On the "inevitable singularity"

Unfortunately I do not have much time to write this month, as I am quite busy with other things. Today, though, I have an essay I would like to share: 

A recurrent theme in modern literature and philosophy is concern about the effects of technology on our humanity, a concern that has existed since the rate at which technology increases became too rapid to contemplate. Wallace Stegner expresses this concern in his essay “The Wilderness Idea,” in which he says that without another frontier humankind will be committed to a world defined and controlled by technology. Stegner is quite correct in stating that the concept of the frontier is behind us, and that technology will ultimately determine our way of life. Technological increase has been proven to be exponential and is inherently anti-individualistic, and technology naturally breeds dependence. Furthermore, the only frontier remaining is one that destroys individuality rather than promoting a self-sufficient pioneer lifestyle.

As any scientist will confirm, technology increases at a torrent pace and will only increase faster as time goes on. This has been proven in almost all fields of science, and most intellectuals regard the “technological singularity” as an inevitable conclusion. For example, in computer science, a theory known as Moore’s Law holds that scientists will be able to double a microchip’s computing power every two years until computers are capable of performing any calculation infinitely quickly. This inevitable increase helps to prove Stenger’s thesis, as it signifies that technology is impossible to supplant or remove from society. 

More importantly, technology naturally breeds dependence. Consider all of the major industries that define people’s lifestyles in today’s world: agriculture, transportation, and consumer goods. All of these industries are highly dependent on technology and will continue to utilize new technology as it is invented and it is completely inconceivable that any of these industries will abandon the technology on which they are based. This principle, combined with the fact that technology will continue to increase, yield only one conclusion: technology is and always will be a part of our lifestyles and society, proving that Stenger’s is correct in stating that a “Brave New World” scenario is unavoidable.

Stegner’s main point is that without a frontier or wilderness, mankind is committed to this dependence on technology. Stegner is quite correct in this assertion—the only frontier open to mankind is, as science fiction tells, us, outer space. However, this is not true wilderness in the sense that Stegner would like it to be—rather than promoting individualism as previous frontiers have been, space exploration encourages federalism and dependence on technology. Since sophisticated equipment is required for space exploration, the common man is no longer able to become a self-sufficient pioneer. Instead, only strong, central governments have the ability to perform the necessary research and build the equipment needed for space travel. Thus, no “wilderness” can save us from our inevitable fate—we are indeed committed to a society defined by our technology. However, Stegner is far too pessimistic about his conclusion—he forgets that technology has the capacity to meet all of our needs, destroying our individuality and self-sufficiency but creating a world without hardship. 

A “nuclear-free world” (part 2)

Now I would like to move on to what President Obama means by the phrase “nuclear-free world.” In a recent speech, he outlined his dream of a future in which no nation possesses nuclear weapons, making war obsolete. However, I am not so sure that this would be as idyllic of a future as Obama makes it seem. Also, I doubt that what Obama is suggesting is even possible.

First, I will address the issue of whether a world without nuclear weapons is desirable. Obviously it is in our benefit to prevent terrorists, belligerent nations, or unstable nations from building nuclear weapons, and preventing certain countries from having nuclear weapons would be a good idea. If fewer nations, or none at all, have atomic weapons, it is much more difficult for terrorists to obtain them. However, it would not be impossible for them to do so, as the knowledge required to make nuke still exists. It is certainly possible for a nation or group to build nuclear weapons without help from other countries, as North Korea proves. A nation that possesses nuclear weapons has enormous leverage over other nations, and in a non-nuclear world this means that any nation can simply build nukes and become a world power. Granted, Obama is also stressing missile defense systems, but these systems are far from perfect, and technologies to allow missiles to bypass these systems are being developed as fast as the systems themselves.

Also, remember that nuclear weapons are a deterrent to war. During the Cold War, neither side went to war because of the fear of MAD, or mutually assumed destruction. Today, the same scenario exists, which is the reason that no large-scale nuclear war has ever occurred. If nuclear weapons were taken away, there are fewer disincentives from waging conventional war on others. Take WWII, for example—Germany believed that it could win the war in Europe, so it invaded its neighbors mercilessly. However, if other nations had nuclear weapons, Germany probably would have never attacked, since a conventional attack would result in an un-winnable nuclear war. Indeed, the idea of a nuclear war with “acceptable” casualties ended long ago, in the early days of the Cold War. Since then, most people realize the futility of trying to launch a pre-emptive strike, nuclear or non-nuclear. However, if nuclear weapons were removed from the scenario, the result would change—nations could attack each other more easily, as there are no nukes to level the playing field.

Granted, the philosophy of MAD is not perfect. The policy makes many assumptions that are not necessarily true, and many contingencies—especially the dreaded “Dr. Strangelove” scenario—can occur. Overall, though, MAD and deterrence are the reason that no true nuclear was has ever occurred, and to take this away would probably not have a good effect on world affairs.

Additionally, the goal of a non-nuclear world is unattainable. Few nations are going to want to surrender their atomic weapons, especially belligerent ones such as Iran and North Korea. In fact, just a few days ago North Korea launched a rocket that was supposedly a test for long-range missiles, despite the fact that the US and UN demanded that the launch be aborted. Also, it is unlikely that any nation, no matter how well intentioned, will want to surrender their nuclear weapons while other nations still possess theirs. However, this may be the only solution, as a truly simultaneous disarmament is impossible.

Overall, Obama’s goal is noble, but extraordinarily impractical one to carry out. Instead of pushing for disarmament, Obama should be stressing diplomacy—it is still possible for nations to get along, even if both have the capacity to destroy the other. 

A “nuclear-free world” (part 1)

In a recent speech, President Obama called on European nations to support nuclear non-proliferation treaties and asked them to begin to reduce the number of nuclear missiles in existence. Obama also asked other nations, such as Russia and China, to stop building nuclear weapons and start disarming them instead. Obama is clearly trying to reach what he calls a “nuclear-free world”—a future where no nations possess nuclear weapons. Today, I would like to explore this idea of a world without nuclear arms.

Before I discuss Obama’s vision of a nuclear-free world, I would like to talk about a similar topic: how would history have progressed if nuclear weapons had never been invented? I believe that the course of history would be radically different, as certain nations—especially the US—have used nuclear weapons as a bargaining chip to attain their status as a world power.

Firstly, WWII would have ended very differently. The US would have had to launch a full-scale invasion of Japan (probably in 1946, which was Truman’s original plan), which would have cost hundreds of thousands if not millions of lives. Japan would have been completely shattered, and the US would be significantly weakened as well. This would mean that the Soviet Union would be just as powerful—if not more powerful—than the US. They would also be far less influenced by US intimidation because the US would not possess the atomic bomb, the use of which on Japan worried the Soviet Union. 

The Cold War would still have occurred because of the ideological differences between the US and USSR, but the way it would be fought would be very different from what actually happened. For example, Europe might have fallen to the Soviets because the US probably wouldn’t have the money to execute the Marshall Plan. Also, the Cold War’s “proxy wars,” the Korean War and the Vietnam War, may have been fought differently because there would be less fear of the US and USSR engaging in direct warfare (because neither possessed nuclear weapons). However, I find it unlikely that a full-scale conventional war would erupt between the two powers. If such a war did occur, though, the results would be catastrophic and unpredictable.

The 1960’s and 1970’s would probably be about the same—the Cold War would continue, the anti-war movement in the US would be stunted by a conservative President, the civil rights movement would finally achieve results. Sometime in the 1980’s or 1990’s the Soviet Union would collapse.

Overall, the world would be similar on the surface but different on deeper levels. The Cold War would bring with it a different mentality, not one of fear but of intense nationalism, similar to the national pride felt during WWII. The US would have a smaller role in world affairs, as the negative economic results of an extended WWII would weaken the country somewhat. Additionally, wars between smaller countries (and even possibly larger ones, such as China) might occur as late as the 60’s, 70’s, 80’s, or 90’s, because no nation has nuclear weapons, which often deter war from occurring. In general, the world would not be a better place—and certainly not a utopian one—without nuclear weapons. Instead, because of nuclear deterrence, there would probably be more people killed in war had the atomic bomb never been invented. 

Later today I will discuss what President Obama means by the term “nuclear-free world.”

Law and order (part 7)

It’s official: the series on justice systems is now the longest on this blog, even longer than the series on the fourth dimension. Today’s post will address the question that has been repeatedly reappearing throughout this series: how can a utilitarian justice system deter crime? Because a system based on “the greater good” (defined as reducing unhappiness and creating happiness) and on rehabilitation is not as painful as a revenge-based system, critics argue that utilitarian justice does not deter criminals in the first place. This argument needs answering, as it is appears to be a major flaw in utilitarian and ‘rehab’ justice systems.

The deterrence argument is certainly a substantial one, and there are several aspects of it that must be addressed. The argument can be summarized as follows: a justice system that involves inflicting physical pain on lawbreakers prevents crime from happening in the first place because people are afraid of the consequences; a utilitarian system does not inflict pain, and thus it does not deter crime very effectively. I see three distinct points here that must be discussed: (1) the fact that pain deters crime, (2) the fact that utilitarian systems are pain-free, and (3) that a utilitarian system (assuming it is without pain for the purpose of deterrence) does not deter crime.

First, let’s tackle the issue that pain is a deterrent to crime. Obviously this argument has some truth to it, as both simple logic and empirical evidence indicate. The idea of “improper action leads to consequences” is one that is embedded in our culture, and I am sure that the fear of prison or pain has driven away many a potential criminal. But note that the pain-as-deterrence method of social control is not always as advocates of the current system claim it is—repeat offenders are not exactly uncommon in America. Of course, this is not much of a substantial argument since no system is perfect. Overall, though, this part of the deterrence argument is correct: physical pain can prevent crime from happening, and it is a useful method of social control because of this. 

Second, let’s look at the nature of utilitarian justice systems: are they really as pain-free as I have made them out to be? Naturally they do not include and unnecessary pain or pain for the purpose of revenge, but, as our current system proves, pain (whether in the form of prison, fines, etc.) is a very effective method of rehabilitation. Though many ex-convicts immediate return to their criminal ways, many others are profoundly affected by their sentence and do not return to crime. Also, consider the Catholic private schools that existed about 30 or 40 years ago: these schools were mostly run by nuns, who did not shy away from corporal punishment. As we know, this was actually a very effective method of instilling discipline, regardless of the fact that the nuns did subscribe to the revenge-as-justice theory. A utilitarian justice system would not completely reject pain because of its educational ability—though the system would try to restrict the use of pain as much as possible, since it has been proven to be an effective method of rehabilitation it would not be absent from a utilitarian justice system. This significantly weakens the deterrence argument, because if pain is present in rehabilitation—or if there is the chance that it is involved in rehabilitation—this would act to deter crime just as the standard revenge-based justice system does. Also, note that this use of pain-as-education would still be morally justified according to utilitarianism because the purpose it preventing crimes in the future, which is clearly in the interest of “the greater good for the greatest number.”

Finally, let’s examine deterrence in utilitarian systems a bit more. Recall that the US’s current justice system uses indirect techniques—such as prison, fines, forced community service, parole, and so forth—to “punish” criminals. Because the Bill of Rights forbids “cruel or unusual punishment,” flogging and other more painful forms of punishment have been outlawed—but the more humane methods have remained, and because they are unpleasant they still serve the deter crime. But how does this relate to a utilitarian system? The key point to remember is how a person’s rehabilitation would be achieved. It would almost certainly involved isolation from society for some time, and, as I discussed in the paragraph above, it might even involve pain. Even if a system did not use the pain-as-education method, though, the fact that a person must be removed from society to be rehabilitated may be enough of a deterrent for some criminals. Also, remember that a person’s rehabilitation may take a long period of time, which makes it even more undesirable to be sentenced, even in a system that is based around minimizing pain.

The bottom line is this: the deterrence argument certainly has some truth to it, most of its claims denouncing utilitarian justice systems are false. Utilitarian systems are not necessarily as pain-free as they might seem initially, and they can deter crime just as much as revenge-based systems. 

Again, this series may or may not continue tomorrow, depending on the news and on my mood.  

Law and order (part 6)

The series on justice systems is back with a vengeance (pun intended). Today I would like to discuss a justice system that combines a utilitarian rehabilitation system and Heinlein’s “Coventry” (exile) system, which I talked about a few months ago in “Law and order” parts 1-5.

This combined system is grounded in both libertarianism and utilitarianism, as it preserves personal responsibility and pragmatic rehabilitation. The reason for combining these seemingly contradictory ideologies is to avoid the practical problems that come from implementing either utilitarianism to an extreme or a form of libertarian justice (such as “rational anarchy”) to an extreme. (A malevolent government can easily manipulate the former, while that latter is ill-adapted to the modern world, since individuals can possess powerful weapons.) This combined system is in no way based on the traditional view of revenge as justice (an eye for an eye).

The system would function as follows: when a citizen breaks a law, he/she is brought before a court, in which the traditional courtroom procedure is used to determine if the accused caused measurable damage to other citizens (or their property) or restricted the freedom of other citizens. If the accused is found guilty, he/she is then given two options: (a) to work in a government labor camp or leave the country to any other country that will allow that person to immigrate, or (b) submit to psychiatric treatment, i.e., the “rehab” system. Should the person leave the country, they cannot re-enter without treatment. If the person chooses to work in a government labor camp, they can decide at any time to submit to treatment. Once a person’s treatment has begun, they cannot opt out of it without serious consequences, similar to joining the army during wartime.

The purpose of giving the person the choice to refuse treatment is to restrict the justice system and stop it from becoming a totalitarian utility monster. It prevents the state from conditioning individuals (because that is what the rehab system essentially is) without their consent, which ensures that the government cannot abuse this power to recondition political enemies or people the state finds undesirable. The reason the damage of a person’s crime must be assessed is also a libertarian theme, based on the idea that an action is not a crime if it harms no one. This, too, restricts the power of government in the social sphere and is a deterrent to fascism.

Of course, there are many practical problems with such a system, especially if a country’s borders are insecure. The combined system also suffers from some of the problems that the rehab system does: there is no assurance that the treatment will work, and there is less of a deterrent to crime than in a traditional system if the treatment is not painful. But overall I believe it is far more ideal than a traditional justice system, especially because it has safeguards that prevent the system from being used for totalitarian ends.

Tomorrow this series may or may not continue, depending on my mood and on what is going on in the world. 

American fascism

No, I’m not suggesting that the US government is fascist. But I would like to speculate on what it would take for the US to lapse into fascism. Though I am not concerned it will happen, I think it would be interesting to discuss.

To fully examine this problem, we should first look at what caused the rise of fascism in other nations. The best three examples I can think of are Germany, Italy, and Japan during the early 1930’s. I believe that the ascent of fascism in these states was caused by three classes of factors: economic, political and cultural.

The economic aspect is probably the easiest to analyze: all three countries were in a state of abject poverty before the fascists took power. In Germany, at least, this was directly related to the appeal of fascism: Hitler promised a “National Socialism” (which was nothing like Marxian socialism) to fix the German economy. Italy had a similar situation, and Japan was lacking in natural resources and needed economic expansion. This need for more natural resources would have fitted in perfectly with the fascist principle of imperialistic Social Darwinism, making fascism economically ideal for the Japanese. 

The political aspect requires a brief look at the post WWI period. In Germany, the treaty of Versailles had crippled Germany’s economy by demanding huge reparations, and many important areas of the German Empire—Poland, the Rhineland, Danzig, the Sudetenland—were under Allied control and were then allowed to become autonomous. Fiercely nationalistic Germans in these areas and in Germany demanded that the territories be returned to Germany, and many others wanted revenge against the Allies. Hitler must have seemed extremely desirable to both of these factions, as he promised to encourage more defense spending and expand Germany’s military. In Japan, the Showa movement was nationalistic faction devoted to the destruction communism, socialism, anarchism, etc. The organization played on similar national sentiments, vowing to instill a sense of nationalism and patriotism to Japan; group eventually evolved into Japan’s fascist government. In Italy there was something of a power vacuum—many were afraid of a communism revolution, and the fate of the country was uncertain. Mussolini promised a strong (and anti-communist) government, which must have  been very appealing to worried Italians.

The cultural aspect is the most intangible but perhaps one of the most important. In Germany and Japan the cultural aspect was obviously significant: in Japan, most Japanese people revered their ruler and treated him like a god; in German Hitler aroused anti-Semitic sentiments to unite the German people. Additionally, the Japanese saw their race as the Asian “master race,” a concept similar to the German superiority complex of the time. In Italy the situation was a bit different: the public supported Mussolini’s “blackshirts” because they were the only ones able to defend the country from the hated pro-labor liberals, including communists, socialists, trade unionists, and anarchists. However, the recurrent theme is that in all three countries the ascending government was able to use the culture of the society to facilitate their rise to power by improving their appeal.

So, what can this tell us about the possibility of American fascism? Right now, at least, America is safe from a totalitarian threat: America is not suffering from serious economic woes (compared to those of the 30’s, I mean), its government is secure and has a high approval rating, and there are no cultural constructs that challenge the current democratic system. However, it is possible that if the economic situation worsens fascism might seem to be a more desirable option, at least to some.

For example, if the economy worsens severely, Americans might become more sympathetic to economic policies that involve government intervention. Also, many Americans would want a stronger justice system to combat the crime that usually goes along with a depression. Additionally, if religious fundamentalism increases, this could provide a platform for a right-wing authoritarianism leader.

But remember that the cultural factors are clearly against fascism. Americans are strictly opposed to anything that limits their natural rights. We are obsessed with democracy, and fiercely proud of the fact that we are a democratic nation. Also, we still vividly remember the WWII years, in which we saw the horrors that fascism created.

Because of this, I am not sure that American fascism could ever develop. If it does, however, it would have to be many years in the future, since it would take a lot of time for fascism ideas to catch on in such a democratic nation.  

What happened to libertarianism?

Ironic as it may sound, American conservatism has changed a great deal, and today it is radically different from its American Revolution-era predecessors. Originally, conservatism was very Jeffersonian: it stressed small government, agrarian societies, and social libertarianism. Though it had its roots in Christianity, American conservatism did not include any kind of moral reform or social control. Today, though, conservatism has gone in the opposite direction: today’s conservative leaders advocate Amendments to the Constitution (or laws that could be interpreted as violations thereof) to promote Christian influence and enforce moral rules as law. In other words: the movement has taken on a repressive, moralistic edge that is the complete antithesis of its libertarian beginnings. Don’t believe me? Look at today’s conservative leaders. For example, leading conservative commentators Rush Limbagh and Sean Hannity both preach excessive social control and religious influence in lawmaking. Former Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin, seen as a role model for neoconservatives, was famous for her rejection of Roe v. Wade, support of school prayer, and overpowering emphasis on the traditional family structure.

Furthermore, conservatism in the US has taken on an anti-intellectual edge. Conservative commentators reinforce the image of a “liberal” as an intellectual snob, This probably stems from the fact that intellectuals are often seen as challenging religious fundamentalism, especially in the ongoing debate over evolution.  As Sarah Palin proved, many conservatives consider it a virtue to lack an extensive education and mock those who do have one.

This begs the question “What prompted this radical change?” Part of the answer probably has to do with the fact that in recent years America has strayed from traditional values more than ever before. Today, the population is becoming increasingly more diverse—in many areas, whites are now in the minority. Likewise, the culture of America is straying farther and farther away from traditional values—homosexuality is becoming more accepted, feminism continues to challenge traditional standards, and religion’s influence in the public sphere is declining faster than ever. In short, America is quickly becoming a Mecca for cultural exchange and new thinking. I suspect that for many fundamentalist thinkers, this is too much change in too short a period of time. Thus, conservatives are becoming more outspoken about their beliefs rather than being blasé about the “liberal bias” in American culture. Also, remember that when libertarianism was popular (back in 1776), American culture was more homogenous, and there was great animosity toward the religious-based laws of Great Britain that discriminated against some American denominations. Hence, libertarianism. But today, as I explained, we have the opposite setup.

 The rest of the answer most likely has to do with conformism. Since the 1950's and 60’s, American youth has taken on its own kind of culture, which is mostly a culture of rebellion against the traditional. This, too, has angered fundamentalist thinkers, who see moral control as the only way to combat this noisome cultural rebellion.

The overall result is what psychologists term RWA (right-wing authoritarianism), which is the new face of American cultural conservatism. Sadly, this desire for social control is not only malevolent towards the kind of diversity that is necessary in today’s world, but also harmful to conservatism itself. The more fundamentalist the Republican Party and conservative movement becomes, the more it alienates centrist thinkers. This, in turn, may end up sabotaging the conservative movement for many years to come. 

On revisionist history

Yesterday I saw Oliver Stone’s recent movie “W.” The film chronicles the life of George W. Bush from his early days to the decision to invade Iraq. The movie was quite entertaining—thought it was almost two and a half hours long, the interesting portrayal of Bush and his advisors kept it from being soporific. However, like some of Stone’s previous works, the film reeks of revisionist history. Stone deliberately inserted some of Bush’s more embarrassing quotes into the film, often out of context. He certainly took liberties in depicting the Bush family dynamic—several of the Bushes criticized the film for this, in fact. He also included several scenes featuring confidential meetings between Bush and his advisors—the details of these are obviously unknown, so it is clear Stone made them up for the film. Overall, the film definitely has something of an anti-Bush bias—George W. is portrayed as bumbling, clueless, and overly dogmatic.

But today’s post is not just about beating up on Oliver Stone—I would like to talk about the dangers of revisionist history in general. Like “W,” much of the American media has become politically charged. Conservatives point the finger at liberal elites and the so-called “liberal media”—though they do have a point there are conservativism-based news broadcasters as well as liberal ones. But regardless of which side manipulating the facts, the fact is that the media is often not as neutral as we would like to think. And I don’t just mean news stations—as I showed with “W.” the deep divide between Democrats and Republicans has infiltrated all corners of our media. Perhaps worst of all are the films and television shows that, like “W,” pose as truth but are actually fiction. I have the same complaint about the “docu-drama,” a new genre of television that twists the facts about historical events for entertainment purposes.

Overall, revisionist history is dangerous, in both the long term and the short term. In the short term, it manipulates people’s opinions about a person or thing for false reasons. This is obviously the intent of such material in the first place; I am sorry to admit that it often works. In the case of “W,” the film probably cemented many people’s anti-Bush feelings for the wrong reasons. In the long term, too, revisionist history is dangerous. When future generations look back on our era, what they will see in our media is not the truth but fabrication; the real truth will be lost in time because our politically-charged media does not bother to cover it.

But what can we do about this? Very little, it seems. The spirit of partisanship has cemented itself in American politics and in the American media, and there is little the average person can do. I read the BBC news, as I have mentioned before, but I am not solving the problem by doing so—I am merely circumventing it, though only temporarily and to a certain extent. For now, we can merely hope that the US will someday rise above the petty partisan squabbling and resume reporting the truth. 

The bane of cities

The bigger they are, the harder they fall. Or so the saying goes. Today I would like to discuss this idea in relation to cities; I believe that the larger a city is, it crashes more spectacularly, and is even far more likely to crash in the first place.

The logic behind my theory is simple: During the Industrial Revolution, cities and urban population soared as more and more people flocked to factory work. Ever since, cities have become increasingly larger and more populous. The percent of people who live in cities is steadily rising, and this trend does not look like it is going to slow down any time soon. However, there is also a serious disadvantage to this trend: as cities have become larger and larger, they have also become more vulnerable to both natural and man-made catastrophes.

Consider New York City as an example. In the 1800’s NYC was little more than a collection of hovels and shacks; pigs ran wild up and down what is now Broadway. However, back in those days there were farms located all around the city, and it was not overly dependent (at least in the short term) on trade and food shipments. But New York City today is another matter entirely. For example, imagine what would happen if all of the vehicles—trucks, trains, planes, boats—that take food into the Big Apple were to stop for some reason. The result is more dramatic than you might think: in a matter of days food riots would occur, probably followed by a mass exodus of hungry people in search of food. In a serious catastrophe, such as an EMP attack, this would result in a huge “death zone” that would spread for about a hundred miles around the city. The message is clear: as cities become larger, they become more dependent on the utilities and outside help that allowed them to grow in the first place. Once a city is bereft of these utilities, it inevitably crashes and is abandoned.

Also, note that large cities are also prime targets for terrorism, the fear of which has increased in the last decade or so. The reason that cities are more often targets is simple: effect. An attack on a rural area is less dramatic, and it is less likely to kill as many people. Can you think of the last time there was a terrorist attack on a rural or even suburban area? I can’t. Also, by this reasoning larger cities are more likely to be attacked, and because they house more people they are probably more vulnerable (easier for someone to slip in undetected). Cities are also breeding grounds for disease as well as prime spots to spread diseases; a plague is far more devastating to an urban area than a rural one.

But what can we do about this? How can we make our cities more resilient and less dependent? I am not sure if there is an answer. Making a city even slightly more independent would take an enormous amount of effort. There are so many aspects of cities that are dependent utilities and outside aid that fixing one will not solve the problem completely. However, I do have a few suggestions: vertical farming, which I have talked about before when discussing overpopulation, can solve a city’s food issues somewhat. Decentralizing water and energy systems can prevent a crisis from occurring if something happens to one facility. And energy independence for that city couldn’t hurt either. A security “ring” like the one New York has could help deter terrorism, though I believe that if a terrorist truly wanted to harm a big city there is little we could do. Beyond that, though, there is little we can do to make our cities less vulnerable. 

Even the Crusades?

Are all wars caused by population pressure? Do all conflicts between adjacent societies have their roots in population overflow and the subsequent expansion that this overflow requires? Are cultural and social causes, such as the religious fervor found in wars such as the Crusades, merely side effects of conflicts that are inevitable because of population pressure?

Before I answer let me explain the importance of these questions. Besides that fact that a “yes” would simply anthropology and sociology immensely, it would be justification for imperialism and imperialistic Social Darwinism. You see, the most famous person to answer “yes” to this question was Adolf Hitler, who used it alongside his racist attitudes as an excuse for WWII.

But don’t worry—I am pretty sure the answer is no. Though sociologists, anthropologists and social scientists have found that economic causes are usually the underlying reasons for many conflicts, population pressure is not always the determining factor in war. Consider, for example, the conquests of Alexander or Genghis Khan—both captured areas that were far beyond what was necessary to feed the expanding populations of their empires. Also, look at the US during WWI and WWII—on both cases, the US only entered because of trade agreements an policy—population pressure was not a factor at all; the US had—and still has—an enormous tract of unsettled land in the West. Lastly, the Crusades were clearly caused by Pope Urban’s mandate, not overpopulation, as most historians will tell you. There are countless other counterexamples to this theory; if you are interested, look at the causes of almost any conflict—I think you will find that for most of them population pressure is only a minor factor if a factor at all.

Also, consider warfare in the modern world; here the population pressure explanation really breaks down. For example, the Vietnam War and Korean War were fought to prevent the spread of communism; the US did not seek to gain any land or resources from them. Additionally, nuclear war shatters the analogy entirely—it destroys resources and land, and even though it may reduce the total world population it offers nothing in the way of reliving population pressure for the people who are alive after a nuclear war.

However, there is a little merit to the population pressure theory—a conventional war cannot be fought without at least a little population pressure—otherwise, there would not be enough people to go off to fight the war in the first place. Also, recall that in most societies in the past, during wartime, (even in recent wars such as WWII) it was considered virtuous to have many children and send them off to war. Thus population pressure was certainly a factor in conventional wars in the past, especially longer ones, but it was by no means the underlying cause. 

Amendment 1 vs. the FCC

In the past I have mentioned my libertarian views on government in the social sphere and my firm belief in a complete separation of church and state. However, what many people do not realize is that even the most secular administrations in the US haven’t even come close to a true separation of church and state. I am disgusted that cultural and religious minorities are ostracized and prevented from practicing what they believe in. But that’s old news—if you are interested in hearing the long litany of government violations of the First Amendment, see one or two of my previous posts.

But today something new occurred to me: do the FCC and the MPAA rating system violate this principle as well?

As far as I can tell, the answer is yes. Remember that both the FCC and the MPAA rating system are chiefly based on violent content, sexual content, and language. I have no problem with censoring the first, since it has been proven that too much exposure to violence can be harmful to children. However, the other two criteria are another matter. I have found no research suggesting that exposing children to sexual content or foul language is harmful to them. Why, then, is it censored in the first place? This is where the first Amendment comes in. Sexual content is censored not because viewing it is harmful to our health, but because the government believes it morally wrong and bad for us on a moral level. The situation is similar for language: certain words or phrases are considered obscene by certain groups because of cultural or religious connotations, and for this reason the government bans them. This is the violation of the First Amendment: the government is not supposed to tell us what we are allowed to view based on any kind of moral rating system.

Of course, if you support the FCC and MPAA rating system censoring sexual content, you are probably thinking, “What about all the innocent, ingenuous children? Don’t they deserve protection?” Yes, of course. But think about what exactly you are trying to protect them from when banning sexual content. You are preventing them from viewing sexual content because you believe it is morally wrong for them to view it, not because it is physically unhealthy for them to see it. Again, this is what violates the First Amendment: the government is not allowed to tell people what is moral and what is not.

Overall, I suspect that a society that brings sexuality into the open is probably far happier than one that declares it a taboo and shoves it into the closet. But that’s beside the point; the main idea is that people should have the ability to view content that others view as immoral if they so desire. Though I doubt such measures will even come into effect in the US—too much Judeo-Christian moral influence—I hope that we at least recognize that what we are doing is religious and cultural tyranny. Though democracy is what makes America so special, allowing the majority to vote to oppress the minority violates the US’s most important principle: our pledge to protect civil liberties and allow citizens to believe whatever they want. 

Avoiding MAD

I have briefly discussed the concept of MAD, or mutually assured destruction, here on this blog before. To review: during the Cold War, the US and the USSR followed a policy of “deterrence”—they realized that MAD would occur if either side attacked the other, so they tacitly agree to not take military direction against each other. But, as the Cold War proved, there are many ways to work around the policy of deterrence and MAD, as well as flaws in the theory itself.

When two nations have nuclear weapons and can destroy each other, in theory relations between the two should be tense but peaceful. Of course, the obvious problem is that even though this creates peace, this peace is jejune and superficial, as it did not come about by a true mutual agreement. Next, MAD does not account for technological advancement—if one country develops superior missile interception technology, that country can attack the other nation with impunity, as they no longer have to fear MAD. Additionally, there is the “Dr. Strangelove” argument—incompetence in government or a rouge faction of the military can create a situation that leads to war and eventually MAD. Next, if a government is willing to accept the terrible humanitarian toll of a nuclear war, they may go ahead and fight one anyway, in defiance of the theory of deterrence. Finally, MAD only applies to those countries with ICBMs—third world countries, which are not tied down to deterrence, can still attack or be attacked without the fear of nuclear bombing.

Even worse, as the Cold War proves, MAD does not necessarily mean an end to war. During the Cold War, the US implemented a plan of “containment,” in which we attempted to keep Soviet ideology from spreading. (This culminated in the Marshall Plan, which pumped $12 billion into post-war Europe to prevent them from lapsing into communism.) Also, as the Korean and the Vietnam war prove, proxy wars can still be fought in areas outside of the countries practicing deterrence. Lastly, the nations practicing deterrence can agree to fight each other using conventional warfare.

Out of all of these methods to circumvent MAD, the most frightening are the concepts that world leaders will continue to find technology to break out of MAD, and the fact that the military could settle for a nuclear war with “acceptable” losses. Also, during the Cold War both the US and the USSR worked to develop superior ballistic missile technologies, and both sides claimed that their own missiles were ahead of any competition, in what was called the “missile gap.” Amazingly, both the US and USSR made provisions for rebuilding their countries in the event of a nuclear attack, and both continued to develop missile defense technology. (“Dr. Strangelove” satirizes this aspect of the Cold War by suggesting that both countries will attempt to out-plan each other in this respect; when it is suggested to the US military that people can survive a nuclear blast by hiding in mine shaft, one general demands that mines be built deeper so that the US does not fall behind the Soviets in the “mine shaft gap.”)

Interestingly, the threat of MAD is just as prevalent as it was during the Cold War, yet the fear of nuclear war is no longer as prevalent as it once was. I suspect that the main reason for this is that there are no longer nations that were polar opposites and enemies as much as the United States and Soviet Union. Though tensions between superpowers flare up occasionally, the Cold War mentality of ultra-nationalism is mostly extinct. Next, remember that today we are more afraid of terrorist nuclear attacks rather than ballistic missiles. Bu the threat of MAD still exists; nuclear stockpiles are as large as they have ever been, and developing countries such as North Korea and Iran are soon going to be nuclear as well.

Despite its flaws, though, MAD and deterrence did prevent bloodshed, particularly during the Cold War. However, for countries to be truly at peace they must be allies, not enemies kept from war because of the fear of MAD. 

What baseball can learn from cycling

Today’s post is very different from the philosophical topics I usually discuss here, but it is a somewhat pressing cultural issue so I believe it deserves mention.

I have always been a follower of European Pro-Tour cycling. Here in America, though, most people criticize cycling for its never-ending stream of doping scandals. The sport is seen as “dirty” and “unfair” because of all this alleged doping, and its popularity here in the US is extremely low. However, I disagree with most of these claims: admittedly there have been a significant number of doping scandals in the sport over the past decade, but overall I believe cycling is far cleaner than most American sports.

The main piece of evidence for this is the simple fact that Pro-Tour cycling does more than any other sport in the world to prevent the use of performance enhancing drugs. The sheer amount of drug testing dwarfs that of most other sports—during the racing season, more than half of the riders are tested every day. Baseball and football rarely test players, and the results of drug tests performed on American athletes are often left unreleased until years later. Also, cycling uses the newest technology to perform drug tests, including the so-called “genetic passport. ”

More importantly, the punishment for using performance-enhancing drugs in cycling is swift and harsh. The first time a cyclist is caught using any sort of performance enhancing drugs, that cyclist is banned for at least 2 years from the sport, and the team that cyclist was on is investigated and sometimes banned as well. Additionally, cyclists have been banned simply because they used doctors known to give out performance-enhancing drugs, even if they never tested positive themselves. American sports, on the other hand, barely punish their athletes if they use steroids. In American football, for example, if a player tests positive their name isn’t even released until the second offence. Additionally, American officials are quick to give pardons to athletes who “cooperate” with authorities—in cycling, someone who tests positive is never given any sort of pardon whatsoever.

Why, then, does cycling seem to be so much dirtier than American sports if there are so many rules that punish dopers? The answer is that doping is much more publicized in cycling. When a scandal erupts, it is not brushed under the rug like steroid scandals are here in America. Also, because of the frequent drug testing in cycling, athletes are caught as soon as they use any performance-enhancing drugs. In American sports, as we know, many athletes are able to hide what they have done for years. In fact, there are probably many American athletes who are using performance-enhancing drugs who have not been caught, which renders most statistics that "prove" that cycling is dirtier based on the number of scandals false. 

So, what can sports like baseball learn from cycling? The answer is very, very simple: be harsher. If baseball wants to clean up its act, it has to take a hard line of steroid use. I hope that sooner or later the American public will get fed up with all the performance-enhancing drugs in American sports and demand action. However, based on our current reaction, all we will ever do is wag the finger at these athletes and then let them back into sports. 

Democracy and responsibility

“Quiet! Your leader is going to speak now. Everyone turn off your mind.” –Chad Urmston

I would like to devote today’s post to a discussion about how to avoid the kind of society that follows the advice of the quote above. (Urmston actually meant the quote above as a response to Americans blindly following former President Bush, but I am going to take his ironic statement into the general sense today.) What Umston is describing is a society in which the people stare, transfixed, at their leaders, listening to every word without stopping to question it. In a fascist system, this would be a virtue (at least to the government) but in a democracy an educated, cautious citizen contributes to democracy more than an uniformed one. The reason is simple: an uninformed citizen can fall victim to the waves of bunkum propaganda that have come to dominate elections, at least in the US. An educated citizen has a much better idea of sort of leader they want, both policy-wise and character-wise.

There are two different ways to approach this problem: the first involves restricting suffrage to certain groups to ensure that people lacking in intelligence or civic virtue cannot vote. The second involves forcing education and civic virtue upon citizens to ensure they vote in a more educated way.

The first is not as alien or unjust as it sounds—even a so-called “unlimited democracy” does limit suffrage from some people. In the US, for example, one must be 18 to vote, entirely excluding younger citizens from voting. Throughout history, philosophers have suggested systems that would exclude certain groups from voting for the betterment of society. Many of these have had racist undertones, but some of the more reasonable ones included denying franchise to anyone with an IQ lower than a certain number. In one of his books, Robert A. Heinlein satirically suggest only allowing people who work for the government the ability to vote, because they clearly have more “civic virtue.” However, this raises some ethical issues, mainly the fact that too much restriction goes against the whole point of democracy in the first place. Also, the overriding practical issue with these systems is that they are subject to bias. “Intelligence” is often difficult to determine, and “responsibility” and “civic virtue” are even harder to measure.

Because of these flaws, the second option sounds more desirable. But how to go about executing it? A school curriculum that includes modern history is a good start, but this does not prevent citizens from falling prey to campaign propaganda. Another possibility is to have the government organize an objective news broadcasting body. Though this would in theory be neutral, in reality it would probably be just as prone to bias as any other news station.

Thus, I think the most reasonable method is actually a third alternative. Part of what Urmston is saying has to do with the way we portray our leaders. In the 1930’s, Hitler and Mussolini used planned theatrics to appear like Herculean supermen (metaphorically), and their august uniforms made them look the part of powerful leaders. In other words: it is often the image of a leader that determines how people feel about that person. In recent years, this is how politicians in the US have been treated (at least by those of the corresponding political party). In addition to educating people, we need to humanize our leaders.

Regardless of how we go about it, we must ensure that we, the citizens of democratic nations, do not allow our system to decay into totalitarianism simply because we were not responsible. Democracy and responsibility must go hand in hand, or else we will foolishly elect leaders who betray the very principles of democracy. It is my hope that the United States in particular stays true to the principles on which it was founded. Though dictatorship can look just as good as democracy on paper, history clearly shows that democracy is the superior system, if the citizens it rules are responsible enough. 

The elephant in the room

I recently read an article on the BBC News that I would like to discuss. The article talked about a topic I have mentioned here before, overpopulation. Specifically, the article discusses how talking about overpopulation has become something of a taboo with environmentalists because of the human rights issues involved. The article referred to overpopulation as “the elephant in the room” because it is so obvious but environmentalists continue to ignore it.

I hate to admit it, but this article brings up a profound point. Overpopulation is essentially the cause of almost all environmental issues; if the human population were smaller, the demand for natural resources and our pollution output would be significantly lower. However, I have never heard any environmentalist mention this issue. The reason for this probably does not have to do with human rights issues, though. In the US, at least, environmentalists are traditionally left-wing, and many of the measures suggested to combat overpopulation, such as limits on the number of children families can have, are typically unpopular with Democrats. Additionally, few people want to hear that the world’s environmental problems are caused by overpopulation; they would much rather hear that they can recycle and make everything better. Sadly, this approach only perpetuates the problem of overpopulation; if we want to solve it we first have to acknowledge it.

I would also like to talk about overpopulation in relation to global warming. The last time I talked about this, most of my predictions were based around the fact that the amount of arable land in the world does not change; however, climate change may change not only the amount of arable land but also its location. Regardless of whether global warming is man-made or natural, it will affect how we adapt to the coming overpopulation crisis.

Previously, I mostly ignored alternative methods of farming. However, I now realize that this was unwise—if we cannot accurately predict where the world’s arable land will be in the future, alternative methods of farming not reliant on climate are needed. Today, I would like to discuss a few of these.

The first and most obvious solution is hydroponics. Hydroponic farming is nothing new—we have had the technology for years, but because it is so much cheaper to farm on land it has never been put to much use. Should global warming shift where the world’s arable land is, though, that may change. This could also be combined with what is known as “vertical farming,” an idea for farming in an urban area. As the name suggests, a large skyscraper is filled with crops, which are irrigated via pipes (the windows are enlarged to allow enough sunlight to get in). Also, both techniques could be combined with a “grow light,” a light placed above a plant to allow it to grow without sunlight. LED grow lights are cheap and easy to manufacture, making indoor or even underground farming a possibility. 

As for meat, scientists are working on a way to “grow beef without the cow.” Amazingly, it is possible to grow only a certain kind of cell from a cow in an isolated environment. This may make it possible to grow enormous vats of beef not only making slaughterhouses obsolete but also greatly increasing the efficiency of producing beef, reducing the time, labor, and air pollution involved in the process. If it is sufficiently developed, this technology could be a major tool in combating overpopulation. If a similar process could be applied to plants, crop-growing could undergo similar efficiency increases, greatly improving our chances of beating starvation.

But one thing is clear: we cannot continue to push this issue under the rug. We must develop these technologies soon, or else we will fall victim to the inevitable crash following the population boom that has come to define modern human history (the last 10,000 years). It may not happen in our lifetime, but when it does we must be ready. 

Beyond Turing-completeness

Today I read an article in the science magazine “Discover” about a new kind of computer called Darwin 7. The article was in the form of an interview with computer scientist Gerald Edelman. Edelman explains that in the biological world, there are obvious advantages to consciousness, particularly the higher-order consciousness human beings have. Conscious beings are able to adapt to different scenarios and learn, making them more adaptable. Therefore, says Eldelman, it would be advantageous to create computers that are based around a model of a brain rather than being programmed. Edelman and his colleagues have done just that: The device is called Darwin 7, and it is, as Edelman says, a computerized brain.

Before I discuss the implications of this it is important to explain the difference between a computer program and a BBD, or brain-based device (like Darwin 7). A computer program consists of a series of instructions typed in computer code. In my post on the Chinese Room, I explored John Searle’s proof that a computer program cannot truly have understanding because it has syntax but no semantics. But a BBD is very different—its “brain” is not encoded but instead is an physical object. It simulates the neurons of an organic brain in order to “think.” In other words, a BBD is not Turing-complete; it is something different entirely. Searle’s proof does not apply; a BBD is capable of true understanding and learning.

The latter has already been tested, says Edelman: Versions of Darwin 7 have been taught to perform various tasks, and the advantages of a machine that can learn are very clear. In one test, robots controlled by a BBD played soccer against robots controlled by an AI program. The BBDs won 5 games out of 5, since they were able to adapt to every situation, while the AI-controlled robots did not have conditionals for every scenario.

Furthermore, Edelman says that the future of BBDs is bright. Edelman and a colleague have created a BBD that is about as complex as a cat brain, and it is very close to what he calls a “conscious artifact.” This BBD is so complex that it runs continuously like a real brain (simpler BBDs only react when they receive input), but it lapses into a “rest state,” similar to the state people’s brains are in when they are not thinking of anything. The point it, sooner or later BBDs are going to surpass AI because of their ability to learn. 

In my mind, the concept of super-smart a BBD re-raises the question of computers in relation to the future of humanity. Science fiction sends us conflicting messages about how computers will affect our chances for survival as a race—some SF preaches an optimistic message, while other works warn us that computers will be our downfall. Today, though this fear is somewhat present in our culture, most computer scientists hold that there is nothing to fear from AI since they are simply a collection of conditionals. They still follow Searle’s Chinese Room, so they are incapable of though are therefore cannot consciously act to destroy humanity. But BBDs are different. Though I know little about the subject, it appears that BBDs are far more likely to “betray” humanity than a lifeless computer program. The more complex a BBD, it seems, the more intelligent it is and the more likely it is be irrational. Additionally, remember that BBDs are modeled after human brains—and human brains are not exactly the most efficient or rational thinking machines in existence; far from it. So, while I have few qualms with letting a computer program run the world, a BBD is a different matter. Before we use these new devices, we need a far better understanding of them. Hopefully BBDs will facilitate the study the brain, which in turn will allows to create better, more stable BBDs. For now, though, all they do is play soccer, so I am not worried just yet.

On a different note: I would like to end with an amusing hypothetical situation involving Turing-completeness. Recall that even analog computers are Turing-complete, since they can technically be programmed for every task. In a comic strip (link), Randal Monroe envisions a new kind of computer, which is technically Turing-complete. I find his idea both hilarious and fascinating, if somewhat impractical. Even funnier, it is a philosophical stance that technically cannot be disproven. So I guess we could be just a bunch of rocks. 

Our growing world

In 2010, the UN predicts that the world population will be approximately 6,830,283,000. In 2020, it will be 7,540,237,000. In 2030, it will be 8,130,149,000. And in 2050, it will be 8,918,724,000. In other words: our world is undergoing a population explosion. In a matter of centuries—a blink of the eye in relation to human history—the world will be packed with human beings.

How did this happen? How did we, as a species, manage to break out of our early years as hunter-gatherers and form such large, complex societies? The answer, as Jared Diamond explained in his groundbreaking book Guns, Germs, and Steel, is agriculture. Once agriculture was developed, societies could support large populations and specialization, leading to more complex and larger groups of human beings. Over time, fertility rates increased as a result of this newfound food supply, eventually creating the population explosion that formed the modern world.

But the “why” is irrelevant—the issue this population forecast raises may be the most important question of our time: How do we deal with it? How do we support a world population of 10, 20, or 30 billion?  This is obviously a problem of resources: Today, I would like to go down the list of resources essential to our survival, and discuss possible solutions.

The first and most important resource is water. Fresh water makes up only a small fraction of the total amount of water on this planet—and we have an endless demand for it. Remember that water is not only for drinking—even more is needed for agriculture, industry, and infrastructure. Fortunately, desalination is a viable alternative—Israel, Saudi Arabia, and other countries have the technology to desalinate a cubic meter of water for about 50 cents. In other areas of the world this technology is more expensive—so, in order for the world to begin transitioning to desalinated water, the technology must be made cheaper and more readily available. However, this is not as easily achievable as it sounds, and I would not be surprised if fresh water becomes the cause of resource wars, especially in Africa or the Middle East.

The next resource, which is equally important, is food. The future of agriculture does not look as bright as the future of water—even as far back as the 1800’s, the economist Thomas Malthus predicted that overpopulation would eventually result in an food crisis, since he believe that food production increases at a linear rate and population increases at an exponential rate. Though this theory has been proven wrong, Malthus’s prediction is right: food production has not been increasing as much as it needs to be. Even in the past few years, food riots have occurred in areas like the Philippines, where he price of wheat has skyrocketed due to shortages. Looking forward, it is obvious that land is going to become an issue for the food industry. North America and Asia have already used of most of their arable land, while Africa and South America have more untapped potential, especially Africa. In order to ensure a more stable food supply, the world must encourage a major agricultural revolution in Africa. Furthermore, in order to grow food more efficiently, high-density crops such as lettuce must be grown in place of more inefficient ones. Next, the effects of global warming (regardless of whether it is natural or man-made) will have a huge impact on the future of agriculture. If it reduces the amount of arable land in the world, we may have a much harder time supporting a large population. Though hydroponics and vertical farming can counteract this to some extent, the loss of arable land could seriously cripple farmers, which could leave the worldwide agricultural industry in a slump. Also, the food industry is linked to the water supply—if water desalination does not progress enough, agriculture will suffer regardless of any other factors. Additionally, this is linked to the problem of fertilizer—modern fertilizers use a large amount of petroleum, and if peak oil is true and/or the oil industry crashes a food crisis will occur, hurting the agricultural industry even more. Fortunately (and somewhat surprisingly) the amount of land area occupied by human dwellings is not much of a threat to agriculture—cities are predicted to become even denser, and the UN predicts that in the next 20 years 3 out of 5 people will live in a city. Even so, there are a multitude of problems confronting the food industry, and unless these can be solved we are almost certainly headed for a Malthusian catastrophe.  

The next resource we need to worry about is energy. I am not as worried about this one as I am about an impending food crisis, but energy is still an issue we need to consider. The first step is to gradually transition to renewables, but this is not too much of a problem because many countries are motivated by global warming to do so anyway. Obviously relying on a non-renewable resource in unwise, and with the world population expanding so quickly a finite resource can run out startlingly fast. However, I am not worried because the technology of renewable energy will continue to increase over the next few decades, and very soon renewables will be economically superior to finite sources of energy.

In addition to these, overpopulation has other adverse effects on our planet. I would like to take a moment to discuss these as well.

The main problem posed by overpopulation is the danger to the environment. Deforestation and desertification will most likely increase as the population rises, which will harm ecosystems and my result in mass extinctions. Also, air pollution may be a result on an increased population unless filtering technology increases dramatically. If global warming is man-made, overpopulation may very well drive it over the edge. This would not only hurt the environment even more, but it would also make things more difficult for the agricultural industry.

Next, overpopulation may result in widespread poverty. Even if we manage to handle the resource problems well, I doubt we can deal with them well enough to allow however many billion people there are to live in prosperity. This may make it harder to ensure we have enough of the resources listed above, and it might lead to an increase in crime or other factors that lower quality of life. Malthus would have us believe that we should welcome this—he famously stated that when people allow themselves to expand, nature will take over and do the job for us. However, I hope we can avoid poverty to the point of starvation by implementing our own, more peaceful solutions to overpopulation and by ensuring that the human race has enough food.

Because overpopulation makes our future looks quite bleak, many intellectuals have suggested ideas to curb the population, preventing this Malthusian crisis from occurring. Though most of these ideas are wildly impractical or controversial, I would like to talk about them because they may be our only hope for the future.

One of the more popular—and also more controversial—solutions to the overpopulation problem is eugenics. Many groups have advocated a “one-child rule” for the entire planet, in the hopes that this will curb the exponential trend of population growth. This is probably the most viable of the solutions offered, and even though the rule would be ignored to some extent it might be able to reduce population growth somewhat. The main problem with this program, though, is that it would be very difficult to implement—the UN is not influential enough to convince many nations to submit to the program, so it would have to come from an international agreement like the Kyoto Protocol.

On a similar vein, some have suggested that we must make changes to our social structure, such as the elimination of marriage or even polygamy. These are probably not as effective, and since they are so radical I doubt many countries would implement them. However, plain old feminism may be good enough to reduce the population growth rate, coupled with an increase in the availability of contraception. Overall, though, none of these are true solutions, since they are probably not powerful enough to really curb the growth of the world population.

Other scientists and economists have offered more radical solutions, such as space colonization. Though this would solve the population problem, it is far from a practical solution. Space travel remains exorbitantly expensive, making it impractical to transport large populations to other worlds. Also, not means of space travel currently exists that can transport human beings outside of the solar system within one lifetime, and astronomers do not even know if other planets capable of supporting human life exists. However, outer space may be a viable source of resources—the Moon, for example, contains a variety of useful metals, and lunar ice could be a potential source of fresh water. For now, though, this solution to the population problem resides only in the realm of science fiction.

Fringe groups are also suggesting that vaccinations should no longer be issued, so that healthcare will decrease, causing people to die “naturally.” This will create a sort of social Darwinism, which will gradually reduce the population. Though this may be effective, it is hardly a desirable or practical solution. No country is going to willingly give up vaccinations, and no one wants to hear that the solution to overpopulation is to allow a large amount of the population to die.

So, what is the verdict on overpopulation? Simply this: we should be worried. Though the dreaded Malthusian crisis may not happen in our lifetime, our children and our children’s children may have to deal with it. We should work towards ensuring that our supply of food, water, and energy is secure, so that we can deal with overpopulation as smoothly as possible. Unless space colonization becomes viable, we are going to have to figure out how to stabilize our population. Overpopulation is often over looked, but very soon it is going to determine whether we as a species are able to survive as a large and complex civilization. The sooner we start dealing with it, the better. 

On polygamy

I believe I have briefly mentioned my thoughts on polygamy on this blog in “The ever-changing purpose of culture part 2.” Today, I would like to delve into more detail on why polygamy should be the nuclear family of the future.

I would like to clear a few things up before I begin. First, I’d like to address the issue of the actual definition of the word. Whenever we hear it today, we curl up our noses in disgust. This is because of the negative connotation the work has acquired over time. Also, note that the original definition of the word is “the practice or custom of having more than one wife and/or husband at the same time.” It does not simply mean one husband having multiple wives—it is a term that is interchangeable with group marriage, which refers to any pluralistic marriage arrangement. This is the definition of the word I will be using. Additionally, I would like to remind my readers that I am not a polygamist. Regardless of how much polygamy makes sense, I have no desire to participate in it myself. I cannot even conceive of loving more than one person, but it is my hope that in the future other generations can learn to do so, for reasons I am about to explain.

Before I delve into the world of polygamy, I would like to point out problems with the Western world’s current monogamous system (keep in mind that in many Eastern countries polygamy is legal; see map at left). Divorce is even easier than ever, and as a result, divorce rates are on the decline. This creates problems because it creates single-parent family units, which are poorer environments for raising children, mostly because our economic system works in such a way that married couples are able to make far more income than single parents. A death of one of the spouses in a family can also create the same problem. Also, sexual jealousy has run rampant in our culture. Men are often encouraged to fight over women, and hypergamy has become common practice. Finally, imbalance in the ratio of men to women in certain societies is beginning to cause social trouble. These problems are all caused by the fact that monogamy is far more maladroit than we realize. 

Before I explain how polygamy can solve these problems, I would like to explore different types of polygamy, and talk about why some forms are better than others. The two most common forms, polygyny (one man having more than one wife) and polyandry (one woman having more than one husband) have some benefits, but they are not the best form of polygamy as far as resolving the issues above goes. True group marriage (multiple husbands and wives) is superior to these two, but the most superior (in my opinion) is line marriage. Line marriage is essentially the same as group marriage, but new partners will continue to marry into the group as others grow older. Thus, the marriage is stable and can in theory last forever.

The reasons polygamy—specifically line marriage—can rectify the problems stated above are quite simple. Polygamous families are economically superior to monogamous families. The increased number of incomes in a polygamous family more than makes up for the increased number of children, resulting in a more economically prosperous family unit. If one spouse should lose his/her job, the family is not going to be in financial trouble because the other co-spouses can continue to provide income until the unemployed one returns to work. If a death in the family were to occur, it is less emotionally stressful because of the abundance of parental figures less economically stressful because of the additional incomes. Polygamous families are also more well adapted socially than monogamous families. At least one or two parents will be able to remain at home to care for the children, which is much better environment for raising children than sending the child to a day-care facility. Also, divorces are more difficult to go though with and have less impact on the family than in monogamous marriages. If one spouse is in love with several of his/her co-husbands or co-wives, it is unlikely that he/she will wish to divorce the family because he/she does not like one co-spouse. Also, in line marriages, even if one spouse decides to divorce the family, another person can marry in to make up for it. Polygamous family members are probably less likely to get into serious arguments than monogamous family members, since in a group marriage other can mediate a fight between two spouses. Next, polygamy will teach human beings how to lessen the sexual jealousy that has become imbedded in our society and in our conditioning. Today, many people—myself included—find it difficult to imagine the though of marrying or being in love with more than one person. However, group marriage will prevent this sexual jealousy from being a part of our conditioning, since children are constantly exposed to their parents loving more than one person. Also, polygamy solves any problems related to an imbalance in the male-female ratio. In an unbalanced monogamous system, a large portion of the more populous gender would be unable to marry, but in a polygamous system this is not a problem—the imbalance will simply carry over into the marriage system rather than preventing marriages.

To conclude, I hope that in the future polygamy will become a cultural and societal norm, and we will no longer look down on it. I would also like to restate the fact that despite the fact that I agree with polygamy on an intellectual level, I have difficulty coping with it on a personal level. (I am emphasizing this simply because I do not want anyone getting the wrong idea.)  However, I hope that future generations will soon come to realize the benefits of group marriage, and create a happier and better society for themselves.         

**On an unrelated note: Can anyone identify the tawdry hat in the photo to the top left? Specifically, what era is it from?  

Law and order (part 5)

The series on justice systems continues with a discussion of the relationship between justice systems and utilitarianism. Last time, I briefly delved into the subject of which is more desirable in a justice system, utilitarianism or fairness. I now realize that I was somewhat biased towards utilitarianism, and I assumed that it is true in order to use it to refute the justification of revenge-based justice systems. Today, I would like to delve into this topic in more detail.

Utilitarianism can be defined as “the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its contribution to overall utility: that is, its contribution to happiness or pleasure as summed among all persons.”

So, the first question we must ask is: Is utilitarianism in the best interests of the general public, and if yes, should it be the goal of the justice system to achieve this?

Though the answer might seem obvious to some, I am somewhat suspicious of this concept. Utilitarianism and the conservative interpretation of fairness are at opposite ends of the philosophical spectrum; the former ignores personal responsibility and free will, while the second puts far too much emphasis on these concepts. I have already discussed my distrust of extreme focus on fairness as defined in “Law and order part 4,” and I have similar sentiments toward extreme utilitarianism. I should also add that such extreme utilitarianism is impractical. It would most likely require either a centralized, powerful government or a sudden wave of idealism to sweep the world. The latter is highly unlikely, and the former probably couldn’t stay in power long enough to implement a utilitarian system. Why are these requirements? A truly utilitarian system cannot be implemented overnight, and to be effective it must have public support.

Furthermore, utilitarianism seems to be linked to justice systems that are based on treating society deterministically and ignoring the concept of free will. The Brave New World system is essentially utilitarian, since its main goal is to create the most amount of happiness at the expense of certain moral and social constructs. It also uses brainwashing techniques to keep society stable, which clearly follows the utilitarian belief of “greatest good for the greatest number.” This raises the question which I touched on briefly in “Law and order part 2” and “Law and order part 3”: Is it acceptable to treat society as if it is deterministic (for the purpose of implementing utilitarianism) even if we do not know if we have free will? Treating society as if it is deterministic has its obvious benefits, namely, the potential for an enormous amount of happiness to be created (i.e. Brave New World).  Even so, there are still some problems with practicality, but far fewer than in other systems.

Furthermore, I would like to explore some of the negatives of a society based on utilitarianism. An infinity number of types of utilitarian societies could possibly exist, but most could be placed on a spectrum between a strong centralized system and utilitarian anarchy. There are clear flaws to both systems. The centralized side is more focused on the State conditioning people to be happy, like in BNW. Though this can be effective, in the case of a catastrophe the society would collapse because this conditioning must be highly specialized. On the other hand, a utilitarian anarchy would be focused on people finding their own kind of happiness, but there are problems here too. For example, what if a particular person’s brand of happiness was sadism? There are no institutions in place to protect the society from this, or from any of the other problems that usually befall anarchy. Instead, the most effective utilitarian society would probably be more in the middle. A government could keep the peace, but on the whole it would not intrude into people’s lives unless they harmed others. But what kind of justice system would this middle-range utilitarian society have? My bet is on the rehab system. This system is the closest to utilitarianism, since it is focused on not causing any unnecessary pain. 

For those enjoying this series on justice systems and their justifications, I am sorry to say I am going to take a break from it (at least for now). Though I have been far from laconic when it comes to this subject, I can’t think of much more to add at the moment. However, I doubt this will be the last time the issues discussed in this series are mentioned on this blog—many of them are far too important to forget entirely.