The Answer to Racism Is Sex, and Lots of It.

This is an interesting development, another milestone in the demographic history of the U.S.

TIME: Census: Minorities Now 50% of US Births

"For the first time, racial and ethnic minorities make up more than half the children born in the U.S., capping decades of heady immigration growth that is now slowing."


As our world becomes more integrated, especially through procreation, I think race will become less of a contentious issue in our communities, and in our politics. Until the day we are all Cuban-Irish-Kenyan-Vietnamese-Inuit (or what have you), there will be strife, but at some point, our country and others will reach a point where, for most everyone, ideas become more important than color. I don't think there are "loss of biodiversity" issues (say, with resistance to epidemic illness), as the human gene pool will remain massively varied from person to person.

It's true that some communities (ultra-nationalists, racial pride groups) will want to remain separate, and that's their right. These people also have the right to huff ammonia-rich cat urine, as I'm sure many of them do. If trends continue, these groups will continue to dwindle in comparison to the modern world progressing and melding around them. Maybe then, with the help of a little secularization (or at least a little modernization and ongoing reconciliation of the various religions), we can focus on the important things, like public policy in the marketplace of ideas, and the use of technology to better the lives of all people.

Unless you enjoy genocide abroad and racial tension at home, I think you have to be an optimist about this development.

The sheer arrogance!

I find it funny that so many believers, atheists, and agnostics accuse the other parties of arrogance. The specific accusations that I'm addressing are not regarding the other parties' methods of argument (e.g., "I can't believe what [Pat Robertson / Bill Maher / Robert Wright] just said. What an arrogant twat!") The "arrogance" slander I'm referring to addresses the very nature of the belief or nonbelief professed. The signature flavors go something like this:

Atheist to believer: You are arrogant to believe that you have chosen the one true deity. You are arrogant to believe that your deity will punish all those who do not accept your belief system as fact. You are arrogant to believe that you are the special creation of an all-powerful being who cares what you do with your life. You are arrogant because your belief leads you to believe that you are living a morally superior life.

Believer to atheist: You are arrogant to believe that there is no higher power above yourself. You are arrogant to believe that there is no absolute morality within which you have a duty to live your life. You are arrogant to believe that you can use reason to decipher or discard the mysteries of the soul. You are arrogant because your nonbelief leads you to believe that you are living an intellectually superior life.

Agnostic to atheist and believer: You are arrogant to claim knowledge of the unknowable. You are arrogant because your certitude leads you to believe that you are morally or intellectually superior.

Believer and atheist to agnostic: You are arrogant because your lack of certitude leads you to believe you are morally or intellectually superior.

And so on.

Having a belief, or a claim to knowledge, often leads to a degree of arrogance when someone who does not share that belief or claim to knowledge simply won't budge, despite your most earnest and fervent attempts at conversion. I know I am guilty of feeling that arrogant sense of superiority now and again. I imagine almost everyone does, whether they're discussing philosophy, science, politics, economics, or any other arena of competing and irreconcilable ideas.

The funny part is that the arrogance is often inversely proportional to the amount of certitude involved; it can reveal a roiling insecurity just beneath the surface. Recognizing arrogance in ourselves can be a piercing alarm that we may be treading on the thin ice of a conviction unexamined. Recognizing it in others can be a signal to exercise some compassion, or a signal to pounce, depending upon your disposition (or blood sugar level.)

Read more. Also, are we real?

A brief foray into a few tech blogs has reminded me how very unread I am, and how immensely important it is to develop the habit of reading for pleasure, beyond Wikipedia, news sources, and blogs. A habit I let go of for several unfortunate years, but which I return to now out of absolute necessity.

The post that really got me into a mindboner freefall last night (until I conked out at 3am) was Charlie Stross' Three Arguments Against the Singularity. Particularly interesting to me are the philosophical implications of the Simulation argument and other Matrix -esque investigations of the possibility of this reality being some future kid's 5th grade computing project. Much like Paschal's Wager, these explorations require us to make fairly arbitrary guesses as to the probability of certain events and conditions that do not have familiar analogues in our everyday experience. But by using comparative probability, we can perhaps approximate a grasp of the odds that any of these given scenarios is or isn't actually taking place.

In short, I need to keep reading, though maybe til only 1am tonight. I promise, this blog will eventually contain interesting and original thoughts. Eventually.

Hello, World!

I'm cleaning out my inbox (it goes back to 2007), and came across some wide and wandering philosophical thoughts. A nice picture of where I was a few years ago, and a good starting point for some more specific discussions about science, economics, foreign policy, globalization. Discussions I will enjoy having with anyone willing to approach them with an independent and analytical mind. I usually feel behind the curve when it comes to "settling down" and achieving the ethical certainty that many people enjoy. Or maybe that's just settling. Seriously, I need a meetup or something.

Note: I may have been idealizing the history of science a bit. Despite the altruistic ideal of the scientist who wants to be proved wrong as much as she wants to be proved right, there has always been a fierce competition in the scientific community for resources, recognition, and ultimately the dominance of one's own theory over those of her peers. And I can't exactly say that has been a problem. And yet, that cooperation comes in, by necessity, in order to increase one's resources in ultimately competitive pursuits. A good read on the speculative bioevolutionary roots of cooperation and altruism: Michael Shermer's The Science of Good and Evil (ISBN 978-0805075205).

Anyway, I need to start having conversations with folks and clear up some of these thoughts.

Fuck it, I'm starting a blog. http://underl.blogspot.com/

CM

***10-8-2007***

In a biohistory defined and sustained by competition, we as humans have reached a new phase. We have attained sentience. The progress we have begun to make has outpaced natural-selection-induced evolution by so many orders of magnitude, it would be folly to let our survivalistic and antagonistic competetive nature continue to guide our every decision (as individuals, communities, nations).

Which is to say, science and the history of thought have been an inherently cooperative and constructive undertaking, if colored by a healthy splash of cutthroat rationalist skepticism.

Now, as our power to destroy grows increasingly potent, we must increasingly seek the means for peace. Nothing is promised, and nothing guaranteed. Life is fragile, and the world is meaningless without it. A gray stone in a sea of gray stones, with no one watching.

We have invented meaning as we know it. Meaning dies with us unless we leave others behind to carry it on. The tendency here is to reflect upon how individual procreation mirrors (and constitutes) this greater need for the survival of humanity. But I am not inclined to believe that we as individuals leave nothing behind when we die without having children. Fallen leaves are beautiful. Without them a tree does not grow, does not give new life.

Still, I wouldn't mind having some lil beebers to indoctrinate. Beebs! Lil beeber joes!