Crazy Cooking

Last time I was in Berlin, I cooked and baked bread about once a week. While I was staying at the Forth's house, I cooked a few times, but cooking stopped once I moved into res. I joked to Isabel that I needed to cook something soon because I was going through withdrawal. So, once I got back to Berlin, I not only cooked dinner but I also baked a loaf of bread. Considering that my other achievements for the day were getting up, playing four hours of Wii, and taking an hour-long bath, you'd think I was making up for the months spent in Vancouver.

I've noticed that the more I cook, the more I enjoy cooking, which isn't true for baking. I've helped my mom bake since I was about eight, and with a good recipe I can bake everything except complicated cakes and pastry. If I bake a batch of muffins, if I bake them again it'll probably take me slightly less time. If I cook a dish, when I go to make it again I can add new ingredients, change the way things were cooked, and the result is much improved. With bread it's a similar story- I can make a more complicated type of bread, or improve one I've made before. The fact that cooking is a lot more variable than baking is why I think I much prefer to cook than bake.

My cooking has also come a long way in the past ten years. When I was nine, I watched a TV show where they made crepe, and I decided I wanted to give it a try. I didn't ask someone older to help me, but luckily my brother happened to be around, and when he came into the kitchen he did not find me lightly frying a thin crepe like they had on TV, but rather I was deep-frying a solid mass of batter. He added milk to the batter and showed me how to spread the batter around, and crepe became my dish. Until I was 17, my repertoire consisted mainly of crepe and scrambled eggs, and I'm still considered the expert on cooking crepe, even though my dad and brother can probably cook them just as well. When my dad moved away for a year, my mom started asking me to cook occasionally, and by now I can cook quite a bit.

Although I can cook, my attempts at improvisation have consistently failed. My first attempt, at age 11, was to liven up a tomato soup I'd prepared, and so I added a bit of every spice on the spice rack- about 20 in total- stirred it all together, and took a sip. I still think it would have tasted fine until I added a heaping teaspoon of steak seasoning, but the final product was disgusting. I had to throw the whole pot of soup away, and I ended up eating a peanut butter sandwich, which was a much safer meal. For me, spicing up my food is equivalent to ruining it. But I still occasionally decide I want to try something new, which is why I ate fried bread for lunch.

I actually had fried potatoes and onions for lunch, and since I'd eaten something edible I decided to risk something inedible. Fried potatoes are great- they're the best thing you can do with old boiled potatoes, and with some scrambled eggs with fried potatoes and onions is a great meal. So I thought that maybe fried bread would be okay. My thinking was along the lines of "This might be crazy enough to work." And, in fact, bread fried in bacon fat served with eggs is delicious, and my dad makes it when he decides we need more saturated fat in our diets. I was going to try frying bread in oil to see if it tasted good. Served with the potatoes and onions, it tasted pretty good, considering that all the meal had was starch and oil.

I wasn't done experimenting yet, though. First I tried a piece fried in olive oil instead of rapeseed oil, but I added way too much oil and it was barely edible. Then, since the bread had so far seemed a little dry, I added some water before frying it. The hissing and snapping from the water was pretty cool, but I ended up with bread that was chewy, oily, and doughy, none of which are desirable properties in my mind. I was also pretty tired of fried bread by now. I tried toasting a piece and then lightly frying it, which was very disappointing. First of all, toasted bread tastes way better than fried bread, and secondly it didn't fry very evenly after toasting. Finally, I added beer while it was frying, and I had high hopes for this piece, because beer is tasty, and beer in bread is often quite tasty too. Although frying beer is really cool to watch, the beer-fried bread was, unsurprisingly, not very good.

In the end, frying bread is a waste of time, especially considering that toast is quite tasty. I had fun messing around with bread, though, and I think that the next time I make bruschetta, I'll probably lightly fry the bread in olive oil, because on its own the olive oil piece was actually pretty good, if way too oily. I also got my annual dose of experimentation, so I won't be trying anything crazy until I come back to Berlin next summer.

Ensuring Conservation

This post finishes the previous post, so read that one first. The cradle-to-cradle production system described here is lifted entirely from the book Cradle to Cradle.

The Confines of the Planet
In the previous post I made the case for conserving diversity of both culture and nature, and in this post I'll propose some actions we should take to do so. Before we examine possible actions, however, we must acknowledge certain constraints. The first is that natural and cultural diversity should grow, not be destroyed. Secondly, the Earth is a closed system in terms of natural resources, but the energy received from the Sun vastly exceeds our current needs. The only possible long-term production system, called "cradle-to-cradle" production recycles resources and uses renewable energy, and such a system would sustain our growth for centuries, if not millenia. The purpose of the Sustainability movement is, or should be, to convert a linear production system into a cyclical one.

Cradle to Cradle Production
The best sources of renewable energy we have developed are solar, wind, and geothermal, and and many companies, including even Google, are investing millions of dollars to make renewable energy competitive, so switching our energy production is a matter of time, investment, and will. Cycling resources is a more complicated matter, but it too is within our grasp. Nature has been recycling nutrients since life first began, and does so far more efficiently than we could manage, so all organic resources should be returned to nature. This means that our clothing will be compostable, and the chemicals used in its production will be non-toxic and biodegradable.

In our current cradle-to-grave production system, valuable inorganic resources are lost, meaning that further resources must be extracted at great economical and environmental cost. For instance, the steel in your car is a high-quality alloy with specific desirable properties. If the steel is recycled at all, it is added during steel production to produce low-quality steel. The desirable properties and expensive additives are lost. Heavy metals like lead are highly toxic, and their safe disposal is very expensive, so often they are not disposed of safely, making it very expensive for everyone else. If these important metals were recycled, both money and nature would be saved.

The Triple-Bottom Line
One of the best tools of sustainable development is the triple-bottom line, where ecology and equity are given the same priority as economy. Why is a triple-bottom line necessary? A company that performs a cost-benefit analysis will ignore any costs that are externalized: costs that they should pay, but that they can pass on to society, for instance by dumping heavy metals as I described above. Many mining operations proceed with the full intention of passing the cost onto the government: for a proposed mine, a company is created by one of the large mining companies, who then underestimate the clean-up costs, extract the ore, and declare bankruptcy when clean-up time comes. The profits go to the large mining company while the costs are paid by the government's environmental agency.

In practice, ecological and social impact cannot be calculated for a specific development. Therefore, rather than developers having a literal triple-bottom line, the concept means that developers examine social and environmental impacts in detail and balance those against the economic benefit. This does not guarantee absolute sustainability, but it provides a way for development to incorporate sustainability, so that the end result is more sustainable.

Confronting Overpopulation
One of the consequences of the constraints is that societies cannot grow rapidly and be sustainable, because each extra human consumes extra resources, so Amazonian rainforest, with its indigenous species and people, is converted to grass and cows, and diversity is destroyed. Therefore we must try to limit our growth until we reach the point that we can produce biomass from inorganic materials (there's plenty of inorganic carbon and hydrogen.) Overpopulation occurs when resources are too scarce to support the population. We all know the third world kind of overpopulation, but the first world is also overpopulated because we are living beyond the capacities of the planet. Therefore our first course of action should be to limit our own consumption to sane levels. After we have started to limit our own consumption, we should look to end overpopulation in the third world.

It's impossible to have sustained overpopulation in a region unless resources enter that region from elsewhere. Grain surpluses in the first world feed overpopulation in the third world. One highly beneficial action would be to end agricultural subsidies in the developed world and invest in the agriculture of the developing world. By subsidizing agriculture in the developed world, we limit the productivity of agriculture in the developing world, ensuring a country imports our grain if it can, or receives food aid if it cannot. Food aid is problematic because although it saves many lives, domestic farmers cannot compete with free, and the region is unable to sustain itself. By investing in agriculture in the developing world, we can help families become self-sufficient, reduce famine in those areas, and ensure that food aid is only provided when it is necessary. When death rates go down and incomes go up, birth rates also go down because having more children is no longer necessary to survive. By first improving our own habits, countries that develop do not adopt our excessive consumption, and the stress on the Earth decreases.

Eternal Optimism
As I hope my first post made clear, the main problems threatening our species existence result from our destruction of diversity, so conserving biological and cultural diversity is an immense task. I am, and always shall be, optimistic, and I consider my optimism justified. Never in our history have we been faced with such immense obstacles, and should we succeed humanity will be more prosperous and enlightened than ever before. The consequences of failure are horrifying, but I reject the idea that we will fail because with those terrible consequences in mind, we must and shall do what is right. Hopefully, having read this, you will go and prove that my optimism is justified.

The Importance of Diversity

We are at a point in history of unprecedented destruction of both the environment and culture that threatens our survival as a species. To solve these problems, we must first understand their roots, and then figure out how to solve them. This post explains the causes of the problem, the next deals with possible solutions.

Living within Nature
I became a devout believer in environmental conservation when I saw E. O. Wilson's presentation on biodiversity. Click on the link, watch the presentation, and you will understand why conservation is important, because he explains it much better than I can. I'm serious, go watch it now. If you're reading this, you've got spare time to watch possibly the most important presentation I've seen. As he explains, our knowledge of Earth and its inhabitants is dwarfed by what we don't yet understand. We only know 1% of the bacteria species that are estimated to exist, and our knowledge of fungi is scarcely better. Only recently have we discovered that our efforts are having any negative impact whatsoever, and now we see mass-extinctions, extensive pollution, degradation of land, and global warming.

Diversity is important because it makes for a robust system. Life has existed for 3.7 billion years with continued expansion because it regulates itself. Every species occupies a niche, and if that species expands beyond its niche, the other species will respond and push it back in. That niche can grow and intrude on other species, but only if environmental conditions are favourable. Diversity ensures that if environmental conditions turn unfavourable for the majority of species, they will be favourable for a minority of species, who will then expand and diversify, ensuring the ecosystem survives indefinitely.

In the Agricultural Revolution, we learned how to alter our environmental conditions, so that our niche was no longer relevant. Since then, our culture has been pursuing a path of absolute mastery, but since we do not understand the complex system we are trying to alter, we have caused considerable damage to diversity in the process. Becoming absolute masters means filling the role that diversity plays in keeping ecosystems healthy, which requires a complete understanding of every aspect of the system. Those who believe that we do not need to change our ways do not realize how complex the system they think we should master really is. Our continued survival depends on realizing that we have to life within nature.

The Need for Cultural Diversity
Ethnological conservation first appeared as a serious issue when I saw this presentation several months ago. His argument, supported by stunning photos and stories, is that each indigenous culture, with its unique language and mythology, is an invaluable expression of the human spirit, that our culture needs their knowledge and perspectives. I only fully understood this argument when I read Ishmael, and I now understand that cultural diversity is just as necessary as biodiversity. Indigenous cultures have survived in their ecosystems for thousands of years, and would continue to survive if we weren't destroying their habitat. History is littered with young and stupid cultures that have brought own their own downfall, and the old cultures are the smart ones that have survived. If we assume that ours is the only relevant culture, then we'd better hope that we're a lot smarter than we appear, because we appear to be heading towards disaster.

Fortunately, if I understand the issue correctly, cultural and environmental degradation are caused by similar factors: marginalization of the culture leads to apathy, which allows habitat to be destroyed. Once we realize the true value of every species and culture, we will have to care, and we will have to act. My next post suggests some of the actions we will have to take.

Some Brief Points about Iran

What's this? An update? How surprising! Actually, I've been planning an update for a while, and have a post almost done, but I realized I could write a quick political post about Iran and get back into the swing of updating.

There is evidence that the U.S. may be planning a military strike against Iran. One of the possible pretexts is the resolution based by the Senate declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, making Iran a state sponsor of terrorism. There's no evidence that the Revolutionary Guard has supplied insurgent groups with arms, while there is evidence that external support for these groups has declined. Iraq is occupied by a foreign power, and that the U.S. is the largest donor of military aid, so criticizing Iran for aiding insurgent groups and meddling in Iraqi affairs is quite ridiculous.

The main reason for war is Iran's nuclear weapons program, which is allowed by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that both the U.S. and Iran have signed. Although Iran has been fully cooperating with the IAEA, the U.S. has ignored the treaty and is researching new weapons and keeping its old ones. The fact that the main obstacle to getting a nuclear bomb is enrichment to 5% is concerning, but this calls for a new treaty, not economic sanctions or military actions. Iran is well within its rights, and the U.S. has no legitimacy to tell them to stop.

Military action against Iran, although still disastrous, would consist of air strikes rather than invasion, because the U.S. Army is already stretched in occupying Iraq. Iran would therefore not fall into the same violence and chaos that Iraq faces. I think that the worst consequences would actually be in Iraq, where resentment of U.S. occupation would increase even further. Violence would increase, and withdrawal would happen more quickly and chaotically. Violence would also rise in Pakistan, where fundamentalist forces would benefit from anger against the U.S. and its allies. Thankfully, I don't see much benefit for the Bush administration in this action. However, the Bush administration might nonetheless be desperate enough to whip up support for its foreign policy that it would attack Iran. For now, I hope it doesn't come to that.

More posts to follow! And they won't be political, so you don't have to ignore them.

Digitial Music Distribution

Note:I know this post is long, so if you're not interested about the recording industry, skip down to the list below and read how you can ethically consume music.

Major record labels are slowly but inexorably dying. Historically, they played an important part in the production and distribution of an album because the costs were way too high for a band to pay, but these costs have fallen far enough that a band can produce and distribute its own album. Now, they provide the marketing necessary for most bands to make it into the mainstream, and earn their profits from the resulting CD sales and recoup their costs from artists.

A simplified economics model would predict that labels sell zero CDs. The cost of digital music distribution is almost fixed- selling an extra copy basically costs zero compared to all the other money you've spent. Therefore the cheapest way to deliver music is electronically, and this will be the only one that consumers use, so all music will be downloaded rather than bought as CDs. The assumptions of the model aren't true, which is why CDs are still sold, but we're moving towards digital distribution, and in their present state, record labels can't live without CD sales.

The arrangement that record labels have with bands also does not entirely make sense any more. Currently, bands take out a loan from a record company, who produce an album, sell it, send the band on tour, and eventually get paid all their money back. Many bands make enough money to get by and do what they love, but only really famous bands make it rich. However, when you want to sell your house, you don't hire a construction company, you hire a real estate agent. Similarly, a band that wants to break into the mainstream needs a marketing firm, not a record label.

So what should consumers do?Here are the options:

• If you buy a CD, you get a CD, which is nice to have, the label makes a bunch of money, and the artist has some ridiculously small royalty that helps pay back some of the loan it took out.
• If you buy a song off iTunes and it's produced by a major label, 60% of the money goes to the label, 30% goes to Apple, and 10% goes to the artist (it depends on the contract, though.) It's not bad, but Apple makes about 10% profit off of every song, which is more than I think it deserves for running a music store.
• If you become an evil pirate and download ten of an artist's songs, neither the artist nor the label make any money. The artist has to pay off the loan it took out or go bankrupt. By pirating music, you're not only not giving the record label or the artist any money for their work, you're making life harder for the artist. But if you send the artist ten bucks, they get plenty of money to pay back the label with as well and plenty to buy ice cream with.
• If you go see the band in concert, buy a t-shirt and a CD, they get quite a bit of the ticket price and all of the profit from the merchandise. You get an awesome time and a memento, they get to pay off their loan and perform for a bunch of people.

If you agree that record labels are making an unfair amount of profit and that artists deserve more money for their work, then the best option is either to send the artist money or see them in concert. If you buy music off of iTunes, you're helping Apple and the label more than the artist, and if you buy a CD in a store then you're actually hurting the artist. The faster CD sales drop, the sooner we'll reach the point where most money is spent on the artist and marketing, rather than lining the pockets of rich people.

For those who are wondering what I'm doing, when I get a credit card I will:

• Send $15-20 bucks to Radiohead for their latest album, which you can download off of their website.
• Send $20 bucks to Bomb the Music Industry! for three of his free albums that I listened to a lot.
• Pay $10 for the high-quality downloadable version of an album by Brad Sucks.
• Send $10 to Harvey Danger for their free album that I also really enjoyed.
• Consider spending $20-30 at Magnatune, a record label that splits profits and costs evenly with its artists.
• Look at how I can reward all of my favourite bands for the music I've enjoyed over the years.

A Problem of Influence

I'm sure you're all aware that late last month, tens of thousands of Buddhist monks in Myanmar, also known as Burma, took to the streets in protest of the repressive military regime. I imagine that you supported their peaceful, pro-democracy cause, and would like to have helped them in some way. The main ways a country can influence another country are diplomacy, economic sanctions, and military intervention. Unfortunately, Western governments have none of these options open in Burma.

Burma's main allies are its prime economic partners, since it has little need for a military alliance. In 2006, its main trading partners were Thailand and China, so China has the most potential influence in Burma. The U.S. and E.U. have no direct influence because they've already imposed economic sanctions, and military interventions is simply out of the question. The Western countries could try and pressure China into trying to influence Burma, but even China's influence on the military junta is limited. Also, China is still nominally communist, so it will not try to pressure another regime to open dialogue with pro-democracy groups. Therefore, we cannot expect our governments to improve the situation.

On an individual level, we can boycott imports or pressure companies to divest (remove their investments) from a country. For instance, when citizens of Western nations helped end apartheid, South Africa has no other possible trading partners and was pressured to open dialogue with Nelson Mandela's political party. Unfortunately, our trade with Burma is insignificant and already restricted by sanctions, so we can't do anything as individuals.

The reasons for our inability to help the Burmese can be generalized to explain why we have trouble solving serious problems around the world. The Sudanese government, for example, can ignore demands made by the U.N. because its main export is oil to Japan and China. China will oppose any Security Council intervention in Darfur to protect its trade with Sudan, as it is also the main exporter to Sudan. From what I know of Japan, it is fairly isolationist and unlikely to give up a supply of oil, but perhaps it could be pressured into reducing its imports from Sudan.

What lessons should we draw from these situations? First, that economic sanctions should be considered very carefully, because many countries like Iran, Iraq, and Sudan have suffered the cost of the sanction and moved their trade elsewhere, and once strict sanctions are imposed, we can either pressure one of the misbehaving country's new trading partners to have a word with it, or we can invade. Second, through open dialogue and trade we can increase our influence in a country while reducing the relative influence of more neutral countries like China, India, and Japan. Finally, as we've seen in Iraq, Somalia, the Balkans, and other countries around the world, military intervention must be seriously examined and must only be used once all other avenues have been exhausted.

Response to New York Times article "U.S. Needs ‘Long-Term Presence’ in Iraq, Gates Says"

Article located here.

The U.S. Defense Secretary is considering "a very modest U.S. presence with no permanent bases, where we can continue to go after Al Qaeda in Iraq and help the Iraqi forces." The U.S. currently has four bases, one in each quarter of Iraq, that are similar to permanent U.S. bases elsewhere, and that the anti-war movement in the U.S. fiercely opposes keeping troops in Iraq. One of the major reasons for invading Iraq was to move the U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia to new bases in Iraq, in order for the U.S. to maintain its military presence in the Middle East. The Bush administration refuses to set a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq because it would either have to completely withdraw U.S. forces or explain why it wants a continued presence. The rhetoric against withdrawal and in favor of continued occupation is partially because the administration does not want to admit failure, but also so that the public is more likely to agree with an indefinite U.S. military presence in Iraq.

Global Warming: A Pragmatic Perspective

Last week I wrote a fairly silly post (it's been edited, by the way,) so now I have to write a super-serious post. Sorry guys, that's just how it works. Actually, I figure that since I've applied to become a 'Residence Sustainability Coordinator', and because I've done more research and thinking since my last attempt on the topic, I've decided to try and tackle the subject again.

I'm not going to cover the causes or consequences of Global Warming in any detail, because there are many excellent resources out there that do a better job than I could do. There are a few disturbing consequences that I'd liked to share. First of all many ecosystems will not adapt well to increased temperatures. Marine ecosystems, and the humans that depend on them, will suffer because coral only lives at certain temperatures, and coral is a vital part of coastal marine ecosystems. If temperatures increase unchecked, the Arctic may disappear within our lifetime, and most of the animals living there will go extinct. According to the WWF, up to a million species could go extinct by 2050. However, global warming will also impact people. Droughts and hurricanes will become more severe and more frequent, and people depending on a declining ecosystem will suffer as well. I'm not listing these facts because I want to scare you, but because they seem to be the most compelling arguments to take action.

We should take three courses of actions to either reduce emissions or lower the global temperature. Even if emissions are stabilized now, the Earth will continue to warm for several centuries, so research should be conducted into effectively reducing current levels of greenhouse gases as well as reducing future emissions. This research is being conducted by companies and by governments. Companies perform R&D based on market research, and they sell technologies to other companies or governments, so they are not easy to influence. Governments, however, are supposed to follow the people's demands, so you should pressure your government into investing much more into research.

While company's R&D divisions are far removed from the public, their sales divisions are completely dependent on the public's actions. Therefore you should support companies that are reducing emissions and suggest improvements to companies that are not. A great book about how emissions can be cut drastically (by 90%) is called "Heat" by George Monbiot and is definitely worth reading for ideas. For instance, concrete produces huge amounts of CO2 and has many economical and eco-friendly substitutes. Also, supermarkets are hugely inefficient because everything is brightly lit and their food has to be cooled without cooling the entire store. Delivery systems cut out this waste and benefit both supermarkets and consumers. Suggest to other retailers that they follow Walmart's example and cut costs by cutting energy consumption. Getting companies to reduce their emissions is not hard to do, because the best ways to be green also save money, but would be possibly the most effective way to cut emissions.

The last course of action involves cutting our own emissions. We all know these actions because they're what most environmentalists talk about, but while many changes are not very hard to implement (I wrote about some of them on my other blog), major changes definitely are. I fly across the Atlantic four times a year, and so I have the choice of either never seeing my family or significantly contributing to Global Warming. Driving to work seems to be only acceptable method of transportation for the majority of people, even though this leads to smog and CO2 emissions. Is everyone that takes transatlantic flights or drives to work a horrible person? No, because it's the system that's seriously flawed, not the consumer. Whenever we buy anything, we don't calculate the value of the resources used, the labor that went into it, the profit that the company needs to make, etc.: it's all already included in the price we pay. The social and environmental damage is not usually included in the bill because neither the producer nor the consumer has to pay. There's no surcharge for the CO2 produced for what we're buying, and unfortunately there's no good system for adding that amount. A taxation system would be fiendishly complicated, and a rationing system (the other suggestion I've seen) would be unpopular and still complicated. Ultimately, all we can do is make sure there are no small changes we can make in our own habits, and focus on the other two courses of action mentioned above.

Global Warming is a serious problem, and our actions within this lifetime will have a huge impact on the following centuries. If we do everything that we can to address the problem, then I think that the most serious consequences can be averted, and eventually Global Warming will not be a concern. I also believe that we will avoid disaster because people are good and will do what is necessary. As we learn more about the consequences of Global Warming and how we can prevent it, the future can only look brighter, and I intend on having the best possible future.

Two Topics- Dogs and Math

I wanted to write about both these topics, but neither of them really justify a full post, so I'm combining them in a sort of "Tuesday Irrelevant Topic Day!" mish-mash. I'm writing them because I like to take a break from all the serious topics occasionally. S0, I'll start with math.

A few of you might have picked up on the clues, that I mention math often, and am planning to minor in it, and rightly concluded that I like math. You may think that I'm crazy or weird for taking two math courses, one second-year differential equations and one third-year calculus course. What you don't know, though, is that math classes are my favourite university courses. The reason I'm majoring in chem is because I find the material more interesting, and I prefer chem lectures to math lectures the vast majority of the time. Chem unfortunately involves labs and tedious coursework, while math has no labs and I often enjoy doing math assignments.

Yes, I like doing math homework. I don't like doing repetitive algebraic manipulation where I know how to solve the problem and it's just a matter of bitch-slapping the equation into its proper form, but I do love being presented with a question I can't solve, trying several approaches, and finally figuring it out and arriving at the correct answer. I don't take pride in most of my other coursework, since it's all fairly boring and doesn't require much creativity, but I am proud of my solutions in math. Basically I'm a huge nerd.

Now, dogs. Dogs have very little to do with math, and if you try to find a connection I will get angry because that's not what math or dogs are for. Unlike humans, it's perfectly acceptable to discriminate against groups of dogs based on physical characteristics, because their physical characteristics vary so much and determine what we like about a breed. My favourite dogs are dogs that are average in size and appearance. I don't like wiry racing dogs or powerful aggressive dogs as much as medium-strength ones. I dislike most tiny dogs because they're loud, disobedient, and not as much fun to play with, and huge dogs are just too much dog to handle. I find exotic dogs or boxer-like dogs less appealing than Labradors, Spaniels, German Shepherds, or other more normal dogs. Average dogs are playful, not aggressive; big enough to run around with but not big enough to pull me around; and appealing rather than odd. Interestingly enough when you make an "average" person by combining many people's faces, the composite is usually more attractive than each individual face.

Competing Economic Policy

Economics has several competing schools of thought surrounding one major issue: the role of government intervention. Just like markets, economies are explained by supply and demand, specifically the demand of all people and companies within the economy and the supply of all companies. Specific government policies affect either demand or supply and are called demand-side and supply-side policies, respectively. Demand-side policies are things like taxation, government spending, or fiddling with interest rates, and these tend to work quickly, as policy goes. Supply-side policies are things like direct government provision (e.g. health care, oil), education, reducing impediments to business, and these policies generally take a long time to have an effect. Governments will always strive to increase supply as much as possible, because increased productivity reduces inflation and increases employment. Disagreement results from how best to increase supply and how to use demand-side policies.

The two main schools of thought in economics are the Neo-Classicalist and Neo-Keynesian schools. Neo-Classicalists believe that in the long run, supply will reach full employment of resources and be fixed, so increasing demand will cause inflation and decreasing demand will cause recession. Neo-Keynesians believe that you cannot reach full employment because the economy is constantly in flux, and the closer you get to fully employing resources the more inflation you have. Therefore Neo-Keynesians suggest using demand-side policies to balance inflation and employment.

There's a third school, the Austrian school, that goes further than Neo-Classicalists in condeming government intervention. All economists accept that markets are imperfect and therefore do not provide the socially optimum level of output, namely where both producers and consumers benefit the most. Some markets work fairly well, for instance the market for wheat in Canada produces as much wheat as consumers want, and farmers are happy so long as the weather is good. Some markets don't work well at all, like private health insurance, as we can see from the U.S., and work much better when run efficiently by governments (it's possible, I'll write about how at a later date.) While Neo-Classicalists advocate limited government intervention and Neo-Keynesians advocate substantial intervention, Austrian economists do not believe there should be any government intervention. They believe that while governments may have good intentions, the market they're trying to fix would be better if left alone. This is the economic basis for Libertarianism, and it is part of Ron Paul's platform. It's not as central as his opposition to the war in defining his candidacy, but small government and true conservative ideals are cornerstones of his platform.

The most compelling argument for libertarianism is philosophical and requires another post to discuss, but economic libertarianism ignores that fact that governments are the only agents that can address market failures. They're certainly not the best agents imaginable, but libertarians must acknowledge that some other entity must step into the role played by governments in addressing market failures. Hopefully this post will help you understand why the Swedes advocate government intervention, why conservatives talk about small government, and why libertarians don't want any government at all.

Short Post on Iraq

I was reading an article by Noam Chomsky, arguably the world's most famous intellectual, and he pointed out something I had to share. Those tried at the Nuremberg war trials were hung for crimes of aggression, specifically the illegal invasion of another country. The Bush administration and Congress have committed the same crime by preemptively invading Iraq, and yet those who call for Bush to be tried for war crimes are cast as left-wing crazies.

Technically, the U.S. is accountable to the U.N., but America's current position as superpower means the U.N. could never use this authority, and America could quite legitimately leave the U.N. if the organization went against its interests. By invading Iraq without U.N. support, it broke the same laws that the Nazis were killed for. America's supposed justifications for invading are far more tolerable than the Nazi ambitions of territory and ethnic purity, but America's real reasons for invasion are evil. Not as evil as the Nazis, but invading a country for strategic interests and the benefit of military corporations, and causing the deaths of several hundred thousand people justifies being tried for war crimes. And the current occupation of Iraq, resulting from the illegal and immoral preemptive invasion of the country, has no legitimacy and should be ended as quickly and painlessly as possible.

Living to Eat

Eating to live seems to be the philosophy of the vast majority of North Americans, as well as increasing numbers of people elsewhere. For me, this is a sad state of affairs because it encourages unhealthy eating habits and deprives people of the benefit that cooking brings. Convenient foods are expensive, unhealthy, less tasty, and environmentally damaging compared to the foods that they are replacing, and they don't save all that much time. Quick, prepared meals cause stress, not only by focusing on saving time rather than enjoying life, but also by making cooking a chore rather than a leisurely activity, as well as removing quality time that can be spent with your family. From my perspective, a lot of people's priorities are messed up. I think many people could become much happier if they put more effort into eating well.

There's a trade-off between eating well and saving a small amount of time. For me, this trade-off falls far to the side of eating well, mostly because I am an elitist much prefer homemade food and have lots of spare time. For my friend Zach, it falls to the side of saving time, because he has less spare time and much different tastes. Obviously, it makes sense for Zach to eat more prepared food and for me to eat more homemade food. So why did I say that people could become happier by cooking more of their own food, when Zach is fine with what he eats? A lot of people don't know that cooking can be simple, quick, and delicious, rather than expensive and unhealthy prepared food. A lot of people think that saving time will make them less stressed, when really they need to reshuffle their priorities. I'm not bothered by the concept of fast food, but I am bothered by ignorance of the consequences of eating fast food.

Principles of Economics

I admit that I have a limited education in economics compared to real economists, but most of my friends know even less than I do, so I thought a few posts on the subject could be interesting. However, economics is called "the dismal science," and cynics say that economists "know the price of everything and the value of nothing," so to make my explanation more enjoyable I made it... silly.

Economics is ultimately all about the allocation of resources, because everything from metals to energy to mangoes is finite, and what we want far exceeds what we each could have. To understand the allocation of resources, economists have come up with all kinds of definitions for specific aspects of this process. For instance, the fact that resources are finite while desires are infinite is called scarcity. For a very long time the way this was dealt with was that whatever you could produce was yours, and you could trade it for things that other people produced, which is of course called the bartering system. Eventually your efforts were rewarded with bits of shiny metals with some guy's face stamped on them, and this system is called price rationing. Up until recently, if you were living in certain areas there would be no reward for your production, and instead you would get a share of total production, which we call communism but economists called central planning. Today we still use price rationing, although modern money is made out of paper, the person depicted is often dead, and on Canadian $5 bills there are kids playing hockey.

But I'm not done defining yet. In an earlier post I mentioned opportunity cost, but I'll define it again as the specific cost resulting from a choice. In our system, every resource that has an opportunity cost associated with it has a price. Things like air and water are free because you don't have to give up beer to have air, but because pollution has an opportunity cost, clean air and water are not free. In fact, if you pay taxes then you're paying to keep air and water clean. Resources that you can hug, lick, and generally touch are called goods, such as steel and teddy bears, whereas resources like banking are called services. You cannot lick your bank account, and if you lick an ATM you will probably get sick. The sum of our general transactions for a given resource is a market, and a bunch of markets and some policy wonks form an economy.

In economic theory, demand and supply govern the functioning of a market. Apple products are in high demand, so although I'm not entirely sure why they are they all cost hundreds of dollars. Teddy bears, however, are in high supply, so they're fairly cheap. In reality, you can't measure demand and supply, and not many people apply economic theory to their weekly grocery shopping. Incentives explain the everyday choices that we make, and they are a very important part of economics because they bridge the gap between theory and reality. As you may have started to see, economics is involved in every aspect of our lives because it can be defined extremely broadly.

The study of incentives, called behavioral economics, is closely related to psychology, while international trade combines law, politics, and finance. Unfortunately the broader your scope, the less accurate you'll be when it comes to specifics, which is why the study of human behavior is better left to psychologists and the running of businesses is better taught in business classes. What economics does is that it ties all these different areas together to explain the very simple concept of resource allocation, but its study is important because resource allocation is so complicated. And ultimately, no matter what you think of economics, you have to acknowledge its importance.

Rationalism and Empiricism

Commentte, all ye who entter here, and do so on all ye postts ye finde.

I seem to have a knack for pretentious titles. I blame the TOK classes I took because they gave me jargon to use instead of trying to describe the words. Rationalism is the ideology that the world should be described by reason, and similarly empiricism believes it should be described through observation. Like most ideological bookends, everyone's beliefs fall somewhere in between, since no one rejects all observation and likewise no one can escape logical thinking. Our brain uses both rational and observational processes, so neither one can be discarded.

My personal beliefs are hard to place because although I highly value reason, as a scientist I also find observation very important. I cannot say which way I lean, so I'll just describe my philosophy. Like many atheists, if not all, I am a functionalist, i.e. the world is described physically and there is no mind-body dualism. (This is the gist of functionalism as I understand it. It's also called materialism, I think, but with different implications than the consumerism-related materialisms. Erk, too many isms.)

I do not believe in a separate "mind" or "soul" or other non-physical representation of ourselves, so all our experiences are defined by sensory input and the brain. Our behavior results from evolutionary processes, which is why I've been trying to describe morality so that it has a natural origin. Many people believe that existence cannot be adequately described by physical objects, but the reason people think so is because consciousness is so far removed from its physical origins. We are all 100 trillion little cellular robots, in the words of philosopher Daniel Dennett.* Our reality results ultimately from physical processes, and so reality can only be defined by observation. I am therefore, ultimately, an empiricist.

However the world can be approximated mathematically with fancy formulae, and since mathematics is based purely on logical consequences of given axioms, the world can be described logically. The world is still empirical, rather than rational, because even the best formulas result in approximations within a certain margin of error, but in the sense that the result always falls within the margin of error for good approximates, the math is still valid.

I'm also, in a paradoxically rather emotional way, quite rational (there's no reason why I require reasons.) I'm not as logical as many others, for example my roommate Himanshu makes conscious decisions is worth befriending, but I am certainly more rational than the norm. I love science because it is explanatory and it brings order to chaos (as well as chaos to the occasional seemingly ordinary phenomenon,) and I'm generally stable emotionally, being able to rationalize away most of my worries and be happy most of the time, but unlike Himanshu I respect my emotions as well. My respect probably results from the fact that when my rational, explanatory, stabilizing method breaks down, I become highly emotional indeed. You've witnessed this happening if you've ever seen me irritated or angry without any obvious reason to be. Seeing me truly angry is apparently an unpleasant experience, and I'm not proud of these occurrences, and I'm trying to keep a better hold of myself when I am emotional. At least you know what causes these outbursts now.

In employing Occam's Razor I require neither God nor souls, only what I can observe, and interestingly Occam's Razor is reason applied to observation. Succinctly, my beliefs reduce to rational explanations for an empirically derived reality.

*- If this post is at all interesting, or if you like optical illusions, I would suggest watching this presentation by the above-named philosopher.
**- I consider logic to be only "deductive" when discussing rationalism because inductive logic combines empiricism with deductive logic. Inductive logic is where predictions are made based on evidence, i.e If A and B and C and D etc. then Z, where A, B, C and D are observations and Z is an explanatory conclusion.)

This is Delicious

It's my lunch hour at work, and I'm digging into what's left of the ratatouille I made on Monday. Besides having a cool name ('ra-ta-too-ee' which I used to call rata-phooey when I was younger and everything with vegetables was gross,) it tastes great and is really easy. So I decided to share the recipe.

Ingredients
1/3 cup olive oil + extra

2 cups onions
3+ cloves garlic
2 cups quartered tomatoes
2 1/2 cups peeled, diced eggplant
2-3 cups zucchini in 2 cm slices.
4 green peppers, sliced thinly

Rice, couscous, pasta, or whatever.

Preparation

1. In a large pot, saute (fry) garlic and onions in 1/3 cup olive oil until golden. Reduce heat when they're almost done.
2. Pour garlic and onions into a bowl. Add vegetables to the pot in layers (two or so of each,) adding salt and pepper as you do. I'd suggest salting and peppering every other layer to avoid overdoing it.
3. Add garlic and onions back into the pot, drizzle olive oil over mess. Cover and simmer at very low heat for 45 minutes, stirring occasionally. Then remove lid and simmer for another 10 minutes to boil off (some of) the excess liquid.
4. Cook whatever you want to go with it. Rice works quite well as it absorbs the liquid and turns into super-rice. Pasta does not absorb quite so well.
5. CONSUME.

Now you know how to make it, so go. No really, you should make it some time. Even if you're like me and you don't like eggplant or zucchini, it'll still be good. Just make sure you peel the eggplant if you don't like eggplant. If you don't like vegetables at all, then there's something wrong with you and you should try it anyways.

Cooking, the Oliver Way

I have a unique cooking style, which I will demonstrate through the use of examples, contrasting the standard method and mine. I've included some baking examples

Pasta Sauces
Standard method: Chop up the vegetables you need. Fry onions and garlic etc., fry meat if using some, add liquids and simmer until ready.
Oliver method: Slowly but methodically chop up the vegetables. Take twice as much time as suggested in the recipe. Heat frying pan, burn garlic. Turn down heat, slowly warm onions to death. Turn up heat, burn more garlic. Add too much oil. Add other vegetables, cry as frying pan cools down too much again. Give up and add sauce. Have sauce refuse to boil. Turn up heat, sauce boils ferociously. Fiddle with heat, put the lid on, give up and have a glass of beer or wine. End up eating an hour later than intended. Wonder why, after all the mistakes, it still tastes great.

Omelettes
Standard method: Beat eggs. Pour over pan, cook, flip half and cook both sides.
Oliver method: Beat eggs. Pour over pan, cook, disintegrate half trying to flip it, swear, convert into scrambled eggs. Wonder why the hell people bother with omelettes when scrambled eggs are just as good.

Muffins
Standard method: mix dry ingredients, mix wet ingredients, combine, spoon into muffin tins, bake.
Oliver method: Take twice as much time to mix ingredients, spend half an hour spooning mix into muffin tins, bake. Wonder how a recipe for 24 muffins ends up as 18 muffins.

Bread
Standard method: combine ingredients, let rise, knead, bake.
Oliver method: Decide to make sourdough. Place in laundry room to turn sour. Check sourdough's progress daily as it grows, become sentient, and wages war against the towels.
Mix ingredients, let rise. Rub flour on hands to avoid getting dough stuck to hands and knead. Get dough stuck to hands. Add flour to dough. Add more flour. Add yet more flour and wonder how the hell the dough got so sticky. Give up and place on cookie sheet. Shape with hands, let rise more. Watch as bread turns into amorphous blob rather than pleasing shape. Wash hands. Spend 10 minutes trying to get all the goddamn dough off of hands. Cry into sink when dough is still covering hands. Finally free skin from sticky captor, bake bread. Mmm, bread.

Unfortunately, the Oliver method is losing originality and becoming more like the standard method as I gain experience, so one day I will no longer know the pleasure of soaking my hands in water for extended periods trying to get bread dough off, and my dishes will lack the subtle hint of slightly burned garlic. It only took me 5 minutes to dedoughify my hands this time!

Hey look, it's bread:

"Do no evil"

The title refers to Google's motto, an ideology that came under fire when it included censorship tools in its search software. As I've discussed before, corporations are mandated to act unethically if it is legal and profitable. Google had many reasons to expand into China that far outweighed the criticisms that it received, and while I ultimately agree with they decision, I don't think they should be allowed to keep their motto.

To launch Google China, the Chinese government required Google to filter out censored material, in order to maintain the "Great Firewall of China" that blocks content the government dislikes. Google claimed this was a necessary evil as part of the greater benefit of bringing Google's knowledge to China's many connected inhabitants, but many people disagreed with this claim and criticized the company for its action. Google's real motive was, as it should be, to expand into a rather large and profitable market, at the cost of some negative PR and no significant drop in searches in its other markets. I hardly doubt that many people decided to switch search engines as an act of protest, although critics should have done so to match their actions with their talk.

Obviously, Google's stated intentions can't always correlate to its mandated actions, but on the whole Google could argue that its ethics are part of its appeal and continued use, and are therefore necessary to remain profitable. Google's success, however, is based on its algorithms rather than its ethics, so it can hardly be expected to act purely ethically if The Body Shop, a corporation claims to be fiercely opposed to animal testing, sold products that were tested on animals! Minimizing evil is a perfectly acceptable action for the majority of corporations, as only those overlooked by the public eye can operate unethically without serious consequences, but no corporation can claim that it is entirely ethical.

(This post is something I thought about and could write up fairly quickly. I have a post, masquerading as an essay, in the works on extreme poverty, as well as one on the West's military-industrial complex, and one on my cooking and baking experiences. Guess which one's the funny one?)

Cigarettes and Food

You're probably already wondering what the title means, because cigarettes and food pretty distinct things. You need food to survive, and it will kill you relatively quickly if you don't consume it, while cigarettes kill you very slowly if you do consume them. Obviously both junk food and cigarettes are unhealthy, but excess fat or sugar are pretty harmless compared to nicotine and tar. Unless, of course, you consider the impact that unhealthy eating and smoking have on health, namely that heart disease and other diet-related factors kill more people than smoking does. Is there a connection after all? Quite simply, yes, and it's illustrated quite well by the fact that Kraft, one of the world's largest food processors, is owned by Phillip Morris, one of the world's largest tobacco companies.

Phillip Morris bought Kraft in the 80s, when litigation against Phillip Morris started to become a serious threat. No longer able to completely rely on tobacco products for continued profits, Phillip Morris diversified into ventures that would provide more reliable profits. Food processing is not a high-growth industry, but it is consistently profitable (people need to eat) and thus makes sense for a company looking for stability. The products are also, somewhat surprisingly, marketed in similar ways.

Unprocessed foods are generally healthier but less profitable than processed foods because processing involves additives that allow the product to be marked up for greater profit. As corporations, food processing companies' sole goal is to produce profit for their shareholders, which means marketing the unhealthy processed foods as strongly as possible. The concepts in advertising these food products sound quite similar to those used in advertising cigarettes: the products are not unhealthy (a claim cigarette companies gave up in the 80s), the consumer should have the choice to decide, and marketing to as young an age as possible is ethical. However, companies try to mask the damaging effects of their product, by labeling products as reduced fat when it still contains high levels of fat, for instance, and sow confusion about sound dietary advice.

Advertising to children is unethical, no matter what company is doing it. The tobacco company Camel faced overwhelming criticism when it introduced its Joe Camel cartoon character because it was found to appeal to children and thus form harmful lifelong dependencies. Unfortunately, food companies advertising to children face far less criticism, even though young children cannot make informed choices and have trouble differentiating between programming and advertisements, thus establishing possibly harmful lifelong consumption habits.

It would, however, go against the legal mandate of a corporation to take the moral high road and explain dietary advice properly, reducing sale of their profitable products, or stop advertising to children. Their sale of unhealthy products is very simple to oppose, though. Avoid products that are highly processed, and try to eat local food when you can, as this supports local farmers rather than agribusinesses (corporations), is better for the environment, and tastes better. I'm sure most of you are fairly knowledgeable about nutrition, but it may be worth your while to learn about the differences between the various kinds of fat, to avoid the confusion of "reduced fat" labels etc. Finally, ending advertising aimed at children is stopped most effectively by parents, who have control over their children's viewing habits and who can argue against schools bringing advertising into a learning environment. You could always write to your local political representative, though.

Essentially, the sooner we realize that all corporations have the same inherent flaw, namely that profit is their legal mandate, the sooner we can start working around that flaw and achieving a more enlightened business environment. What do I mean by this? I mean that if all consumers were educated, corporations would no longer have unethical practices because they would not be profitable. (This assumes that corporations cannot hide their actions from an educated populace, which is not unreasonable.) The connection between tobacco and food companies goes beyond mere ownership and shows how this flaw connects all corporations.

Next week: the connection between the mining and pharmaceutical industry! (Just kidding.)

Success in Iraq

The war in Iraq is not an issue I have examined closely and researched in order to understand historical context or actions that could end the conflict, but I have given some thought to the direction that the war could take in the future. The way I see it, there are basically two ways the U.S. can achieve its goals in Iraq: change its goals, or for the first time in history, that I know of at least, build a functional state through military occupation.

The goal of U.S. forces in Iraq is to establish a stable government that persists after it is gone. This is a goal that cannot be partially fulfilled- a government is either stable, or it is unstable. Changing this goal is therefore tantamount to failing without admitting that you failed. This is the U.S. government's current path, because I strongly doubt that withdrawing from Iraq in the near future would leave any semblance of government. That being said, withdrawal is preferable to the Bush administration's current plan of "Keep fucking up," but they're opposing Congress and the majority of Americans, so that plan will end when Bush's reign ends.

You might think it obvious that a lack of government in Iraq is bad, but the reasons why are subtle. Iraq is often compared to Vietnam, which is true because both wars were unjustified and highly unpopular. Two important differences are the nature of the opposition in both cases, and the economies of the two countries. The economy is important because the Vietnamese government currently likes the U.S. government, at least as a trading partner, and the public does not resent the U.S. because it has benefited from export-led economic development. The Iraqi people, on the other hand, would not benefit from trade because Iraq has oil, and oil often leads to inequality and corruption. Saudi Arabia may officially be an ally of the U.S., but its people have a militant dislike of the U.S.. Finally, as the U.S. left South Vietnam the Vietcong moved in, but there is no unified heir to power in Iraq. Rather, there's a brewing civil war between the various factions.

The only way I could see this civil war being averted was if Iraq had a government that could mollify and control the various factions. Unfortunately, historically governments are made by motivated citizens of the nation, not by occupying forces, but if the occupying forces leave then the government will be formed after the civil war, if at all. As I mentioned before, achieving its current goal would be a completely new event in history, to my knowledge. That doesn't make it impossible, just difficult. It would be one thing if the U.S. had popular support, at home or in Iraq, but it has neither. The U.S. would have to convince its people once more of the possibility of success, and then would have the impressive task of convincing the Iraqi people. On top of that it would have to unify the opposing factions to at least form a functioning government together. All of this would require a will and finesse of American politicians that rivals history's greatest leaders, and the U.S. currently has George W. Bush.

From the cases that I have read about, important reforms are brought about by motivated people who have power, charisma, and the intelligence to see what is necessary in the long run and bring it about. Both governments need people like this. The U.S. needs to decrease violence and improve living conditions in order to convince the Iraqi people to let them stay, which would require more soldiers and more money, both of which require the support of Congress, as well as presumably the American people. It is also possible for the U.S. to appeal to the rest of the world for assistance, but given the U.S. past actions this is unlikely. The Iraqi government would need to be reformed to allow participation of all factions, which would require the involvement of key religious figures, many of whom direct or condone the militant aspects of the factions. One idea is to separate Iraq into regions, by sect, that have greater autonomy, which would limit militants to their own zones. (I'm not sure Iraq can be separated this way, because Shiites and Sunnis seem pretty mixed.) The Iraqi security forces would also need to become effective, which would hopefully result from the U.S. funding and the reduction of sectarian tensions. This government would finally have to establish an economy that does not rely on U.S. assistance, as well as the various other functions that a state must fulfil.

My ideas are rough and fanciful, but you can see that nation-building appears to be an extremely difficult, but nonetheless possible, process. It would have been nice if the U.S. had tried some of these things three years ago, but wishful thinking doesn't make the world any better. I suppose that by now things have degraded to the point where success in Iraq truly is impossible, especially given the less-than-stellar presidential candidates running in the U.S. Iraq's future may be solely in the hands of the Iraqis, which unfortunately may become a more violent Iraq. It would hardly be good for world peace and stability (or the "War on Terror,") but may well be good for Iraq in the long run.

While on the subject, I would highly recommend watching this presentation on "How to fix broken states" by the ex-Afghan Financial minister Ashraf Ghani. He explains himself better than I could explain him.

Hiatus lol

In case you didn't notice, my posts have been pretty irregular recently. I've been spending a considerable amount of time browsing the internet, ignoring friends, procrastinating, and neglecting this blog as a result. I justify it because I learn some very interesting things from the websites that the StumbleUpon toolbar brings me to. I'm using it too much, though, and I need to prioritize. I want to read more books, something I've done very little of recently, and figure out what activities are worth my time. I also need to figure out where this blog is going to go. I started Indolent Activist because it gave me a focus, as well as an outlet for a side of myself I'm trying to cultivate. I'm not sure I want this blog to remain "Just Another Blog in the Wall." I may want somewhere I can post irrelevant things, or I may want to make it more significant. Until I've figured all of this out, this blog won't be getting much attention.

So there we are.

A Discussion of Terms: Gnosticism and Theism

For a long time, I called myself an agnostic. For a while, this was a pretty accurate label because I believed there was some undefined higher power that I knew nothing about. Eventually, I realized that there's no reason to assume that this higher power exists, but I still called myself agnostic because I don't deny that a God is possible, which is what I thought atheism entailed. I had a discussion with an atheist friend of mine, read a few websites, and watched a Richard Dawkins lecture or two, and realized that atheist was a better label for what I believed than agnosticism.

Discussions of agnosticism and atheism, at least within the people that care about which camp they fall into, tend to be fairly convoluted, resulting in terms like "weak" and "strong" atheism, "nontheism", etc. because they miss a fairly crucial point- agnosticism and atheism don't describe the same thing. A gnostic belief can be theist or atheist because the term gnostic (ignoring the historical definition of who the gnostics really were, and using it as the opposite of agnostic) implies that a belief is based on faith, while an agnostic belief acknowledges an uncertainty in the truth of the belief. Gnostic belief is irrational, agnostic belief is rational. There are many rational theists who choose to believe in a God even though they only have personal reasons for their belief, and there are irrational atheists who claim to know that there is no God. This is a much more elegant explanation than having agnostics be people the believe in something but say they're not sure whereas atheists are people who say God doesn't exist.

The Death of the American Dream

Just as a point of interest, this post started as a criticism of suburbs, then a rant against the priorities of those living in gated communities, and now it's a rant against the mistaken ideals of American-style (and thus Canadian) society.

The American dream is a powerful idea for a great many people, as it represents the ideal that merit alone will make you successful, and it can be summed up that in America, through hard work and intelligence you can become rich. While there are many cases in which someone has brought themselves from poverty to astounding wealth completely on their own, as a whole the American dream is dead. I'm not even sure it was alive.

Achieving wealth is no easy feat in the current social climate, reflected in figures showing the widening gap between the rich and the poor as well as descriptions of America being not so much a melting-pot as a centrifuge. If the American dream were true, then the deserving lower-class citizens would be achieving their goal of the ideal American life, and the middle-class would grow. Instead, the middle-class is fragmenting, with the upper-middle class having more wealth, and the lower-middle class having to take on more debt to live the life they feel they deserve.

The American dream promises equality of opportunity instead of equality of wealth. However, it is quickly clear the opportunities are not equal. The disparity starts when wealthy parents send their children to private schools while a poorer but more intelligent child is forced to struggle through public school. And given the huge financial cost of university, many intelligent and motivated but poorer students cannot attend a prestigious college while a richer student, especially if his parents have good connections, can. Finally, a university diploma no longer guarantees a range of good opportunities, but being rich and well-connected is. With money opening doors at every step of life, how can it be claimed that America is a land of equal opportunity?

One of the major causes of inequality of opportunity, and the resulting increasing disparity between the rich and the poor, is a misplaced set of priorities. As wealth becomes harder to obtain, people can either race for the glorious prestige of a huge house with a huge TV and a huge car in a walled, guarded community, or they can examine why this trend is occurring to begin with. The two are exclusive because by fighting your way to the top, the cost you unwittingly inflict on society ensures that inequality will increase. If everyone, everywhere examined the cost of their actions and weighed them against their personal benefit so as to minimize cost while maximizing benefit, then a great many social problems would become easier to address.

Destruction as a Business

If I ever wanted to open my own business, this is probably what I'd do. I, like most other human beings, like destroying things. Preferably without causing any harm, in fact. But destruction often is harmful, so there's no real outlet for my wish to destroy things. That's why I think it would be awesome if someone were to build such an outlet, in the form of a giant warehouse, where you can go and annihilate things.

There are almost endless possibilities for things that you can break. Give people goggles, a sledgehammer, and a room full of porcelain and tell them to go nuts. Give them a (dull) sword and planks of balsa wood. Give them a button that sets off a flamethrower. Show me a person who doesn't want to blow shit up, and I'll show you someone who's repressed that aspect of their character. Well, okay, maybe there are some Buddhist monks that wouldn't tear paper in anger, but scientists claim that the majority of the population are not monks. Come on, this is the ultimate stress relief.

No, tearing shit up with a sledgehammer will not solve your problems. But for added business potential, offer counseling on the side. Psychiatrists to deal with stress, anger, or the occasional psycho, and they can solve the problems that violence won't. Violence is just a hell of a lot more fun.

Rocking Out

I went out this morning and bought myself a Fender Frontman 15R amplifier (I forgot that word. It's kinda crucial for understanding the rest of the post.) That is guitar-speak for "fucking awesome," I believe. Because I've had it for a day and I'm having a blast. It sounds great, it's louder than I'd ever need it to be, and it has a mysterious "reverb" knob that I'm told could be cool. Well, I know roughly what it does, I just don't know how to use it. Then again, I've had my guitar for two? three? years now and I'm only making full use of the various pick-ups now. (Pick-ups turn the vibrations of the strings into an electrical signal. My guitar has three, with five combinations total.)

I started playing guitar more than six years ago when I had a guitar class in the second half of 8th grade. I liked playing it, enough so that I got my parents to buy me a cheap guitar and pay for lessons. My guitar teacher fixed the bad habits I'd gotten into, and soon I could play Beatles and Johnny Be Good. It was fun, and I had lessons on and off for four years, but I never practiced enough to get really good. I felt kind of bad, since some weeks I wouldn't even pick up my guitar between lessons, but over the years I became a fairly competent guitar player.

There are many songs in my guitar book that I have forgotten how to play, and a lot of songs that I don't know in full, but my technical skill isn't bad. I want to become better though. I want to learn a lot more songs, entire ones even, and I want to start making some of my own. Right now, I'm thinking Jimi Hendrix would be cool. I'd be learning "Hey Joe" right now except my wrist is killing me- too much guitar. But with some effort, I'll be able to proudly say that yes, I play guitar.

I can't remember who it was, but some musician pointed out how odd it is that so many people say music is their life when they don't play an instrument, let alone actually live off of that instrument. If you truly love music, why not give a shot at playing some yourself? That's not to say that if you don't play an instrument, then you don't truly love music. It's just that if you do, it's more fun to rock out than to be a passive consumer.

The Intelligent Design Controversy

Yes, I am tackling this subject. At its heart, the arguments of both sides are not very sophisticated, but the issue is muddied by lack of decent explanation and strong convictions that it may take years before it is clear. I aim to clarify the matter somewhat.

The premise of Intelligent Design is that evolution cannot explain certain natural phenomena, with the conclusion being that an intelligence had a hand in the design of life. It's not a bad argument, so far as these things go, because while it relies on the lack of scientific evidence explaining those phenomena, it does not exclude evidence being found. It's not science, though, as that requires evidence and falsifiability. Finally, it's easily resolved: it's false. There are no phenomena that seemingly defy evolution that scientists have not resolved.

Evolution has mountains of evidence supporting its operation since the earliest life we have found. Claims saying that the fossil record does not exist, that carbon and other dating techniques are false, or that we have never come across new species coming into existence are wrong. The evidence disproves such claims- there's no scientific conspiracy trying to cover it up, or anything remotely like that. There are areas where the specific operation of evolution is not well understood, due to gaps in the fossil record or that the area has not been fully investigated, but there is no evidence contradicting evolution. Supporters of intelligent design jumped on the concept of irreducible complexity, which postulates that certain biological mechanisms do not work if a single piece is missing, but all the examples presented for this hypothesis have been shown to be false. That yeah, actually, look that bacterium has a simpler version of that mechanism.

One thing that evolution does not explain, and does not claim to explain, is the origin of life. Scientists have a hypothesis for the origin of life, but obviously the environmental conditions of the early earth, given millions of years (about a billion in total) with which to work, make it hard to test any hypothesis. The current line of thinking is that organic molecules were spontaneously synthesized (shown experimentally,) including possibly RNA as a carrier of information, that replication and synthesis of enzymes occurred (also shown experimentally), and that membranes formed. In combination, given a huge time period to work with, membrane-enclosed replication with DNA and protein synthesis, i.e. life, could be possible. However, a lack of evidence for this hypothesis does not mean that life was engineered intelligently. Maybe a hole to another universe formed, accidentally spilling some life into ours. That's about as likely as an external creator.

The question that remains in my mind is- why are we having this debate? There's no evidence that evolution doesn't work- if some were found, and scientists were genuinely stumped, then this debate would have a valid reason. But there is none. So no, intelligent design should not be taught in classrooms, and it should not claim to disprove evolution. Believe in a creator if you will- you will not be contradicting science until you start to make claims that the Earth is carried on the back of a turtle, that two homo sapiens are the ancestors of every human alive, or that evolution is false. You will have to resolve such quandaries yourself, along with quandary that the universe is terribly unkind to life, and that nature also fucks us up a lot.

Why I write

Judging by the fact that I have written four posts and received zero comments in 2007, one might conclude that no one reads this blog. In actuality, I think I have had one reader that didn't comment. One might conclude that writing the blog is a silly endeavor if hardly anyone reads it. One is stupid. Fuck you, one.

If anything, I write this more for myself than for anyone else. Most of my friends find it too troublesome to read regularly; others will occasionally visit and read all the posts that I've written since they last visited. Importantly, it has occurred to me that if you want to know who I really am- what I believe, what I think about, what I feel strongly about- you have to either read this blog or have extended conversations with me. My parents, for instance, don't know much about what I write about. I don't hide my convictions, it's just not something that comes up often when I'm living with them.

Writing in this blog has several advantages, I find. For one thing, it documents my thoughts over time- like a journal, only I never kept a journal and find a blog better. For another, writing so that others will read means I have to organize my thoughts more clearly. Finally, it means you can read it. Yes, you.

Independent World Television

Indepedent World Television is an organisation that aims to create independent, investigative, and fair journalism. Rather than being owned by a corporation, it is funded by donations. It has no ads, and is beholden to no larger entity. It aims to create real journalism, that is unafraid to ask the important questions and that will look at the important issues. Actually, there are a lot of videos on the website that explain the need for such an organization. Go check them out.

I, frankly, love this idea. There are no good major news networks. FoxNews spews its fair and balanced conservative bullshit, CNN reports on exactly how many soldiers died in that helicopter crash, and not one of them asks the important questions or reports on any issue for reasons other than sensationalism. Yellow journalism has become the de facto standard, but IWT seems set to change that. The videos they have so far are really interesting, and I eagerly await the launch of their Beta (i.e. online) news channel.

Another thing that IWT aims to do that current news stations do not is provide an international perspective- Indians reporting on Indian news, Columbians explaining what's really going on, maybe even Iraqis given their own voice. To put this in perspective, before I met Isabel I thought kidnappings and violence was common throughout Columbia, which is not the case.

Long live independent everything! Down with the corporation! But really, long live independent journalism.

The Price of Everything

Economists have this concept that they quite like called "opportunity cost." Only an economist could love such an unwieldy term. Most definitions textbooks give are rather complicated, so I'll provide the simplest one I can think of: the (non-monetary) cost of making a choice. It's the reason some asshole coined "Time is money," namely that his time is valuable because he could be making money at that very second if he wasn't talking to you. By choosing to converse rather than say, calling his broker, he has lost whatever benefit he might have gotten from that call.

The reason that the economists who deal with opportunity cost love it so much is because it is a very powerful explanatory tool. It explains price, for instance. If we could have whatever we wanted, what we wanted would far exceed what there is to go around (another beloved economic concept known as scarcity,) so we have to make decisions about what we actually want. Those who control the resources ration assign a price based on how much people value that resource.

Opportunity cost explains more than just price, though, which is why it's not a number. If it only explained price, you could say "Well I can have coke for $1.00 or water for $0.50, so the opportunity cost of drinking coke is $0.50." If it worked like that, you could also say "Well I can have water for $0.50, or nothing for free, so if I drink nothing I'll save $0.50." True, but you'll also die. Which leads me to my next point, that life is finite. We have a limited time on this planet, so every waking second is spent making decisions. Opportunity cost provides a rudimentary model for the choices we make, namely that we minimize the cost. This often fails in the short term when we do something like drink until we vomit, or in the extreme case that someone drinks until they die, but generally we choose the option that is the best for us.

The First Cause

The First Cause refers to the fact that due to cause and effect, there must have been an initial cause that had the effect of creating the universe. I once had a lengthy and convoluted but interesting argument about the First Cause with some friends of mine that began at one in the morning and carried on into the night. I can't even remember when exactly I had it, but I think it was at my 18th birthday party.

As early as we can tell, the creation of our universe began with a sudden explosion. Not in the sense that there's this cubic bomb of matter that created everything, but that there was an insanely large expansion. Before said explosion, time and space did not exist, so it's not like there's this ball chilling and waiting to explode. If all matter was compressed into a point (or whatever), it would have to explode. That's all it could do, because an action requires time to happen.

Now, this doesn't seem to make very much sense. It's much nicer to have a big bearded guy or whatever creation myth you want pop into existence, create the universe, and do whatever. This agrees with our concepts of creation and of cause and effect. You have a cause, the deity, that exists outside of time and thus can create universes and bend rules.

Now, that's the first solution. The second solution is to sort of say, there is no first cause, there's a first effect. Boom, universe created. It either causes itself or has no cause. No creator necessary. This is the one I agree with. I do not feel that something so astounding as the creation of the universe requires anything besides itself. One theory (that seems to disagree with the evidence) is that the universe expands and compresses. Once it's compressed, time disappears, so we can't see the next explosion, but it would undergo another explosion. So the universe was always there and always will be there. However, you can imagine what you will, but with the second solution you don't have to assume anything.

My problem with the first solution is that anything is possible. We're no longer in the universe, so the cube can will itself into existence, the creator can will itself and a cube into existence, or a University of Worldbuilders can will itself and a creator and a cube into existence. You could even have a whole other universe will itself and a university and a creator and a cube into existence, but at this point you've snorted enough coke. Rather than going down this path, I'll just say there's no need for a first cause. You can have your God if you wish, but you have as much reason for your God as you would for that University, and you're still making things infinitely more complicated.

(Post partially inspired by Richard Dawkins. If you don't know the name, look him up. He's a fairly important scientist.)

MMVI in Review

Yesterday was the first day of a new year, according to the Gregorian calendar and our planetary-based concepts of "days" and "years." This is my eighteenth such "New Year." One might think that after eighteen of such years, this would be an event of little significance. But as those who I celebrated with can attest, I love New Years. It's not hard to: New Years implies friends, fireworks, possibly fire, and alcohol. And that is a fun if a little volatile mixture. However, as time passes from one year to the next, we waltz (possible drunkenly) from and old chapter of our lives to a new one.

The previous chapter is a rather interesting one. I turned eighteen, graduated high school, and entered university, all rather significant milestones. I moved to a new city in an old country, left behind old friends and gained new ones, stayed on a ship for nine days, and biked for two days straight (circumstances dictated it could not be more.) In the world, the ice caps melted a little, Iraq become more of a mess, Bush became even more unpopular (and the US Congress performed a changing of the guard,) the world cleaned up after the tsunami, Katrina devastated New Orleans, and I became slightly more passionate about my beliefs. For me, 2006 was a good year, and I've matured since the last New Year.

Now, I can't reasonably predict that the next chapter will be as interesting as the last, seeing as how it's been 2007 for about thirty and a half hours. I think that it will be, though, and here's why. University will become more serious next semester. Global politics will become more serious as more shit hits the fan, but hopefully real progress will be made addressing those problems. And I'm going to become more serious about several things in my life. In response to the two things I just named, I will become more studious (almost automatically, as more challenge means more interest,) and more open about my political and environmental concerns. Hopefully without irritating anyone. I'm also going to try to gain (back?) weight, as I do not want to be skinny, and definitely do not want to be skinnier, and become more active (for instance, I'm going to start climbing regularly.)

Here's to a good MMVII.