Month: July 2010

A reader writes:

While I appreciate someone on the right who is willing to engage honestly and intellectually with the issue of climate change, I think Manzi continues to make some basic category confusions about climate change, particularly as it concerns this line of argument. What I mean in this case is that Manzi is confusing specific predictions about the future with observation of long-term trends.

While I agree with him that predicting a specific scenario based on climate change is fruitless, or at least so vague as makes no difference from fruitless, we can easily see the OVERALL effects that climate change will have in the future. Thus we can predict the future of climate change based on current trends (e.g. Global temperature increase and lack of species diversity will have far more negative effects than positive ones, and these effects are both compound and cumulative.) without needing to resort to any specific scenario at all.

This idea of predicting without predicting is somewhat easier to see in the realm of, say, cultural history. Consider one of Obama's favorite quotations: "The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice." I believe this to be true. All the evidence before me indicates that this is true. Thus, I can say with confidence that gay marriage will eventually be legalized in the United States. I can't use the abstract principle to construct a scenario-specific prediction about the exact socio-political conditions of our society when this legalization happens, but I can say from the abstract principle that this is the direction we are heading. I make this judgment based on a variety of political, cultural, and demographic factors.

Similarly, although I cannot make a bunch of concrete predictions about what the world will look like in 2400–or even in 2100, or any other specific time Manzi wants to name–I can definitely say that, to borrow a phrasing, "The arc of climate change is long, but it bends towards an inhospitable planet." The problem with the 2400 date isn't that it's impossible to predict that far, it's that the thinking embodied by that question is still short-term.

That might seem crazy at first blush, but 300 years is LESS TIME THAN OUR OWN VERY YOUNG COUNTRY HAS ALREADY EXISTED. Why are we putting an endpoint on human history at all? Isn't it of critical importance that we as humans find some way to exist in actual equilibrium with our planet, so that humanity can continue indefinitely? In 100 years or 300 years or 500 or 1000 years I plan to have descendants alive on this planet. Why should any of them be sacrificed on the altar of American consumption?

A reader writes:

There are a couple of positive aspects to horoscopes, biorhythms, etc.

1) Asking the question serves a purpose in itself. There's a lot of the same benefits here as we find in prayer. Part of the benefit is just the actual act of forming the question, people deciding that yes, I really have to wonder if I'm in the right job/relationship/apartment, etc. Once you ask that question, you acknowledge that it's something you are questioning, that you see room for improvement in.

2) It unconsciously taps into what you already know to be the truth. People often say that it's the reader picking up subtle hints from the readee and just bouncing it back to them. So yes, the readee is giving off signals, often as to exactly what they know the answer should be. They just need to hear it from someone.

I occasionally have readings, and I absolutely know there's nothing real, "magic," or supernatural going on; but, I do pay attention to my reaction to these fairly random bits of information. Like most people, I will latch on to the random bits that fit and let the others fall by the wayside. I am listening to what I want to hear, so I have to ask myself, "Why is it I'm wanting to hear just that; why does that strike a nerve and this doesn't?" Readings can give you a lot of insight into just what sort of answers you're looking for.

A reader writes:

How do you decide you have an open marriage?  It is much better to do it before you get married.  One of the things I most love about my husband is his honesty and clarity of thought.  We have been married for 20 years.  Before we got married we went through the Catholic Church pre-cana program.  It was very good and helped us define what we thought marriage should be.  There was a very good discussion group about sex.  Since the "mentors" in the group were a good bit older than most of us, some had been married in the late '60s early '70s and talked about the “communes” that they had participated in and the “sharing” lifestyle. 

We talked about what fidelity actually meant.  Trust and sharing, respect and honesty, these are the hallmarks of a great relationship.  We talked about sex as recreation, exercise and the difference between sex and making love. We talked about the possibilities of having other sexual partners, individually as well as together.  We also talked about our desires, fantasies and needs.  Discussing our sex life, defining it and talking about future needs etc became another segment to work on, like finances, child rearing, chores etc. 

Honestly it was one of the most interesting, honest and exceptional discussions I have ever had within the auspices of the Catholic Church.

We periodically take a weekend away to work on our relationship.  We talk about issues before they become problems and come to a mutual decision.  This has also meant we have talked about additional sex partners.  We have to both agree on the partner, whether it is someone we can share and/or enjoy individually.  We also have to think about being discrete.  Society is not really accepting and we have often passed on what might have been offers because of the ‘appearance’ issue.  And people love to talk.  Being even marginally involved with someone who likes to brag, gossip or is spiteful etc can get messy.  And despite what our teenage children think, we do consider their “ick” factor.  Because what we do also impacts them, our community as well as our relationship. 

We have enjoyed several sexual encounters over the years, both together and separately, and plan to continue to do so in the future.  Some of our past partners became great friends, even though we don't have sex with them anymore.  Being honest with them also helped curtail any messy emotional tangles.

Ventenac, France, 12 pm

A reader writes:

I find this series of posts fascinating, partly because new science about the natural world is inherently interesting, but mostly because it raises profound questions about the relationship between the natural and the moral.  Too often the evolutionary psychology crowd leaps straight from one to the other (which even the title of the posts does), whereas I see morality, in many of its dimensions, as the attempt to constrain what is natural.  This is because I am a Christian and believe in the doctrine of original sin – not the shallow and narrowly sexual form that talk of original sin often takes, but the deeper sense that our human essence, including our biological essence or DNA – is corrupt as well as beautiful.  We simply cannot look to animal behavior, or our own genes, as guides for living and expect to remain civilized.

Surely murder is natural, and we may well find genes for violence; chimps are well-known killers.  This influences my thinking on the morality of murder not one bit.  Likewise, I have no reason to doubt the latest findings on the infidelity of monogamous birds or the health benefits of a mid-life testosterone boost, but I can’t help thinking that the research is fueled in part by horny middle-aged nerds looking to justify their wandering ways.  I am not a sexual puritan by any means. I simply find these genetic and evolutionary arguments utterly irrelevant when the conversation turns to morality.

Somehow, we have to find a balance between what is natural and what is moral. This isn’t easy. I find the attempt to separate them completely unpersuasive – but I agree with my reader that there’s a lot of cherry-picking going on in the conflation of the two as well.

For me, original sin becomes much more comprehensible through a Darwinian prism. Our DNA is full of things – violence, selfishness, abuse, hatred – that are perfectly “natural” from an evolutionary point of view, but desperately in need of restraint when combined with humankind’s formidable pre-frontal cortex and its increasing capacity to inflict damage of planet-wounding proportions. We are neither beasts nor angels, but as time goes on and our capacity for damage increases, we’d better try reaching for the angels more persistently.

Our task is not to deny our nature, but to channel it, with God’s help, and through practice, to better ends.

Julian Sanchez defends atheism in a hard to excerpt post on metaphysics. He's arguing against Ron Rosenbaum's plea for a "New Agnosticism." Here's Ron's central dilemma:

Faced with the fundamental question: "Why is there something rather than nothing?" atheists have faith that science will tell us eventually. Most seem never to consider that it may well be a philosophic, logical impossibility for something to create itself from nothing. But the question presents a fundamental mystery that has bedeviled (so to speak) philosophers and theologians from Aristotle to Aquinas. Recently scientists have tried to answer it with theories of "multiverses" and "vacuums filled with quantum potentialities," none of which strikes me as persuasive.

Christopher Ryan finds it amazing how the media spins reports of chimp warfare:

From a psychological perspective, it's tempting to conclude that the media frenzy that predictably breaks out every time scientists report evidence of chimpanzee warfare is due to an unconscious desire to deflect shame felt over human warfare. "It's not our fault," the thinking seems to go, "It's human nature. Look at chimps! They're our closest primate cousins!"

…First off, chimps aren't "our closest primate cousin," though you'll need a sharp eye to find any mention of our other, equally intimately related cousin, the bonobo in most of these "news" stories. Like a crazy relative who lives in a shed out back, bonobos tend to get mentioned in passing-if at all-in these sweeping declarations about the ancient primate roots of war. There are plenty of reasons self-respecting journalists might want to avoid talking about bonobos (their penchant for mutual masturbation, their unapologetic homosexuality and incest, a general sense of hippie-like shamelessness pervading bonobo social life), but the biggest inconvenience is the utter absence of any Viking-like behavior ever observed among bonobos. Bonobos never rape or pillage. No war. No murder. No infanticide.

(Image: Three-months old baby bonobo Nakarla is held by its mother Ukela on March 19, 2008 at the zoo in Frankfurt. By Thomas Lohnes/AFP/Getty Images)

A reader writes:

A random thought, but your View From Your Window series honors what is arguably the first photograph ever taken: Joseph Nicéphore Niépce’s "View from the Window at Le Gras," in 1826.

Eben Harrell rounds up recent research on unconscious thought:

Custers and Bargh acknowledge that their research undermines a fundamental principle used to promote human exceptionalism — indeed, Bargh has in the past argued that his work undermines the existence of free will. But Custers also points out that his conclusions are not new: people have long sensed that they are influenced by forces beyond their immediate recognition — be it Greek gods or Freud's unruly id. What's more, the unconscious will is vital for daily functioning and probably evolved before consciousness as a handy survival mechanism — Bargh calls it "the evolutionary foundation upon which the scaffolding of consciousness is built." Life requires so many decisions, Bargh says, "that we would be swiftly overwhelmed if we did not have the automatic processes to deal with them."

This prompts Helen Smith to throw such scientific research into the rubbish bin:

Beware of studies that show free will to be more and more of an illusion, for as Glenn says, "This kind of thing is often pitched as a reason for regulation, since your free will is portrayed as illusory."

We've been over this territory before. Julian Sanchez ably explained awhile back why no amount of scientific research can prove that free will is an "illusion."