Super Ethics

[From John] Ira previously wrote the following, “All animals, including we humans, are wired with an emotional system that has been "designed" (by evolution and natural selection) to serve as an ombudsman for the long term survival and reproduction of the society we have been socialized in. Absent a properly socialized emotional system, we would focus on our own short-term and short-sighted interests and our society would fail.”

I accept Ira proposition as far as he takes it. The problem as I see it is that his expression, “for the long term survival and reproduction of the society we have been socialized in” does not provide for the long term survival of humankind as a whole, rather it provides for the midterm survival of the strong, who, ultimately are overthrown and fade into history. There seems to be no inherent evolutionary (natural selection) process that assures the long-term survival of mankind as a whole. History bears this out, dynasties have continually risen and fallen since cities and nations were formed. Towns, cities and nations were sacked, men were enslaved if not killed outright, man warred against man. Today is no improvement, in the last century we have had the two most destructive wars in history. It also included the largest mass genocides in history – the Holocaust Stalin’s purges and the murders of the Pol Pot. Today we are confronted with terrorism and the constant wars in Africa. Nuclear war threatens us. There seems to be no end.

With the rise of the world economy man may find in his own individual selfish interest the need for stability throughout the world; this may lead to a form of super-ethics applicable to all mankind. Mini steps have been made with the Geneva Convention and the United Nations but they are very weak. While there is a general consensus amongst the developed nations that such super-ethical standards are necessary, national interests often over ride this consensus.
We have a long way to go.

Cloud of Hot Labels and other Gadgets/Widgets

[Updated 12 May] Please have a look at the new Hot Label Cloud just above the Dilbert comic in the right-hand column.

I added it to highlight the general areas we've been discussing. The cloud shows all Labels that have been applied to three or more Topics since Joel started the practice over a year ago. The bigger the item and the warmer the color, the more we've covered it in the Blog.

If you roll your cursor over any Label in the cloud, you will see how many Topics link to it. If you click the Label, you'll get the full text and images of all those Topics. (I've retained the old flat listing of all Labels at the bottom of the right-hand column so you can easily access all Labels.)

I think the "cloud" concept is an interesting one that gives an immediate visual idea of what is "hot". The concept can be used to indicate the words we use most often, the most reported news topics, etc.

[Updated 12 MAY] I've changed the layout a bit so a compacted Short List of HOT Comments appears at the very top. Click the colored text to jump to the Topic with that Comment. (I'd like it to jump right to the Comment but I can't get that to work yet.)

Next is a brand new 20 Most Recent Topics (Posts) widget. It lists the Topics in compact form. The little red arrow points to each Topic in turn and, at the top, you see Title, Author, and Date. If you roll your cursor over any Title, the little red arrow jumps to it. NEAT-O! (I got this widget from http://webupd8.blogspot.com/2009/03/blogger-recent-posts-using-ajax.html THANKS!)

Next is a detailed listing of the 20 Most Recent Comments. In the original version of this Topic I complained that the widgets sometimes did not work because the source code was on some remote computer that was busy. Well, the new widget I found has the source code right in my Blog so it is more reliable.

The Archive of All Posts (Topics) appears next. The Topics for the current month are all listed. If you click any of the little triangles (called "twisties") they will rotate and reveal all Topics posted for any given month and any year.

Please let me know if there are other Gadgets and Widgets you'd like to see added to make your experience here more satisfying. I'll add them if I can.

Ira Glickstein

Sunspots Gone? An "Inconvenient" Minimum!

[Click on graphic for larger view] Back on January 8th, I posted Where have all the sunspots gone? where I predicted the next solar cycle would peak at a sunspot number of 80 near the end of 2013 or the start of 2014. The experts at NASA had predicted, back in 2006, that the peak would be over 156. By January 2009 they had lowered their prediction to 104. Well, yesterday, NOAA (part of NASA) has a new prediction that is down to 90. Anyone see a pattern here?

We will see if my amateur predictions fare better than those of the best experts our tax money can support!

The above graphic shows how NASA has dropped their predicted sunspot peak number levels from 156+ down to 90, and their predicted peak year has slipped from as early as 2010 to as late as 2013. (A typical government project slips schedule, but the cost usually goes up, not down! It has been said "If the government was in charge of the Sahara desert, in six years there would be a shortage of sand. Well, now there is a shortage of sunspots - but that is a good thing, read on! :^).

I think it is worthwhile to repeat some of the NASA hype back in 2006 when they made their original predictions that have turned out to be so bad: (from: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10mar_stormwarning.htm March 10, 2006)

"It's official: Solar minimum [end of Cycle #23] has arrived. Sunspots have all but vanished. Solar flares are nonexistent. The sun is utterly quiet. Like the quiet before a storm.

"This week researchers announced that a storm is coming [start of Cycle #24] --the most intense solar maximum in fifty years. The prediction comes from a team led by Mausumi Dikpati of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). 'The next sunspot cycle will be 30% to 50% stronger than the previous one,' she says. ..."

Well, here we are almost at the middle of 2009 and, despite the hype above about the "official" solar minimum having been declared in March 2006, it may not yet have arrived. Indeed, according to http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/index.html (NOAA SWPC - Space Weather Prediction Center, 08 May 2009):

"Minimum will now occur no earlier than August, 2008. For every month beyond March 2008 that minimum slips, it is necessary to shift the prediction curves by the same amount. SWPC commenced doing so in mid-February and will continue to do so, unless or until the prediction panel sets a new predicted date for the time of solar minimum. ..."

THIS IS ALL GOOD NEWS. This solar minimum will be mighty "Inconvenient" (to borrow from our former Vice President) to the Global Warming alarmists. But it is good news for those of us who have been a bit skeptical about our being close to any kind of "tipping point" with respect to Global Warming.

Don't get me wrong, I am still concerned about the rapidly rising levels of CO2, and as I've written here on the Blog many times, I (along with James Hansen the #1 NASA alarmist, but also a wide assortment of pundits and politicos from the right and left) favor a punitive Carbon Tax on all previously sequestered carbon (coal, oil, gas) as a sane alternative to the Cap & Trade scam currently being pushed through Congress.

Reduced sunspot number is historically associated with cooling periods. See the diagram from Wikipedia, on how sunspot activity has varied since the year 1600. According to NASA the period from about 1645 to 1715, called "Maunder Minimum" or "the Little Ice Age", corresponded to a time of little sunspot activity. The "Dalton Minimum" in the early 1800's was a shorter and smaller drop in solar activity. These periods saw considerable Global Cooling.

The period since 1940 has seen relatively higher solar activity that corresponds to the observed Global Warming. I do not expect to see a great deal of cooling in the coming decades, but, if we are in an "Inconvenient" minimum, that will give us the breathing room to implement some conservative actions to control CO2 emissions in a way that will not further wreck the world's economy.

Ira Glickstein

Where have all the sunspots gone? NA-SA search-ing,
Where have all the sunspots go-ne? NASA don't know.
Where have all the sunspots gone? Global Cooling, anyone?
Will NASA ever learn? Will NA-SA ev-er learn?

Where has all the carbon gone? Green-house gas-es,
Where has all the carbon go-ne? Come down as snow!
Where has all the carbon gone? Heating houses, everyone,
Will NASA ever learn? Will NA-SA ev-er learn?

Where has Global Warming gone? Point not tip-ping,
Where has Global Warming go-ne? Its gonna slow.
Where has Global Warming gone? Normal seasons of the Sun,
Will NASA ever learn? Will NA-SA ev-er learn?


As Yogi Berra famously observed, "It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future."

Aristotle's Physics - the Four Causes

Joel posted Is PowerPoint Anti-Intellectual? last month in which he claimed:

"If Socrates, Plato and Aristotle had had PowerPoint available, there might not have been any western philosophy handed down to us."

I replied:

"I'm not sure what Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle would have done with PowerPoint. I guess Socrates would have avoided it. Plato would have used it grudgingly, but Aristotle -OH! ARISTOTLE- he would have been (almost) as good as me!"

Well. that remark has cost me dozens of hours during which I have been researching Aristotle's books on Physics and Meteorology and building the PowerPoint charts I think he would have created had they been available in his time, some 2300 years ago. In particular, I tried to explain Aristotle's view of the Five Elements (Aether, Air, Fire, Earth, and Water) as well as his take on the Four Causes (Material, Formal, Efficient, and Final).

MY KNOLS ON THE FIVE ELEMENTS AND THE FOUR CAUSES

Once I made the PowerPoint charts I decided to go the extra step and use them to construct two new Google Knols. The first Knol, on the Five Elements was published last month, along with a related Topic on this Blog. The other Knol, on the Four Causes, is now available for your amazement.

Like me, you may find philosophy hard to understand. As my PhD advisor (Howard Pattee) told me, philosophers make simple things complex, using a language specially created for that purpose!

You may have heard about Aristotle's four causes: Material Cause, Formal Cause, Efficient Cause and Final Cause. I couldn't understand how the words "Formal" and Efficient" applied to causes - and neither would Aristotle if he lived today.

When we say, for example, "the housing crisis caused the stock market to dive" or "investors dumped their stocks because they wanted to preserve their capital" we imply a more or less direct relationship between the cause and the event or action. The Greek word for "cause" is "aition" and it is understood in a much wider sense, including both the immediate, direct causes as well as explanitory factors.

Thus what philosophers now call the Formal Cause should be understood as the form or pattern, the essence or archetype, that explains something. What they call the Efficient Cause is what we would call the direct or immediate cause of some event.

SIMPLE EXAMPLE OF THE FOUR CAUSES



I'll start with a simple, concrete example - how do building materials such as stone and wood end up becoming a house and furniture? What are all the causes and explanitory factors?





The chart at the head of this Topic shows how the Four Causes play into each other to accomplish this transformation.





The four charts that follow trace the effect of each of these causes in a step-by-step manner. See the Knol (Four Causes) for additional detail, verbatim quotations from Aristotle, and more.





In the Knol I also get into what Aristotle called spontaneity and chance as well as the fact he understood something like evolution and natural selection 2000 years before Charles Darwin - a feact Darwin himself acknowledges!

Ira Glickstein

POLYGAMY: Call it "Marriage"

Once upon a time a guy got hauled before the King's Court for calling the Princess "Miss Piggy".

He was ordered to make an apology and pay a fine. He did so and then asked the judge if it was OK for him to call a pig "Princess".

"I don't see why not," replied the Judge.

The guy walked by where the Princess was sitting in the courtroom, bowed to her, and said, "Good afternoon 'Princess'!"

No matter what you call it, a pig is a pig. On ABC News this evening, it was reported that representatives of the swine industry want "swine flu" to be called "hybrid influenza". Whatever you call it, it is a dangerous disease and it came from pigs.

Which brings us to the main topic here, polygamy. If people of the same gender who love each other can call their civil union "marriage" and be legally married in a growing number of states, why not give the same right to a man and two or more women who love each other?

In other words, if Miss Ellen Degeneres and Miss Piggy can be legally married to each other if they are in love and want to be legally married, why not the "Ménage à trois" of Mr. Kermit the Frog and Miss Ellen Degeneres and Miss Piggy if they all love each other and want a polygamous marriage?

JEWISH RELIGIOUS LAW REGARDING POLYGAMY

At chumash (bible) study in our synagogue a couple days ago, the subject of Jewish polygamy came up. If you Google "Rabbi Gershom polygamy" you will find many links to recognized Jewish organizations such as the Jewish Encyclopedia and discover:

"In Biblical as in Talmudical times polygamy was a recognized institution ... So long as a man could support them, he was free to have as many wives as he chose, even against the wish of his first wife ... "

So, where does Rabbi Gershom come in?

"The rabbinical prohibition against bigamy dates from the beginning of the eleventh century; Rabbi Gershon b. Judah of Metz forbade it under penalty of excommunication. His decree was accepted without opposition by the French and German Jews; though not in the Orient and in Spain and Portugal, where his authority was questioned. Polygamy is still actually to be found among the Jews in Oriental countries where it is permitted by the law of the land.

"Among the Jews of Europe, bigamy is now a crime in the eyes of religion, because of the prohibibition of Rabbi Gershon, and because custom sanctions monogamy; he who transgresses is excommunicated. A curious suggestion that R. Gershon's prohibition was intended to hold only until the year 1240, the beginning of the fifth millennium of the Jewish calendar ... was never recognized ..."

So, at least among Jews, there is no Biblical prohibition against polygamy. Some Jews living in countries that allow polygamy have had multiple wives even in modern times.

Rabbi Gershom's temporary cherem (ban) was imposed in the tenth century only in Europe and only because of Christian pressure at the time. In any event, the ban may have expired in 1240 AD.

Indeed, in Israel, the Sephardi Chief Rabbi has proposed recinding the ban that dates from the independence of that country on the basis that many religious Jews who come from the Sephardic (Spanish, North African) branch of our religion have ignored the law and that there is a shortage of marriage age men.

CHRISTIAN RELIGIOUS LAW REGARDING POLYGAMY

European Christian monogamy did not become law until 1139 AD when Pope Innocent II declared polygamy a sin.

The ban on same-sex marriage goes back much further in Judeo-Christian history, but it has been overturned in several states. It may well become the law of the US in our lifetimes if the complexion of the US Supreme Court changes. If that happens will legal polygamy be far behind?

Of course, the Mormons (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints) practiced polygamy. The main LDS church in the US discontinued official sanction of multiple marriages in 1890 after a Supreme Court verdict. Splinter Mormon groups continue the practice to this day.

With the ascendance of legal same-sex marriage in the US, can legal polygamy be far behind? Indeed, questions were raised about the possibility legalized same-sex marriage in Canada could justify the practice of polygamy. A 2001 Law Review article argues

"... the Free Exercise Clause protects religiously motivated polygamy for two separate but interrelated reasons. First, because marriage is a fundamental right, the situation presents a hybrid claim of interference with a fundamental right as well as a Free Exercise claim. Second, ... the prohibitions are not of general applicability but rather are aimed at a specific religious practice because they are born of antipathy to the underlying religion..."

ARE WE REALLY MONOGAMOUS IN WESTERN COUNTRIES?

Are we in the west really monogamous? Of course not!

Half our marriages end in divorce and so may be considered serial adultery! Sex outside marriage is common even when couples do not divorce.

The "casting couch"

"... is a euphemism for a sociological phenomenon that involves the trading of sexual favors by an aspirant, apprentice employee, or subordinate to a superior, in return for entry into an occupation, or for other career advancement within an organization. The term 'casting couch' originated in the motion picture industry, with specific reference to couches in the offices of casting agents that could be used for sexual activity between the agents and aspiring actresses. But it is now often used in reference to other industries besides entertainment."

Our political leaders seem especially prone to abuse their powers and privileges by straying from their wives. From Bill Clinton and the whole Kennedy family to Newt Gingrich, members of both parties have admitted to straying.

DOES MOTHER NATURE FAVOR POLYGAMY?

Nearly all mammals practice polygamy. The "alpha-male" gathers as large a harem as he can defend and fathers as many offspring as he can get away with. Our nearest relatives, the Great Apes, are no exception. Polygamy is an adaptation!

Among the eusocial insects (ants, bees) the practice continues in the reverse direction. A single female, the "Queen" is sought after by all the male "Drones".

Perhaps it is natural that the most succesful males in society should father the most offspring? It seems that would promote the most "fit" genes. If polygamy was legal, and the children were not only fathered but also raised by the most successful males, the most "fit" memes would also be promoted.

It may be ideal for a man to start with one wife. She would be his sexual partner, bear him children, and look after the home. If he is successful in his occupation, she would be promoted from the bedroom to an active role in running the business and be replaced by a younger wife who could take over the duties of main sexual partner, bearer of children, and manager of the home. When the first two wives reached 40 years of age, they would be "promoted upstairs" and replaced by two 20 year olds.

I don't dare do anything about it, but I really like to think about that option!

Ira Glickstein

Medical Ethics

[from John] Joel’s previous topic on medical ethics raises the broader question of medical ethics in its many forms. I would like to explore one or two points at this time.

Is it ethical for the nation or the state, to control the following medical practices if the individual wishes to participate? I’m discussing ethics not the law. I believe that these are personal choices and that the state has no ethical authority to interfere.

a. Use of drugs that are legal in other nations but not here. Drugs that are legally available in other countries may help an individual when drugs currently available in the US are not as effective.
b. Use of experimental drugs. Experimental drugs undergoing human blind test may help an individual, should it not be his choice?
c. Medical use of marijuana. The same argument as above.
d. Personal use of drugs now illegal.

In the last case ( d ) and as a second point the state will claim that it has an obligation to protect its citizens against the abuse of certain habit forming drugs is this a valid ethical position or a sophism? I don’t have the figures nor do I have the energy to pursue them however, intuition leads me to the conclusion that there is little valid evidence supporting their position. How does the state, ethically justify legalizing tobacco and alcohol, yet banning other drugs?

Does the zero tolerance policy make rational or ethical sense? Today we have locked up thousands for minor drug offensives. The illegal drug trade thrives as it did when alcohol was banned. What are we accomplishing?

In the early 1900s, we amended the constitution banning alcohol. It did not significantly reduce the use of alcohol rather it resulted in an active trade in contraband alcohol. The amendment was reversed after a few years. The illegal trade disappeared. Now that it is legal, does the use of alcohol present a serious problem for the nation? No.

Drugs are easily available today, in large quantities, if we are to believe the media, yet we are not swimming in drug addicts. Does anyone know the population of true drug addicts? How does that population compare to the population which uses the cancer causing drug tobacco or those using the legal drug alcohol? I would venture to say that the population of true drug addicts is small. The major harm to the nation is to the individuals incarcerated for minor drug offenses and the cost of fignting an ineffective war on drugs which in turn encourages a dangerous trade in illegal drugs.

Do irrational, illogical standards of medical morality and ethics guide our national policies rather than rationality and justice? I vote yes!

Aristotle's Physics - the Five Elements

Joel posted Is PowerPoint Anti-Intellectual? earlier this month in which he claimed:

"If Socrates, Plato and Aristotle had had PowerPoint available, there might not have been any western philosophy handed down to us."

I replied:

"I'm not sure what Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle would have done with PowerPoint. I guess Socrates would have avoided it. Plato would have used it grudgingly, but Aristotle -OH! ARISTOTLE- he would have been (almost) as good as me!"

Well. that remark has cost me dozens of hours during which I have been researching Aristotle's books on Physics and Meteorology and building the PowerPoint charts I think he would have created had they been available in his time, some 2300 years ago. In particular, I tried to explain Aristotle's view of the Five Elements (Aether, Air, Fire, Earth, and Water) as well as his take on the Four Causes (Material, Formal, Efficient, and Final).

MY KNOL ON THE FIVE ELEMENTS

Once I made the PowerPoint charts I decided to go the extra step and use them to construct two new Google Knols. The first, on the Five Elements was published today and another, on the Four Causes, is under construction and will follow soon.

Like me, you may find philosophy hard to understand. As my PhD advisor (Howard Pattee) told me, philosophers make simple things complex, using a language specially created for that purpose!

You have undoubtedly heard about "the five elements" of the ancient philosophers. I couldn't understand how the ancients thought Fire was a basic element, or that the essence of Air was wet or of Water cold. It turns out they were not using these words according to the literal, narrow scientific meanings we employ. They were thinking about what we would now call the qualities of "energy" and "fluidity". They used Air, Fire, Water, and Earth as examples of things that had a lot or a little energy and/or fluidity.

Modern scientists dismiss the concept of Aether out of hand. However, the idea of a non-material substrate is important if we want to understand what the most intelligent and well-informed humans of two millenia ago were thinking. (If modern string theory, which says there are ten or eleven dimensions of which humans may comprehend only four, holds up to scientific examination, it may turn out that the six or seven "tightly curled up" dimensions we humans cannot comprehend might be what the ancients called the Aether!)

The graphic that appears at the head of this posting is the first chart and there are two others described in the Knol:

Have a look at the Five Elements Knol and please comment on it!

Ira Glickstein