I think someone needs to invent a handsign, most urgently for use by drivers.
There are many signs we already have available:
The finger. Needs no comment.
Raising hand. Acknowledgment of someone who has yielded right of way.
Thumbs up. Approval.
Thumbs down. Disapproval.
Fluttering flat hand. Ambivalence.
Thumb and finger in a circle with others wide (finger spelling "f"): Perfect.
Waving "hi". Generic friendly gesture.
Peace sign. Nearly as generic friendly gesture.
What about a sign that says "I am sorry, I apologize"? I have sometimes wished I had such a sign when I inadvertently make a mistake while driving. In response to a horn blast, waving "hi" or the peace sign or thumbs up can indicate friendly intentions, but they can also be interpreted as dismissal of the situation, as in "Don't have a cow, man". Even if few drivers ever gave the "I'm sorry" signal, it still might have a noticeable effect. Occasional validation could quiet the sort of person who might go over the edge to road rage.
There are some possibilities, but none is a simple hand sign and all are hard to observe: A facial wince or mouthing the words "I'm sorry" could serve the purpose, as could scrunching one's head down to convey the "guilty" concept. Putting palm to forehead as in "doh!" might serve but is also lacking in visibility.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Aliens are bountiful but unreachable
It is common to wonder about whether there are intelligent civilizations elsewhere in the universe, and if so, why we haven't heard from them. Here is one link that discusses the issue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox
Here is how I see it:
It is overwhelmingly likely that intelligent life has arisen elsewhere in the universe millions of times. We believe we are on an average star in an average galaxy, with nothing from the realm of astronomy indicating we are special. Any time in the past we have considered ourselves to be special, we have been wrong (our culture fundamentally greater than other cultures, our species fundamentally different from other species, our planet the center of the universe). Among gazillions of possible stars and planets, it is conservative to estimate millions of instances of intelligent life.
The failure to detect such other civilizations casts no doubt on this conclusion. Of all the possibilities that have been put forth for why we have not detected aliens, one observation suffices: Relative to the density and longevity of technological civilizations, the laws of physics prevent economically feasible ways of moving among the stars.
If there were a truly easy way of moving among the stars as simple as some sort of instantaneous jump from one point to another, some one of the millions of other civilizations would have discovered it and taken advantage of it. They would be here already. If the effort required were substantial, then it would be less likely and depend heavily on how dense civilizations are.
Those who are sanguine about the possibilities of interstellar exploration and colonization remind us that our world is full of technological marvels that earlier generations could not have predicted. They are correct that we should not rule out interstellar-enabling technologies based on what we understand of science and technology today. But it would be a worse folly to claim that it is only our limited mindset that makes us doubt the discovery of every technology we find appealing. We cannot say that any future technology that excites our imagination is impossible, but we certainly cannot say that it is inevitable. The persuasive evidence that easy interstellar travel cannot be achieved is that none of the millions of other civilizations has achieved it.
Life on earth has a tendency to spread into all available niches, and people reasonably expect that the same process would apply to the colonization of space. If we assume humans discovered the requisite technology, exponential expansion requires the discovery of planets that not only can support human life but where it can thrive to the point of serving as a basis for a further round of exploration and colonization. Planets that would allow human life to thrive might be considerably less common than planets with other intelligent life forms, which might evolve in considerably different environments. Human-friendly planets might also be inhabited by civilizations that, whatever their initial friendliness, would not be so friendly to the idea of being colonized, and could use their huge advantages in local resources to prevent it.
Detecting an alien presence in the electromagnetic spectrum seems much more likely. It is a function of how dense intelligent life is in the universe, how long it lasts in a detectable form, and how sensitive our detection technologies are. Failure to detect other civilizations will not cast doubt on their existence. As our technologies increase and we find no aliens, our estimate of the density of life in the universe will simply go down.
It is overwhelmingly likely that intelligent life abounds elsewhere in the universe, and overwhelmingly unlikely that we will ever communicate with any of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox
Here is how I see it:
It is overwhelmingly likely that intelligent life has arisen elsewhere in the universe millions of times. We believe we are on an average star in an average galaxy, with nothing from the realm of astronomy indicating we are special. Any time in the past we have considered ourselves to be special, we have been wrong (our culture fundamentally greater than other cultures, our species fundamentally different from other species, our planet the center of the universe). Among gazillions of possible stars and planets, it is conservative to estimate millions of instances of intelligent life.
The failure to detect such other civilizations casts no doubt on this conclusion. Of all the possibilities that have been put forth for why we have not detected aliens, one observation suffices: Relative to the density and longevity of technological civilizations, the laws of physics prevent economically feasible ways of moving among the stars.
If there were a truly easy way of moving among the stars as simple as some sort of instantaneous jump from one point to another, some one of the millions of other civilizations would have discovered it and taken advantage of it. They would be here already. If the effort required were substantial, then it would be less likely and depend heavily on how dense civilizations are.
Those who are sanguine about the possibilities of interstellar exploration and colonization remind us that our world is full of technological marvels that earlier generations could not have predicted. They are correct that we should not rule out interstellar-enabling technologies based on what we understand of science and technology today. But it would be a worse folly to claim that it is only our limited mindset that makes us doubt the discovery of every technology we find appealing. We cannot say that any future technology that excites our imagination is impossible, but we certainly cannot say that it is inevitable. The persuasive evidence that easy interstellar travel cannot be achieved is that none of the millions of other civilizations has achieved it.
Life on earth has a tendency to spread into all available niches, and people reasonably expect that the same process would apply to the colonization of space. If we assume humans discovered the requisite technology, exponential expansion requires the discovery of planets that not only can support human life but where it can thrive to the point of serving as a basis for a further round of exploration and colonization. Planets that would allow human life to thrive might be considerably less common than planets with other intelligent life forms, which might evolve in considerably different environments. Human-friendly planets might also be inhabited by civilizations that, whatever their initial friendliness, would not be so friendly to the idea of being colonized, and could use their huge advantages in local resources to prevent it.
Detecting an alien presence in the electromagnetic spectrum seems much more likely. It is a function of how dense intelligent life is in the universe, how long it lasts in a detectable form, and how sensitive our detection technologies are. Failure to detect other civilizations will not cast doubt on their existence. As our technologies increase and we find no aliens, our estimate of the density of life in the universe will simply go down.
It is overwhelmingly likely that intelligent life abounds elsewhere in the universe, and overwhelmingly unlikely that we will ever communicate with any of it.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
The missing grandchildren
It has been known for some time that the population in most of the industrialized world is not reproducing sufficiently to replace itself. (The national populations may be growing, but that is due to immigration from the non-industrialized nations.) Almost all children survive to adulthood, but women and men have on average less than one child each (the demographers always measure this as children per woman, not children per person, but that makes a low birthrate sound like women's fault alone, or, if one favors a low birthrate, their accomplishment alone).
Progressive thinkers on the subject of population growth note that when people achieve some measure of security and prosperity, birth rates drop. They have now dropped below replacement rate. One major reason is that as reliable birth control becomes more widely available, people can plan their family size. Why do people want fewer children?
I suggest that one reason is that there are more interesting things to do. As all parents know, children are a source of great joy, but also of great exasperation and drudgery. For the poor where life itself is largely drudgery, the joy might stand out more than some extra drudgery. For those who are better off, life in general is more pleasant. Interesting careers are available to many people -- even ones we consider dull may be far more interesting than back-breaking agricultural labor. Labor-saving devices make housework far less demanding. There is leisure time and vacation time and many interesting ways to spend it. How does parenthood look against that background? At an emotional level, children are just as exasperating as ever, and the need for constant supervision remains the domain of people, not labor-saving devices. Without children, there is far more time for plain old fun, and more money to pay for the fun too. Occasional visits with a niece or nephew can allow a sampling of the fun part of parenthood.
Exacerbating this problem is America's highly child-centered culture. It is the norm for parents to spend as much time with their children each day as other commitments allow, or to drive them to out-of-home enriching experiences. When today's children reach the point of deciding whether or not to have children, what will they recall? They will recall that their parents' lives were consumed by taking care of children, and it may not be a commitment they want to take on.
People growing up in the 1950s or 1960s may remember a childhood where it was up to them to find their own toys and their own amusement. They were on their own after school until supper without parental intervention. The parents were doing their own activities in the evenings, albeit with occasional interruptions. That allowed far more time for the parents to pursue their own personal pleasures. That version of parenthood may be one that anyone, notably today's young adults, would be more likely to embark on. But it is not an option they can easily choose. If they did, they would be censured for neglecting their children.
It is true that if a person has poor memories of their own childhood, they may not want to have children either. But the main benefits of the child-centered culture to children are in their accomplishments and their safety, not their happiness. I speculate that in moving from 1950s childrearing to 2000s childrearing, parents have lost far more in autonomy than children have gained in happiness.
The counterintuitive result may be that the more effort we put into enriching our children's lives, the less likely we are to have grandchildren.
Progressive thinkers on the subject of population growth note that when people achieve some measure of security and prosperity, birth rates drop. They have now dropped below replacement rate. One major reason is that as reliable birth control becomes more widely available, people can plan their family size. Why do people want fewer children?
I suggest that one reason is that there are more interesting things to do. As all parents know, children are a source of great joy, but also of great exasperation and drudgery. For the poor where life itself is largely drudgery, the joy might stand out more than some extra drudgery. For those who are better off, life in general is more pleasant. Interesting careers are available to many people -- even ones we consider dull may be far more interesting than back-breaking agricultural labor. Labor-saving devices make housework far less demanding. There is leisure time and vacation time and many interesting ways to spend it. How does parenthood look against that background? At an emotional level, children are just as exasperating as ever, and the need for constant supervision remains the domain of people, not labor-saving devices. Without children, there is far more time for plain old fun, and more money to pay for the fun too. Occasional visits with a niece or nephew can allow a sampling of the fun part of parenthood.
Exacerbating this problem is America's highly child-centered culture. It is the norm for parents to spend as much time with their children each day as other commitments allow, or to drive them to out-of-home enriching experiences. When today's children reach the point of deciding whether or not to have children, what will they recall? They will recall that their parents' lives were consumed by taking care of children, and it may not be a commitment they want to take on.
People growing up in the 1950s or 1960s may remember a childhood where it was up to them to find their own toys and their own amusement. They were on their own after school until supper without parental intervention. The parents were doing their own activities in the evenings, albeit with occasional interruptions. That allowed far more time for the parents to pursue their own personal pleasures. That version of parenthood may be one that anyone, notably today's young adults, would be more likely to embark on. But it is not an option they can easily choose. If they did, they would be censured for neglecting their children.
It is true that if a person has poor memories of their own childhood, they may not want to have children either. But the main benefits of the child-centered culture to children are in their accomplishments and their safety, not their happiness. I speculate that in moving from 1950s childrearing to 2000s childrearing, parents have lost far more in autonomy than children have gained in happiness.
The counterintuitive result may be that the more effort we put into enriching our children's lives, the less likely we are to have grandchildren.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Contests of power and contests of discrimination
In World War II, we often knew where the German troops were located, but it was difficult and dangerous and a chancy matter to defeat them. Our power has grown to the point that in the initial stages of the Iraq war, we had no difficulty defeating Saddam Hussein’s armed forces. Any military target we could locate, we could destroy. We had a far more difficult time defeating them once they gave up their tanks and started using far less sophisticated weapons*. The problem has changed from one of a contest of power to a question of discrimination, in the original sense of “telling things apart”. We cannot easily defeat Iraqi fighters because we cannot easily distinguish them from the Iraqi population, which we do not want to destroy. The situation was almost the same in Vietnam.
The same progression has happened with our nonhuman foes. It has been some time since we had a raw contest of power with lions, tigers and bears. We have no trouble defeating them (so little, indeed, that such animals became endangered species). We can exterminate smaller foes such as rats and bugs in our houses, and the main difficulty is how to avoid poisoning the human residents at the same time. In the wild, the problem is how to avoid poisoning the rest of the ecosystem. Our most serious foes today are bacteria and viruses. It is easy enough to destroy them, as we do every time we sterilize medical instruments. The problem is destroying them while preserving the human bodies they live within. The most difficult discrimination problem is cancer, tissue that is so similar to us that it IS us, a small part run amok.
*This is a description of how things are, not how they should be. In writing dispassionately about how to destroy targets in Iraq, I am not addressing directly the question of whether that is a good idea. I do not intend this essay as a prescription for doing anything differently, just perhaps a slightly differently way of looking at things. But this perspective can be brought to bear on various other human conflicts too.
The same progression has happened with our nonhuman foes. It has been some time since we had a raw contest of power with lions, tigers and bears. We have no trouble defeating them (so little, indeed, that such animals became endangered species). We can exterminate smaller foes such as rats and bugs in our houses, and the main difficulty is how to avoid poisoning the human residents at the same time. In the wild, the problem is how to avoid poisoning the rest of the ecosystem. Our most serious foes today are bacteria and viruses. It is easy enough to destroy them, as we do every time we sterilize medical instruments. The problem is destroying them while preserving the human bodies they live within. The most difficult discrimination problem is cancer, tissue that is so similar to us that it IS us, a small part run amok.
*This is a description of how things are, not how they should be. In writing dispassionately about how to destroy targets in Iraq, I am not addressing directly the question of whether that is a good idea. I do not intend this essay as a prescription for doing anything differently, just perhaps a slightly differently way of looking at things. But this perspective can be brought to bear on various other human conflicts too.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
A Darwinian Left
In a previous post to this list about Steven Pinker's "The Blank Slate" I jumped straight to hot-button issues concerning innate differences among humans without laying out his more fundamental observation, which is that we humans have profound innate similarities. I liked this summary by another author of where I think the recognition of innate human nature leaves us:
"We should not:
Deny the existence of human nature, nor insist that human nature is inherently good, nor that it is infinitely malleable.
Expect to end all conflict and strife between human beings, whether by political revolution, social change, or better education.
Assume that all inequalities are due to discrimination, prejudice, oppression or social conditioning. Some will be, but this cannot be assumed in every case.
We should:
Accept that there is such a thing as human nature, and seek to find out more about it, so that policies can be grounded on the best available evidence of what human beings are like.
Reject any inference from what is 'natural' to what is 'right'.
Expect that, under different social and economic systems, many people will act competitively in order to enhance their own status, gain a position of power, and/or advance their interests and those of their kin.
Expect that, regardless of the social and economic system in which they live most people will respond positively to genuine opportunities to enter into mutually beneficial forms of cooperation.
Promote structures that foster cooperation rather than competition, and attempt to channel competition into socially desirable ends.
Stand by the traditional values of the left by being on the side of the weak, poor and oppressed, but think very carefully about what social and economic changes will really work to benefit them."
I also thought this was apt:
"Wood carvers presented with a piece of timber and a request to make wooden bowls from it do not simply begin carving according to a design drawn up before they have seen the wood. Instead they will examine the material with which they are to work, and modify their design in order to suit its grain. Political philosophers and the revolutionaries or reformers who have followed them have all too often worked out their ideal society, or their reforms, and sought to apply them without knowing much about the human beings who must carry out, and live with, their plans. Then, when the plans don't work, they blame traitors within their ranks, or sinister agents of outside forces, for the failure. Instead, those seeking to reshape society must understand the tendencies inherent in human beings, and modify their abstract ideals to suit them."
The quotes above are from a short book by Peter Singer, "A Darwinian Left" (1999). Although I do not agree with everything he stands for, I thought those passages were excellent.
Adding my own take on one key point, I would note that Darwin and evolutionary science say not one iota about how things ought to be, only about how they are. It's very hard to know the ultimate source of our values and goals; they are the product in some fashion of our culture, our history, our ideas, and our human nature. But it is neither correct nor desirable to give "human nature" any special status in that list. Where "human nature" matters a great deal is when we contemplate transforming our society. It lets us estimate the chances of success in meeting our goals, allowing us to make wise compromises between what we would like and what is possible.
"We should not:
Deny the existence of human nature, nor insist that human nature is inherently good, nor that it is infinitely malleable.
Expect to end all conflict and strife between human beings, whether by political revolution, social change, or better education.
Assume that all inequalities are due to discrimination, prejudice, oppression or social conditioning. Some will be, but this cannot be assumed in every case.
We should:
Accept that there is such a thing as human nature, and seek to find out more about it, so that policies can be grounded on the best available evidence of what human beings are like.
Reject any inference from what is 'natural' to what is 'right'.
Expect that, under different social and economic systems, many people will act competitively in order to enhance their own status, gain a position of power, and/or advance their interests and those of their kin.
Expect that, regardless of the social and economic system in which they live most people will respond positively to genuine opportunities to enter into mutually beneficial forms of cooperation.
Promote structures that foster cooperation rather than competition, and attempt to channel competition into socially desirable ends.
Stand by the traditional values of the left by being on the side of the weak, poor and oppressed, but think very carefully about what social and economic changes will really work to benefit them."
I also thought this was apt:
"Wood carvers presented with a piece of timber and a request to make wooden bowls from it do not simply begin carving according to a design drawn up before they have seen the wood. Instead they will examine the material with which they are to work, and modify their design in order to suit its grain. Political philosophers and the revolutionaries or reformers who have followed them have all too often worked out their ideal society, or their reforms, and sought to apply them without knowing much about the human beings who must carry out, and live with, their plans. Then, when the plans don't work, they blame traitors within their ranks, or sinister agents of outside forces, for the failure. Instead, those seeking to reshape society must understand the tendencies inherent in human beings, and modify their abstract ideals to suit them."
The quotes above are from a short book by Peter Singer, "A Darwinian Left" (1999). Although I do not agree with everything he stands for, I thought those passages were excellent.
Adding my own take on one key point, I would note that Darwin and evolutionary science say not one iota about how things ought to be, only about how they are. It's very hard to know the ultimate source of our values and goals; they are the product in some fashion of our culture, our history, our ideas, and our human nature. But it is neither correct nor desirable to give "human nature" any special status in that list. Where "human nature" matters a great deal is when we contemplate transforming our society. It lets us estimate the chances of success in meeting our goals, allowing us to make wise compromises between what we would like and what is possible.
Local peace vs Global peace
Over the years I have heard a variety of proposals and strategies for achieving a more peaceful and harmonious world. I have worked for some of them, and I can't think of one I have been opposed to. Yet I find myself with some critical thoughts.
Violence covers a spectrum from what goes on between friends and family, up through larger groups to the question of violence between nations. There is a widespread sense that this constitutes a single thing, an aspect of life that calls for a single approach. Between family and friends, within workplaces, within a group such as FUSN, the proper methods to eliminate violence include personal ones. Adopting a more peaceful inner state is important. Teaching nonviolent conflict resolution, learning about appropriate ways to manage anger, and empathy with others' points of views -- all are important.
But people often say that these transformations are the way to work towards nonviolence in the world of international relations. "Peace: Let it begin with me." "The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step."
I disagree. At the level of national and international politics, these are not what matter. The idea of a Department of Peace perplexes me, and I feel ambivalent about the draft UU proposal: "Should the Unitarian Universalist Association reject the use of any and all kinds of violence and war to resolve disputes between peoples and nations and adopt a principle of seeking just peace through nonviolent means?" Does the journey of a thousand miles begin with a single step? Or are we trying to reach the moon by climbing a mountain?
As I left grad school in 1982, I was deeply concerned about the possibility of war, in particular nuclear war between the US and the USSR. In an attempt to take action, I became impressed with the late Randall Forsberg, and worked for her for three years. Randy was a principal author of the Nuclear Freeze, a movement which swept the nation and forced Reagan to take a more peaceful approach to the USSR than he otherwise would have. Randy was a radical, passionately committed to peace and justice, but the Freeze proposal was very moderate: not to forswear all violence or even military action, but simply to stop building new nuclear weapons if the USSR would agree to do the same. Her genius was to find a moderate first step that ordinary folks could embrace. That's the kind of proposal we need to find. The ordinary person is, I am afraid, left scratching his or her head and looking puzzled at those who want to forswear all violence, now.
The way to international peace is by a series of steps in the real world, the peaceful resolution of one conflict, and then perhaps another. With luck, this will transform the world into a place which Americans perceive as somewhat less dangerous, allowing them to consider a less violent posture or solution to the next crisis. Few Americans like war, they just feel it may be necessary to stay safe.
A personal commitment to a more profound nonviolence is useful for the goal of eliminating the (often fairly subtle) violence within FUSN and our own families, but if intended as a way to international peace, it is mostly a distraction.
Violence covers a spectrum from what goes on between friends and family, up through larger groups to the question of violence between nations. There is a widespread sense that this constitutes a single thing, an aspect of life that calls for a single approach. Between family and friends, within workplaces, within a group such as FUSN, the proper methods to eliminate violence include personal ones. Adopting a more peaceful inner state is important. Teaching nonviolent conflict resolution, learning about appropriate ways to manage anger, and empathy with others' points of views -- all are important.
But people often say that these transformations are the way to work towards nonviolence in the world of international relations. "Peace: Let it begin with me." "The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step."
I disagree. At the level of national and international politics, these are not what matter. The idea of a Department of Peace perplexes me, and I feel ambivalent about the draft UU proposal: "Should the Unitarian Universalist Association reject the use of any and all kinds of violence and war to resolve disputes between peoples and nations and adopt a principle of seeking just peace through nonviolent means?" Does the journey of a thousand miles begin with a single step? Or are we trying to reach the moon by climbing a mountain?
As I left grad school in 1982, I was deeply concerned about the possibility of war, in particular nuclear war between the US and the USSR. In an attempt to take action, I became impressed with the late Randall Forsberg, and worked for her for three years. Randy was a principal author of the Nuclear Freeze, a movement which swept the nation and forced Reagan to take a more peaceful approach to the USSR than he otherwise would have. Randy was a radical, passionately committed to peace and justice, but the Freeze proposal was very moderate: not to forswear all violence or even military action, but simply to stop building new nuclear weapons if the USSR would agree to do the same. Her genius was to find a moderate first step that ordinary folks could embrace. That's the kind of proposal we need to find. The ordinary person is, I am afraid, left scratching his or her head and looking puzzled at those who want to forswear all violence, now.
The way to international peace is by a series of steps in the real world, the peaceful resolution of one conflict, and then perhaps another. With luck, this will transform the world into a place which Americans perceive as somewhat less dangerous, allowing them to consider a less violent posture or solution to the next crisis. Few Americans like war, they just feel it may be necessary to stay safe.
A personal commitment to a more profound nonviolence is useful for the goal of eliminating the (often fairly subtle) violence within FUSN and our own families, but if intended as a way to international peace, it is mostly a distraction.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Pinker's "The Blank Slate"
I have just read a book by Steve Pinker call "The Blank Slate". It was written in 2002, so it won't be news to people who follow such things. But I find Pinker's observations on our social condition to be some of the most incisive that I have read.
He treats a series of issues that he identifies as "hot buttons" (politics, violence, gender, children, and the arts). There is a great deal more to the book, but I find those parts the most interesting. I am inspired by Pinker's beliefs here, but it is possible that I am not reflecting his opinions in all respects.
He argues that greater consideration should be put on innate differences than is typical in modern culture when addressing social issues. I will take as an example the idea of innate differences in intelligence among people, though the form of the argument is similar for the other hot button issues:
In the conventional liberal view, all children start with equal intelligence, and given the proper environment we could all emerge as highly intelligent. The liberal view is also that people who disagree with that view should be condemned as racists. Their main reason is that in the past, those with morally repugnant views (such as Nazis) alleged innate differences in defense of racist policies. That is (rightly) an emotionally charged issue, which (understandably) can make it hard to move towards looking dispassionately at what the alternative suggestion actually is.
The alternative view starts with science. Nazis made allegations of innate differences without any evidence, and Cyril Burt faked data to defend his belief in the innate superiority of upper class British children. Real science has shown that those were false. But science has also given overwhelming evidence for the heritability of intelligence (more precisely, for a large chunk of the differences in intelligence between individuals within a group).
But Pinker has no patience for morally repugnant policies. He argues that our moral stance should rest on firmer ground: people all have equal value and must have equal rights and opportunities because they are people, not because they have equal (or even "as good") genetic backgrounds.
While I am impressed by Pinker's analyses, I have also learned over the years to be cautious about accepting any view until I have heard and considered the best arguments that people on the other side of the issue have to offer. My initial efforts to find opposing views on the web did not turn up anything I found very impressive, but I am interested in what others may know.
He treats a series of issues that he identifies as "hot buttons" (politics, violence, gender, children, and the arts). There is a great deal more to the book, but I find those parts the most interesting. I am inspired by Pinker's beliefs here, but it is possible that I am not reflecting his opinions in all respects.
He argues that greater consideration should be put on innate differences than is typical in modern culture when addressing social issues. I will take as an example the idea of innate differences in intelligence among people, though the form of the argument is similar for the other hot button issues:
In the conventional liberal view, all children start with equal intelligence, and given the proper environment we could all emerge as highly intelligent. The liberal view is also that people who disagree with that view should be condemned as racists. Their main reason is that in the past, those with morally repugnant views (such as Nazis) alleged innate differences in defense of racist policies. That is (rightly) an emotionally charged issue, which (understandably) can make it hard to move towards looking dispassionately at what the alternative suggestion actually is.
The alternative view starts with science. Nazis made allegations of innate differences without any evidence, and Cyril Burt faked data to defend his belief in the innate superiority of upper class British children. Real science has shown that those were false. But science has also given overwhelming evidence for the heritability of intelligence (more precisely, for a large chunk of the differences in intelligence between individuals within a group).
But Pinker has no patience for morally repugnant policies. He argues that our moral stance should rest on firmer ground: people all have equal value and must have equal rights and opportunities because they are people, not because they have equal (or even "as good") genetic backgrounds.
While I am impressed by Pinker's analyses, I have also learned over the years to be cautious about accepting any view until I have heard and considered the best arguments that people on the other side of the issue have to offer. My initial efforts to find opposing views on the web did not turn up anything I found very impressive, but I am interested in what others may know.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)