Yesterday I went for a walk around a major shopping centre just to see what stores there were. What took my interest was that there were two stores in this centre dedicated to vitamins and other "natural" products but only one pharmacy, and even the pharmacy had a large section dedicated to natural remedies. Combine that with a massage / acupuncture / reflexology clinic called Miracle Therapy, and I couldn't help but think about the influence that Big Pharma has over us all. Big Pharma is so big that it's practically non-existent!
The ideological battle between conventional medicine and alternative medicine is far more in favour of alt-med than the rhetoric would suggest. While accusations of being in the pockets of Big Pharma are thrown out to anyone who defends anything that might have a pharmaceutical aspect to it, Big Placebo has become a multi-billion dollar industry and how people self-medicate.
That even pharmacies are selling alt-med products is a strong indicator of where the market lies. Combine this with semi-frequent news of drug recalls and conflicting reports of what is healthy and its no wonder people are turning away from science-based medicine and towards anecdotal accounts of healing. What good are magnetic pillows except as a cash cow?
The battle is not only with the availability of products and services but with information spreading too. Testimonials are the worst form of evidence yet the most easily believed. Clinical trials are the least rigorous means of testing science, but enough to give a product the appearance of evidence-based backing.
The greatest tragedy of the alt-med movement is the anti-vaxxers. vaccines are probably the greatest advance in health in human history, yet now is showing to be a victim of its own success. Don't have to worry about polio? There's a reason for that and that reason is vaccines! Measles outbreaks are happening again now that vaccination rates are lowering, the whole autism link but a tool of those promoting their ideological agenda.
While there are some driving it through ideology, it must be remembered that health is a very important issue for us all. It's no surprise that on the left that individuals are shying away from what they see as corporate-controlled medicine to something with the appearance of a community-driven approach (At all times it must be remembered that Big Pharma has a large stake in Big Placebo), just as it should be no surprise that individuals want to feel in control. Putting trust in a testimony makes a lot more sense than a doctor writing a prescription.
Another factor I feel is involved is the cost. Going to the doctor is expensive, it's paying a large amount of money for a few minutes of consultation where very little is discussed. Last visit cost me a few hours wage for a doctor to check whether I needed stitches for a head wound (I didn't thankfully). They are a valuable commodity and so is their time, which is hardly what I think is good when they are the ones with the knowledge to help us with looking after ourselves.
Going in and buying a health supplement is easy, even in supermarkets one can purchase vitamins or herbal remedies. Vitamins are almost intuitively good, even buying natural (or to an extreme organic) sounds so much better for us than artificial. That the science doesn't back this up simply doesn't come into play.
I'm all for science-based medicine, but there's a problem when something so successful can be easily replaced by pseudoscientific and nonscientific products. An overhaul of the health system (that's being proposed in Australia now) can't just be looking at waiting times, bed numbers, and hospital deaths. It needs to address the issue of why conventional medicine is suffering in the hearts and minds of the population at large.
Showing posts with label rants. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rants. Show all posts
Monday, 7 June 2010
Thursday, 21 January 2010
Price Gauging
I was a big fan of the first Bioshock game, it wasn't quite System Shock 2 but it still offered a good story and gave enough hair-raising moments that I hit F6 more often than needed. So on February 9th comes the release of Bioshock 2, something which I'm looking forward to playing. I've held off buying a physical copy because, well, I knew it would be on Steam. And that it was, retailing at a mere $80USD for us Australians.
While that's about the same price I would pay retail, I was a little confused. Steam usually gives good prices on games. They don't have to worry about packaging, distribution, retail surcharge. Basically the advantages of Steam is that all you are paying for is data and data distribution (which is essentially nothing), which should save costs. And this is the sacrifice to have a permanent non-resellable item. Unlike my physical copies, I can't just give away unwanted Steam games.
So what do I find when I get on the UK and US stores? That it's retailing on both those stores about $30 cheaper than it is in Australia. What the?!? For decades Australian gamers had to pay more for games than their American counterparts, so finally when we have a global distribution network systems are put in place to keep the same region-locking anti-competitive practice in place. It's exactly the same product, it's exactly the same distribution, yet we're still locked into the pricing practices that may have been an excuse back before online distribution.
When it's buying in a retail store, fair enough. I can and do buy games at that price when need be. But when it's blatant price gauging like this where I'm being in effect charged extra for the same product just because I live in the wrong country.
While that's about the same price I would pay retail, I was a little confused. Steam usually gives good prices on games. They don't have to worry about packaging, distribution, retail surcharge. Basically the advantages of Steam is that all you are paying for is data and data distribution (which is essentially nothing), which should save costs. And this is the sacrifice to have a permanent non-resellable item. Unlike my physical copies, I can't just give away unwanted Steam games.
So what do I find when I get on the UK and US stores? That it's retailing on both those stores about $30 cheaper than it is in Australia. What the?!? For decades Australian gamers had to pay more for games than their American counterparts, so finally when we have a global distribution network systems are put in place to keep the same region-locking anti-competitive practice in place. It's exactly the same product, it's exactly the same distribution, yet we're still locked into the pricing practices that may have been an excuse back before online distribution.
When it's buying in a retail store, fair enough. I can and do buy games at that price when need be. But when it's blatant price gauging like this where I'm being in effect charged extra for the same product just because I live in the wrong country.
Monday, 1 June 2009
Pro-life?
Another abortion clinic doctor has been murdered, shot in the lobby of the church where he worshipped. This is a lamentable loss of life, a tragedy that someone found the need to forfeit the life of another. What I really don't get is why people who spend their time protesting abortion clinics call themselves pro-life. They aren't pro-life at all, they simply are anti-abortion; perhaps at best they are pro-foetus. But in terms of actually being for protecting the survival of life, the effort is greatly misdirected.
So much time and effort is going into stopping abortion, protesting and harassing people for doing their job and condemning those who use the service. Whether abortion is moral or ethical, the fact remains that it is legal. So to harass and intimidate those who work at a clinic or those who use the practice is a bad way of going about things. Are we not civil? Protesting doesn't have to use intimidation, and to punish the staff or even the customers for use of a legal service is contrary to the notion of an open society. Yes, they have the right to protest, but actions have consequences. Asking for moral decency from those claiming the moral high-ground surely isn't too much to ask for. What is that slogan again? Hate the sin, not the sinner.
35 million people starve to death every year, many more are killed through conflicts and natural disasters, then there is preventable illness as well. Would anyone seriously argue that mass starvation where children are suffering down to their last breath is a less of an evil than abortion itself? At best one could argue that these are equal evils, that sin is sin regardless of severity. But to argue that abortion is a great evil while there are millions of people who don't even get the bare minimum sustenance seems like a misguided effort. The money and effort that the pro-life movement could be put to far better use feeding those who are suffering and dying. So why isn't this the case?
I was recently speaking to a philosopher friend on the matter, and he mentioned that it was not that abortion was any more an evil than starving children, but that it was universally recognised that starving children was an evil. There's no point in protesting against starvation because there is no need to get awareness about the issue out there. In effect, there is no moral high-ground in taking a view that is unanimously held. While that time spent protesting could have been used to raise money to help bring better farming practices to those countries in need - trying to get the issue in the political spotlight and getting governments to act in order to bring a sustainable future to the most vulnerable people on the planet, instead the practice of protesting is to make one feel morally superior. Actually doing something beyond that? Well that would get in the way of personal satisfaction.
If one really wanted to get the number of abortions down, then it seems the best means of doing so is to try to emulate societies that have low abortion rates. And in terms of low teen pregnancy, one needs look no further than the Netherlands. That's right, the country that is known for its red light district and pot-selling coffee shops has one of the lowest teen pregnancy and abortion rates in the world. So why is this the case? By all indications, this comes down to having a comprehensive sex education system. They have the highest contraceptive use among teenagers in Europe.
So what does that suggest? To me, if these "pro-life" people really cared about preventing abortion, then the focus should be on educating people. Forego the abstinence-only education and pushing sex-before-marriage as a sin. It's not working, the huge teen pregnancy rate in the US is testament to that. The fact is that teenagers are having sex, so if stopping abortion is what they really want to achieve, then following a model that allows for the severe reduction in abortion seems to be the best way to achieve that. Stop putting children in the dark about sexuality, give them advice on how to use contraception because it should be obvious to anyone that the current model is not working.
But that would be pragmatic, and I have a feeling that this issue is never about actually doing something useful to limit abortions. If this is about feeling morally superior then the anti-abortion movement makes sense. But it's almost impossible to reconcile the behaviour of those who protest abortion but on the same token reject the notion of actually educating children about sex. What do they honestly think is going to happen when information they receive comes through hearsay as opposed from those who actually are in the know? But this issue is not about that, it's about feeling morally-superior as opposed to doing something useful.
So much time and effort is going into stopping abortion, protesting and harassing people for doing their job and condemning those who use the service. Whether abortion is moral or ethical, the fact remains that it is legal. So to harass and intimidate those who work at a clinic or those who use the practice is a bad way of going about things. Are we not civil? Protesting doesn't have to use intimidation, and to punish the staff or even the customers for use of a legal service is contrary to the notion of an open society. Yes, they have the right to protest, but actions have consequences. Asking for moral decency from those claiming the moral high-ground surely isn't too much to ask for. What is that slogan again? Hate the sin, not the sinner.
35 million people starve to death every year, many more are killed through conflicts and natural disasters, then there is preventable illness as well. Would anyone seriously argue that mass starvation where children are suffering down to their last breath is a less of an evil than abortion itself? At best one could argue that these are equal evils, that sin is sin regardless of severity. But to argue that abortion is a great evil while there are millions of people who don't even get the bare minimum sustenance seems like a misguided effort. The money and effort that the pro-life movement could be put to far better use feeding those who are suffering and dying. So why isn't this the case?
I was recently speaking to a philosopher friend on the matter, and he mentioned that it was not that abortion was any more an evil than starving children, but that it was universally recognised that starving children was an evil. There's no point in protesting against starvation because there is no need to get awareness about the issue out there. In effect, there is no moral high-ground in taking a view that is unanimously held. While that time spent protesting could have been used to raise money to help bring better farming practices to those countries in need - trying to get the issue in the political spotlight and getting governments to act in order to bring a sustainable future to the most vulnerable people on the planet, instead the practice of protesting is to make one feel morally superior. Actually doing something beyond that? Well that would get in the way of personal satisfaction.
If one really wanted to get the number of abortions down, then it seems the best means of doing so is to try to emulate societies that have low abortion rates. And in terms of low teen pregnancy, one needs look no further than the Netherlands. That's right, the country that is known for its red light district and pot-selling coffee shops has one of the lowest teen pregnancy and abortion rates in the world. So why is this the case? By all indications, this comes down to having a comprehensive sex education system. They have the highest contraceptive use among teenagers in Europe.
So what does that suggest? To me, if these "pro-life" people really cared about preventing abortion, then the focus should be on educating people. Forego the abstinence-only education and pushing sex-before-marriage as a sin. It's not working, the huge teen pregnancy rate in the US is testament to that. The fact is that teenagers are having sex, so if stopping abortion is what they really want to achieve, then following a model that allows for the severe reduction in abortion seems to be the best way to achieve that. Stop putting children in the dark about sexuality, give them advice on how to use contraception because it should be obvious to anyone that the current model is not working.
But that would be pragmatic, and I have a feeling that this issue is never about actually doing something useful to limit abortions. If this is about feeling morally superior then the anti-abortion movement makes sense. But it's almost impossible to reconcile the behaviour of those who protest abortion but on the same token reject the notion of actually educating children about sex. What do they honestly think is going to happen when information they receive comes through hearsay as opposed from those who actually are in the know? But this issue is not about that, it's about feeling morally-superior as opposed to doing something useful.
Friday, 8 May 2009
Herd Immunity
With Swine Flu resonating through the media, the potential for a pandemic is a reminder of the ways in which viruses transmit. Though it's a sad that it takes a threat of this nature to keep people wary of the potential for getting ill. The reaction of medical establishments has been to give simple hygiene advice, hardly befitting a disaster of such magnitude. The Egyptian government slaughtering all the nation's pigs, though completely misguided and unnecessary, is more to the kind of reaction we'd expect. Unlike avian flu, this virus is transmitting human to human and as such any protections need to stop the spread of infection. The standard guidelines for illness are there for a reason, yet should be followed at all times.
It needs to keep being repeated that humans are social creatures, in the context of a society anyone has the potential to be a carrier of a virus. To completely avoid infection from others, it means isolation from society. This option being unfavourable due to the need for society in order to preserve our survival and as such should be a last resort option. So we need to accept that while we are individuals operating within a society, we remain at risk from others and a risk to others. We need to be mindful of what illnesses we could have and how they could spread.
The anti-vaccination people rest almost exclusively on the idea that it is a low risk not to get a vaccine for a now-uncommon ailment. If measles is very rare then the potential risk for not immunising a child is not very high. And if the claims about autism are true (they are not) then it would seem more of a risk to give the vaccine to a child than to not get it. But this individualism brings on the danger that if there were an outbreak, the community would be compromised. This may be individual risk, but there are those who at no fault of their own cannot get the vaccination and are put at risk by those who choose not to. The elderly, infants, and those who are allergic to the injections are all put an increased risk as the more who are not immune greatly increases the potential carriers.
Death of course is not the only problem from getting sick, in the workplace getting sick means lost productivity. And anyone who gets sick has the potential to spread that illness to others and they could suffer the same fate. Last August, I started at a new work environment. 3 days into working there I came down with an illness and had to take a week off to recover, and even then I was still feeling the effects for a while after as my body gradually recovered. But I wasn't the only one, a large portion of the floor were also off sick around that period. Someone came into work ill and in a closed-environment with many people around, the illness took down a lot of people.
Part of the problem in this workplace is that we have a lot of contractors working here. Contractors are paid by the hour, so if they take a sick day then that is 8 hours of lost income. Getting seriously sick could wipe out days of income, a situation nobody wants. Even if one feels up to working, coming into an office environment is inconsiderate as it puts others at risk. Same thing with catching public transport, same thing with participating in communal activities. It should not be a manager's responsibility to make sick people go home, it is an implicit duty of any member of society to be aware of the risks they pose to others. Having a scheme by which the ill are enticed to work and have little reason not to go is just going to cause problems in the long run.
The more infectious a disease, the greater the risk. Say that only 1 in 10 people will become infected by a virus. So if you transmit it to one person, then that person transmits it to someone else, it experiences linear growth. After 10 generations 10 people will be infected. But if it were more infectious and 2 in 10 people will be infected. If you come in contact to the same amount of people, 2 people will be infected and each of those will infect two more people each. After 10 generations, that's 1024 carriers as opposed to 10 if it were twice as infectious. 3 out of 10 and it's 60,000 people after 10 generations. This should demonstrate two things. Firstly that being highly infectious is grounds for social isolation, and secondly that even a few simple measures can significantly decrease the chance of spreading the infection.
To participate in society is to be aware that someone cannot act without regard to others. When it comes to heath, it shouldn't take a pandemic to remind us that one should avoid the sickly and that the sickly should isolate themselves to prevent further spread of that illness. Even taking simple measures such as washing hands properly and covering coughs can be the difference between a small and large outbreak. Waiting until a potential disaster neglects that these measures help save lives and help the community now. It shouldn't take a measles outbreak to get parents to vaccinate their kids, just as it shouldn't take a pandemic to stop people with regular flu from coming to work where they can spread it to others. It's common courtesy!
It needs to keep being repeated that humans are social creatures, in the context of a society anyone has the potential to be a carrier of a virus. To completely avoid infection from others, it means isolation from society. This option being unfavourable due to the need for society in order to preserve our survival and as such should be a last resort option. So we need to accept that while we are individuals operating within a society, we remain at risk from others and a risk to others. We need to be mindful of what illnesses we could have and how they could spread.
The anti-vaccination people rest almost exclusively on the idea that it is a low risk not to get a vaccine for a now-uncommon ailment. If measles is very rare then the potential risk for not immunising a child is not very high. And if the claims about autism are true (they are not) then it would seem more of a risk to give the vaccine to a child than to not get it. But this individualism brings on the danger that if there were an outbreak, the community would be compromised. This may be individual risk, but there are those who at no fault of their own cannot get the vaccination and are put at risk by those who choose not to. The elderly, infants, and those who are allergic to the injections are all put an increased risk as the more who are not immune greatly increases the potential carriers.
Death of course is not the only problem from getting sick, in the workplace getting sick means lost productivity. And anyone who gets sick has the potential to spread that illness to others and they could suffer the same fate. Last August, I started at a new work environment. 3 days into working there I came down with an illness and had to take a week off to recover, and even then I was still feeling the effects for a while after as my body gradually recovered. But I wasn't the only one, a large portion of the floor were also off sick around that period. Someone came into work ill and in a closed-environment with many people around, the illness took down a lot of people.
Part of the problem in this workplace is that we have a lot of contractors working here. Contractors are paid by the hour, so if they take a sick day then that is 8 hours of lost income. Getting seriously sick could wipe out days of income, a situation nobody wants. Even if one feels up to working, coming into an office environment is inconsiderate as it puts others at risk. Same thing with catching public transport, same thing with participating in communal activities. It should not be a manager's responsibility to make sick people go home, it is an implicit duty of any member of society to be aware of the risks they pose to others. Having a scheme by which the ill are enticed to work and have little reason not to go is just going to cause problems in the long run.
The more infectious a disease, the greater the risk. Say that only 1 in 10 people will become infected by a virus. So if you transmit it to one person, then that person transmits it to someone else, it experiences linear growth. After 10 generations 10 people will be infected. But if it were more infectious and 2 in 10 people will be infected. If you come in contact to the same amount of people, 2 people will be infected and each of those will infect two more people each. After 10 generations, that's 1024 carriers as opposed to 10 if it were twice as infectious. 3 out of 10 and it's 60,000 people after 10 generations. This should demonstrate two things. Firstly that being highly infectious is grounds for social isolation, and secondly that even a few simple measures can significantly decrease the chance of spreading the infection.
To participate in society is to be aware that someone cannot act without regard to others. When it comes to heath, it shouldn't take a pandemic to remind us that one should avoid the sickly and that the sickly should isolate themselves to prevent further spread of that illness. Even taking simple measures such as washing hands properly and covering coughs can be the difference between a small and large outbreak. Waiting until a potential disaster neglects that these measures help save lives and help the community now. It shouldn't take a measles outbreak to get parents to vaccinate their kids, just as it shouldn't take a pandemic to stop people with regular flu from coming to work where they can spread it to others. It's common courtesy!
Tuesday, 17 March 2009
Society's Hangover
It's not long now until Easter weekend will be upon this, and this means for me as a member of the workforce is a paid day of rest. For some the day still holds some certain religious sentiment, but by and large our culture has shifted away from such matters. Recently walking through the fish section of a supermarket I came to a sign saying "get ready for Lent" which let me to rhetorically ask if anyone actually follows lent anymore? Like eating fish on Fridays or obeying the sabbath the practice has fallen by the wayside among the masses. Traditions and rituals change as the society they reside in change.
This brings me to the point of this rant, it seems that Tabcorp have caught on that society has changed and want to operate their service on what used to be considered a holy day. The argument is that we are a secular society and as individuals we should be free to do what we want. Of course this has outraged anti-gambling and religious groups who insist that the day should not be perverted as such. And thus the problem of adapting a secularist society from a religious foundation becomes apparent.
Like Christianity being an awkward revision of tribal polytheism to universal monotheism, a secular society on a Christian foundation is inevitably going to run into problems of this nature. By virtue of declaring these days as public holidays, the government makes these holidays secular. But on the flip side, by having these events as holidays it allows religious influence on how the day is celebrated. Personally I couldn't care less about the ability to gamble, I don't do it any other day of the year so having that service isn't going to enrich my life in any way. But it's the principle of the matter I agree with.
It's not a major disgrace to have the occasional day where activities are outlawed, it's not a great inconvenience that it happens that way. But ultimately it's still pushing for one religion's standard on all other members of a society regardless of their own personal choices, and in a secular society doing this goes against the very principles that govern said society. Those who are arguing against keeping these laws in place are recognising the reality of the situation. It goes beyond the battle between religion and secularism - it's to the point of impracticality given the changing societal standards.
Standards change over time, society will shift as the population within shifts. New technologies, new fads, importing culture from other areas; all these contribute to the changing standards in our society. On most matters society sorts itself out, but the legal boundary in this case is preventing society from taking that leap on it's own. Rather, now it's up to the politicians to take the initiative to rid this society of it's post-Christian hangover and move towards a more secular state. It's not a matter of marginalising Christianity, rather recognising that Christian behavioural dictum should not impose on the freedoms of others. Just as I hope they would not deny the right to eat a steak on Fridays, or drink alcohol during Ramadan.
This brings me to the point of this rant, it seems that Tabcorp have caught on that society has changed and want to operate their service on what used to be considered a holy day. The argument is that we are a secular society and as individuals we should be free to do what we want. Of course this has outraged anti-gambling and religious groups who insist that the day should not be perverted as such. And thus the problem of adapting a secularist society from a religious foundation becomes apparent.
Like Christianity being an awkward revision of tribal polytheism to universal monotheism, a secular society on a Christian foundation is inevitably going to run into problems of this nature. By virtue of declaring these days as public holidays, the government makes these holidays secular. But on the flip side, by having these events as holidays it allows religious influence on how the day is celebrated. Personally I couldn't care less about the ability to gamble, I don't do it any other day of the year so having that service isn't going to enrich my life in any way. But it's the principle of the matter I agree with.
It's not a major disgrace to have the occasional day where activities are outlawed, it's not a great inconvenience that it happens that way. But ultimately it's still pushing for one religion's standard on all other members of a society regardless of their own personal choices, and in a secular society doing this goes against the very principles that govern said society. Those who are arguing against keeping these laws in place are recognising the reality of the situation. It goes beyond the battle between religion and secularism - it's to the point of impracticality given the changing societal standards.
Standards change over time, society will shift as the population within shifts. New technologies, new fads, importing culture from other areas; all these contribute to the changing standards in our society. On most matters society sorts itself out, but the legal boundary in this case is preventing society from taking that leap on it's own. Rather, now it's up to the politicians to take the initiative to rid this society of it's post-Christian hangover and move towards a more secular state. It's not a matter of marginalising Christianity, rather recognising that Christian behavioural dictum should not impose on the freedoms of others. Just as I hope they would not deny the right to eat a steak on Fridays, or drink alcohol during Ramadan.
Tuesday, 13 January 2009
Lying for Jesus™
One thing I have come to learn in recent years is that no matter how non-controversial an issue is in terms of evidence, there will always be at least one person who takes up the opposing position. We never landed on the moon, the holocaust didn't happen, aliens live among us, even that Darwin stole the theory of evolution from Wallace. Even in this modern day and age there still are some flat-earthers out there. When it comes to ideas like teaching evolution or separation of church and state issues, the subversive nature of some Christians comes to light.
The best way to sum up this behaviour is to describe it as Lying for Jesus™. Because while the 9th commandment clearly forbids lying, in political and public movements it seems that there are many who are intellectually dishonest enough to rationalise breaking that commandment in order further the cause of Christianity as they see it. The Dover trial was a prime example of this, despite the overtly religious reasons behind the decision to push ID they tried to conceal the religious motivations when it came to a court of law. The dishonesty for the sake of promoting religion is there for all to see.
The creationist movement is the most apparent case of Lying for Jesus, in the public constantly professional creationists will either wilfully ignore or misrepresent science in order too keep their position. Either they don't know better or they are hoping the target audience doesn't know better. Why hasn't Kirk Cameron asked a scientist why the Crocoduck hasn't been found in nature or what constitutes a transitional form? When Ken Ham gets a crowd of followers to echo "were you there?" he would first look at how historical knowledge is accumulated and fit into active observations we see today. These are extreme examples and easy targets to go after, but they are symptomatic of the rampant dishonesty that permeates through the professional creationist strategy.
The ironic thing about the message of Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort is they have an argument that goes "If you tell a lie, that makes you a liar." Well that makes Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron liars, their misrepresentation of science in the name of Jesus may be a noble cause to them, but that systematic dishonesty underpins their entire attack on evolution. It may be that Jesus saves and forgives all, but we aren't at the gates of heaven yet and lying has consequences in the real world. It deceives the ignorant, it angers the knowledgeable, and it labels them as hypocrites.
The Lying for Jesus™ doesn't stop at creationists either: there's televangelism, issues regarding separation of church and state, lies about contraceptives (especially in AIDS-ridden Africa,) or anything really that regards atheism. And all this comes from a religion where some claim that only those who follow it are moral. that the moral code is laid out by God in their holy book. The most important part of the moral code being the Ten Commandments, one of the ten being a commandment forbidding bearing false witness. I guess it's the same as "thou shalt not murder", it's only to be obeyed when it isn't in the name of Jesus.
The problem as I see it is that the qualification of salvation in Christianity has it's priorities wrong. Instead of being a good person, it condemns everyone as sinners so the only way to break that cycle is to believe that a Jewish carpenter / cult-leader 2000 years ago happened to be God in human form and by believing that it admonishes all sin - except of course denying the holy ghost. It's not up to living a good moral standard, a virtuous non-believer is an oxymoron. Rather it's about subservience, adhering to flock mentality and believing in something logically absurd. Lying for Jesus™ is a means to a justifiable end, it's a hypocritical means, but it's a means that will continue as long as Christianity and knowledge continue on their separate paths. Pulling people from the path of knowledge to the path of salvation is worth the price of throwing society back to the dark ages.
The best way to sum up this behaviour is to describe it as Lying for Jesus™. Because while the 9th commandment clearly forbids lying, in political and public movements it seems that there are many who are intellectually dishonest enough to rationalise breaking that commandment in order further the cause of Christianity as they see it. The Dover trial was a prime example of this, despite the overtly religious reasons behind the decision to push ID they tried to conceal the religious motivations when it came to a court of law. The dishonesty for the sake of promoting religion is there for all to see.
The creationist movement is the most apparent case of Lying for Jesus, in the public constantly professional creationists will either wilfully ignore or misrepresent science in order too keep their position. Either they don't know better or they are hoping the target audience doesn't know better. Why hasn't Kirk Cameron asked a scientist why the Crocoduck hasn't been found in nature or what constitutes a transitional form? When Ken Ham gets a crowd of followers to echo "were you there?" he would first look at how historical knowledge is accumulated and fit into active observations we see today. These are extreme examples and easy targets to go after, but they are symptomatic of the rampant dishonesty that permeates through the professional creationist strategy.
The ironic thing about the message of Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort is they have an argument that goes "If you tell a lie, that makes you a liar." Well that makes Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron liars, their misrepresentation of science in the name of Jesus may be a noble cause to them, but that systematic dishonesty underpins their entire attack on evolution. It may be that Jesus saves and forgives all, but we aren't at the gates of heaven yet and lying has consequences in the real world. It deceives the ignorant, it angers the knowledgeable, and it labels them as hypocrites.
The Lying for Jesus™ doesn't stop at creationists either: there's televangelism, issues regarding separation of church and state, lies about contraceptives (especially in AIDS-ridden Africa,) or anything really that regards atheism. And all this comes from a religion where some claim that only those who follow it are moral. that the moral code is laid out by God in their holy book. The most important part of the moral code being the Ten Commandments, one of the ten being a commandment forbidding bearing false witness. I guess it's the same as "thou shalt not murder", it's only to be obeyed when it isn't in the name of Jesus.
The problem as I see it is that the qualification of salvation in Christianity has it's priorities wrong. Instead of being a good person, it condemns everyone as sinners so the only way to break that cycle is to believe that a Jewish carpenter / cult-leader 2000 years ago happened to be God in human form and by believing that it admonishes all sin - except of course denying the holy ghost. It's not up to living a good moral standard, a virtuous non-believer is an oxymoron. Rather it's about subservience, adhering to flock mentality and believing in something logically absurd. Lying for Jesus™ is a means to a justifiable end, it's a hypocritical means, but it's a means that will continue as long as Christianity and knowledge continue on their separate paths. Pulling people from the path of knowledge to the path of salvation is worth the price of throwing society back to the dark ages.
Tuesday, 16 December 2008
Five percent
12 of the last 13 years of Australian federal politics, we had a conservative government. At a time when the rest of the world was starting to take on the concern that is climate change, our leader stood proudly behind the Americans in defiance of the scientific consensus. But as the warnings from leading climatologists became more mainstream in the media, there was a communal shift behind acting. And the Australian voters stood tall and elected a heroic figure that would save the day. That man was Kevin Rudd and in his decisive stance on climate change, to save the planet and show he's a world leader in the crusade to save the planet he's pledged Australia to cut emissions by... 5%?
The global financial crisis has given our government like many others a lot to think about. So while the government is investing many billions of dollars into infrastructure and giving handouts to those who would spend it on power-consuming LCD televisions, there's simply not any room for saving the environment. Why not research into new technologies? Why not put money into training more science and engineering students? Why not try to shift our failing economy away from a commodities market and into a world technological leader?
We've been enjoying the high commodity prices, turning environmental resources into economic capital. It turns out that we along with every other nation are harming the very planet we live on, and for a long time it's been done without a consideration for the long-term consequences. Finally now we are in an age where we can actually understand the implications for our actions and we are doing as little as possible to change our actions for the better. Perhaps helping the environment is one of those non-core promises that were a mark of the Howard years.
It's such a shame that our country has such little drive to actually save our planet, it's either a rejection of the science, an appeal to the economy or a cry of our insignificance on the world stage. "What about China?" Yes what about China? What are we doing to help them stop buying our coal? Are we giving them a better product, or one that is going to maximise our profits? Is this short drive for money in the nation's long-term interest? Is the great barrier reef a concern? Is ensuring there's enough water for our population to survive a concern? How has economics factored in these long term scarcities into the cost of each tonne of export we send overseas?
We've hit that situation in Australia where there's no reasonable alternative in tackling this problem, the "left" party is proposing a paltry 5% cut and the conservatives are still out on whether such a problem exists - or if it does how many jobs it will lose. There's not much we can do at all here, Kevin 07% (only if the international community agree on a 7% cut) has shown that his environmental credentials are mute. What can we do but hope that Barack Obama turns around 8 years of American inaction and actually has the balls to make the decisions that are needed to put earth back into the balance. Can Obama do it? Yes he can. Will it happen? Probably not. But a man can dream.
Each day of inaction is one more day of doing more damage to the environment. Sure there needs to be some time in order to formulate a comprehensive plan of action, but each moment we keep this polluting system going is quickly lessenning the time we have to fix the problem. The system is geared towards polluting, we need those fossil fuels to power our society. The sooner we start looking at putting in the infrastructure to break our dependance on fossil fuels the better. Otherwise our system will become more and more reliant on resources we are depleting at a rapid pace, each day we don't act the harder it will be to act in the future. The more expensive it will be too, but that's for future generations to worry about.
The global financial crisis has given our government like many others a lot to think about. So while the government is investing many billions of dollars into infrastructure and giving handouts to those who would spend it on power-consuming LCD televisions, there's simply not any room for saving the environment. Why not research into new technologies? Why not put money into training more science and engineering students? Why not try to shift our failing economy away from a commodities market and into a world technological leader?
We've been enjoying the high commodity prices, turning environmental resources into economic capital. It turns out that we along with every other nation are harming the very planet we live on, and for a long time it's been done without a consideration for the long-term consequences. Finally now we are in an age where we can actually understand the implications for our actions and we are doing as little as possible to change our actions for the better. Perhaps helping the environment is one of those non-core promises that were a mark of the Howard years.
It's such a shame that our country has such little drive to actually save our planet, it's either a rejection of the science, an appeal to the economy or a cry of our insignificance on the world stage. "What about China?" Yes what about China? What are we doing to help them stop buying our coal? Are we giving them a better product, or one that is going to maximise our profits? Is this short drive for money in the nation's long-term interest? Is the great barrier reef a concern? Is ensuring there's enough water for our population to survive a concern? How has economics factored in these long term scarcities into the cost of each tonne of export we send overseas?
We've hit that situation in Australia where there's no reasonable alternative in tackling this problem, the "left" party is proposing a paltry 5% cut and the conservatives are still out on whether such a problem exists - or if it does how many jobs it will lose. There's not much we can do at all here, Kevin 07% (only if the international community agree on a 7% cut) has shown that his environmental credentials are mute. What can we do but hope that Barack Obama turns around 8 years of American inaction and actually has the balls to make the decisions that are needed to put earth back into the balance. Can Obama do it? Yes he can. Will it happen? Probably not. But a man can dream.
Each day of inaction is one more day of doing more damage to the environment. Sure there needs to be some time in order to formulate a comprehensive plan of action, but each moment we keep this polluting system going is quickly lessenning the time we have to fix the problem. The system is geared towards polluting, we need those fossil fuels to power our society. The sooner we start looking at putting in the infrastructure to break our dependance on fossil fuels the better. Otherwise our system will become more and more reliant on resources we are depleting at a rapid pace, each day we don't act the harder it will be to act in the future. The more expensive it will be too, but that's for future generations to worry about.
Wednesday, 22 October 2008
No True Scotsman
The US presidential election has taken a really nasty turn in recent weeks, it has for a large part descended into gutter politics fuelling on an angry xenophobic mob. The nature of any election campaign is not to be the best candidate for the job, rather it's to be the best candidate for the election process. In this, it's hard to fault the negative campaign, if they believe they are the best people to do the job for the country then it's their duty to do all they can to get elected. The problem though with wedge politics is that election processes come to an end, yet society still remains.
Causing division in the community is suddenly not going to cease the moment the results are in; the further the wedge is pushed in, the further apart people are separated along those lines. Australia entered a very ugly societal position from just that sort of campaigning, the Tampa crisis combined with 9/11 which led to moral panic around Islam gave the perfect platform for John Howard's re-election. It also left the community bitterly divided, and 7 years on the jingoism is still causing problems. To question is to be unpatriotic, the flag was now a sacred symbol and anyone who disagreed was unaustralian. So many shirts at the Big Day Out with the slogan "Australia - love it or fuck off".
But this import from America of that extreme form of nationalistic patriotism is hardly a surprise in the post-9/11 world. And as much as I would love to blame the politicians for exploiting the deepest fears of an uncertain collective, the real blame does lie with the people. The only reason these political strategies work is because enough of the population buys into it. It's easy to dismiss these people as being sheep; easily led automatons who don't exercise any free will. That attitude isn't helpful, it's wrong and portrays them in a similar negative light to how they see us.
So back to the US where the American conservative base has done all it can to portray Obama as wrong for middle America. The Bill Ayers affair epitomises the gutter politics that is being seen nightly in the media. Why can they tie the actions of this 60s radical to a politician who was 8 years old at the time? For the same reason as those chain emails labelling Obama an unamerican Muslim spread quickly. There are those who are uncomfortable with him, and are looking for any justification to dismiss him as wrong for America.
The angry mob is now at a frenzy, mention of his name at republican rallies is receiving audience shouts of "TERRORIST!" and "KILL HIM!". One thing I have admired is McCain's attempt to diffuse the angry mob, but it may be too little too late. The lipstick-wearing pitbull that was chosen as a running mate has more than happily pushed Obama into the most unfavourable light possible, inciting the angry crowd with cutesy hate speech. McCain really needs to put his pitbull on a leash, it's his campaign and he's the one that is ultimately accountable for the actions of the joe-sixpack hockey-mum who speaks for small-town main street American values.
Now that is where the real venom has been in the last couple of weeks. There's more and more talk about the "real America", about "true Americans" who "love their country". It's nothing more than racism masquerading as patriotism. Some commentators like Rush Limbaugh at least don't have the pretence, his comments about former Secretary of State Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama dismissed it as entirely to do with race. Could it have been that Powell genuinely felt that Obama is the best candidate to take America forward? That Obama's cool head in the midst of this financial crisis and his crossing of the generational gap are assets that Powell wants in a leader? Could it be he's disgusted by the rabid anti-intellectualism and gutter politics that are part of the Republican platform? Not according to Limbaugh.
The "real American" rhetoric may win votes, it may convince the undecided voters who are concerned about Obama that he's not looking out for his best interests. Because apparently Obama is an elitist, working as a community organiser and serving on a charity board have been republican fodder. But the divisive politics is taking it's toll, both Keith Olbermann and Jon Stewart have rightly stepped in to disassemble this dirty political rhetoric. Even if it doesn't work to win McCain the election, it will still be a sour taste in the mouths of every Obama-hating "true American". As Barack Obama said:
Causing division in the community is suddenly not going to cease the moment the results are in; the further the wedge is pushed in, the further apart people are separated along those lines. Australia entered a very ugly societal position from just that sort of campaigning, the Tampa crisis combined with 9/11 which led to moral panic around Islam gave the perfect platform for John Howard's re-election. It also left the community bitterly divided, and 7 years on the jingoism is still causing problems. To question is to be unpatriotic, the flag was now a sacred symbol and anyone who disagreed was unaustralian. So many shirts at the Big Day Out with the slogan "Australia - love it or fuck off".
But this import from America of that extreme form of nationalistic patriotism is hardly a surprise in the post-9/11 world. And as much as I would love to blame the politicians for exploiting the deepest fears of an uncertain collective, the real blame does lie with the people. The only reason these political strategies work is because enough of the population buys into it. It's easy to dismiss these people as being sheep; easily led automatons who don't exercise any free will. That attitude isn't helpful, it's wrong and portrays them in a similar negative light to how they see us.
So back to the US where the American conservative base has done all it can to portray Obama as wrong for middle America. The Bill Ayers affair epitomises the gutter politics that is being seen nightly in the media. Why can they tie the actions of this 60s radical to a politician who was 8 years old at the time? For the same reason as those chain emails labelling Obama an unamerican Muslim spread quickly. There are those who are uncomfortable with him, and are looking for any justification to dismiss him as wrong for America.
The angry mob is now at a frenzy, mention of his name at republican rallies is receiving audience shouts of "TERRORIST!" and "KILL HIM!". One thing I have admired is McCain's attempt to diffuse the angry mob, but it may be too little too late. The lipstick-wearing pitbull that was chosen as a running mate has more than happily pushed Obama into the most unfavourable light possible, inciting the angry crowd with cutesy hate speech. McCain really needs to put his pitbull on a leash, it's his campaign and he's the one that is ultimately accountable for the actions of the joe-sixpack hockey-mum who speaks for small-town main street American values.
Now that is where the real venom has been in the last couple of weeks. There's more and more talk about the "real America", about "true Americans" who "love their country". It's nothing more than racism masquerading as patriotism. Some commentators like Rush Limbaugh at least don't have the pretence, his comments about former Secretary of State Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama dismissed it as entirely to do with race. Could it have been that Powell genuinely felt that Obama is the best candidate to take America forward? That Obama's cool head in the midst of this financial crisis and his crossing of the generational gap are assets that Powell wants in a leader? Could it be he's disgusted by the rabid anti-intellectualism and gutter politics that are part of the Republican platform? Not according to Limbaugh.
The "real American" rhetoric may win votes, it may convince the undecided voters who are concerned about Obama that he's not looking out for his best interests. Because apparently Obama is an elitist, working as a community organiser and serving on a charity board have been republican fodder. But the divisive politics is taking it's toll, both Keith Olbermann and Jon Stewart have rightly stepped in to disassemble this dirty political rhetoric. Even if it doesn't work to win McCain the election, it will still be a sour taste in the mouths of every Obama-hating "true American". As Barack Obama said:
"There are no real or fake parts of this country. We are not separated by the pro-America and anti-America parts of this nation—we all love this country, no matter where we live or where we come from."It will be a dark day for mankind if McCain is elected on a wave of glorified xenophobia, especially given his bipartisan mantra.
Monday, 29 September 2008
I'll Pray For You
I've noticed many times when talking with theists online that eventually I'll see the line "I'll pray for you" and they'll be gone, well most of the time anyway. Some seem to come back for another round, possibly checking to see if their prayers actually worked. Of course, if they are praying to an omnipotent deity in order to change my behaviour, they don't need to tell me they are praying for me. In fact it would probably be better for them if they didn't tell me they were praying for me and instead just used it as a marker of falsification. So why mention it at all? Because it's not for me to acknowledge your grand gesture, it's to condemn me by using a passive-aggressive invocation to a moral authority.
Yes, it's all a big farce; implicit condemnation masquerading as a positive gesture. It's a means of ascertaining the moral high ground, to allow one to act with moral superiority. Judgementalists For Jesus™ we can call them, ones who will leave God as the eternal judge but secretly wish they had the gig. Maybe they are putting together a resume now for the afterlife, trying to show God just how Judgemental and cruel they can be while trying to appear loving and concerned. It seems to be the Christian way. Of course it could be worse, at least we aren't expecting some kind of Spanish Inquisition. Now it seems guilt is the chief weapon. Guilt, persecution complex... No wait, that's two weapons. The two chief weapons are guilt, persecution complex, a delusion that religious moral code is still relevant. Three, three chief weapons. Fuck it, let's start over.
I can see why the religious cling to it as their weapon of choice, but it makes no difference to an atheist. It's basically an appeal to the authority of God, that scary dude in the sky who will torture you for all eternity if you piss him off. Having that up your sleeve as a weapon of condemnation can only be effective against those who believe in such rot. Instead to those immune from God's judgement, this exposes a defensive frailty in the caster of the incantation. It exposes their fear of judgement; that their behavioural code is not based on the kindness of their nature, instead it's the fear of punishment that is the force behind their sense of right and wrong. These aren't good people, they are petty, weak people who need God to fight their battles for them. Instead of being able to make any decisions of their own, they leave it up to an invisible force (or more accurately a holy book, or even more accurately what other people tell them the holy book means) in order to guide their sense of right and wrong.
So what does it matter to me? On a personal level, it doesn't. If people want to pray for me, to light candles, use a voodoo doll, or even sacrifice a goat (though I'd prefer no animal cruelty), that's their choice. None of it is going to affect me one bit. If they want to use it as a passive-aggressive means of ascertaining the moral high ground in a discussion, then I have a problem with the expression. Those four words coming from a close relative who only wants your safety is sweet, from a complete stranger on a semi-anonymous medium is underhanded. If any of you genuinely believe that casting an incantation will rouse an omnipotent sky-daddy to come and change my ways, you are more than welcome to try. Just don't tell me about it please, I don't want you to rub your insecurities onto me.
Yes, it's all a big farce; implicit condemnation masquerading as a positive gesture. It's a means of ascertaining the moral high ground, to allow one to act with moral superiority. Judgementalists For Jesus™ we can call them, ones who will leave God as the eternal judge but secretly wish they had the gig. Maybe they are putting together a resume now for the afterlife, trying to show God just how Judgemental and cruel they can be while trying to appear loving and concerned. It seems to be the Christian way. Of course it could be worse, at least we aren't expecting some kind of Spanish Inquisition. Now it seems guilt is the chief weapon. Guilt, persecution complex... No wait, that's two weapons. The two chief weapons are guilt, persecution complex, a delusion that religious moral code is still relevant. Three, three chief weapons. Fuck it, let's start over.
I can see why the religious cling to it as their weapon of choice, but it makes no difference to an atheist. It's basically an appeal to the authority of God, that scary dude in the sky who will torture you for all eternity if you piss him off. Having that up your sleeve as a weapon of condemnation can only be effective against those who believe in such rot. Instead to those immune from God's judgement, this exposes a defensive frailty in the caster of the incantation. It exposes their fear of judgement; that their behavioural code is not based on the kindness of their nature, instead it's the fear of punishment that is the force behind their sense of right and wrong. These aren't good people, they are petty, weak people who need God to fight their battles for them. Instead of being able to make any decisions of their own, they leave it up to an invisible force (or more accurately a holy book, or even more accurately what other people tell them the holy book means) in order to guide their sense of right and wrong.
So what does it matter to me? On a personal level, it doesn't. If people want to pray for me, to light candles, use a voodoo doll, or even sacrifice a goat (though I'd prefer no animal cruelty), that's their choice. None of it is going to affect me one bit. If they want to use it as a passive-aggressive means of ascertaining the moral high ground in a discussion, then I have a problem with the expression. Those four words coming from a close relative who only wants your safety is sweet, from a complete stranger on a semi-anonymous medium is underhanded. If any of you genuinely believe that casting an incantation will rouse an omnipotent sky-daddy to come and change my ways, you are more than welcome to try. Just don't tell me about it please, I don't want you to rub your insecurities onto me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
