SciAm Column on "Rational Atheism"; The Dangers of Being "Anti" Rather Than "Pro" Topics: Insights, Religion, Politics, Activism, Philosophy, Conflicts, Thought The Skeptic column in the September 2007 Scientific American, "Rational Atheism", seeks to address the current fad of strident atheism. (I call it a fad because the currents of antagonism are likely to burn out the movement and produce more heat than light.) Michael Shermer's thoughtful column is applicable to issues other than religion vs. atheism. This is why it is good reading even for people not interested in the religion-atheism debates. The key points Shermer makes are Anti-something movements by themselves will fail. Positive assertions are necessary. Rational is as rational does. The golden rule is symmetrical. Promote freedom of belief and disbelief. These good ideas are applicable to so many areas of life. As I study the Networked World, I see many conflicts of worldviews, religions, and politics behind various information security challenges. In the Western democratic societies, it is easy for many people concerned about Islamist movements and terrorism to adopt an "anti" stance.While that might seem useful in the short run, it is prone to disaster. Yes, there will be conflicts, but it is far more important to know what you are for than what you are against. Because of this, I am glad that Shermer included a great quote by the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises. In the 1950's he gave the following warning to his anti-Communist colleagues: --- “An anti-something movement displays a purely negative attitude. It has no chance whatever to succeed. Its passionate diatribes virtually advertise the program they attack. People must fight for something that they want to achieve, not simply reject an evil, however bad it may be.” --- A starker warning I all too well remember comes from Nietzsche: --- Anyone who fights with monsters should make sure that he does not in the process become a monster himself. And when you look for a long time into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you. Beyond Good and Evil, Aphorism 146 --- When looking at some of the horrible things in the world, facing the nightmares of our day, it is so important to strive to make for a better world, not merely to fight the monsters. Find what is worth preserving, what is worth nurturing, what is worth creating, and what is worth sharing. J.D. Abolins

27.8.07 01:45 Permalink / 16 Comments / comment

Economic Insights on Hybrid Autos & California HOV Stickers Topics: Insights, Economics, Automobiles, Environment, Incentives This evening, I listened to interesting report on NPR's AllThings Considered on "Access to Calif. HOV Lane Puts Premium on Hybrids". To encourage the purchase of hybrid automobiles, California had offered special stickers that allowed the hybrids' drivers to use the HOV (high occupancy vehicle, carpool) lanes even if there was only the driver in the vehicle. California has handed out all 85,000 of these special sticker and no more are available. Therefore, hybrids, such as Toyota's Prius, with the stickers are in a limited supply. The only way to get the stickers is to buy them with a hybrid automobile. The economic results are interesting. A study of automobile resale prices has learned that the sticker has increased the average resale price by $4,000 (£2,000) compared to the same type of vehicle without the sticker. This is the largest return on any single improvement to a vehicle. The All Things Considered programme explains the economics of the stickers and why the time savings in the commutes may make the price difference worth it to the buyers. Oh, with a valuable item, there are those would seek to steal it, but the stickers have anti-theft features that make it difficult to remove and reuse the stickers. They crumble or produce a "VOID" marking.  J.D. Abolins

18.4.07 04:31 Permalink / 4 Comments / comment

Interesting Comment on Security Topics: Insights, Security & Insecurity,Quotes, Philosophy, Privurity Recently, I came across a simple, obvious, but profound statement in a paper on social cohesion. The quote is: --- Public opinion has a certain sense of risk in everyday lives. But security is not a self-explaining concept. Like for other fundamental dimensions of human life like welfare, health, happiness, it is not easy to give a simple and broadly accepted definition. Security implies and means different things for different people and societies. Despite its difficulties, the concept of "security" give us a broader and better frame to locate our problems, understand society's demands, and to design suitable answers than the concept of "crime" or even criminal justice. The idea of security has many connotations. It has to do with the idea of a stable and predictable environment, but also with the idea of absence of harm or pain. There is not absolute security since life itself is a risk and death is the bigger uncertainty for human beings. --- From "Crime and social cohesion in Europe: Social change and the new problems of western European security" [pdf] by Diego Torrente. Department of Sociology, University of Barcelona. I especially like the sentence, "There is not absolute security since life itself is a risk and death is the bigger uncertainty for human beings." Some big problems arise as people seek 100% security in life, not realising that such a goal may, itself, make life unlivable. J.D. Abolins

2.4.07 04:17 Permalink / 4 Comments / comment

NY Times Article About Stewart Brand Topics: Interesting Tech, Insights This Tuesday's New York Times Science Times section had an article about Stewart Brand. Stewart Brand was a counter-culture figure, an environmentalist, and a hacker in his own way. His is probably most famous for the the Whole Earth Catalog. The Science Times article reports how Brand changed his approach to environmentalism and various other issues over the years. A key theme is the relationship between the romantic and the rational. As he emphasises the rational side of environmentalism, his views sometimes at odds with other streams of environmentalism. I found the last two paragraphs of the article quite noteable (at least to me): "I get bored easily — on purpose," he said, recalling advice from the co-discoverer of DNA's double helix. "Jim Watson said he looks for young scientists with low thresholds of boredom, because otherwise you get researchers who just keep on gilding their own lilies. You have to keep on trying new things." That's a good strategy, whether you're trying to build a sustainable career or a sustainable civilization. Ultimately, there's no safety in clinging to a romanticized past or trying to plan a risk-free future. You have to keep looking for better tools and learning from mistakes. You have to keep on hacking. Nicely stated. J.D. Abolins

28.2.07 03:21 Permalink / comment

An Article on 5 Myths About Suburbia and US Car-Happy Culture Topics: Insights, Environment, Transportation Interesting commentary on the 5 Myths About Suburbia and Our Car-Happy Culture By Ted Balaker and Sam Staley in the Sunday, 28 January 2007 Washington Post. Ted Balaker and Sam Staley are coauthors of "The Road More Traveled: Why the Congestion Crisis Matters More Than You Think, and What We Can Do About It" The Washington Post article opens... "They don't rate up there with cancer and al-Qaeda -- at least not yet -- but suburban sprawl and automobiles are rapidly acquiring a reputation as scourges of modern American society. Sprawl, goes the typical indictment, devours open space, exacerbates global warming and causes pollution, social alienation and even obesity. And cars are the evil co-conspirator -- the driving force, so to speak, behind sprawl. Yet the anti-suburbs culture has also fostered many myths about sprawl and driving, a few of which deserve to be reconsidered..." The "myths" examined and reconsidered are: Americans are addicted to driving. Among other things, Balaker & Staley point out that in New York City, a city with an extensive transit system, "it takes transit riders about twice as long as drivers to get to work". I wish they had examined why this difference. Is it because of the wait times? Is the need to do one or more transfers? Did the statistics consider options besides mass transit and driving private automobiles. such as bicycles and walking? Public transit can reduce traffic congestion. One of the good points the authors raise is that many commuters combine other chores, such as shopping, with their drives to & from work. Although increasing mass transit and pushing people in more dense, multipurpose communities may help, they are not as practical in the US as it may seem. But the authors note that improving mass transit is helpful for various people who cannot (or should not) drive. We can cut air pollution only if we stop driving. The air is actually getting cleaner in the States. According to the article, "Although driving is increasing by 1 to 3 percent each year, average vehicle emissions are dropping about 10 percent annually." We're paving over America. Only 5.4% of the US is actually developed in we use the definition of population density of 30 or more people per square mile. Looking at Google Earth will give an interesting glimpse of how much of the US is still rural or wilderness. But where the US is developed, it tends to be quite developed and nature takes a beating. (I look at the "earth by night" images compiled by NASA to get an idea of urbanisation & development. The concentrations of lights are quite telling. Among other things, much of the US Eastern seaboard is a continuous band of light.) We can't deal with global warming unless we stop driving. It is not just driving nor is it only the developed world contributing to global warning. Stopping driving will not have as much of an impact as expected. (This does not mean that curbing emissions and seeking fuel efficiency is bad.) I am posting this insight item simply to show that the global warming is more complex than simplistic concepts of problems and solutions. J.D. Abolins

30.1.07 03:12 Permalink / 2 Comments / comment

Interesting Comment on My Last Blog Entry About Predicting the Fu Dave Harding, a techie acquaintance who runs the GnuJersey.org site, posted a good comment on my last blog entry about technology predictions. I am posting here so people getting my blog via various feeds are alerted to the interesting comments. Among other things Dave noted was David Brin's ideas, such as ones mentioned in his book Earth, becoming reflected in real life. In response to my comment about the ease predicting things about 50 years in the year, Dave Harding mentioned Brin's afterword to Earth: "Half-century predictions [are] among the most difficult speculative novels to write. In order to depict a near-term future, say five or ten years ahead, a writer need only take the present world an exaggerate some current trend for dramatic effect. At the other end, portraying societies many centuries from now, the job is relatively easy also. (Anything goes, so long as you make it vaguely plausible.) But five decades is just short enough a span to require a sense of *familiarity*, and yet far enough away to demand countless surprises, as well. You must make it seem believable that many people who are walking around at this very moment would also exist in that future time, and find conditions -- if not commonplace -- then at least normal.'' Brin, by the way is addressing prediction in "speculative novels", not mere predictions. Brin's comments about the difference of ease in writing about the distant future compared to depicting a relatively near future reminds me of an insight made by a Japanese painter several centuries ago: "Dragons and demons are easy to paint; dogs and horses are difficult." Nobody really can authoritatively say what a dragon or a demon looks like. The artist can paint whatever fantastic image and nobody can judge it from experience. But everybody knows what a dog or a horse look like can judge the painting from their experience. When writing a "speculative novel" or, even just a short story, the prediction has to work in the setting and with the plot and characters, not just stand by itself as the prediction could in an interview or a non-fiction article. Brin is very good at taking several possible social & tech changes and make them fit well in his futures. These predictive possibilities aren't forced but appear to both have shaped the future's history and to have been products of that history. J.D. Abolins

15.1.07 02:19 Permalink / comment

Spot On Description of a Geek Conversation Foible Looking at the GNUJersey.org site, which carries feed from various blogs (including this one), I saw a copy of "When Geek Conversations Go Bad". The author describes an annoying foible of some tech geeks to switch conversations, say, about iPods to vintage systems upon which they worked. Not even a switch to tech inthe same genre, like reel-to-reel audio tape recorders. I recognised this foible and was thinking why it hits geeks so much. The author notes it may be compensation for not keeping up with some technologies. (If you can't practise one-upsmanship with the latest, go for one-downsmanship with the oldest.) It also sounds like a derailing of social bonding where a group of people try to follow the same stream of topics. In my college days, I had a friends who was really in being "socially cool". Some of it was silly but he sometimes had good insights. One that he shared with me because I had terrible awkwardness (and still have some of it) with conversations, is that conversations are like a stream flowing its course. The direction can shift but it should a graceful shift that can be followed, rather a sudden jog the throws people off. Good insight. One of the things that the friend suggested was using questions that supported the prevailing stream. Even if one does not know anything about, say, iPods, one could ask questions that get the others talking about the tech. I have to admit that can be hard for many geek guys, myself included, but good advice. (Why it is that really good advice is often so difficult? ) "Now, what's that about iPods? In my day....!" J.D. Abolins (who has his share of foibles)

10.11.06 20:49 Permalink / 1 Comment / comment

 [next page]