do. As the social and biological sciences advance, we believe that we are acquiring increasing power to explain <em>why</em> we do what we do. <strong>But having a <em>partial</em> understanding of why we <em>might</em> behave in a particular way is itself not enough to absolve any individual of responsibility for a particular action.</strong><br />
<br />
There is now a pathological characterization for people who are obsessed with brain pathologies as acceptable legal excuses - <a href="http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/osjcl/Articles/Volume3_2/Symposium/Morse-PDF-04-05-06.pdf">Brain Overclaim Syndrome</a>, <em>"the essential feature of which is to make claims about the implications of neuroscience for criminal responsibility that cannot be conceptually or empirically sustained."</em> Morse's allegation that <em>"[b]</em><em>rains do not commit crimes; people commit crimes" </em> brings up (yet does not answer) an interesting question: what is a person, if not his/her brain?<br />
<br />
<em>"For a materialist, the brain always plays a causal role in behavior. Despite all the astonishing recent advances in neuroscience, however, we still know woefully little about how the brain enables the mind, and especially about how consciousness and intentionality can arise from the complicated hunk of matter that is the brain."</em> (Quoting a slightly different version of this paper which appeared in <em>Neuroethics: An Introduction with Readings</em> (2010).) But the legal arguments need only demonstrate that <em>"an agent’s capacity for rationality <strong>might</strong> be diminished by faulty neurotransmitters, psychological stress, trauma, or a host of other causes"</em> (<a href="http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/osjcl/Articles/Volume3_2/Symposium/Morse-PDF-04-05-06.pdf">q</a>, my emphasis) in order to argue that criminal responsibility for a particular action (which is based on certain presumptions of rationality) need not apply. <br />
<br />
Morse's argument hinges around the idea of responsibility: an idea that was developed from and predicated on what we <em>subjectively</em> understand about our mental experiences. He argues that the correct perspective (and therefore also the correct use of neuroscience) is one which accepts the idea of responsibility (the internalist perspective). In contrast, an externalist perspective is based on the idea <em>"determinism... is true or that our mental states play no role in explaining our behavior"</em>, and is therefore <em>outside</em> the current framework of our understanding of responsibility. In other words, the externalist perspective states that everything that we <em>experience</em> as human beings is essentially irrelevant in explaining our behavior. Morse argues (correctly, IMHO) that this perspective is inconsistent with the entire notion of responsibility.<br />
<br />
Morse has written a fascinating and beautifully-nuanced argument in either source, and the real world-oriented humanist would do well to give some consideration to the question raised above: <strong>What is a person, if not simply his/her brain?</strong> I suspect that Morse never intended to answer that question, but rather only to illustrate that since our understanding of the brain is partial (one might even say minimal), a person should be judged by <em>behavioral</em> criteria of responsibility, rather than by what we think we may know about their brain. The use of neuroscientific 'evidence' should be used to support, rather than override, behavioral observations. <br />
<br />
In the larger picture, the same can be said for other attempts to 'blame' behavior on various (usually oversimplified) aspects of genetics or environment. <em>"Partial knowledge about causation does not mean that there is partial causation."</em> Likewise, <em>"</em>[c]<em>ausation cannot be an excuse per se for an internalist, who accepts responsibility, because all behavior is caused and thus all behavior would have to be excused."</em> Morse, a determinist himself, believes that responsibility <em>is </em>compatible with determinism, however he defers the explanation of such compatibility to a realm other than science. <em>"Science cannot resolve the dispute because the issue is metaphysical and normative and it is unlikely ever to be resolved by logic."</em> <br />
<br />
<em>"As the biological and behavioral sciences offer ever more sophisticated understandings of normal and abnormal behavior alike, there will be constant pressure to use their findings to affect assessment of criminal responsibility and other legal doctrines. A lot will be at stake morally, politically and legally, and much will be debatable."</em> I concur.AHShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10365755866075641026noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4835014394941770419.post-16335323858009701392011-04-06T11:58:00.000-05:002011-04-06T11:58:55.898-05:00The Good Shepherd (Pt II)<em>"And there is great power to be had by being the one to initiate a new order."</em><br />
<br />
Our Fair State is currently awaiting the official results of yesterday's elections. And the results of the most high-profile race on the ballot - Supreme Court Judge - are close. Very close. (As of 11:40 AM, only 200 votes separate the candidates, with just one precinct not yet reporting. (<a href="http://wisconsinvote.org/">via</a>)) This race is viewed by many as a referendum on the recent right-wing <a href="http://www.blogger.com/post-create.g?blogID=4835014394941770419">power grab</a> that involved a legislative attempt to take collective bargaining away from public employees. <br />
<br />
In addition to shock and anger at the consequences of this "non-fiscal" budget repair bill, a sense of <a href="http://advancinghumanism.blogspot.com/2011/04/we-are-one.html">solidarity</a> among workers of all kinds has emerged. What has <em>not</em> yet emerged in this situation is a single individual as the face/voice of the movement. There has been no 'Joe the plumber', no Joe Hill... and no Anton Drexler. Perhaps it is simply too early. Perhaps the outrage is still too fresh. <br />
<br />
And perhaps it is naive to hope that this movement, this sense of solidarity and community, will continue uncorrupted. <strong>Eventually there will be an organized response, above and beyond attempts to recall current legislators or endorse candidates in races where the candidacy was already determined when the collective shit hit the fan.</strong> (Pardon the pun.) <br />
<br />
Another episode in the ongoing series of weird coincidences that permeate my life began when I was in the library recently, looking for research material on workers' rights. While I didn't find what I was looking for in the area of workers' rights, as I perused the early-300s I did come across a book called <em>Warrior Politics: Why Leadership Demands a Pagan Ethos</em>, by journalist Robert D. Kaplan (2002). (If you know me, you know that that book was bound to go home with me.) It was a bit unsettling, given the current situation, to see sentence two of Chapter One - <em>"The Nazi party began as a crusade for workers' rights organized by a Munich locksmith, Anton Drexler, in 1919, before Hitler took it over the following year."</em> This sense of creepy coincidence developed further when I saw a published letter to the editor of a local news outlet this morning. The <a href="http://host.madison.com/ct/news/article_3ea8a4e2-5bd1-11e0-91cc-001cc4c03286.html">letter</a> was a single line - <em>"Ich bin ein pro-labor Wisconsinite."</em> I have to wonder how many readers understood the significance of that letter. And I have to say, it probably would have gone right over my head had I not just been reading Kaplan's book. <br />
<br />
As <a href="http://advancinghumanism.blogspot.com/2011/03/it-cant-happen-here.html">personal</a> as the current situation in Our Fair State feels to me, and as much as it has pissed me into political activism, I also don't want our collective response to lose its sense of purity. Right now we are angry and in shock. Right now public employees are trying to figure out what to do if/when their take-home incomes are suddenly cut by $350 a month. Right now My City of 25,000 is poised to lose over 1000 years - <em>years</em> - of teaching experience as many public school teachers make the difficult decision to retire. (It shocked me too, but 30 teachers averaging 35 years each adds up.)<br />
<br />
But it won't be long before the political interests involved find a face for the outraged masses to rally behind. And so we are forced to consider the first sentence of Kaplan's treatise -<em> "The evils of the twentieth century arose from populist movements that were monstrously exploited in the name of utopian ideals, and had their power amplified by new technologies."</em> Can there be a <em>reasonable</em> response to what has happened in Our Fair State and is happening in states across the country? Absolutely. Can it be an <em>effective</em> response without large-scale organization, financial resources, and leadership? I would love to believe that it's possible, but I have <a href="http://advancinghumanism.blogspot.com/2010/10/good-shepherd-pt-i.html">doubts</a>...<br />
<br />
One thing I have noticed in recent weeks is that people <em>desperately want to be <strong>told</strong> who to vote for</em>, and more generally, <em>how to funnel their outrage</em>. No one has time to do all the research themselves, they doubt their ability to 'get it right', and they are looking for a reliable source of information and direction. Here's just <a href="http://www.progressivesunited.org/action/immelt-must-go?sc=immelt_home">one example</a> of a directive to the public that has <a href="http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/03/moveon-calls-on-immelt-to-resign-wh-post-.html">gathered momentum</a>, even though it may be only tangentially related to the average voter's actual source of ire. (I've also heard more than one person say that they'd like Russ Feingold to become the governor of Our Fair State.)<br />
<br />
While emotions continue to run high, we the average voters also need to consider how to shape an effective political response to the actual <em>issues</em>, without getting lost in sentiment and rhetoric. We've seen <a href="http://whatdemocracylookslike.com/about-us/">what democracy looks like</a>, but what will <em>organized leadership</em> look like? You turned out at the polls yesterday, far in excess of the 20% normally seen for this election. Don't lose your momentum; continue to demand the best from yourselves and any leaders you choose to follow!AHShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10365755866075641026noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4835014394941770419.post-28198954704650898892011-04-04T09:14:00.000-05:002011-04-04T09:14:58.764-05:00We Are One<em>“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”</em><br />
<br />
"On April 4, 1968, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated in Memphis, where he had gone to stand with sanitation workers demanding their dream: The right to bargain collectively for a voice at work and a better life. The workers were trying to form a union with AFSCME." (<a href="http://www.we-r-1.org/">q</a>)<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/8TKVsZ4iYaE?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div><br />
<br />
(<a href="http://www.americanrightsatwork.org/">h/t</a>)AHShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10365755866075641026noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4835014394941770419.post-48292335134602718162011-03-19T18:26:00.000-05:002011-03-19T18:26:07.496-05:00Free To Be... Limitless<em>"I don't have delusions of grandeur. I have an actual recipe for grandeur."</em><br />
<br />
The question that never comes up in the movie <em>Limitless</em>? Is it <em>okay</em> to take NZT?<br />
<br />
<em>Limitless</em> follows one man's experience with an illicitly-obtained drug called NZT. Though the term is never used in the film, NZT is described (via the portrayal of its effects) as a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_enhancer">cognitive enhancer</a>. The actual mechanism(s) of NZT are never explained, and its ability to enhance memory and processing capability are largely portrayed as wonderful. Withdrawal from the drug is a bitch, of course. And then there was that 18-hour memory gap, during which the protagonist may or may not have committed a murder... But you leave the movie with a generally-positive view of cognitive enhancers. No one in the movie ever wonders if it's <em>fair</em> to take NZT. (And they only briefly wonder if it's <em>safe</em> to take NZT.)<br />
<br />
Cognitive enhancers - a.k.a. smart pills, neuroenhancers, or study drugs - are getting <a href="http://chronicle.com/article/A-Ban-on-Brain-Boosting-Drugs/126523">attention</a> again. Recently the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism released a report that found, among other things, that "[o]<em>verall use of Adderall is increasing on campuses, and the drug is regularly abused by those with or without a prescription</em>." (<a href="http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/education/university/article_b838a6ca-0c05-11e0-a271-001cc4c002e0.html">q</a>) It's not entirely clear what motivated the WCIJ study, though the findings focused on the illegality involved in obtaining the drug, and on the medical dangers of abusing the drug.<br />
<br />
Others have raised the issue of fairness though, likening the use of cognitive enhancers to "<em>the use of performance-enhancing drugs in sport</em>" saying that "[t]<em>heir use could lead to problems of coercion, where there is pressure on individuals to take the drugs even if they do not wish to. Similarly, if such drugs were available to only a proportion of competitors, they could be seen as giving an unfair advantage, or to be a form of cheating</em>." (<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jul/28/watchdog-intelligence-performance-psychoactive-drugs">q</a>) (I said <a href="http://advancinghumanism.blogspot.com/2009/10/free-to-be-cosmetic-neurology.html">something similar</a> awhile back.)<br />
<br />
At least one university has now labeled the "misuse" of these types of drugs as 'cheating', <a href="http://chronicle.com/article/A-Ban-on-Brain-Boosting-Drugs/126523">raising the question</a> of whether or not a ban on "brain boosting drugs" is a good idea. Lamkin attempts to deflect attention away from the drugs, and onto the method and purpose of higher education. <em>"If our goal is to promote students' engagement in education, we should realign student incentives with the appreciation of education's internal benefits, so that students are not rewarded for taking shortcuts."</em> That's great, in theory. <strong>However, even if universities and colleges are able to "realign" themselves so as to render the use of smart drugs undesirable, it simply pushes the problem of smart drugs into the arena of the workplace.</strong> <br />
<br />
It's in the workplace where the protagonist (Eddie Morra) of <em>Limitless</em> meets with success as a result of his use of NZT. He finishes his book in 4 days, makes obscene amounts of money as a day trader, and catches the eye of a wealthy mogul who offers him the opportunity to use his talents in exchange for even more-obscene amounts of money. **SPOILER ALERT** By the end of the movie, Eddie has achieved a level of material success that cannot be taken away from him. His ability also allowed him to make the money that 'bought' him his continued freedom, via the efforts of a top defense attorney, after the missing 18 hours come back to haunt him. He even used his money to engineer a way to wean himself off the drug, avoiding insanity and death <em>while retaining the cognitive enhancements permanently</em>. In short, <em>he won</em>. (Sorry, <a href="http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/sciencenotfiction/2011/03/13/limitless-enhancement-will-be-great-until-you-go-crazy-and-die/">Kyle</a>. If anything, this movie is effectively an <em>advertisement</em> for cognitive enhancers.)<br />
<br />
In <a href="http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1869435,00.html">arguing for societal acceptance of cognitive enhancement</a>, two assumptions have been made. One, that such drugs will eventually be risk-free, and two, that they will eventually be available to everyone. (Neither assumption is true today.) But, to my mind, the bigger ethical issue is still the one that I <a href="http://advancinghumanism.blogspot.com/2009/10/free-to-be-cosmetic-neurology.html">addressed</a> over a year ago... <strong>How do you argue for the cognitive liberty of the individual when the exercise of that liberty may result in a <em>decrease</em> in liberty for those who follow? </strong>This presupposes that cosmetic neurology would <em>restrict</em> rather than broaden the range of what we accept as 'normal'. (Think about a neurological version of <em>The Stepford Wives</em>...)<br />
<br />
If there is an argument to be made <em>against</em> enhancement technology, it might very well be that redefining what is <em>possible</em> will also redefine what is <em>acceptable</em>, even <em>tolerable</em>. And consequently, individual liberty may be lost rather than gained.AHShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10365755866075641026noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4835014394941770419.post-74490040998740142852011-03-14T14:20:00.000-05:002011-03-14T14:20:34.661-05:00Free To Be... Smarter Than You<em>"To clothe the fiery thought</em><br />
<em>in simple words succeeds,</em><br />
<em>For still the craft of genius is</em><br />
<em>To mask a king in weeds."</em><br />
<br />
In honor of Einstein's birthday, I've decided to devote some more blog space to the issue of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurodiversity">neurodiversity</a>. <br />
<br />
True story: Two employees were internal applicants for the same position. Neither employee was given the position, but for different reasons. Employee 1 was told that she wasn't always 'nice enough' about being smarter than some of the other employees who had been with the company much longer than she had. Employee 2 was told that he wasn't being hired for the position because, despite working in the department for several years, he hadn't <em>already</em> been trained to do the things that the position required. The company was not willing to increase their investment in either candidate, and one might argue that the issue in play in both cases was an unwillingness to tolerate/foster an increased neurodiversity among coworkers. (Of course such a statement was never made openly, but it was agreed that she 'was too abrasive' and he 'was a little slow'.) The end result was that both employees were forced to do essentially the same job for which they had applied, but with significantly <em>less</em> compensation than new hires to the same position.<br />
<br />
Now, one employee had a medical diagnosis that falls squarely under the purview of 'neurodiversity' and for which coworkers expressed a certain sympathy. The other had to endure rude taunts and comments. One was given full leeway of expression; the other was expected to stifle whatever made others uncomfortable. One employee was much less likely to object to receiving significantly less compensation, and so was tolerated; the other was simply 'encouraged' to leave.<br />
<br />
Discrimination: "The process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently."<br />
<br />
Discrimination: "<strong>unequal treatment of persons, for a reason which has nothing to do with</strong> legal rights or <strong>ability</strong>. Federal and state laws prohibit discrimination in employment, availability of housing, rates of pay, right to promotion, educational opportunity, civil rights, and use of facilities based on race, nationality, creed, color, age, sex, or sexual orientation." (<a href="http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/discrimination">q</a>) (my emphasis)<br />
<br />
So here's your thought question for the day... <strong>Were either of these employees discriminated against, and if so, in what way? </strong>Or, to rephrase the question, which actions toward/against the employees were acceptable, and why?AHShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10365755866075641026noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4835014394941770419.post-25033830187304335072011-03-10T09:23:00.000-06:002011-03-10T09:23:19.126-06:00It Can't Happen Here<em>"Without labor nothing prospers."</em><br />
<br />
As most of the country (and quite a bit of the world) knows by now, there is currently a situation in Our Fair State. In an attempt to balance the state's budget (which everyone agrees is a good and necessary goal), the Republican governor and the Republican majority in the legislative houses have decided that it is necessary to ask public employees to contribute more to the cost of their healthcare and pension. Except that they quit asking and moved to attempting to pass legislation that simply strips public employees of their rights to collectively bargain for healthcare and pension benefits. (Wages are already prohibited from increasing above inflation without a public referendum.)<br />
<br />
Faced with the prospect that the legislation would be railroaded through both houses with a minimum of debate, discussion, or public engagement, the 14 Democratic Senators fled the state - in theory, to keep the Senate from having the quorum necessary to pass the bill. In the past few weeks there have been massive demonstrations outside the capitol to preserve the ability to collectively bargain, and public employee union spokespeople have said that the unions will agree to the additional healthcare and pension costs that they are being asked to bear.<br />
<br />
Oddly, this situation has mirrored aspects my own employment situation, which involved a struggle over employment status and the right (or lack thereof) to benefits (insurance and PTO). As is often the case with those not operating from a position of power, I lost. And not just benefits, but, as of yesterday, my job as well. This morning I learned that the Senate in Our Fair State managed to passed a bill (whose exact wording is a mystery at this point) that strips public employees of their collective bargaining rights. They claim to have managed this (legally) without the necessary quorum by 'removing fiscal effects' from the bill. (<a href="http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_8747fa04-4a74-11e0-8e6b-001cc4c03286.html">q</a>)<br />
<br />
While on the surface this situation may appear to be about balancing the state's budget, some of the lesser known provisions of the proposed bill have much broader ramifications. Including making union dues purely voluntary and prohibiting their collection by payroll deduction. (<a href="http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2011/03/07/110307taco_talk_hertzberg">q</a>) Labor unions make significant contributions to political candidates, and 93 cents of every dollar spent by labor unions in the last six election cycles in Our Fair State have gone to a Democrat. (<a href="http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_87f6ba78-46c6-11e0-a5fc-001cc4c002e0.html">q</a>) And while no one wants to be forced to join a union anymore than they want to be forced to accept untenable employment terms, it's worth noting that the agenda behind this 'union busting' proposal may go far beyond a simple attempt to balance the state budget.<br />
<br />
<em>"...[T]here are two parties, the Corporate and those who don’t belong to any party at all, and so, to use a common phrase, are just out of luck!"</em><br />
<br />
Reflecting back, I see a pattern of Labor fighting The Company that spans my entire life. It started with the job I had in high school, where the boss didn't want to pay me overtime, until I proved to him that I knew it was the law. I watched my father being forced to take early retirement after 27 years of service and then being hired back through a consulting firm for an additional 10 years. And I've watched the rapid growth of 'independent contractor', part-time and temporary positions being used as a way to scale back costs by not having to pay benefits.<br />
<br />
It is a difficult job to organize people into an effective fighting force. Many years ago I worked at a company where the workers wanted to unionize to improve their working conditions. Rather than organize themselves, they tossed around the idea of joining an already-established union. While I was <em>for</em> organizing to improve working conditions, I was opposed to simply letting a big union in the door to tell us what to do. The fact that I attended a meeting where these issues were discussed was enough to cost me that job. And the gripes we had then seem simple when compared to some of the issues and situations I've encountered since then.<br />
<br />
One of the best outcomes recently in Our Fair State is the <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/16/russ-feingold-progressives-united-corporate-influence_n_816693.html">return</a> of former 'maverick' senator Russ Feingold to the political arena, with the launch of his grassroots campaign (<a href="http://www.progressivesunited.org/fight">Progressives United</a>) to combat corporate influence in politics. But the daily battles of workers who may not know their rights, or who may be too afraid to act on those rights, continue. And if there is a cause ripe for humanists, it might very well be engaging the ideas and participating in the struggles that will define how labor will be treated in this country in the years to come...AHShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10365755866075641026noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4835014394941770419.post-47597014924903343102011-02-04T09:06:00.001-06:002011-02-04T09:09:03.114-06:00World Interfaith Harmony Week<em>"Recognizing that the moral imperatives of all religions, convictions and beliefs call for peace, tolerance and mutual understanding,</em><br />
<br />
<em>1. Reaffirms that mutual understanding and interreligious dialogue constitute important dimensions of a culture of peace;</em><br />
<br />
<em>2. <strong>Proclaims the first week of February every year the World Interfaith Harmony Week between all religions, faiths and beliefs;</strong></em><br />
<br />
<em>3. Encourages all States to support, on a voluntary basis, the spread of the message of interfaith harmony and goodwill in the world’s churches, mosques, synagogues, temples and other places of worship during that week, based on love of God and love of one’s neighbour <strong>or on love of the good and love of one’s neighbour</strong>, each according to their own religious traditions or convictions; ..."</em> - part of <a href="http://www.worldinterfaithharmonyweek.com/docs/UN-declaration-65-5-EN.pdf">UN General Assembly Resolution 65/5</a> (my emphasis)<br />
<br />
Note that part 3 <em>is</em> actually parsed to include secular humanists. It's a bit ironic that, while some of the <a href="http://worldinterfaithharmonyweek.com/events-calendar/">registered events worldwide</a> seem to focus on the Children of Abraham commonality in a specific subset of religions, local events (all two of them) during this week are being held in 1) a Unitarian Universalist church, and 2) a public library. <br />
<br />
As I am unable to attend either of these events, I've decided to mark this week by finding and reviewing the seven other UN resolutions mentioned in this particular resolution. I'm a bit shocked that the UN General Assembly finds it necessary to <em>repeatedly</em> resolve to promote "a culture of peace and non-violence", and I'm curious as to the language of such resolutions... <br />
<br />
Updates to this post after I digest the aforementioned data.AHShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10365755866075641026noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4835014394941770419.post-65521536893583048472011-01-14T20:11:00.000-06:002011-01-14T20:11:44.368-06:00How To Create An Enemyby Sam Keen<br />
<br />
<em>Start with an empty canvas.</em><br />
<em>Sketch in broad outline the forms of </em><br />
<em>men, women, and children.</em><br />
<br />
<em>Dip into the unconsciousness well of your own</em><br />
<em>disowned darkness</em><br />
<em>with a wide brush and strain the strangers</em><br />
<em>with the sinister hue of the shadow.</em><br />
<br />
<em>Trace onto the face of the enemy the greed,</em><br />
<em>hatred, carelessness you dare not claim as</em><br />
<em>your own.</em><br />
<br />
<em>Obscure the sweet individuality of each face.</em><br />
<br />
<em>Erase all hints of the myriad loves, hopes,</em><br />
<em>fears that play through the kaleidoscope of</em><br />
<em>every infinite heart.</em><br />
<br />
<em>Twist the smile until it forms the downward</em><br />
<em>arc of cruelty.</em><br />
<br />
<em>Strip flesh from bone until only the </em><br />
<em>abstract skeleton of death remains.</em><br />
<br />
<em>Exaggerate each feature until man is</em><br />
<em>metamorphosized into beast, vermin, insect.</em><br />
<br />
<em>Fill in the background with malignant</em><br />
<em>figures from ancient nightmares - devils,</em><br />
<em>demons, myrmidons of evil.</em><br />
<br />
<em>When your icon of the enemy is complete</em><br />
<em>you will be able to kill without guilt,</em><br />
<em>slaughter without shame.</em><br />
<br />
<em>The thing you destroy will have become</em><br />
<em>merely an enemy of God, an impediment</em><br />
<em>to the sacred dialectic of history.</em><br />
<br />
I found this poem at the beginning of Juan Gomez-Jurado's international bestseller <em>The Moses Expedition</em> (2007). Perhaps more moving than the poem itself was the author's plea at the end of the acknowledgments...<em> "Dear reader, I don't want to end this book without requesting a favor. Go back to the beginning of these pages and reread the poem by Sam Keen. Do it until you memorize every word. Teach it to your children; send it to your friends. Please."</em> I trust that neither author will mind that I chose to share their words here.AHShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10365755866075641026noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4835014394941770419.post-43269088080669874462011-01-10T16:06:00.001-06:002011-01-10T16:12:12.224-06:00Viruses of the Mind (Pt I)<em>"If human beings are capable of both good and evil, what can be done to ensure the realization of their positive potential?"</em><br />
<br />
Any honest blog post has a back-story, and this one is no different. Recent events brought to mind, among other things, an <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0629671/">episode</a> of Law and Order: SVU that I had seen recently. The title of the episode was <em>Infected</em>, and the plot revolved around a scientific study that could 'explain' why a young boy shot and killed a man. The 'explanation' is <a href="http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Law_%26_Order:_Special_Victims_Unit#Infected_.5B7.13.5D">captured</a> in this bit of dialogue: <em>"This study equates gun violence with an infectious disease. Anyone exposed to it is infected." </em> Today, as I was reading the paper, it occurred to me to wonder if this particular episode hadn't perhaps been 'inspired' by an <em>actual</em> scientific study...<br />
<br />
A little googling brought me to <a href="http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7436-violence-may-be-a-socially-infectious-disease-.html">a popular press report</a> of just such a study. A <em>lot</em> of googling brought me to <a href="http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/stuff_for_blog/PHDCN_Firearm%20Exposure.pdf">a copy of the actual study</a>, published in <em>Science</em> in 2005. [pause for a disparaging glare at those publications that lock valuable knowledge behind pay walls] After measuring 153 other factors, including demographic, temperament, behavioral and family data, the authors concluded simply by saying "[W]<em>e estimate that being exposed to firearm violence approximately doubles the probability that an adolescent will perpetrate serious violence over the 2 subsequent years</em>." The catchiest bit of the idea that had brought me here - that violence could be likened to an infectious disease - didn't show up in the original paper, but rather in comments by the authors to the popular press publication. <br />
<br />
By this point I had scented a potential blog post, but what to say about all of this...? Did this study have any bearing on the recent event that still dominated today's front page? Is the value in the whirling creation and spread of the meme 'violence as contagion'? Where has this meme gone from here? (Follow-up studies, whose existence was <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/content/308/5726/1323.short">hinted at</a>, were hard to find.) Was a digression into <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics">memetics</a> appropriate? Should I invoke the secular guru's essay, <em><a href="http://cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/Dawkins/viruses-of-the-mind.html">Viruses of the Mind</a></em>? And what of a 'cure' for this 'infection'? <strong>If "viruses don't win every time", what keeps them from taking over, and how do we transmit <em>that</em> to the infected?</strong><br />
<br />
It's the last question that finally brought me back to this blog. Not because I think that I <em>have</em> the answer, but because I <em>want</em> the answer.AHShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10365755866075641026noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4835014394941770419.post-42844080553822324762010-12-04T11:49:00.000-06:002010-12-04T11:49:18.503-06:00Desiderata<em>Go placidly amid the noise and the haste, </em><br />
<em>and remember what peace there may be in silence.</em><br />
<br />
<em>As far as possible, without surrender, </em><br />
<em>be on good terms with all persons. </em><br />
<em>Speak your truth quietly and clearly; </em><br />
<em>and listen to others, </em><br />
<em>even to the dull and the ignorant; </em><br />
<em>they too have their story. </em><br />
<em>Avoid loud and aggressive persons; </em><br />
<em>they are vexatious to the spirit.</em><br />
<br />
<em>If you compare yourself with others, </em><br />
<em>you may become vain or bitter, </em><br />
<em>for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself. </em><br />
<em>Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans. </em><br />
<em>Keep interested in your own career, however humble; </em><br />
<em>it is a real possession in the changing fortunes of time.</em><br />
<br />
<em>Exercise caution in your business affairs, </em><br />
<em>for the world is full of trickery. </em><br />
<em>But let this not blind you to what virtue there is; </em><br />
<em>many persons strive for high ideals, </em><br />
<em>and everywhere life is full of heroism.</em><br />
<br />
<em>Be yourself. Especially do not feign affection. </em><br />
<em>Neither be cynical about love, </em><br />
<em>for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment, </em><br />
<em>it is as perennial as the grass.</em><br />
<br />
<em>Take kindly the counsel of the years, </em><br />
<em>gracefully surrendering the things of youth. </em><br />
<em>Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune. </em><br />
<em>But do not distress yourself with dark imaginings. </em><br />
<em>Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness.</em><br />
<br />
<em>Beyond a wholesome discipline, </em><br />
<em>be gentle with yourself. </em><br />
<em>You are a child of the universe </em><br />
<em>no less than the trees and the stars;</em><br />
<em>you have a right to be here. </em><br />
<em>And whether or not it is clear to you, </em><br />
<em>no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.</em><br />
<br />
<em>Therefore be at peace with God, </em><br />
<em>whatever you conceive Him to be. </em><br />
<em>And whatever your labors and aspirations, </em><br />
<em>in the noisy confusion of life, </em><br />
<em>keep peace in your soul.</em><br />
<br />
<em>With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, </em><br />
<em>it is still a beautiful world. </em><br />
<em>Be cheerful. Strive to be happy.</em><br />
<br />
- Max Ehrmann, 1927<br />
<br />
This poem was quite popular in the late 60s and early 70s. I only recently discovered it, in a frame at a thrift store.AHShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10365755866075641026noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4835014394941770419.post-88635434215653341412010-11-07T07:24:00.002-06:002010-11-07T09:20:12.738-06:00To The Best of Our Knowledge<em>"A sign of health in the mind is the ability of one individual to enter imaginatively and accurately into the thoughts and feelings and hopes and fears of another person; also to allow the other person to do the same to us." </em>- attributed to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Winnicott">Donald Winnicott</a><br /><br /><em>"We believe our interpretations of reality intensely, and we want other people to join us in our interpretations to make us feel secure. We believe our interpretations <strong>are</strong> reality and if we can get enough votes we will prove it."</em><br /><br />(For the gentleman we encountered last night.)<br /><br />As usual, this blog post reflects a combination of things that have <a href="http://skepticblog.org/2010/11/02/the-eternally-boring-hereafter/">crossed my path</a> or been on my mind recently. This post is about, in a word, skepticism. More specifically, it is about the intersection of skepticism and compassion/empathy. And the point I'm trying to make is illustrated in the following (true) story...<br /><br />Some time ago I found myself in a conversation with an older gentleman during a reception. Having never met this man before, we began with the usual exchanges - where do you live, what do/did you do for a living, etc. Nothing about his responses was out of the range of the perfectly ordinary. But at some point (and I forget what the trigger was) the conversation took a distinct turn. He began to talk about UFOs, and then about shape-shifting aliens that lived among us.<br /><br />Now, to the best of <em>my</em> knowledge, there are no shape-shifting aliens living among us. Which is to say, I have never met a shape-shifting alien. I have never personally known anyone (other than this gentleman) who had met or believed in the existence of shape-shifting aliens among us. And I had never seen any pictures/videos, etc., that suggested to me that there <em>might</em> be shape-shifting aliens living among us. Granted, I had never gone <em>looking</em> for such evidence, nor had I ever really given the matter much thought.<br /><br />Curiosity runs strong in me, and this gentleman <em>seemed </em>sincere, though part of me suspected that he might just be waiting to see how long it would take me to call 'Bullshit!'. <strong>But it mattered not a whit to me that he be convinced that <em>my</em> view about shape-shifting aliens was the correct view</strong>. He seemed to want/need to talk about the topic of UFOs/aliens at some length, and something about me seems to say 'sympathetic/non-judgmental ear', so the conversation continued with a minimal amount of back channeling on my part. An occasional 'Wow' or (my personal favorite) 'I don't know what to do with that' was all that was required to keep him talking, until we were joined by another gentleman who was more insistent upon redirecting the conversation.<br /><br />Perhaps the point I'm getting at with that story is that, once I was not concerned about establishing agreement about 'the truth' of the topic under discussion, I was free to enjoy (or at least try to understand) this person for who he was. Perhaps the point I'm getting at is that agreement about 'the truth' should not stand in the way of compassion. Perhaps the point I'm getting at is that I find myself experiencing a growing distaste for the <em>sale</em> of 'the truth' to one group of people at the expense of another. Or perhaps it's just a growing distaste for the dogmatic insistence upon one's own particular view of the truth.<br /><br />Perhaps I'm just acquiring a new appreciation for the phrase "to the best of my knowledge"...AHShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10365755866075641026noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4835014394941770419.post-67593021136719102722010-10-31T07:01:00.002-05:002010-10-31T10:40:55.267-05:00The Good Shepherd (Pt I)<em>"I am quite aware that it is necessary for the success of any complex undertaking that one man should do the thinking and directing and in general bear the responsibility. But the led must not be compelled, they must be able to choose their leader."</em><br /><br />What I wish political elections reminded me of... <em>"He who takes the greatest danger, he who bears the heaviest burden, that man is King."</em><br /><br />What political elections <em>actually</em> remind me of... <em>"All history is only one long story to this effect: Men have struggled for power over their fellow men in order that they might win the joys of earth at the expense of others, and might shift the burdens of life from their own shoulders upon those of others."</em><br /><br />People <em>are</em> reasonably smart about choosing a leader. In small groups. In real-world settings. In situations where they have seen the options in action.<br /><br />They <em>will</em> follow the person who is the smartest. Who has the best information and/or can use it the most effectively. Who can communicate to the group what the group needs to know. Who acts for the good of the group.<br /><br />They <em>do</em> respect the person who takes on the dirty or difficult jobs that no one else wants to do. Who will bear the responsibility of a bad outcome without trying to shift the blame. Who does not have unreasonable expectations of them. Who is not afraid to consult them about what <em>they</em> know.<br /><br /><strong>So why does the process of choosing leaders for much larger groups (e.g., states or nations) deviate so much from these simple yet effective criteria and observations?</strong><br /><br />That's largely a rhetorical question. I have no intention of trying to summarize the psychology of political elections. I am merely baffled by the discrepancy in how people behave in elections and how they decide to follow/nominate a 'leader' in their immediate circumstances/environment. And since I have a blog wherein I can rant about such things, here are just a few thoughts on leaders and leadership...<br /><ul><li><strong>A leader should fill a recognized need of the group.</strong> A group may need direction in completing a task, or they may need a representative voice, but they should have a clearly defined need before seeking a leader to fill that need. A leader should also be clear about the needs that s/he has been called to fill, and <em>how</em> s/he will go about filling those needs. The absence of a need should mean the absence of a leader. </li><li><strong>A potential leader should be assessed on his/her merits alone, not in comparison to 'the other guy'.</strong> Nothing is so dispiriting to the group psyche as feeling like you have only chosen 'the lesser of two evils'. Nothing (to me) embodies the antithesis of leadership so much as a potential leader who will encourage any perception of 'I'm not as bad as...'. </li><li><strong>Leadership is a burden that should be borne gracefully, not a title that should be sought desperately.</strong> Leadership should be a situation-specific response, not a coveted status. Nothing makes a leader so useless to his/her group as his/her own self-interest in preserving the status of 'leader'.</li></ul><p>I've cast my votes in this election already, but not without thinking a great many thoughts in line with those stated above...</p>AHShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10365755866075641026noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4835014394941770419.post-42309707772762363782010-10-25T17:52:00.003-05:002010-10-25T20:09:42.874-05:00The Second-Class Employee<em>"Nothing, I am sure, calls forth the faculties so much as the being obliged to struggle with the world."</em><br /><em></em><br /><em>"The company also expects to use 150 to 250 seasonal, or "casual," employees who would do the same work as regular, full-time employees but for less pay and no benefits."</em> (<a href="http://www.jsonline.com/business/102861839.html">q</a>)<br /><br />Welcome New Employee,<br /><br />We are pleased to have you on board as a [casual/seasonal/temporary] worker here at Company X. If you've been reading the newspapers lately, you'll have noticed that positions like yours are becoming an increasingly-popular way for companies to cut labor costs. Of course, you're probably just happy to have a job at this point, but let me spell out a few things for you about your new position...<br /><p>The most important thing is, of course, that <strong>you are expendable</strong>. You were hired to fill a need, but that you will also be the first to go once that need has been met, regardless of how well you perform and/or how poorly the permanent employees perform in comparison to you.</p><p><strong>You will have no benefits</strong>. This is the primary difference between you and a permanent employee. We don't want to incur the additional expense of your health insurance and your paid time-off. Voila! To avoid this expense, all we have to do is lay you off every now and then.</p><p>Because you are expendable, it will be assumed by everyone that eventually you will no longer be here. We will act accordingly and not invest too much effort in getting to know you. Also, the fact that you make less money and have no benefits makes us uncomfortable and reminds us just how close we might be to losing <em>our</em> jobs/benefits. So be prepared to only socialize with those sharing your status.</p><p>There's a good chance that we permanent employees sold you out to save our own jobs, but no gratitude will be forthcoming. We'll mostly just assume that you are stupid for agreeing to do this job for less pay and no benefits. </p><p><strong>You will have to work harder than a permanent employee to be perceived as valuable.</strong> Since you aren't going to be here that long, we aren't going to invest a lot of time or effort in your training, so you'd better catch on quickly, and don't ever let us see you slacking. </p><p><strong>Insecurity is your new companion.</strong> Really. You have to keep in mind that this job will soon end, and you should be thinking about what you're going to do after this. We also reserve the right to move up your end date at will, according to our needs.</p><p>Good news! We might keep you on longer than we said we would. Nothing about your status changes though, so don't get comfortable. (It'll be up to you to notice if we are violating any labor laws by having you as a de facto permanent/full-time employee without compensating you as such.)</p><p>Perhaps the most valuable piece of advice we can give you is this - <strong>It is not in your interest to help us improve our processes.</strong> Any such improvements will only result in us no longer needing your services that much sooner. </p><p>Like we said before, you're probably just happy to have a job - <em>any</em> job - right now. This isn't the kind of job you take out of anything except need/desperation. We know this, and frankly, it doesn't raise our opinion of you. Expect us to act accordingly. But do keep showing up to work with a smile on your face! </p><p>We can't tell you how restructuring our labor force to include [casual/seasonal/temporary] workers is <em>not</em> contributing to the development and perpetuation of a caste-system in the American labor force. We <em>can</em> tell you that 1) we will realize substantial savings in our labor costs, and 2) we will be reluctant to let those savings go once we can no longer plead this as a necessity of 'the economy'. Ironically, the continuous flux of you [casual/seasonal/temporary] workers in and out of the work force might actually contribute to a much <em>slower</em> economic recovery. But that's not really our problem.</p><p>Any psychological problems you might be having as a result of your second-class status can be directed to our Employee Assistance Hotline. But we advise that you try not to dwell on the inequalities. After all, doing a job well is its own reward!</p><p>Welcome Aboard!</p><p>Your New Employer</p>AHShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10365755866075641026noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4835014394941770419.post-7766104456528713542010-10-18T17:53:00.004-05:002010-10-18T21:42:26.362-05:00Free To Be... Disabled?<em>"...by intentionally bringing a child into the world who has a disability, it significantly violates the child’s right to an open future."</em><br /><br /><em>"The capacity to empathize with others is undeniably a revered characteristic in our society."</em> (<a href="http://www.cog.psy.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/papers/2007/Rogers(2007)_JAutismDevDisord.pdf">q</a>)<br /><br /><em>"But if we want to continue to have exceptional, creative geniuses, those pathological traits are an absolute necessity." </em><br /><br /><a href="http://advancinghumanism.blogspot.com/2010/09/advancing-humanism-vs-transhumanism.html">Ask</a> and ye shall <a href="http://neuroethicscanada.wordpress.com/2010/09/26/disability-by-design/#more-1409">receive</a>.<br /><br />For a few weeks now, I've been chewing on the issue raised by <a href="http://neuroethicscanada.wordpress.com/2010/09/26/disability-by-design/#more-1409">this post</a>: <strong>Is it morally correct to select <em>for</em> a genetic trait that most people consider to be a disability?</strong> The post uses the example of non-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">syndromic</span>, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">autosomal</span> recessive deafness, but also touches on the autism spectrum disorders (<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">ASD</span>). In both cases, advocacy movements have formed to promote (among other things) the right to intentionally reproduce atypical/disabled offspring. In the case of non-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">syndromic</span>, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">autosomal</span> recessive deafness, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">preimplantation</span> genetic diagnosis makes this possible (though not yet with <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">ASD</span>).<br /><br />In some more-recent, unrelated web surfing, I came across the idea that <a href="http://www.healthzone.ca/health/article/633688">people with <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Asperger's</span> syndrome actually had <em>higher</em> levels of (affective) empathy</a> than <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">neurotypical</span> (NT) controls. (Additional web surfing brought me to numerous instances of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">aspies</span> affirming this claim.) That brought me right back to this section from <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">Buchman's</span> post... <em>"This is because of the “dual nature” of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">ASD</span>, that is, while these individuals may have difficulties negotiating the social world and possess other traits that might be regarded as disabling, some individuals with <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">ASD</span> tend to be intellectually gifted and others even possess savant-like qualities. Indeed, Ludwig Wittgenstein, arguably one of the most influential philosophers of the 20<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">th</span> century, was believed to have had <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">Asperger</span> syndrome. Since Wittgenstein’s (and others) intellectual <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">giftedness</span> is inseparable from other traits causing disability, then obliging to not bring such individuals into the world would be a loss to society as a whole. This latter dilemma is what <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">Gillett</span> refers to as the unwitting sacrifice problem: <strong>the ethical challenges that arise when selecting for disabilities that can cause suffering in the individual, but can also be advantageous to both individuals and society.</strong> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">Gillett</span> notices that, in selecting for disability, these individuals are born as unwitting sacrifices to society’s or parent’s desire for certain genetic traits that are deemed valuable. Ought we permit somebody to be an unwitting sacrifice?" </em>(My emphasis.) Does increased empathic sensitivity (and its presumable decrease in the desire to <em>cause</em> suffering in others) add to the balance to 'justify' selecting for individuals with <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18">Asperger</span> syndrome, and how is that weighed against the suffering of the individuals involved?<br /><br />[SIDE NOTE: Creativity seems to be another area where <a href="http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/4236">the advantage/disadvantage line might get a little blurry</a>.] <br /><br />Historically, people have been mostly free to mate with whomever they choose, with all the incumbent hopes of capturing a portion of <em>something</em> from that person in the resultant offspring. The genius, the athletic prowess, the personality, or the simple outward aesthetic. In this respect, the child was subject to the whims of the parents. Any damage or disadvantage to the child as a result of that particular genetic pairing may have been deemed unfortunate, but the child could not hold the parents to account for his/her misfortunes. Obviously, genetic testing technology changes that critical portion of the relationship between parent and child. Before 'genetic awareness', a parent could not be held responsible for the genetic 'condition' of the child. A child could not <em>blame</em> the parents for wilfully inflicting a genetic disadvantage upon him/her, or for failing to give him/her any specific genetic advantage. After 'genetic awareness', a parent has a new set of choices to (possibly) regret later, and a child has a new criterion by which to judge his/her parents. I can't help but wonder how the parent-child relationship will change as the parent's ability to <em>design</em> the child increases.<br /><br />But what finally prompted me to write this post was the following thought...<br /><br />We currently know quite a bit about what is needed to successfully <em>nurture</em> a child, yet we do next to nothing to regulate the environment, stimulation, etc. that a parent <em>must</em> provide for their child. Why should we presume any greater responsibility in regulating how parents choose to 'nature' their child? <strong>If parents are free to make poor choices with regards to the nurturing of their children, are they equally free to make poor choices in the 'naturing' of their children?</strong> (And at what point do 'differing values' become 'poor choices'?) How have adult children responded to the knowledge that their parents (knowingly) did not give them every <em><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_19">nurtural</span></em> advantage, and what might this tell us about how children will react to being given a <em>natural</em> (genetic) disadvantage?<br /><br />[This is not intended to be a definitive opinion on the topic of genetic selection, but rather a small contribution to a larger, longer discussion.]AHShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10365755866075641026noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4835014394941770419.post-36880366697542978112010-10-11T17:39:00.003-05:002010-10-11T20:45:47.040-05:00A Creed for the Third Millennium<em>"Give these pages to the world, and there shall be another mighty religion, another priesthood, another Us and another Them, one set against the other. In a hundred years, a million will have died for the words we hold in our hands; in a thousand years, tens of millions. All for this paper."</em><br /><br />(Because I've now heard 'non-overlapping magisteria' one too many times in recent weeks.)<br /><br />Who knew? Certainly not I, back when I decided to <em>study</em> science. Or the person I was when I was a <em>professional</em> scientist. I even managed to make it through <em>graduate school</em> without getting seriously immersed in (or even really being <em>aware</em> of) the idea that science might be at <em>war</em> with religion. Or that the idea of 'God' was something on which a <em>scientist</em> would/should ever be pressured to comment. All this I learned from the blogosphere. (sigh)<br /><br />In my head things are a little simpler. (And devoid of Latin.) <br /><ul><li><strong>Spirituality</strong> - The <strong>individual experience</strong> of the Unknown. The curiosity, the anomalous, the wonder, the introspection, the yearning. The subjective experience, and its consequences.</li><li><strong>Religion</strong> - The <strong>communal</strong> <strong>enterprise</strong> with respect to the Unknown. What Man chooses to share with his fellows. The objective experience - what is done with/for/by others with respect to the Unknown.</li></ul><p>Having defined religion thusly (and distinctly from spirituality), it is (only) now possible to compare science and religion. Gould's idea of the relationship between science and religion - called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria">non-overlapping magisteria</a> - has been summarized as follows... <em>"</em>[T]<em>he magisterium</em> <em>of science covers the empirical realm: what the Universe is made of (fact) and why does it work in this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value." </em>I think that this is an absurd statement, for reasons you may be able to infer from my above description of religion. </p><p>Religion was the precursor of Science in Man's attempt to <strong>explain</strong> the past <strong>and predict</strong> the future. Because Man benefits by perceiving Order rather than Chaos, those explanations which most satisfactorily explain the past and enable successful predictions about the future survive. When (and where) Man had insufficient facts with which to explain or predict, he (historically) sought to establish Order in his perceptions via the simplest route - a single source, generally conceived in the image Man knew best... his own. A God, whose motivations and desires (being similar to Man's) might be understood, and having been understood, might be acted upon in a way that would benefit Man. Because Man also benefits by being part of a cohesive social unit, and cohesion is defined in large part by shared beliefs, it behooved Man to <strong>instruct</strong> his fellows <strong>and control</strong> the behavioral cohesion of his social unit.</p><p>This has been the historical function of Religion (the communal enterprise) - to explain and predict, and instruct and control. <strong>To perceive 'explain and predict' as the sole purview of Science is to ignore the entire historical context of Religion, and the foundation by which Religion holds its ability to instruct and control.</strong> (It also fails to acknowledge those aspects of human experience that (mainstream) Science has not (yet) adequately explained. Like it or not, Religion still offers an explanation for many of these experiences.)</p><p><strong>Yet, to function as it was intended, Science <em>cannot</em> be concerned with exerting social control.</strong> Control requires suppressing contradiction and stifling contention in favor of maintaining cohesion. Such is contrary to the nature and spirit of true Science. This means that Science, though it can inform us, cannot and should not be held up as the final arbiter of what human beings <em>should </em>do. Science can say 'If you do X, then everything we have observed to date tells us that Y will happen as a result." But Science must stop there, and remain our servant in that respect, and Scientists must never become another set of masters to whom we defer. Science cannot give us a creed, set in stone, without ceasing to be an enterprise of inquiry. </p><p>As the <em>explanations</em> offered by Religion are challenged and surpassed by those offered by Science, it becomes possible to challenge the <em>instructions and controls</em> passed down by Religion as well. In many areas this is overdue. Yet this does not mean that <em>any</em> idea put forth by Religion as a moral restraint or control is necessarily a <em>bad</em> idea. <strong>It simply means that the dialogue about what is right and what is wrong will have to <em>continually </em>evolve as humanity wrestles still more self-determining power from the realm of the Unknown. </strong>Scientists should be prepared to engage in that dialogue, but without assuming the demeanor of conquerors or kings. </p>AHShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10365755866075641026noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4835014394941770419.post-67135310603590318952010-09-26T08:08:00.002-05:002010-09-26T10:30:56.581-05:00Advancing Humanism vs. Transhumanism<em>"Well, if you insist on tagging me, call me a meliorist."</em><br /><em></em><br />This post started to percolate when I read <a href="http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/2010/08/transhumanism-a-word-that-exists-for-a-reason/">this</a>... <em>"The cowardice I see out there is astonishing. Smart, productive, <strong>de facto</strong> transhumanists that are just too damn stodgy to use the T-word to describe themselves."</em><br /><br />It continued to brew after I read <a href="http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/4145">this</a>... <em>"All humans have the right to become transhumans. If not, then the transhumanist movement is no longer humanist."</em><br /><br />And what would a blogpost be without <a href="http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/2010/09/radio-theologian-time-is-running-out-to-influence-debate-on-transhumanism/">controversy</a>? "<em>An international, intellectual, and fast-growing cultural movement known as transhumanism... intends the use of biotechnology, genetic engineering, nanotechnology, cybernetics, and artificial intelligence as tools that will radically redesign our minds, our memories, our physiology, our offspring, and even perhaps... our very souls."</em><br /><br />Seven or eight years ago I had a real fascination with transhumanism. It seemed like the kind of cool, progressive movement that a smart, sci-fi loving geek like me could relate to and embrace. Yet here I am, 'regressed' back to ordinary humanism. Why? What changed?<br /><br /><ul><li><strong>I began to feel that the transhumanist movement was <em>limited</em> in its unflagging reverence of technology.</strong> Like the man said, <em>"At best, we can say that we have effectively become 'slaves' to the technology we create."</em> (<a href="http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/4145">q</a>) Technology was/is presented by transhumanists as the only, the inevitable, and even the superior course through which humanity can, will, and should evolve. I began to believe that there was <em>another</em> way for humanity to evolve, and for the definition of what it means to be human to significantly change; one that did not involve the hybridization of man and machine.</li><li><strong>I began to believe that transhumanism was too focused on the far future, and was dangerously disconnected from the problems that we currently face.</strong> Don't tell me about the glories of a cyborg body; tell me about the various expressions of humanity that stand to be wiped out by improvements in genetic screening technology. Tell me about the <em>current</em> sociological consequences of our rush to seek 'normalcy' via neuropharmacology.</li><li><strong>Transhumanist writings began to seem more like the fantasies of an isolated elite, and less like a practical, mainstream philosophy or an attempt to address current real-world concerns.</strong> Yes, on some level we like to be <em>entertained</em> with visions of the future, but where/what is the transhumanist approach to hunger, poverty or illiteracy? What does transhumanism have to say about the fact that coveted biological 'amplifications' <em>aren't</em> available to everyone?</li></ul><p>I appreciate that it's exciting to talk about and plan for a far future; one that might be utopian or dystopian, as your mood permits. Even I find it more exciting to talk about the possibility of mind-uploading than <a href="http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/pellissier20100922">the future of Brazil as an agricultural world power</a>. </p><p>But I also want to talk about what happens when you force the ordinary factory worker to engage a slow, flawed piece of software for eight hours via voice recognition. How does the company's desire for increased productivity rate against the psychological and neurological change (one might even say 'damage') that the new technology inflicts upon the worker? And I want to talk about the <a href="http://advancinghumanism.blogspot.com/2009/10/free-to-be-cosmetic-neurology.html">freedom to <em>resist</em></a> the pressure to modify one's consciousness according to the current social norms.</p><p><strong>Embracing the race toward a better future via technology is transhumanism. Being concerned for those who suffer along the way is humanism.</strong> We really <em>shouldn't</em> be transhumanists without first being humanists... </p>AHShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10365755866075641026noreply@blogger.com0