While on the topic of the separation of church and state, the concept has the potential to be a panacea for many other problem issues besides gay marriage. Here's one: Taxes.
You see, unlike any other charitable organization, churches are allowed to engage in religious discrimination, political fundraising, private education, and a host of other activities that are banned from receiving tax dollars (or sometimes even legal permission) for any other type of organization. A non-profit organization that engages in hiring discrimination based on religious beliefs, tries to instill those beliefs in impressionable children, and serves as a fundraiser for one political party would never be allowed - unless it called itself a church.
Most egregiously, these churches receive tax dollars both directly (under Bush's 'faith-based organization' slush fund for his supporters) and indirectly, by having their revenue stream be tax-free; in fact, their income qualifies as tax-deductible for those who fund it!
The separation of church and state, properly enforced, would acknowledge that churches are a business, with income, and should be taxed like any other private business and legislated like any other private business. That would include a legal responsibility against hiring discrimination in any non-BFOQ endeavors - i.e., they cannot discriminate against non-members when they hire teachers or janitors or cooks or accountants. They could only discriminate towards their own religious beliefs in a BFOQ situation - say, when hiring a new minister.
I am in favor of school competition and a limited voucher system experiment, but only if there is an exclusion for religious schools - no tax dollars should go to support a religion and the inculcation of its doctrine in young minds. In practice, as most schools receiving vouchers are Catholic or evangelical Protestant, that would effectively undermine all current programs - and just as well, as the teaching of religion is persuasively argued to be a far more insidious and important form of child abuse than the better known molestations by Catholic priests.
Monday, August 27, 2007
Gay marriage - a political solution
Gay marriage is one of those contentious issues in which one side feels strongly, but has no philosophically trenchant argument for their position - but it conforms to tradition, so is widely heralded. Whereas a significant minority make a compelling philosophical argument based on equality of rights, but are seen as undermining the established order and spreading immorality!
So how to finesse it? In some ways, it is like the civil rights movement - rational ethicists know what we should do, but how to sway public opinion to do the right thing? (This is aside from the further parallel with laws against mixed-race marriages that were one of the many Jim Crow laws the civil rights movement overthrew. As a further aside, the ability to get people to do the right thing when it is unpopular is a fair preliminary definition of leadership).
Ultimately, most people do want to do good - or at least have others perceive them as good - and so this is an issue in which moral suasion is required; thus, moral philosophers have an immediate role to play, in presenting convincing arguments for gay marriage and refuting the lame counterarguments that are raised.
My friend Dan has blogged about an old idea of mine (which he independently raised) for solving the problem; I thought I would enlarge on our shared idea here, with specific suggestions for how a politician could successfully frame it in these contentious times. The short version: make marriage an exclusively religious ceremony, and make civil unions an exclusively governmental function; so civil unions are the only thing recognized by the state, and are required for the state to recognize a legal union. Of course, this already de facto occurs in the requirement of a 'wedding license' for a marriage to be valid. As a matter of equal rights, any couple - gay or straight - would be eligible for a civil union, whereas it would be up to individual churches whether or not they wanted to perform the private ceremony of marriage for a couple.
Here's the way a politico could frame it:
'I am in favor of upholding the constitution, which this Administration has done so much to harm and subvert. A key principle of our constitution is the separation of church and state. Religious tolerance is a principle that goes back to the Founding Fathers, and our government is supposed to make no law respecting the establishment of one religion, or its peculiar emphases, over all the people; while simultaneously allowing any such private religion to flourish, according to the convictions of its own adherents, without thereby becoming the law of the land.
Gay marriage is an issue in which the separation of church and state has failed. Some churches (such as the Southern Baptists) refuse to allow gay marriage; others (such as the Unitarian Universalists) wholeheartedly endorse it. As a sacred institution, I wholeheartedly endorse the ability of any denomination to decide for itself whether or not to allow gay marriage. No church should be forced to endorse or officiate a ritual it finds repellent. But the religious divide on this issue also means that to legislate either the acceptability or non-acceptability of gay marriage is immediately to offend one religion or another.
As marriage is primarily a sacred, religious institution, the solution is simple: Get government out of the marriage business. The state has an interest in furthering the integrity of families and encouraging the good of its citizens, especially children; it also has an abiding interest in guaranteeing the equality of all citizens under the law. Gay couples are allowed to be parents, and repeated studies have shown that having two committed parents in the home helps children. Hence, the state has an interest in providing for legal civil unions for all couples, with full legal rights - and responsibilities. The state in fact has an obligation to provide such opportunity for civil unions for all its citizens, under the duty of equal treatment under the law. Hence, the existing system of requiring a wedding license for legal union should be turned into a federal requirement of the availability of civil union for any couple, gay or straight, regardless of religious affiliation. It would then be an entirely private religious matter whether or not any particular church wished to supply an accompanying religious ceremony of marriage to commemorate and sanctify the legal bond. '
Or in slogan form: "Marriage for the the religious, civil unions for all"
Some polls indicate civil unions would already be somewhat popular, dependent on how the issue is framed; but (to my knowledge) no one in the mainstream discourse has framed it as above. Why can't Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton or John Edwards say this right now? Spread the word!
So how to finesse it? In some ways, it is like the civil rights movement - rational ethicists know what we should do, but how to sway public opinion to do the right thing? (This is aside from the further parallel with laws against mixed-race marriages that were one of the many Jim Crow laws the civil rights movement overthrew. As a further aside, the ability to get people to do the right thing when it is unpopular is a fair preliminary definition of leadership).
Ultimately, most people do want to do good - or at least have others perceive them as good - and so this is an issue in which moral suasion is required; thus, moral philosophers have an immediate role to play, in presenting convincing arguments for gay marriage and refuting the lame counterarguments that are raised.
My friend Dan has blogged about an old idea of mine (which he independently raised) for solving the problem; I thought I would enlarge on our shared idea here, with specific suggestions for how a politician could successfully frame it in these contentious times. The short version: make marriage an exclusively religious ceremony, and make civil unions an exclusively governmental function; so civil unions are the only thing recognized by the state, and are required for the state to recognize a legal union. Of course, this already de facto occurs in the requirement of a 'wedding license' for a marriage to be valid. As a matter of equal rights, any couple - gay or straight - would be eligible for a civil union, whereas it would be up to individual churches whether or not they wanted to perform the private ceremony of marriage for a couple.
Here's the way a politico could frame it:
'I am in favor of upholding the constitution, which this Administration has done so much to harm and subvert. A key principle of our constitution is the separation of church and state. Religious tolerance is a principle that goes back to the Founding Fathers, and our government is supposed to make no law respecting the establishment of one religion, or its peculiar emphases, over all the people; while simultaneously allowing any such private religion to flourish, according to the convictions of its own adherents, without thereby becoming the law of the land.
Gay marriage is an issue in which the separation of church and state has failed. Some churches (such as the Southern Baptists) refuse to allow gay marriage; others (such as the Unitarian Universalists) wholeheartedly endorse it. As a sacred institution, I wholeheartedly endorse the ability of any denomination to decide for itself whether or not to allow gay marriage. No church should be forced to endorse or officiate a ritual it finds repellent. But the religious divide on this issue also means that to legislate either the acceptability or non-acceptability of gay marriage is immediately to offend one religion or another.
As marriage is primarily a sacred, religious institution, the solution is simple: Get government out of the marriage business. The state has an interest in furthering the integrity of families and encouraging the good of its citizens, especially children; it also has an abiding interest in guaranteeing the equality of all citizens under the law. Gay couples are allowed to be parents, and repeated studies have shown that having two committed parents in the home helps children. Hence, the state has an interest in providing for legal civil unions for all couples, with full legal rights - and responsibilities. The state in fact has an obligation to provide such opportunity for civil unions for all its citizens, under the duty of equal treatment under the law. Hence, the existing system of requiring a wedding license for legal union should be turned into a federal requirement of the availability of civil union for any couple, gay or straight, regardless of religious affiliation. It would then be an entirely private religious matter whether or not any particular church wished to supply an accompanying religious ceremony of marriage to commemorate and sanctify the legal bond. '
Or in slogan form: "Marriage for the the religious, civil unions for all"
Some polls indicate civil unions would already be somewhat popular, dependent on how the issue is framed; but (to my knowledge) no one in the mainstream discourse has framed it as above. Why can't Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton or John Edwards say this right now? Spread the word!
Sunday, August 26, 2007
The Guvernator's 'fiscal conservatism'
A program that has helped thousands of mentally ill homeless people avoid the cycle of hospitalization, jails and street life - a program that more than pays for itself in saved prison and hospital costs, to say nothing of the lives it enriches - is cut from the California budget.
What's saved? A tax break for yacht owners, that costs almost as much. After all, Senate Republican Leader Dick Ackerman owns a yacht... and we all know who the state should help more, yacht owners or the mentally ill homeless.
And make no mistake - this was a line item veto by Arnold. He knew well what he was doing. Any hope he would be a centrist force for the general welfare, as opposed to yet another captive of Republican special interests, further disappears. He fits right in with the national Republican party's movement to loot the public treasury of our hard-earned tax dollars for their own enrichment.
Perhaps it's time for another recall.... yea, even a Total Recall!
What's saved? A tax break for yacht owners, that costs almost as much. After all, Senate Republican Leader Dick Ackerman owns a yacht... and we all know who the state should help more, yacht owners or the mentally ill homeless.
And make no mistake - this was a line item veto by Arnold. He knew well what he was doing. Any hope he would be a centrist force for the general welfare, as opposed to yet another captive of Republican special interests, further disappears. He fits right in with the national Republican party's movement to loot the public treasury of our hard-earned tax dollars for their own enrichment.
Perhaps it's time for another recall.... yea, even a Total Recall!
Libertarians - becoming Dems?
Libertarianism is a political philosophy that holds that property and liberty are the only fundamental rights, and those are to be interpreted as negative rights: they merely require others not to interfere with one as they choose to exercise the right (or not); they never require the active assistance of others. A libertarian thus believes helping others is not a duty, but charity. Your duty is not to interfere with others as they use their property, as long as they don't interfere with you. Robert Nozick's 'night watchman' state is perhaps the best known development of this philosophy in the 20th century.
Libertarians accordingly value very small government, believing most taxes are simply the theft of one's property by the government. They are anti-paternalistic; they would abolish the government agencies that tell us what to do or restrict our liberty to use our own property. So the FDA, the DEA, the Department of Education, the Department of Transportation, etc - all would disappear under a consistent libertarian regime. If you want to drive, pay for the roads yourself; if you want to use drugs, you're free to do so (as long as you don't harm others); if you want to engage in dog fighting with Michael Vick, go right ahead (as long as you use only dogs you properly own).
Libertarians have traditionally joined the Republican Party when they seek actual power (they have their own party, but it holds no high elected office). Ron Paul is probably their best known politician - a libertarian who joined the Republican party so he could get elected to Congress, and is now running for President - and has appeared on both the Daily Show and the Colbert Report, so breaking through into a modicum of the popular consciousness.
Libertarians have usually joined the Republicans because traditionally that was the party of smaller government spending and power - the party that emphasized, as traditional conservatives did, that government, like all humans, is flawed and is liable to abuse the power it holds, so it's best not to give it any more than necessary, in order to preserve liberty.
Reagan talked this way in 1980, but in fact considerably raised government spending. Much of that was due to a defense spending spree, and libertarians can countenance that, so many swallowed Reagan's increases; but they were not happy, and led the charge to ensure that Gingrich's ingenious plan to recapture Republican control of Congress, the 1994 'Contract With America', would trumpet smaller government and cutbacks in federal spending, as well as balancing the budget.
Gingrich's Contract was successful in getting Republicans control of the House, but once in power, the Republicans soon proved even more adept at deficit spending than Democrats, effectively lying to their libertarian supporters. Clinton presided over balanced budgets and even a surplus, but as soon as Republicans gained control of both the legislative and executive branches in January 2001, deficit spending soon hit all-time highs. Much of this (as under Reagan) was supposedly justified by defense spending (especially after 9/11), but in fact the Republicans have turned this into a partisan kleptocracy and plutocracy of the highest order. And the war in Iraq, a clear violation of libertarian principles (Ron Paul opposed it from the start), is simply the best means for the widespread looting of the federal treasury by criminals with Republican connections, aided and abetted by the current administration.
Libertarians value social liberty as well as the economic liberty of laissez-faire capitalism, so they have always co-existed uneasily with the religious fundamentalists within the Republican Party. So, those libertarians who actually want to have power and/or vote for a winner, look at the two parties and ask: which is now closer to my ideals - the party which has always emphasized social liberties and is the last to actually achieve balanced budgets and opposes military conscription and corruption, or the Republicans? The result: many libertarians are becoming Democrats - and the change in 2006 election results shows it. In the libertarian-leaning West, the Democrats made significant gains in traditional Republican strongholds - as e.g., Jon Tester, running on a largely libertarian-friendly platform, won election to the Senate from Montana - as a Democrat.
As the nation as a whole grows richer and markets better regulated and personal freedoms more precious than the question of where the next meal is coming from, I suspect libertarianism will become more and more popular as an ideology. The party that embraces it more thoroughly should thereby gain and retain power - and at the moment, that looks like the Democrats.
Libertarians accordingly value very small government, believing most taxes are simply the theft of one's property by the government. They are anti-paternalistic; they would abolish the government agencies that tell us what to do or restrict our liberty to use our own property. So the FDA, the DEA, the Department of Education, the Department of Transportation, etc - all would disappear under a consistent libertarian regime. If you want to drive, pay for the roads yourself; if you want to use drugs, you're free to do so (as long as you don't harm others); if you want to engage in dog fighting with Michael Vick, go right ahead (as long as you use only dogs you properly own).
Libertarians have traditionally joined the Republican Party when they seek actual power (they have their own party, but it holds no high elected office). Ron Paul is probably their best known politician - a libertarian who joined the Republican party so he could get elected to Congress, and is now running for President - and has appeared on both the Daily Show and the Colbert Report, so breaking through into a modicum of the popular consciousness.
Libertarians have usually joined the Republicans because traditionally that was the party of smaller government spending and power - the party that emphasized, as traditional conservatives did, that government, like all humans, is flawed and is liable to abuse the power it holds, so it's best not to give it any more than necessary, in order to preserve liberty.
Reagan talked this way in 1980, but in fact considerably raised government spending. Much of that was due to a defense spending spree, and libertarians can countenance that, so many swallowed Reagan's increases; but they were not happy, and led the charge to ensure that Gingrich's ingenious plan to recapture Republican control of Congress, the 1994 'Contract With America', would trumpet smaller government and cutbacks in federal spending, as well as balancing the budget.
Gingrich's Contract was successful in getting Republicans control of the House, but once in power, the Republicans soon proved even more adept at deficit spending than Democrats, effectively lying to their libertarian supporters. Clinton presided over balanced budgets and even a surplus, but as soon as Republicans gained control of both the legislative and executive branches in January 2001, deficit spending soon hit all-time highs. Much of this (as under Reagan) was supposedly justified by defense spending (especially after 9/11), but in fact the Republicans have turned this into a partisan kleptocracy and plutocracy of the highest order. And the war in Iraq, a clear violation of libertarian principles (Ron Paul opposed it from the start), is simply the best means for the widespread looting of the federal treasury by criminals with Republican connections, aided and abetted by the current administration.
Libertarians value social liberty as well as the economic liberty of laissez-faire capitalism, so they have always co-existed uneasily with the religious fundamentalists within the Republican Party. So, those libertarians who actually want to have power and/or vote for a winner, look at the two parties and ask: which is now closer to my ideals - the party which has always emphasized social liberties and is the last to actually achieve balanced budgets and opposes military conscription and corruption, or the Republicans? The result: many libertarians are becoming Democrats - and the change in 2006 election results shows it. In the libertarian-leaning West, the Democrats made significant gains in traditional Republican strongholds - as e.g., Jon Tester, running on a largely libertarian-friendly platform, won election to the Senate from Montana - as a Democrat.
As the nation as a whole grows richer and markets better regulated and personal freedoms more precious than the question of where the next meal is coming from, I suspect libertarianism will become more and more popular as an ideology. The party that embraces it more thoroughly should thereby gain and retain power - and at the moment, that looks like the Democrats.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
Yum!
Today Michelle and I ate again at the Art Cafe and Bakery, on the edge of downtown SLO in the Creamery. Next to an art gallery, the place is quirky and fun, and the owner and chief baker, Donna Nozzi, was an engaging proprietor. I had a scrumptious roast beef and cheddar sandwich on an absolutely divine horseradish Parmesan bread, which also comes with delicious fresh fruit; Michelle had the house specialty, the 'O'riginal curried chicken sandwich, and a large salad including shaved almonds and fresh greens.
Why make note? Well, it is one of our new favorite places to eat, and there's a backstory - it almost went out of business a few years ago, until Oprah found out about it, deemed the curried chicken sandwich the best ever, and wrote a check that saved the business. And so a tale was born - the place now boasts a large painting of Oprah on one wall - and lots of other art as well. Last year the original owner, Margaux Sky, finally quit, but Donna Nozzi took over and keeps using the same recipes.
So if you come to SLO, the Art Cafe is one great place to go. Who knows, you might even see Oprah herself... but don't count on it. Now, I wonder if Lindsay Lohan ate there when she was in town... nah, probably not; I didn't see any cocaine residue!
Why make note? Well, it is one of our new favorite places to eat, and there's a backstory - it almost went out of business a few years ago, until Oprah found out about it, deemed the curried chicken sandwich the best ever, and wrote a check that saved the business. And so a tale was born - the place now boasts a large painting of Oprah on one wall - and lots of other art as well. Last year the original owner, Margaux Sky, finally quit, but Donna Nozzi took over and keeps using the same recipes.
So if you come to SLO, the Art Cafe is one great place to go. Who knows, you might even see Oprah herself... but don't count on it. Now, I wonder if Lindsay Lohan ate there when she was in town... nah, probably not; I didn't see any cocaine residue!
Friday, August 24, 2007
Torture of American whistleblowers in Iraq
The war in Iraq has hit its latest in the "I don't believe it" category: Navy vet Donald Vance, working for a reconstruction contractor in Iraq, witnessed illegal arms sales (helping us understand how over 190,000 weapons could go 'missing'), and reported the crimes (with documentation) to an FBI office in Chicago, because he didn't know who in Iraq he could trust.
The result: the US military detained and tortured him, for 97 days.
WTF? Why isn't George Bush, Congress, EVERYONE outraged and busy doing something about this? Why is the Justice Department refusing any investigation or even comment? Why are the criminals running things? And what will we do about it?
This war has eroded the moral capital the USA has built up ever since the fine words of Thomas Jefferson et al. in 1776. It may prove a turning point in the long-term recruitment of terrorists who will soon have access to true WMDs. For we have undermined the kind of international cooperation among many different nations that will be required to prevent biological and nanotechnological weapons from spreading. And so they will spread, and people will act on their grievances, with ever more sophisticated technology.
I suspect it is the beginning of the end - of us all.
The result: the US military detained and tortured him, for 97 days.
WTF? Why isn't George Bush, Congress, EVERYONE outraged and busy doing something about this? Why is the Justice Department refusing any investigation or even comment? Why are the criminals running things? And what will we do about it?
This war has eroded the moral capital the USA has built up ever since the fine words of Thomas Jefferson et al. in 1776. It may prove a turning point in the long-term recruitment of terrorists who will soon have access to true WMDs. For we have undermined the kind of international cooperation among many different nations that will be required to prevent biological and nanotechnological weapons from spreading. And so they will spread, and people will act on their grievances, with ever more sophisticated technology.
I suspect it is the beginning of the end - of us all.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Idiocy, taken for granted
'No child left behind' is the mantra of the Bush education program - an emphasis on simple tests (with the inevitability of teachers being evaluated thereby 'teaching to the test') and a simplification of the learning process, taking both the joy and the rigor out of it.
That tendency is bad enough, but the real problem is the way in which standards and expectations are being dumbed down to give an appearance of success - while failing to challenge the above-average students. In the desire to make sure that 'no child is left behind', we have made school too easy for the talented kids, and ignored the overwhelming power of peer pressure on learning. Our 20th century economical prowess was based only partially on widespread literacy - many other countries have it as well. The prime mover was our intellectual elite - American universities and their students as the best in the world. Between increasingly onerous immigration policies and the dumbing down of American primary and secondary schools, our intellectual leadership may soon be a thing of the past, with horrible consequences for us all.
Don't believe me? To quote from Newsweek:
To become a world leader in educational attainment, we must get the incentives right, for both teachers and students. When our educational establishment/ government (and teacher's unions) reward those teachers with subject mastery who demand a great deal of their students, and when we as a culture decide our educational institutions should lionize those students who have high academic achievement (as opposed to, say, athletic achievement), then our schools will become great again. Otherwise, look forward to a world in which intellectual and physical capital - and hence power - moves increasingly to Asia, and the US becomes one more faded empire of history.
That tendency is bad enough, but the real problem is the way in which standards and expectations are being dumbed down to give an appearance of success - while failing to challenge the above-average students. In the desire to make sure that 'no child is left behind', we have made school too easy for the talented kids, and ignored the overwhelming power of peer pressure on learning. Our 20th century economical prowess was based only partially on widespread literacy - many other countries have it as well. The prime mover was our intellectual elite - American universities and their students as the best in the world. Between increasingly onerous immigration policies and the dumbing down of American primary and secondary schools, our intellectual leadership may soon be a thing of the past, with horrible consequences for us all.
Don't believe me? To quote from Newsweek:
"... why did the federal government quietly decide last year to drop out of an international study that would compare U.S. high-school students who take advanced science and math courses with their international counterparts?The short answer: we pulled out because we are likely to do even worse in the next round. We lag our developed countries in math and science because excellence therein is not rewarded, and having kids who kick ass in math and science is no longer a priority - at least, not as much as making sure many have a mediocre grasp of the subject, soon to be forgotten.The study, called TIMSS (Trends in Mathematics and Science Study) Advanced 2008, measures how high-school seniors are doing in algebra, geometry, calculus and physics with students taking similar subjects around the globe. In the past, the American results have been shockingly poor. In the last survey, taken in 1995, students from only two countries—Cyprus and South Africa—scored lower than U.S. school kids."
To become a world leader in educational attainment, we must get the incentives right, for both teachers and students. When our educational establishment/ government (and teacher's unions) reward those teachers with subject mastery who demand a great deal of their students, and when we as a culture decide our educational institutions should lionize those students who have high academic achievement (as opposed to, say, athletic achievement), then our schools will become great again. Otherwise, look forward to a world in which intellectual and physical capital - and hence power - moves increasingly to Asia, and the US becomes one more faded empire of history.
Trade Kobe, now
KG's in Boston, Jermaine O'Neal is overrated and not coming anyway, and Kobe still wants out of LA.
So, let him. It seems clear that if the Lakers wait a year to deal him, they will get less - re the Iverson and KG trades, in which teams traded too late and got less back. And keeping an overrated ballhog who doesn't want to play with his teammates and can force his way out in a year strikes me as disastrous.
So here's a trade that works under the salary cap (as of August 27) and I think the Bulls would make: Kobe for L. Deng, Ty Thomas, J. Noah, Ben Gordon, and T. Sefolosha. The Bulls would still still start Hinrich, Kobe, Nocioni, Joe Smith, Ben Wallace, with C. Duhon, V. Khyrapa, Adrian Griffin, Jameson Curry, Aaron Gray, and others they could still pick up - there are more than the usual number of cheap free agents left - off the bench. They would vitiate their depth, but their starting 5 would be fearsome.
The Lakers get multiple great pieces for a bright future. As a matter of fact, I think the 2007-8 Lakers will have a significantly better record if they make this trade than if they keep Kobe - to say nothing of further down the line. It's time - trade Kobe!
So, let him. It seems clear that if the Lakers wait a year to deal him, they will get less - re the Iverson and KG trades, in which teams traded too late and got less back. And keeping an overrated ballhog who doesn't want to play with his teammates and can force his way out in a year strikes me as disastrous.
So here's a trade that works under the salary cap (as of August 27) and I think the Bulls would make: Kobe for L. Deng, Ty Thomas, J. Noah, Ben Gordon, and T. Sefolosha. The Bulls would still still start Hinrich, Kobe, Nocioni, Joe Smith, Ben Wallace, with C. Duhon, V. Khyrapa, Adrian Griffin, Jameson Curry, Aaron Gray, and others they could still pick up - there are more than the usual number of cheap free agents left - off the bench. They would vitiate their depth, but their starting 5 would be fearsome.
The Lakers get multiple great pieces for a bright future. As a matter of fact, I think the 2007-8 Lakers will have a significantly better record if they make this trade than if they keep Kobe - to say nothing of further down the line. It's time - trade Kobe!
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Best argument for the existence of God
The best argument for the existence of God -- from maximal creativity and ethical requiredness
suppose God is maximally great and creative, and supplanting POE and other counters as follows.
And suppose we have free will in sense of being able to cause things which god foresees but cannot stop – god must either create the universe which contains those things, or not create it, but once created, cannot interfere further.
Next, assume aggregative utilitarianism is true – the act is morally best which maximizes utility, where utility is understood as the balance of good over evil; more precisely, utility= total good minus total evil produced by the action
Then it follows that to be good Itself, God logically would choose to create all PWs in which good outweighs evil, to maximize net good in the multiverse.
So, God would create the BPW, but also many other PWs in which evil exists, down to those in which net good-evil is barely above zero. (Details of measure theory and how to determine smaller and smaller positive but non-zero measurements are interesting here, but don’t crucially affect the overall argument).
Accordingly, we could in fact choose differently, but in every case in which our actions did not tip the cosmic scale to net evil, another universe would have been foreseen and created by God – cf. the MWI of QM. So no surprise (re measure theory?) to find ourselves in a universe in which considerable evil exists – the majority of universes within the mutiverse are like that, and very few have little or no evil. It apparently remains meaningful to attempt to act so as to change things – that’s part of better universes which God will have created, and if we did not so act, it is possible the universe could have a negative utility and so not exist. (Problems with fatalism and choice may undermine this, but it has certainly seemed plausible to many theodicists).
So, we have a timeless or hypertime multiverse in which all our decisions are already foreseen but not directly caused, except for concurrent creative activity – i.e., those which led to net evil were never created and so are non-actual. This is the best attempt to account for free will, real evil, and rebut the problem of evil (POE) and still have a morally defensible and powerful, creative force as God.
Objections: this is not real free will/ morality, because of fatalism/ causal impotence; or a timeless god is unintelligible. Or there is no evidence for other universes, so belief in them is a gross violation of Occam’s razor.
But the most weighty objection to the argument in my mind is the assumption that utilitarianism is true – and in particular, the aggregative utilitarianism that presumes that it is better to make a multiverse with much evil contained therein, as long as the total good outweighs it, versus making a single universe with no evil whatsoever. The total good would be less, no doubt, than in the multiverse; but aggregative utilitarianism violates a rule that I think a truly omnibenevolent Creator must obey: first, do no harm.
More objections to aggregative utilitarianism as an ethical theory in a later post….
suppose God is maximally great and creative, and supplanting POE and other counters as follows.
And suppose we have free will in sense of being able to cause things which god foresees but cannot stop – god must either create the universe which contains those things, or not create it, but once created, cannot interfere further.
Next, assume aggregative utilitarianism is true – the act is morally best which maximizes utility, where utility is understood as the balance of good over evil; more precisely, utility= total good minus total evil produced by the action
Then it follows that to be good Itself, God logically would choose to create all PWs in which good outweighs evil, to maximize net good in the multiverse.
So, God would create the BPW, but also many other PWs in which evil exists, down to those in which net good-evil is barely above zero. (Details of measure theory and how to determine smaller and smaller positive but non-zero measurements are interesting here, but don’t crucially affect the overall argument).
Accordingly, we could in fact choose differently, but in every case in which our actions did not tip the cosmic scale to net evil, another universe would have been foreseen and created by God – cf. the MWI of QM. So no surprise (re measure theory?) to find ourselves in a universe in which considerable evil exists – the majority of universes within the mutiverse are like that, and very few have little or no evil. It apparently remains meaningful to attempt to act so as to change things – that’s part of better universes which God will have created, and if we did not so act, it is possible the universe could have a negative utility and so not exist. (Problems with fatalism and choice may undermine this, but it has certainly seemed plausible to many theodicists).
So, we have a timeless or hypertime multiverse in which all our decisions are already foreseen but not directly caused, except for concurrent creative activity – i.e., those which led to net evil were never created and so are non-actual. This is the best attempt to account for free will, real evil, and rebut the problem of evil (POE) and still have a morally defensible and powerful, creative force as God.
Objections: this is not real free will/ morality, because of fatalism/ causal impotence; or a timeless god is unintelligible. Or there is no evidence for other universes, so belief in them is a gross violation of Occam’s razor.
But the most weighty objection to the argument in my mind is the assumption that utilitarianism is true – and in particular, the aggregative utilitarianism that presumes that it is better to make a multiverse with much evil contained therein, as long as the total good outweighs it, versus making a single universe with no evil whatsoever. The total good would be less, no doubt, than in the multiverse; but aggregative utilitarianism violates a rule that I think a truly omnibenevolent Creator must obey: first, do no harm.
More objections to aggregative utilitarianism as an ethical theory in a later post….
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Doomsday and Bostrom's Simulation Argument
Many futurists believe that we will soon enter a ‘posthuman’ phase of civilization (often called, somewhat misleadingly, the 'Singularity', although it has nothing to do with black hole physics). Becoming posthuman will have profound implications for us all. These futurists typically assume that the phenomenon called Moore’s Law will continue for the enhancement of computing speed for the medium-term future, and also assume a philosophy of mind that makes strong AI possible – involving the belief that minds are simply incredibly complex algorithms, and minds are ‘substrate-neutral’ or 'substrate-independent' – that is, those algorithms currently run on hardware called ‘brains’, but in principle could run on other hardware, such as a computer. If these beliefs are true, it is clear that computers will be capable of human-level minds within the next 20 or 30 years, and will have minds that dwarf our ability to comprehend them a short while afterwards. These computer superminds will even be able to simulate reality; and a good enough simulation, given substrate neutrality, is indistinguishable from reality itself.
So we will become posthuman at some point in the coming century. What does that mean? Well, let’s define a ‘posthuman’ civilization as one that is able to simulate an entire world in a way largely or entirely indistinguishable from reality. That is, for posthumans, the distinction between virtual reality and ‘real’ reality begins to disappear. The computing power required for this is truly stupendous, but it is a finite number, and if the futurist assumptions are correct, our civilization will have such powers in well less than one hundred years!
The philosopher Nick Bostrom has advanced an argument that we have good reason to believe we actually inhabit such a simulation right now. His argument is a few years old, but its publication in the NY Times has made it far better known, so I’ll give just a quick recap:
Bostrom argues that one of the following three propositions is almost certainly true:
(1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage;
(2) or, any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary (‘world’) history (or variations thereof – ‘ancestor-histories’);
(3) or, we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.
Bostrom indicates that under certain plausible assumptions, option 3 is the most likely. Unless our posthuman descendants are much more ethically circumscribed than us, the desire to run ‘ancestor-histories’, or counterfactual histories, will be great – just imagine the historians wanting to see what would have happened if the Nazis won WW2, or even you just wondering what would have happened if you’d married that high school sweetheart (or not, as the case may be). The temptation to run a large number of such simulations thus strikes me as overwhelming.
Further, if our universe is a simulation, it explains several oddities nicely – for example, why relativity and quantum mechanics can’t be meshed (QM because there must be some lower level of granularity in the simulation, relativity for making things flow smoothly within the simulation – though both can’t be ‘real’).
And it explains the strange applicability of the anthropic principle well – the idea that so much of what we observe, particularly the otherwise inexplicable physical constants such as the fine structure constant, the ratio of the gravitational force to electromagnetic forces, and so forth – why they all appear to be "rigged" so as to create conditions favorable to the origin of life in general and we humans in particular. They are so rigged because the universe is a simulation designed with us in mind!
But then, why were things that way in the original universe, which we're now simulating? Was it a simulation, too? There’s an infinite regress problem, one that we simulated beings could never solve. After all, who knows what things are like in the fundamental level of reality… whatever that is.
But there’s a problem – or two. First, one of Bostrom’s other options is that all intelligent civilizations self-destruct before they become posthuman. That, unfortunately, is completely compatible with all our evidence. In particular, it would explain Fermi’s paradox – if ETIs exist, where are they? Perhaps we’re in a simulation that didn’t bother with aliens – but why not? It wouldn’t be much more expensive to add them in. So, Occam’s razor suggests that any intelligent aliens that ever existed never made it to posthuman stage.
Worse, suppose we are in a simulation. In that case, we are well on the way to becoming posthuman ourselves – being able to run our own ( let's say third-level) simulations, within our own second-level simulation. But simulating even a single posthuman civilization looks to be extraordinarily expensive in computing terms. If so, unless our upper level simulators have nearly infinite resources, then we should expect our simulation to be terminated when we are about to become posthuman – that is, when we are about to become simulators ourselves.
So, either we are doomed never to reach the posthuman stage – in which case it’s Doomsday soon – or our simulation will be terminated as soon as we do so – in which case, it’s Doomsday soon. Either way, this simulation argument brings us depressingly closer to the conclusion that it’s Doomsday soon. I think the best counterargument actually claims that philosophers like John Searle are right and the futurists are wrong about the philosophy of mind underlying strong AI and posthumanism. If they’re right, I think it’s Doomsday soon. If not Doomsday by simulation shutdown, perhaps it will be by the rise of the machines – superhuman robotic intelligences, who supersede and destroy us. Stay tuned for the next Doomsday installment….
So we will become posthuman at some point in the coming century. What does that mean? Well, let’s define a ‘posthuman’ civilization as one that is able to simulate an entire world in a way largely or entirely indistinguishable from reality. That is, for posthumans, the distinction between virtual reality and ‘real’ reality begins to disappear. The computing power required for this is truly stupendous, but it is a finite number, and if the futurist assumptions are correct, our civilization will have such powers in well less than one hundred years!
The philosopher Nick Bostrom has advanced an argument that we have good reason to believe we actually inhabit such a simulation right now. His argument is a few years old, but its publication in the NY Times has made it far better known, so I’ll give just a quick recap:
Bostrom argues that one of the following three propositions is almost certainly true:
(1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage;
(2) or, any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary (‘world’) history (or variations thereof – ‘ancestor-histories’);
(3) or, we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.
Bostrom indicates that under certain plausible assumptions, option 3 is the most likely. Unless our posthuman descendants are much more ethically circumscribed than us, the desire to run ‘ancestor-histories’, or counterfactual histories, will be great – just imagine the historians wanting to see what would have happened if the Nazis won WW2, or even you just wondering what would have happened if you’d married that high school sweetheart (or not, as the case may be). The temptation to run a large number of such simulations thus strikes me as overwhelming.
Further, if our universe is a simulation, it explains several oddities nicely – for example, why relativity and quantum mechanics can’t be meshed (QM because there must be some lower level of granularity in the simulation, relativity for making things flow smoothly within the simulation – though both can’t be ‘real’).
And it explains the strange applicability of the anthropic principle well – the idea that so much of what we observe, particularly the otherwise inexplicable physical constants such as the fine structure constant, the ratio of the gravitational force to electromagnetic forces, and so forth – why they all appear to be "rigged" so as to create conditions favorable to the origin of life in general and we humans in particular. They are so rigged because the universe is a simulation designed with us in mind!
But then, why were things that way in the original universe, which we're now simulating? Was it a simulation, too? There’s an infinite regress problem, one that we simulated beings could never solve. After all, who knows what things are like in the fundamental level of reality… whatever that is.
But there’s a problem – or two. First, one of Bostrom’s other options is that all intelligent civilizations self-destruct before they become posthuman. That, unfortunately, is completely compatible with all our evidence. In particular, it would explain Fermi’s paradox – if ETIs exist, where are they? Perhaps we’re in a simulation that didn’t bother with aliens – but why not? It wouldn’t be much more expensive to add them in. So, Occam’s razor suggests that any intelligent aliens that ever existed never made it to posthuman stage.
Worse, suppose we are in a simulation. In that case, we are well on the way to becoming posthuman ourselves – being able to run our own ( let's say third-level) simulations, within our own second-level simulation. But simulating even a single posthuman civilization looks to be extraordinarily expensive in computing terms. If so, unless our upper level simulators have nearly infinite resources, then we should expect our simulation to be terminated when we are about to become posthuman – that is, when we are about to become simulators ourselves.
So, either we are doomed never to reach the posthuman stage – in which case it’s Doomsday soon – or our simulation will be terminated as soon as we do so – in which case, it’s Doomsday soon. Either way, this simulation argument brings us depressingly closer to the conclusion that it’s Doomsday soon. I think the best counterargument actually claims that philosophers like John Searle are right and the futurists are wrong about the philosophy of mind underlying strong AI and posthumanism. If they’re right, I think it’s Doomsday soon. If not Doomsday by simulation shutdown, perhaps it will be by the rise of the machines – superhuman robotic intelligences, who supersede and destroy us. Stay tuned for the next Doomsday installment….
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
