The Guns of the South

History suggests that global hegemony is a fickle mistress. Many empires have come and gone in the few short millenia of recorded history, often rising from nothing to become the preeminent power of their time. Without exception, however, they have not been able to maintain their hegemony. Many of these global powers have suffered a spectacular collapse, others have fallen into a long twilight that persists until they eventually vanish into the mists of history.

I have no reason to believe that this cycle will cease in the near term. Eventually, I am hopeful that humanity will come together as a species, and establish a fair and just society that will take us to the stars as one people, but even the most optimistic of us must admit that we are a long way off from that, even if it eventually does come to pass.

Therefore, there has been a lot of talk recently about the decline of American power, and the possibility that the American twilight has begun. I think that this is vastly overstating the current situation, for the simple reason that the world economy is now interconnected enough that a rudderless Dark Age is unlikely, and that there really is no successor ready to step up and lead the world.

The United States still enjoys significant advantages in business. The American system, and to a lesser extent the system of the greater Western world, is uniquely equipped to encourage innovation and economic achievement. Other systems have shown that they can take western innovation and improve on it, and especially that they can drive down costs and increase efficiency, but no other system has shown the ability to produce revolutions like the Internet.

The American business advantage drives much of the country's global power, and as long as the United States has that advantage, I think it is premature to say that America is entering her twilight. There are, however, two significant risks to American power, which I believe have precipitated much of the extant discussion; these are real risks and could lead to the twilight everyone is talking about.

1. The American "South"

The United States is teetering on the precipice of losing moral leadership in the world. History shows that in many cases, when a society stops being a leader in the propagation of truth and justice, decline usually follows. This is a traditional argument for the decline of the Roman Empire; the theory goes that Rome became decadent and corrupt, and instead of trying to improve the lives of its citizens, the Empire was paralyzed by corrupt officials attempting to enrich themselves and a general lack of moral leadership from the later Emperors. Ironically, Edward Gibbon, in his revolutionary book on the subject, even pointed to Christianity as a driving force in the Empire's decline.

In today's America, we are seeing the world's most powerful country fall further and further behind in many ways. The country now sits in hyperpartisan legislative gridlock, created almost entirely by the people who would be considered, in many countries, to be the extreme right. The Republican Party, once the stalwart backer of business and fiscal responsibility, has fully embraced the "Karl Rove strategy", refusing to compromise, and using the politics of fear to frustrate the opposition.

This political situation has created an America that is unable to provide moral leadership to the world. America was, and is, the best place in the world for scientific innovation. However, science is now demonized by the Republicans because it is based on the search for facts, something the Republicans abandoned some time ago. Support for evolution in the United States seems to be declining, thanks to evangelical propaganda machines. Scientists are portrayed as left-wing radicals because of the work they do on climate change.

This hostility to science will eventually begin to affect the ability of America to innovate. This could have disastrous consequences. Combine that with the regressive stance of the US on other social issues, like abortion and gay rights, and you have a serious risk to US hegemony.

Now, I have been particularly hard on the Republicans here, but the Democrats are guilty as well, for refusing to try to compromise with the few moderates left in the Republican Party. I am more convinced than ever that lobbyists are almost as responsible as Republicans for the sorry state of the USA. When Republicans do manage to put forward a good idea, like tort reform as a way to reduce health care costs, the Democrats will not even consider the idea, because their lawyer buddies don't like it.

When anyone dares mention the wasteful insanity of making biofuel from corn, or even that agriculture shouldn't be subsidized, the agricultural lobby crucifies them. Basically every bill that is passed is full of easter eggs to appease one congressman or another. Obama campaigned against this pork-barrel spending, but seems unable to stop it.

All these problems are complicated by a serious economic situation in the US today. There is also precedent for this. In Rome, the rapid expansion of the empire created a huge fiscal problem related to the maintenance of infrastructure, and most importantly, the army. The empire was forced to significantly raise taxes to pay for everything. At the same time, debasement of Roman currency caused significant inflation. The resulting economic crisis was likely a key factor in the fall of the western empire.

The United States faces a similar situation. The economic crisis exacerbated an already critical problem by forcing a massive amount of stimulus spending. If the budget had been balanced going into the crisis, it would have been more than manageable, as it is in Canada. However, there was already a fiscal crisis brought on by irresponsible tax cuts and massive military spending since 2001.

All this constitutes the first risk to American power. In order to stem the tide, the USA must accomplish the following things:

i. Health Care - the US is the only first-world country that doesn't have universal health care. This is insane considering that they are the richest of all. Equally insane is the fact that despite the lack of universal care, they still spend the most money on health care of any country. This must be solved through a combination of strategies, including many that are in the current bill. I believe a public option will help, and I also believe in tort reform as a way to reduce costs. I am happy the current bill was passed, and see it as a hopeful sign. However, the work is not yet done. The current bill is especially weak on cost control, and this must be addressed in the future.

ii. The War on Science - All the issues that are long-settled or marginal in most other developed countries must be won and shelved in the United States. I have already mentioned evolution and global warming as the biggest such issues. This doesn't mean that the US has to agree to massive carbon cuts or huge wealth transfer to other countries. It just means that people must acknowledge the validity of the science, and focus on debating an appropriate policy response.

iii. Defense Spending - The United States military has grown to an unsustainable size. The Romans attempted to remedy their similar problems by replacing Roman citizens with mercenaries in many cases, but were unsuccessful. Although the Roman army remained an effective fighting force well into the fourth century, it was no longer an unparalleled power. The United States must avoid a similar scenario, and recognize that it can no longer afford to be the world's policeman.

In the United States, the army rose to prominence as a conventional fighting force designed to engage and defeat opposing armies. It is the most powerful such force in world history. However, such an approach is no longer effective given today's realities. It is unlikely that there will be another conflict between major powers in the near future, as economic globalization has made most of the world's major powers interdependent. Future conflicts will be about rooting out extremist elements not affiliated with a national government, or defending against attacks from small "rogue states".

What is needed for such a world is not a massive army of tanks, infantry and battle fleets. The United States (and Canada) would be better served by remodeling their armed forces into a small, extremely well trained force supported by cutting edge technology. This small army, perhaps half the current size, would be focused on urban warfare, rapid deployment and counter-insurgency, and could be consolidated to a much smaller number of bases in order to save money. This type of model is currently used by the US Marine Corps, and should be expanded to the other services.

iv. Separation of Church and State - This has been a bedrock principle of the United States since at least the presidency of Thomas Jefferson. It has contributed significantly to the rise of the United States as a moral power in the world, and for the United States to avert disaster, it must be emphasized once again. The Roman Empire's decline, coincidentally or not, began shortly after the adoption of Christianity as the state religion.

Traditional battles in this area should be continued, but removing "In God we Trust" from money should not be secularists' most pressing concern.

Instead, it should be stalwart defence of the education system, and advocating against the indoctrination of children into religious traditions without providing them a fair choice. Although much of Richard Dawkins' anti-religious rhetoric is overstated, here he makes an excellent point.
It is considered absurd to refer to a child of Marxist parents as a "Marxist child", because at a young age, children are not intellectually equipped to make choices about political ideology.

However, it is commonplace to refer to children as "muslim children", or "christian children" simply because that is the religion of their parents. The great cause of secularists should be to prevent this from happening, and to infuse the education system with discussions of evidence-based reasoning and rational thought, so that when children reach their teenage years, they are equipped to decide for themselves what religion, if any, they will follow.

If the United States can overcome these obstacles, it will go a long way towards stemming their decline. If they should fail however, someone else may take their place.

2. The Global "South"

Many of the world's nations have gotten a raw deal from history. The indigenous people of the Americas were overrun, enslaved, or exterminated, and now exist in a miserable state in North America, and only a slightly better one in South America. Asia and Africa have been extensively exploited for their natural resources. All of these regrettable things have resulted in a divide between what some people call the global "north" and "south".

The last several centuries have not resulted in appreciable gains for these developing countries. All of the world's major powers have been from what is termed the "north", and imperialism and exploitation prevented most of these societies from expanding their global power.

Finally, this situation is beginning to change. Several small countries have made the leap from developing to developed, and provided a model of sorts for countries to lift themselves out of poverty. The best examples here are South Korea, Taiwan and Chile (to a lesser extent).

Following these examples, the big countries of the developing world are finally beginning to shake off the centuries of exploitation and reassert themselves on the world stage.If the United States fails to solve its problems and starts to slide into oblivion, there will be a chance for another nation to step up and lead. The obvious candidate at the present time is China, but India and Brazil are also emerging.

If America begins to decline, and one of these countries can present a credible alternative, they have a chance to become the next major global power.I will focus on China here because they are the only country developed enough to guess how such a thing might occur.

China has managed to construct an economic system powerful enough to compete with the United States on many levels. They can make a valid claim that they have harnessed the power of free markets while at the same time keeping decision-making highly concentrated and efficient. They can present a credible alternative to the American economic system.

The weakness of the Chinese economic system at this time appears to be innovation. Time will tell whether this is a temporary weakness or a consequence of the greater centralization and bureaucratization of the system, but the first stage of establishing China as a credible successor to the United States is to put them on similar economic footing. To accomplish this, China will have to learn to innovate better.

If China can continue to gain economically, and the United States cannot rectify its problems, an opening will almost surely present itself. In order to become the next global power, China must position itself as a moral leader of the world. At present, they have a long way to go if they are to accomplish this.

China has already begun cultivating significant relationships with other developing countries. In many cases they have provided development aid in exchange for resource access. They have also taken a strong position as the "voice" of the developing world, and have tried to position Chinese interests as an alternative to western "exploitation". They have begun to build relationships by advocating a fairer deal for developing countries on issues like climate change and free trade.

China must continue to expand this influence if they are to succeed. It is certainly true that elements of exploitation still exist between developing and developed countries. If China takes a strong stand on issues like agricultural subsidies, unfair trade agreements and environmental issues, they could be a third of the way to being a global moral leader.

The second thing the Chinese must do to seize their chance is to become more involved in the broader world. If they want to be seen as a moral leader, this is key. China must engage on world issues and show that they can succeed where the Americans have failed. If China engaged more fully in peacekeeping and issues like the Arab-Israeli conflict, they would be two-thirds of the way to being a global moral leader.

The final issues will be the most difficult, and involve the biggest change. If America falters on issues like evolution and gay rights, China must step up if it is to succeed. Human rights must be vastly improved and the Tibet situation resolved successfully before China can be the world's preeminent power. China must lead the way toward establishing a sustainable, global meritocracy. China has fewer problems with religious irrationalism than the United States, but many more when it comes to the freedom of its citizens. This must change if China wants to lead the world.

I must point out one other detail. I have portrayed the rise of China as a threat to American power. However, I want to emphasize that I am not suggesting that this would neccessarily be a bad thing. As tied as Canada is to the United States, if China can make the changes described above and become the world's "big fish", more power to them. The country leading the way matters much less to me than the destination.

From an American persepective, however, there are clearly things that can be done to ward off this threat. In addition to fixing American problems, engaging the developing world on more equal terms would go a long way towards maintaining American dominance. If the United States takes all these issues to heart, it could be a world leader for a long time to come.

Citius, Altius, Fortius

"Let me remind you,

You are the favoured few.

You constitute what is without doubt,

The most powerful athletic force

Ever to leave these shores.

You are to face the world's best.

Brown and yellow, white and black,

Young and ardent as yourselves,

Fleet of foot and strong of limb,

From every civilized nation

On the face of the earth.

I have no doubt

You will acquit yourselves honourably

And with distinction."

This is what the Olympics should be about. The pinnacle of human athletic competition. The Vancouver games were wonderful, but they fall short of this ideal. The Olympic games should be about principles, both those of peace and global unity, and those of athletic achievement. There were flashes of this all throughout the Vancouver games, and that is what made us love them. Let us embrace the ideal in full in the future...

Red, White and Controversy

Almost exactly four years ago, I wrote a post called The Red Glasses. It was brought on by a beautiful girl who I became friends with, a member of Canada's national synchronized swimming team. The premise of the post was to think about whether some sports were better than others. I came up with nine criteria, which I still think hold true, that contribute to how a sport should be ranked.

Four years later, Canada is justifiably proud to host our third Olympic Games. Every Canadian I know felt something when Alex Bilodeau brought Canada our first home gold. However, with the olympics has come a lot of debate about what the olympics is and what it represents. Many people, including myself, think that the olympics have become somewhat bloated, and that the value of an olympic medal is somewhat devalued by the number of them available.

Purists, like Trent, will go so far as to advocate extreme change. What Trent has said to me suggests that he believes that all team sports should be out of the olympics, along with all judged sports and sports that are not available to the broader world, ones that Trent would characterize as "elitist". That criteria would basically eliminate the entire winter olympics, leaving a bare-bones olympics that basically would include track & field, swimming, combat sports and possibly rowing, cycling and racquet sports.

I am not willing to go nearly so far. I think that Trent's reforms would marginalize the olympics, and endanger the primacy of the olympics as the premier world sporting competition. However, I will not shy away from controversy. I want to propose, in this post, the most radical changes to the olympics that I would support. I want to emphasize that sentence, because the changes that I might consider ideal would possibly fall short of what I will propose. However, I want to make the point here by being controversial.

Just as a reminder, the ranking characteristics I proposed in 2006 were:

1. Degree of worldwide participation

2. Degree of concentrated participation
3. Results come primarily from the differences in athletic skill of ther participants
4. Level of knowledge of the sport and its rules among the general population
5. Easy to understand and participate in
6. Level of national rivalry in the sport
7. Level of fitness throughout the sport
8. Intensity of training required to excel
9. Use of judges or other subjective methods of evaluation (I believe this inherently worsens a sport, because it becomes a matter of opinion)

I will consider these criteria in my evaluation. I will also consider that I believe the olympics are the pinnacle of world sporting competition, and should remain as such.

If you look at the Beijing games, there were 300 medal events. In Vancouver, there are 86. This amounts to 1158 olympic medals awarded per cycle. This, from my point of view, is clearly excessive. Yet, many of the world's most popular sports are not even included. Golf and Rugby sevens are scheduled to be added in the next summer games, and Rugby makes sense. Golf on the other hand, is not primarily decided by the physical abilities of the athletes, therefore it should be left out.

Additionally, cricket, the second most popular sport in the world, is not included in the olympics. The traditional main objection to cricket is that test cricket, the traditional format, can take several days to complete. However, a shorter variant, called Twenty20 cricket, has recently become popular, and that should certainly be included in the olympics.

That takes us to 304 summer olympic events. Far too many, if you ask me. The first priority is to rid the olympics of the events that are not competitive enough or well-known enough to be included in the pinnacle of world sport competition. Additionally, the sports where the result is not primarily determined by the physical fitness of the (human) athletes. These could include the following:

Trampoline: 2 medal events

Equestrian: 6 medal events

Shooting: 15 medal events

Archery: 4 medal events

Racewalking: 3 medal events

Table Tennis: 4 medal events

Sailing: 11 medal events

Modern Pentathlon: 2 medal events

Fencing: 10 medal events

Rhythmic Gymnastics: 2 medal events

.

That reduces the summer program to 245 events. The next step is to remove the events that are too subjective. Most judged sports are far too prone to individual judges' opinion. The sole exception is gymnastics, where by all accounts the judging is extremely specific. Regardless, it is impractical to take gymnastics out of the olympics, because along with swimming and track, it is one of the founding events of the summer olympics. The following events, however, could be removed easily:

Synchronized swimming: 2 events

Synchronized diving: 4 events

That gets us to 239 olympic events. The next discussion is of the events that allow multiple weight classes. I understand that these sports are usually split this way in competition, but I feel that it allows lesser sports to have a huge number of medals, which I believe devalues the medals awarded in the other events. Usain Bolt's height is a clear advantage for him, yet the shorter men still have to race him. Shotput too, does not have weight classes. Therefore, I propose that the following events abolish (more controversial, I would certainly also go for a reduction) their weight classes, and have a single olympic competition:

Wrestling: eliminates 15 medal categories

Weightlifting: eliminates 13 medal categories

Boxing: eliminates 10 medal categories

Judo: eliminates 12 medal categories

Taekwondo: eliminates 6 medal categories

This would get the number of medal events down to 183. The final adjustment that could be made to the summer olympics is to move some of the indoor events that are traditionally contested during the winter in cold climates. If these events were moved to the winter olympics, it would raise the quality of the winter games, and help reduce the number of events in the summer. The following sports could have this action taken:

Basketball: 2 medal events

Weightlifting: 2 medal events

Boxing: 1 medal event

Judo: 2 medal events

Taekwondo: 2 medal events

Handball: 2 medal events

Badminton: 5 medal events

Wrestling: 3 medal events

.

This would leave 164 medal events in the summer olympics. The breakdown of these events would be as follows:

.

Track & Field: 44 medal events

Swimming: 34 medal events

Gymnastics: 14 medal events

Cycling (various kinds): 18 medal events

Canoe/Kayak: 16 medal events

Rowing: 14 medal events

Diving: 4 medal events

Tennis: 4 medal events

Volleyball: 4 medal events

Water Polo: 2 medal events

Field Hockey: 2 medal events

Association Football: 2 medal events

Triathalon: 2 medal events

Twenty20 Cricket: 2 medal events

Rugby: 2 medal events

.

I believe that this selection of events, with additions as new sports come to prominence (I'd personally like to see an Ironman in the olympics), would provide an olympic games with all the grandeur and scale of the current games, while bringing the games much closer to being the pinnacle of human athletics. An olympic gold would say to everyone "I am one of the world's best athletes," and "I took on the best from all around the world, in a fair competition, and won". That would be a great day.

.

As for the winter olympics, the 86 medal events from Vancouver would be joined by the 19 newcomers from the summer games. I also think that squash and men's mixed martial arts, both popular and exciting sports, should be added. I would also be sympathetic to additional combat sports, being that I wiped out most of their medals earlier in the post.

.

This gives us a starting point of 108 medal events for the winter games. Following the same approach as with the summer games, the first step to fixing the winter games is to take out those events that are not competitive or do not require physical fitness. This pains me to do, because I love curling, but it simply doesn't meet the criteria and has to go. The events I would endorse removing are:

.

Curling: 2 medal events

Women's Hockey: 1 medal event

.

The next, and most arduous task, is to eliminate the events that are too subjective due to judging. Figure skating will be the most controversial here, because it is a core event of the winter olympics and has been around a long time. However, I am of the opinion that the judging is simply too subjective to make it a fair competition at this point.

.

I also think that there are some changes required to avoid eliminating certain events. Moguls events should be changed to eliminate the judged component, and become a simple race. Additionally, the Ski Jumping portion of Nordic Combined should be replaced by an alpine event, most likely downhill.

.

The judging-dependent events that should be removed are:

Figure Skating: 4 medal events
Snowboard half-pipe: 2 medal events
Freestyle skiing aerials: 2 medal events
Ski Jumping: 3 medal events

That leaves 94 medal events in a more diverse, more fair and more athletic winter games. The total number of olympic medals awarded per cycle under my plan would fall from 1158 to 774, which I believe would restore much of the lost exclusivity of an olympic medal.

These changes will never come to pass for political reasons (figure skating is too popular), but I honestly think they would make the olympics much better. Let the controversy begin.

The Man From Earth

Of all the films I have seen with a budget of less than $1 million, The Man From Earth might be the best. Many people cannot imagine a science-fiction movie being made for ~$200,000 in this day and age, but here it is. The movie is entirely set in the protagonist's small house and the surrounding area, and the story is driven solely by the dialogue. Yet, the film succeeds brilliantly.
The movie is about a 14,000 year old Cro-Magnon caveman who discovered that he was immortal. He conceals that fact, and bears witness to much of history, until finally he tells his story to a group of professors during a surprise party.

The movie's creators encourage its distribution through file-sharing networks, so anyone can watch it for free. I highly recommend this.

The most striking thing for me about this film is that it brought me back to a thought experiment that I have pondered and enjoyed since junior high. I first started thinking about this in my early days of playing the Conspiracy X RPG. In Con X there is a race called the Atlanteans, who came to Earth in prehistory. They possess incredible nanotechnology that allows them to, among other things, alter their appearance and prevent aging and disease.

In the game, the technologically advanced but psychically dead Atlanteans are defeated in battle by early-Bronze Age humans wielding powerful magic. The surviving Atlanteans decide to go underground, and become solitary demigods living hidden among humans. Each Atlantean assumes a kind of archetype that drives their motivation as they move, unseen, through history.

For example, Azek'al devotes himself to helping the human race improve itself. He has nudged scientists toward breakthroughs, and wishes to one day bring humanity to the point where they are equal to the Atlanteans. D'jeler, on the other hand, is obsessed with power, and works to reunite the solitary Atlanteans under his rule.

The game led me to start thinking about the following scenario: If I found myself alone at the edge of the Sahara circa 2500 BC, possessing a full complement of Atlantean nanotech systems, what would my archetype be? What do I think is most worth doing?

My first thought was to try and use my knowledge of history to influence its outcomes. I tend to think that temporal laws would prevent me from doing this (I would like to believe the "course-correcting" in Lost would happen), but I also soon realized that even if I could change things, it would be far too difficult to predict the actual outcomes of my actions. I couldn't take the risk of accidentally destroying the good things about today's world.

After seeing The Man From Earth, I started thinking about this scenario again, and I suddenly realized what my answer would be. I have always been fascinated by history itself, and always wished that I could have seen those events and places in their full glory, rather than just the fragments that exist in our time. If I had the chance to experience these events firsthand, the most important thing I could do would be to preserve them for all time, to make sure the true history of our Earth would never be lost.

To that end, the first thing I would need to do is to find a secure location where my archives could be established. I would want a place that was isolated enough that I would be able to work undisturbed, and a place where I would be out of the way of history. In 2500 BC, there were still vast stretches of the Earth that were uninhabited by people, and I would have to choose on of those. I would need a place where I would have a fair amount of space to operate, but not so much that I could not control it. A glance at Wikipedia suggested many potential candidates, almost all remote islands. My search initially led me to either the Tristan da Cunha islands in the South Atlantic or the Prince Edward Islands in the South Indian Ocean. However, once I started considering factors like weather and the logistics of managing several islands compared to one, I realized that the best solution was probably an island I have always been fascinated by, Easter.

Easter Island is isolated and was uninhabited until at least 200 AD, and probably much later. Nothing ever occured there that affected the course of world history, and its climate is pleasant enough to make living easy and provide areas for key parts of my archives.

The next thing I thought about is how easy it would be to construct a modern base in the distant past, without any equipment. I concluded that even for a modern human, it would be extremely difficult to build something like an oceangoing ship. However, that is quite a different thought experiment. I therefore decided to assume that I had a fully functional assembler, an Atlantean device that uses nanites and molecular blueprints to produce useful items.

Once on Easter, the basics would come first. I would construct a base, mostly underground, which would provide floor after floor of storage for artifacts. I would also need a hydroponics facility and living quarters, in order to feed myself and the others I would bring to the island. On the surface I would construct a surveillance and defence system for the island, disguised as a low-tech village. I would also need a number of enclosures for the animals I would bring to the island.

Those animals would be those that we have lost in the days since 2500BC. The human race has been extrodinarily destructive to other species, and although I would be too late to save the Holocene megafauna that were wiped out in the Americas around 10,000BC, I could save many species. First priority would be the dwarf woolly mammoths of Wrangel Island, the last of the mammoths that vanished around 1700BC. After that I would attempt to capture Moas, Thylacines, Dodos, Aurochs, Great Auks and Quaggas, among other species. If feasable, I would bring enough individuals to Easter to establish a viable population. If that turned out to be impossible (as it might with the mammoths and many of the species of Moa) I would collect and cryofreeze as much genetic material as possible, and attempt to maintain a small population of the animals on Easter using artificial insemination techniques.

Obviously I would be unable to manage such a large collection of animals myself. Species like the auks and the aurochs would be largely self sufficient, and could freely roam the island with a minimum of managment. Species that would be unused to the climate of the island, or species that might overrun the native island life (or the other introduced animals) would have to be put in more of a zoo environment. Setting Thylacines loose on the island, for example, would not be good for the Dodos to say the least.

I would therefore have to recruit some assistance. I would obviously want to pick people that shared my love of nature and history, and smart people with a talent for languages would also help. In 2500BC, anyone I recruited would require significant education, but I doubt I would have trouble recruiting adventurers. I would have to find people who would be willing to forgo having families though, as I would want to keep the human population on Easter to a minimum.

As time went on and people became more knowledgeable about the state of the world, I would have to be more careful. Once technology became available that would allow people to get off Easter and back to seafaring societies (probably in the 15th century), I would have to begin conducting recruiting in a different way. I would obviously want to prevent knowledge of my mission and technology from becoming public, for fear that Conquistadors might come knocking with an invasion force. One possibility might be to recruit mostly women, given that they were oppressed in many places until recently, and might welcome the chance for a different life.

Once I was done establishing the Easter Island wildlife reserve, I would begin the more meticulous process of cataloging human history. I would have to have recruits stationed around the globe, with a way to alert me if something historically significant was happening. As time went by this would become easier, as I would have a general idea of where to be and when.

Once I had this network set up, I would likely travel the world with a high-definition video camera, making record of places and key events. I would bring back pictures and video, along with artifacts like books and art. Easter Island would become a place of refuge for the true history of the world, and I would have many, many lifetimes of critical work to do.

Fascinating thought experiment. If only it could be done.

The Phantom Menace

With the UN climate-change conference underway in Copenhagen, the swords are drawn on both sides. Despite the fact that I wrote a post on climate change quite recently, I realized while rereading it that recent events probably necessitate another post. I have heard some interesting viewpoints that have caused me to adjust my position on the issue somewhat, and that is always reason enough to write.

Basically, in my previous post I advocated a fairly aggressive cap and trade system, combined with significant investment in renewables and other efforts, including modification of the GST. I also pointed out, however, that the hysteria around climate change had reached a point where the predictions of doom were far removed from the actual science, and perhaps even more troubling, the issue was actually starting to detract from other worthy environmental endeavours.

I have since heard some viewpoints that have significantly reinforced those beliefs. I recently read Bjorn Lomborg's Cool It, and subsequently watched the excellent Munk Debate on Climate Change, held in Toronto a couple weeks ago. Dr. Lomborg is 100% on board with the mainstream view of climate science, but he gives people like Al Gore fits with his views on what should be done (or not done) about climate change.

Dr. Lomborg spends much of his book arguing that although climate change will have negative consequences, they are far overblown by supporters of radical action, as well as by the media. Here I agree with him completely. He also makes a case that existing programs like Kyoto are expensive and don't even mitigate emissions by a significant amount, and action severe enough to make a big difference would be economically ruinous. He then goes on to show that the ROI (return on investment) is infinitesimal for dollars spent on fighting climate change, and that it would be far better to spend the money on fighting malaria & AIDS, or on supplying clean water to those that don't have it.

He therefore advocates a strategy of a small carbon tax, combined with a big expenditure on Green R&D and a huge increase in money spent on fighting disease and promoting development in poor countries.

His argument is persuasive, and I strongly agree that development is seriously underfunded; I also concur that in the long term, green technology (including fusion) is our way out of the problem. However, I do take issue with his argument about a small carbon tax. I've previously stated why I prefer cap and trade, and think that the scale can be bigger than Lomborg suggests only if the tax is revenue neutral. Much of Lomborg's argument centres on the huge cost (in terms of lost economic growth) that would result from a heavy carbon reduction program. However, this loss would be mitigated if the tax was truly revenue-neutral. A tax shift, like I have advocated, would make a larger carbon program much more feasible.

The common response to Lomborg is also something I feel like I should address. Many people say "we have to do both carbon reduction and development!" Lomborg rightly points out that with limited budgets, that may not be possible. I still think that there are many things that could be done on both fronts without spending too much money, the distribution of birth control and associated information would be very cheap, and effective. Eliminating agricultural subsidies in developed countries would save money and promote development in the 3rd world. Those are only a couple of the possibilities available to us.

Therefore, I think it reasonable to say that my recent readings have confirmed my views on many aspects of the issue, but perhaps make me a little more hesitant to prescribe a strong response to climate change, especially if it is not 100% revenue neutral. The existing proposals, whereby most permits would be given away instead of auctioned (making it impossible to use revenues to cut income taxes) are certainly not satisfactory from my point of view.

Dr. Lomborg was also one of the debaters at the aforementioned Munk debates, facing down George Monbiot and Elizabeth May on the resolution: "Be it resolved that climate change is mankind's defining crisis, and demands a commensurate response". I thought that the Con side clearly won the debate, showing that although global warming is a serious problem, it can hardly be mankind's defining crisis. It is one of many serious problems that we face. The response at Copenhagen must be rational and considered, and must not succumb to the hysteria.

However, out of all the recent furor on climate change came one other thing, something which has the potential to do far more damage than people think, in an entirely different way than people think. It is far more of a "phantom menace" than climate change itself (or Bjorn Lomborg's controversial views).

I am speaking of the incident regarding the emails stolen from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University in the UK. Unlike the conspiracy theorists and the climate change skeptics, who assert that the emails represent the final "nail in the coffin" of the global warming "hoax", my own reading of the content suggests that there is nothing to suggest any sort of global conspiracy or manipulation of climate data.

Nonetheless, what the emails do show is that the scientific process, as it exists today, is far less transparent than it should be. The emails do show some evidence of politics influencing the practice of science, and certainly show unethical behaviour when it comes to the transparent release of information, or the suppression of contrarian views that are so key to the advancement of science.

These problems allow attacks on science itself. Increasingly over the last few decades, beginning with the tobacco companies in the 1960's, political groups have begun to attack science itself, claiming bias, conspiracy and politicisation in order to "reposition" certain issues "as theory rather than fact".

This is a serious problem that has the potential to greatly damage future world progress unless it is dealt with immediately. As I said in my last post, I believe the greatest battle our species faces is the battle to pull ourselves up out of the darkness, to realize our own ignorance and commit ourselves to the pursuit of knowledge. Only if superstition, fundamentalism, dogma and irrationality are defeated can humanity realize its full potential.

In modern times, for the most part, science and reason have been winning that battle. Recently, though, on issue after issue, especially in the United States but also everywhere else, the fight has dramatically intensified. Support for evolution in the United States is actually declining, despite the incontrovertible evidence in its favour. The Catholic Church's stance on birth control has severely damaged efforts to prevent the spread of AIDS. In the Islamic world, in a culture that produced many of the world's foremost scientists in centuries past, the recent trend has been towards repression and closed-mindedness. Countless far-right pundits in the United States are making various claims that are completely unsupported by facts, and yet their shows attract thousands of followers.

It is time that we turn the tide of this battle. The CRU emails are a significant blow, but we must "examine all obstacles carefully, because with a little ingenuity they can often be turned into levers". We must seize this opportunity to make science more transparent and accountable. I understand that scientists are hesitant to release their data to the public because they want to make sure they are credited for their discoveries and hard work, but I think it would be reasonable to require all scientific data sets pertaining to peer-reviewed publications be made publicly available on the Internet once the journal has gone to print.

I also understand that scientists are frustrated by "junk science", which most of the work done by climate change skeptics would certainly qualify as. However, they would be better served to allow those people their right to their view, and then use ruthless analysis and incisive logic to expose that "junk science". That would help science far more in the long run that trying to suppress the publication of bad science in the first place.

I am not a scientist, and therefore the ideas I have presented may be impractical or ignorant. However, the point remains. Science is a key pillar of a brighter future, and we must maintain the integrity and transparency of the scientific method at all costs. Otherwise, fundamentalism will surely win more victories in the future.

P.S. I read an article today about an interesting carbon reduction program. The idea is to link the rate of carbon reduction to the actual change in temperature. That is, if the temperature rises a lot, countries would be obligated to cut emissions more drastically. There are some serious potential problems here, mainly with uncertainty and huge fluctuations, but a system like that might be worth considering. You could reduce the volatility by comparing a 10 year rolling average of global temperature to the baseline temperature measured over at least 50 years. You could then say that my 2% per year reduction (see previous post) in the amount of carbon permits issued could fluctuate between 0-4% based on relative temperatures. It's certainly an interesting idea, and I'm glad to see people thinking creatively about this issue.

The Life & Death of Leonidas

Most of the posts that I have brought over from my first blog to this one, and almost all those that I have written since, have been on a pretty narrow range of topics. I did this on purpose, as a way to avoid the personal ramblings, the melodrama and the lack of seriousness that filled my first try at a blog.

However, I recognize that although my politics and my philosophy are two extremely vital parts of my empire of ideas, my coherent worldview, there are other things that contribute as well. I recently stumbled on Roger Ebert's blog, which inspired me to come back to some of those other things. Ebert is a film critic, and many of his blog entries are about film, but he doesn't limit himself to that. He discusses media, politics, books and his own personal experiences, which adds to my perceptions of his movie reviews, and deepens my understanding of the man himself.

Therefore, I have decided to try and incorporate some other things into this blog, whether they are experiences, interesting things I've been thinking about, or even comments on books and films. I will steadfastly avoid the song lyrics and melodrama that I have used in the past, but I don't see the harm in writing, for example, about some of my thoughts relating to the movie 300.

First, though, I want to include a short but stirring excerpt from Ebert's blog:

"What do I really need that isn't here in this room?" I asked. "Its dimensions are a little more than twice as wide and deep as I am tall. I don't know, maybe 150 square feet? Here I have the padded wood chair in which I sit tilted against the wall, my feet braced on my straight desk chair. I am holding the three-inch-thick Paul Hamlyn edition of Shaw's complete plays.

This room contains: A wood single bed, an African blanket covering it, a wood desk and its gooseneck lamp, a small dresser with a mirror over it, my portable typewriter, a small wardrobe containing my clothes, a steamer trunk serving as a coffee table, and two bookcases, filled to overflowing. What more do I actually need?"

To this inventory I would today add: A rice cooker, knife and cutting board, to prepare my meals; a small refrigerator; and a MacBook and nice speakers to supply the internet, music, videos and TV.

This hit home for me. I have often thought about the very same question, "what things do I really need?". The list isn't long when it comes down to it. I have often told people that I have no desire to have a big house in the suburbs, even though I grew up in one. The quality of my possessions is far more important to me than the quantity. I think I would have to add a few things to Ebert's list but not many.

I would want a larger bed, first of all. Probably a queen-size. I would probably want a functional kitchen, although I could do with just a rice cooker, fridge and knife, it wouldn't be bad to have a stove and a BBQ as well. I could do without the typewriter as long as I had my MacBook. As everyone knows, I would also need some way to watch live sports, which currently is not available on the Internet. Hopefully that will soon change.

Probably that is all I would need, along with a bathroom with a good size bathtub, to be very happy with my living arrangement. There are a few additional luxuries that I would allow myself, like a real stereo, including a turntable, a video game system, laundry machines and a dishwasher. I would also really like to have a beautiful car, although I think Ebert is limiting himself to only his living environment, and not his other possessions.

The point is, spartan but high quality living beats excessive materialism any day of the week. Also, Ebert's point should be well-taken: books are an absolute necessity.

I want to close with those few thoughts on 300. Most people, including Ebert, dismiss the film as shallow machismo, which it is. Nonetheless, there are some important messages in the movie, beneath all the adrenaline. The controversy about the plot revolves around the post-9/11 portrayal of West vs. East, of the fascist undertones, of the white Spartans facing down the multi-racial, androgynous Persians. Those things are there, and I am not one bit surprised that Iran is upset, along with advocates of multiculturalism.

I hesitate to defend any of this, because those racist attitudes are undoubtedly reprehensible (and wrong!). However, I must point out that the movie is a narration of the battle provided to the warriors at Plataea before they face the Persians. I saw the film as a representation of the imaginations of those warriors, brought forth by the narrative of the story. That is one of the reasons why I feel that the surreal style was so effective.

I also must point out that much of the East vs. West ethos, and the racism, is based on contemporary (Greek) accounts of the battle. Herodotus paints the battle exactly as the movie does, East vs. West, and I must respect the movie staying close to the best available source material.

Finally, I must point out that there are some good messages to take away from the movie as well. The framing of the battle not only puts East against West, it frames it in a way that I find much more applicable to our time. That is, it tells the story of the fight between reason and freedom on the one hand, and "mysticism and tyranny" on the other hand. This is a key message, and this is the real defining battle of our time (and all time). No matter whether you are from Canada, America or Iran, I believe it is critically important to promote science, reason, rationality and tolerance, and to battle against dogma, fundamentalism and repression.

I also want to point out that we can learn much from the attitude towards death in the movie (and in Spartan culture). It is my strong belief that we place far too much emphasis on mourning our dead, and do not properly celebrate or honour the person's life and death. 300 rightly tells us not to fear death, but to see it as something that simply is, and to want your death, and your life, to mean something. The movie is riddled with quotable lines, but the ones on that topic are some of the best.

"Remember us. That was his hope, should any free soul come across that place, in all the countless centuries yet to be. May all our voices whisper to you from the ageless stones..."

and

"Remember this day men, for it will be yours for all time"

are two of my favourites.

The best line in the entire movie, however, is quietly delivered by Gerard Butler:

"You there, Ephialtes. May you live forever..."

The Spartans understood that this was a deadly insult. We, in modern times, don't understand that every story, and every life, needs a ending to be complete.

The Architect's Tale (5 of 5)

In the previous five posts, I have explored and fleshed out my ideas on many philosophical ideas. I believe I have constructed a rational set of conclusions that reflect the best knowledge I have about the universe, and that these ideas can be built on further in this post.

The main conclusions I have reached so far are:

1. It is logical to assume the universe exists largely as I observe it.

2. The explanations for why the universe is the way it is can be split into two groups, those postulating some purpose for life, and those that do not. Either group could contain the correct answer, I believe the purposeful existence to be slightly more likely.

3. There are several guiding principles that people should use to decide how to live their lives. They include:

- People should act to ensure the survival of intelligent life by any necessary means

- People should endeavour to discover a possible purpose to our existence through study, observation and exploration of the universe. They should also use this increased knowledge to refine their moral views

- People should promote the establishment of free societies wherever they do not already exist, and encourage as much discussion and debate as they can within their own societies

- People should recognize the validity of a variety of viewpoints, and avoid fundamentalism and self-righteousness

-People should try to make sure that their decisions, moral and otherwise, are as nonzero-sum as possible, and should promote increased nonzero-sumness within their societies (and between societies) by increasing communication and trust

I think that those statements are a pretty good foundation for my belief system. However, to complete the circle, and build those core statements up towards my political beliefs, more work is needed.

Firstly, I would argue that in order to increase communication and trust, and in order to facilitate free discourse and the study and exploration of the universe, some kind of society is necessary. Anarchism will not work here, because it has at its base a rejection of the type of cooperation necessary for things like global communication networks and large-scale space exploration.

The next thing to consider is the kind of society that should be constructed, beyond the simple requirement of free discourse. Again, the requirements above dictate a technological society, one that accepts and promotes rational thought, questioning of paradigms and allows for new ideas. In my mind, this eliminates the forms of societies that discourage free thought, promote blind acceptance of ideas and discourage deviation.

This disqualifies any totalitarian state, be it fascist or communist, and also disqualifies any theocracy of the kind prevalent today. I do not deny, however, that it would be possible (although probably not with Christianity or Islam), to have an open and accepting theocracy that was in harmony with science and free discourse. This would require a more nuanced interpretation of God than is found in most western religions today, although many of the eastern religions seem to mesh relatively well with a scientific worldview. For now, however, I am of the strong opinion that the principles I have outlined can be accomplished most fully thorough a vigorously defended separation of church and state.

The next point I want to make is that any large-scale, technological and rational society must have some notion of personal responsibility. The evidence for this is empirical, there has been no successful society that has not been based on personal responsibility. This implies a key philosophical assumption, the one that started my whole philosophical investigation. The notion of personal responsibility is absurd without free will. If someone is not in control of their actions, there is no logical reason to punish or reward them for those actions. Therefore, I believe that we must accept the existence of free will. Even if there is no free will, we must continue to believe, and act, as if there is. Right now, I believe there is no conclusive evidence either way, but even if there was, I think we would, in order to have a chance of succeeding as a species, would have to ignore it. This pains me greatly, but I see no other way.

Once we accept that we have free will, I believe the notion of differential reward systems becomes defensible. If people can make free choices, then people can expect different standards of living, within an acceptable range. It is perfectly acceptable for people that perform certain actions, like hard work, to be rewarded to a greater extent than those that do not.

The following question then becomes, what types of actions should qualify a person for such a differential reward? This question is at the foundation of the type of economic system that I support. I believe that the ultimate measuring stick for differential reward should be "contribution to society". A person who makes a society more dynamic and vibrant, or achieves some great advance in understanding, should be rewarded more than someone who contributes nothing. However, it is obviously extremely difficult to build an economic system based on contribution, because there will never be complete agreement on what contributions are most important.

A second factor that is important to consider when discussing an ideal economic system is efficiency. In order to promote the development of a society, especially from a technical/scientific point of view, economic resources must be allocated as efficiently as possible. Inefficient societies will either be replaced my more efficient ones, or simply stagnate or crawl along at a snail's pace.

My view of the empirical evidence is that capitalism, tempered by government management of externalities, tends to be the best system to satisfy those dual criteria of efficiency and reward for contribution. Although the use of a price system and monetary reward has its issues, it is by far the most efficient system we have yet tried, and has produced massive technological advancement, and for the first time, a potential capability to explore the universe and to begin to reduce existential threats to humanity's existence.

In my view, there are three big problems with capitalism that do not naturally coincide with my perceived ultimate goals. The first is one have discussed previously, the existence of externalities in a capitalist economic system. I have previously advocated that management of this problem should be the primary responsibility of the government.

The second, related issue is that of equality of opportunity. If we are to have a system truly based on differential reward, it is essential that everyone have the same opportunity to succeed, otherwise the system will lose both efficiency and fairness. Some of this issue will be addressed by the management of externalities, for example, education and health care are both underproduced by a competitive market, given the positive externalities they create. Government will indirectly promote equality of opportunity by addressing these issues. However, I believe there is more that would need to be done. Even with management of externalities, issues like a de facto "aristocracy" based on inherited wealth (and the opposite, children disadvantaged by the socio-economic performance of their parents) as well as issues of broad-based discrimination might need to be addressed.

The third, and biggest issue, is the difference between contribution and profit. Capitalist systems encourage the maximization of the latter, as we all know. However, I believe empirical evidence clearly shows that although profit-making and contribution are correlated (strongly so), there remains a significant gap. I believe that it is self evident that many people grow rich without contribution, and many contributors live in poverty.

Exactly who these people are is certainly debatable, but I would give my own opinion that it tends to be artists of various kinds and scientists who are under-rewarded in our system and that celebrities of various kinds as well as many people in my own field (finance) and other service industries who are often overvalued. Now it is important to note that finance professionals, lawyers and other service professionals do make significant contributions to the functioning of societies and deserve to be rewarded. I am only stating that I believe it to be excessive in some cases.

Policies that can fix this problem are few and far between. As hard as I try, I cannot find many ways to try and reconcile this difference between contribution and wealth. This, in my view, should be one of the foremost challenges of the 21st century. It may end up requiring a wholesale shift in our economic system over the next century or two, but this is a challenge that I believe can be met incrementally and gradually.

Once we settle on a society with a market economy and recognize the need for a government to manage some parts of that economy,as well as to maintain a free and open society, the next question is about the kind of government that you want. Here the question seems to be around balancing efficiency, which we have established as key, with accountability and the need to preserve fundamental freedom and openness.

Although there certainly seems to be some evidence, including the experience of modern China, to suggest that authoritarian systems have a slight efficiency advantage, there are serious problems with preventing the abuse of power in those systems, because of the lack of accountability. Most authoritarian systems have difficulty maintaining a free society for a variety of reasons. On the other hand, democracy has its own problems. Some democratic systems are vulnerable to paralysis and inaction, either because of checks and balances in the system or because the system promotes highly fragmented coalition governments. Additionally, democracy sometimes has issues with making hard decisions, ones that might be unpopular but necessary.

As much as I have to admit that the Platonic "philosopher kings" might superficially appeal to me, I have to judge that given that since I believe freedom and openness must be the cornerstone of a society, an authoritarian government is too dangerous to accept. We simply cannot take the risk, and must therefore accept democracy as the best, and only choice. Additionally, as I have pointed out in the past, democracies generally have less civil war, genocide, political repression and other internal conflicts, and rarely fight wars against each other, all of which will help achieve my ultimate goals.

However, that does not mean we cannot attempt to at least minimize democracy's problems. The efficiency problem is a small one, especially when democracy is combined with capitalism. The main steps than can be taken to improve efficiency have to do with regulatory regimes and tax policy. In many cases, efficiency can be improved by simply trying to minimize regulation itself. I believe that in many cases there is far too much government regulation. Where regulation is required, it should be geared towards maximizing efficiency, through doing things like funding hospitals based on services provided and choosing cap & trade systems over flat taxes when trying to minimize carbon emissions. This desire for efficiency is also a contributor to my view on taxation.

The problem of systematic paralysis is more difficult, but seems to have been mostly surmounted in many democratic systems. Here I believe Canada has it at least partially right, in that the executive branch of a democracy needs to be relatively powerful. Gridlock can also be prevented through a multiparty system (ideally 3-5 parties) or even better, doing away with political parties altogether. Canada's system does have some weaknesses, which I have outlined in previous posts, but they generally do not relate to the gridlock issue.

Another problem Canada has managed to avoid is the lack of stability caused by extremely fragmented democracies, which also tend towards the extremes because of the tendency for the balance of power to be held by smaller, fringe parties. This has come at a cost of fairness in some respects, but I have already discussed those issues.

I think that that begins to cover the links between my basic philosophical views and the core of my political beliefs. Most of my other political beliefs drive off of the basis of the key goals at the beginning of the post, and off the subsequent analysis. Specifically, many beliefs come from a perceived necessity for efficiency, nonzero-sumness and tolerance. I will briefly elaborate, but try and keep it short as this post is getting towards the long side.

My views on efficiency inform many of my political beliefs. My views on free trade, agricultural subsidies, the necessity of global regulation, the desirability of a meritocracy (which leads to other policies around equality of opportunity) and other issues, are driven by my belief that we require both an efficient, and increasingly nonzero-sum society.

Another key factor that drives my political views is tolerance. I view a free and tolerant society as non-negotiable, which drives much of my social policy views. My views on regulation also affect my social views; government has no place legislating who can or cannot get married, for example.

There are some views that do not fall clearly within this framework, notably my views on health care and the environment. I believe that these views simply spring from the obvious point that humanity cannot explore the galaxy, drive science to new heights, and ensure our survival as a species if people are not getting quality health care, or if the environment is uninhabitable. There is also something to be said for preserving the diversity of life, for the sake of human knowledge and experience. I think this is why issues of conservation are probably the most important parts of environmental policy for me.

I believe I have accomplished an important task in the last few posts. I believe I have developed a reasonably solid and consistent philosophical foundation for my beliefs, which should help me significantly when I confront future issues and decisions. I am satisfied.

Four Point Five

As luck would have it, less than two days after I posted part four, I got into a fierce discussion with Trent about the nature of morality. I realized that my previous post was inadequate with respect to certain issues. Trent also convinced me of the necessity of modifying my position somewhat. So, part 5 will have to wait, as I attempt to address a few key issues on my ethical philosophy.

Firstly, I must reemphasize that I believe that this moral rationale applies only in the case of a purposeless universe. I have concluded that there is not sufficient evidence to be certain (or even fairly confident) whether or not humanity/life has an underlying purpose driving its existence, and I therefore believe it is prudent to give consideration to either eventuality. In fact, as I have previously stated, my beliefs lean slightly toward a purposeful existence of one kind or another.

The second thing I must address is my own ignorance. As I have little practical training in philosophy, I have come to realize that some of the terminology I have been using is inaccurate or incomplete from a philosophical standpoint. For example, I use the term "moral relativism" in a broader sense than the specific usage in modern philosophy. When I discuss "moral relativism" I simply mean a rejection of the metaphysical thesis (the truth of a moral statement is based on objective moral facts,which are mind-independent just like non-moral facts) but an affirmation of the semantic thesis (moral statements express propositions) and acceptance of the aletic thesis (some moral propositions are in some way true). I do not mean "cultural relativism".

The other place where I feel I have been ignorant is on the distinctions between the different branches of ethics, as defined in modern philosophy. I believe my previous post can be confusing because it does not distinguish between my meta-ethical position and my normative position.

Based on what I have read, my meta-ethical position is certainly cognitivist, but likely anti-realist. From what I have read, I believe it is a form of what wikipedia calls "Individualist Ethical Subjectivism". Basically this is a fancy way of saying what I noted in my last post, which is that each individual has a unique moral framework, based on their genetics and experiences. All of these individual views are equally valid and equally "right", with two exceptions:

1. The individual's moral framework is not internally consistent or not rational. Any valid individual morality must be reasonably consistent and rational. I understand that the vast majority of people (including me) have not examined their own beliefs closely enough to be sure that no inconsistencies exist, but I believe a person who has a very well-thought-out framework can safely say that their moral framework is more valid than someone whose morality is riddled with inconsistency. I admit there is a subjective dividing line here.

2. The moral framework is based on an incorrect understanding of mind-independent facts. This, I believe, is where moral progress comes from. I believe the moral framework of the average person today can be said to be more valid than that of a person from the past simply because we have greater general knowledge. Human sacrifice, for example, was born out of an incorrect knowledge of nature. The Aztecs genuinely thought that human sacrifice was fundamental to ensuring the survival of their society, and thus moral. We now know that to be an empirical falsehood; many societies have been very successful without human sacrifice. I therefore think that we have some justification to say that our morality is more "right" than theirs. I also think that it is very likely that future humans, with a better understanding of the universe, will have some justification in claiming to be morally superior to us.

As for my normative position, I think the closest philosophical position to mine is something called Preference Utilitarianism, which basically says the moral action is the one that leads to the greatest "good," where "good" is defined as the satisfaction of each person's (presumably each stakeholder's) individual preferences or desires. This is close to what I talk about in my previous post, with a couple important differences. It seems that a situation could arise where someone could do something contrary to their own preferences or desires, because they consider it moral.

For example, take the case of stealing. I would imagine there are cases where stealing would greatly satisfy the "preferences and desires" of the thief, and would not substantially damage the "preferences and desires" of any other stakeholder. Under Preference Utilitarianism, it would seem like the moral action would be to steal the item. However, in my normative view, that stealing is unlikely to be morally non-zero sum (unless both the thief and the victim consider stealing to be morally acceptable) and would certainly violate the freely established moral consensus of Canada, where stealing is held to be wrong in most cases.

The second difference is the inclusion of non-zero sumness itself. I believe that win-wins are inherently better than win-lose scenarios. Consider the difference between two choices in a moral dilemma with two stakeholders. In Choice A, the outcome is morally satisfactory to both stakeholders, but results in a net change in "preferences or desires" of say, 10 on a hypothetical numeric scale. In Choice B, the individual morality of one stakeholder is satisfied, but that of the other is not (the action is immoral to them). However, this scenario results in a net change of 20 on our hypothetical scale. The Preference Utilitarian and I would come to different conclusions.

Having (hopefully) fleshed out some of my ideas and been more clear about the philosophical positions I hold, I'd like to end with my answers or thoughts about some of the specific questions that came up in my debate with Trent. I don't pretend that there won't be inconsistiencies, and I certainly don't have all the answers. However, I feel obligated to do my best.

1. Moral Wikiality

There is something troubling about morality set by consensus. What about a society consisting entirely of child abusers? If the freely established moral consensus is that this is acceptable, does that make it right in the context of that society? How does this reconcile with observed feelings that that would be wrong in any scenario?

Here I think the answer comes from our good friend evolution. Basically, my argument for why Moral Wikiality is not a big problem is also the key distinction between my meta-ethical view and what is commonly referred to as cultural relativism. This is my belief that our individual moral frameworks have a genetic component. Individuals with strong negative feelings toward certain actions would find it much easier to survive and reproduce as a member of a social species. Humans with a strong aversion to murdering each other would certainly be able to work together more effectivley, and increase their survival rate.

Once humans developed agriculture and started forming larger-scale societies that frequently interacted with each other, further reinforcement of "moral universals" came from society as well as from genetics. Societal "evolution" began to reinforce cooperative behaviour, as societies that had greater cooperation, greater non-zero sumness, began to conquer and replace weaker neighbouring societies. Cultures that conditioned their children against dysfunctional behaviour like incest, child abuse and irrational violence survived, and those behaviours were strongly reinforced.

So, I believe that both genetics and cultural development have endowed humans with strong, and basically universal, opposition to certain behaviours. The society of child abusers and the society of murderers could never exist. Even societies with slaves are quickly fading, as they are outcompeted by those societies with more efficient economic frameworks.

One note, is that I do not believe that this combination of genetic and societal selection will eventually result in one perfect "universal" morality. There are plenty of moral issues that do not have a clear effect on the survival of individuals or societies. Take for example euthenasia. It is here that the most contentious issues will be found, and this is where different societies will have different approaches that must be respected.

2. What constitutes a moral action?

In a society governed by the rules I have set out in part four, how does someone know what constitutes a moral action? If the society is not free, or otherwise not representative of the true moral consensus, what guides people's actions? Is any action that conforms to the consensus & one's personal morality moral? What about the instance where people are mistaken about the consensus?

The short answer is that you never know for certain what the moral action is, you can only make your best guess. This is why freedom and strong moral discourse in a society are so key, because it improves the ability to make educated guesses. I have to think more on some of the specific scenarios above, especially in the case of people making the wrong guess. I think it is also important to reemphasize that the moral action is ideally the most non-zero sum outcome for all the stakeholders, and that the societal consensus acts (in the ideal society) as an approximation of the views of the average citizen, and as a constraining force.

Taking an action contrary to a false consensus in an unfree society is certainly not immoral in itself. Even taking action contrary to the consensus in a free society may be moral, in some cases.

3. Relations between societies

The layout of my position largely governs moral relations within a society. What about moral relations between societies? Does moral relativism imply non-interventionism? Do we have the right (or the obligation) to morally condemn actions taken in other societies that we see as immoral?

Easy answers here. My views do not imply non-interventionism at all. In fact, it may suggest the opposite in some cases.

We have the right to critique the morals of other societies, although this does not imply they are absolutely "wrong," in a mind-independent way. It simply adds to the moral discourse within both societies, and should be beneficial for that reason alone. One just must be careful to avoid "moral superiority" and fundamentalism. Both societies will benefit if they listen to what the other has to say.

4. Definition of a society

If we say that morality is based at least in part on the freely established consensus of a society, how do we define a society? Can it be argued that every society has sub-societies, and that it is therefore impossible to define the level at which a moral consensus might be established?

This argument has a point, but I think that it is logical to define a society as the broadest group that subscribes to the same "social contract" (basically the same laws and institutions). In the vast majority of cases this is the level of the state. I don't have a well-thought-through argument for why this should be the case, however.

5. Moral Progress

Are we justified in saying we are morally superior to older societies in which practices we find morally objectionable (like slavery or human sacrifice)? If so, how does this reconcile with a relativistic morality?

See Above.

6. Nature vs. Nurture and Moral Universals

Why are there certain moral rules that seem to be ubiquitous among almost all societies throughout history? Doesn't this provide evidence for moral universals?

See #1.

Hope that clears some things up. It has for me I think.

The Economist's Tale (4 of 5)

Say that we decide the assumptions of the prophet are erroneous, and instead decide to accept the opposing set of theories. We are then left with two choices:

1. A concurrent multiverse, encompassing a vast number of universes with different & random physical laws.

2. An underlying unity in physics that mandates the values of the parameters and physical laws that we observe.

These views suggest, in opposition to the others, that life, and consciousness, are simply an accident of the universe, generated in the same way as any of the other complex phenomena that we observe. There is no meaning to our existence, no purpose for us to fulfill, and little room for the existence of God.

If we accept that this is the case, then the next question logically becomes this: If we have no purpose to fulfill, how can we decide how to conduct our existence?

If we are committed to acting in a rational and consistent way, there are three schools of thought as to the actions people should take.

1. Consequentialism- People should act based on how the consequences of an act conform to some principle or goal

2. Deontology- People should act based on how the nature of the act itself conforms to some principle

3. Virtue Ethics- People should act based on how the action affects the actor in relation to some principle or goal, usually either fulfillment of potential or relevance to the actor's comparative advantages

Within each of these categories, there are many, many options. Take consequentialism, for example. Philosophers have struggled to identify a goal for consequentialists to pursue, or even a concise set of goals. Happiness, wealth, survival or power for oneself have all been suggested.

Also proposed have been a number of societal goals, rather than individual ones. For example, one might strive to maximize the happiness of society, rather than his own happiness.The question that provides the key to this whole mess, however, often gets lost in the shuffle. One should start by asking whether it is reasonable to assume that there is an overriding ethical principle or set of principles. Is it reasonable to assume there is a single, defined way that people should behave?

I would answer in the negative for the following reasons:

1. People have different ideas about what the ideal world looks like. I think that an ethical view necessarily implies a view of the ideal world. For example, a consequentialist that believes in maximization of personal happiness implies that he believes his ideal world to be one where he is always happy. In contrast, a collectivist virtue ethicist would implicitly have an ideal world where everyone reached their full potential. Since it is quite obvious that different people have different ideas about the ideal state of the world, I think it is unreasonable to assume that they should have the same ethical view.

2. There is no evidence to show there is any one set of universal moral standards. People often say that religion provides this universality, but any cursory examination of religion (especially Abrahamic religion) shows the "universal" moral code to either be treated extremely selectively according to the culture of the time period (as in mainstream Christianity) or be extremely deviant from mainstream beliefs (as in fundamentalist Christianity).

3. The fact that after at least 2500 years of scholarly debate, we are still no closer to any sort of consensus than we were in the days of Socrates, probably means that there is no universal morality to discover. Unlike the advancement of science (say development of a theory of quantum gravity), a universal moral code does not seem likely to emerge with more or better information, due to the nature of moral questions as opposed to scientific ones. On a practical note, even if such consensus were possible among philosophers, it would be next to impossible to get all people to adopt it as their personal moral code.

The questions that I anticipate people will ask of this line of reasoning are as follows: if there are no moral universals, how should we decide how to live our lives? How can we be sure that our laws are just? How can we incorporate billions of people, all with different moral standards, into a coherent and fair society?

Here I believe the answer is best illustrated through an analogy with economics. Just as everyone (I believe) has a distinct moral code, based on our genetics and experiences, individuals have a unique set of consumption preferences in economics. All of these individual consumption preferences (or utility curves, if you like) are aggregated together to form the demand side of economics. Just because my individual price preferences are different that someone else's doesn't mean we can't have a fair economic system that represents the consumption preferences of all people.

In the same way, I believe that a society defines its collective morals through the aggregation of the individual moral views of all the citizens. The vast majority of individual people have value systems that postulate random murder of innocent people as immoral, just as the vast majority of people in our society have consumption preferences where they would not pay $1000 for a grapefruit. Now, certainly there are people that might pay $5 for a grapefruit, and that influences the overall price of grapefruits in the economy. Other people might only pay 10 cents for a grapefruit, say if they happen not to like them. These divergent views do not suggest that the market price of a grapefruit in our society is in any way unfair, in fact (in a truly free market), it should be the fairest possible price given all relevant views.

Now take the subject of the morality of killing. There are people in our society who believe that all killing of living things is immoral, and attempt to do as little of it as possible. There are also people (serial killers and the like) who see no moral quandary in killing any life (human or otherwise) for their own pleasure. Most of us fall somewhere in the middle, where we might happily kill plants and insects, and don't necessarily mind the humane killing of lower animals either for food (like cows) or for other reasons (like rats), but we have profound doubts about the needless slaughter of higher animals like dolphins and apes, and we have to think long and hard on our views about any kind of human killing, even if there are complicating factors (see abortion, euthanasia, the death penalty and even self-defense).

Not only are people in our society spread across a wide spectrum when it comes to killing, but that spectrum has an even larger standard deviation if you look back through time. There were periods of history (many!) where the wholesale slaughter of other humans was largely accepted by the most advanced societies of the time.

We cannot be so presumptuous as to think that no person is ever morally justified to kill another, nor can we say that abortion is wrong in all circumstances, always has been, and will be forever (deontological views). We cannot even say that murdering one hundred innocent people to save a thousand is always right (a consequentialist view). We can only say that there are many differing opinions on many moral issues, and that we must try to have a society that is just and fair nonetheless. The only way I see to do this is to treat morality as a relative thing, and common morality as an aggregation of the individual morality of all the members of a society.

The question then remains, how does a person conduct themselves in order to make such a morally relative society as just and fair as possible? People take comfort in absolutes, and it is pleasant to many people to believe that if they just follow a few simple ethical rules, everything will work itself out. We have seen that there is no silver bullet in that sense, no absolute truths that if followed, will always result in a utopian outcome, but there are a few things that people can take to heart and even consider to be guiding principles in a morally relativistic world.

1. People need to try their best to accept and manage diverging views. In a morally relativistic society, one of the greatest dangers is fundamentalism of any kind. If people don't realize that different moral opinions may also be valid, that is the first step toward intolerance. Steadfast attempts to prove the moral superiority of one view, or attempts to force others to change their morals to match one's own, can only lead to conflict. All people, regardless of their moral views, should preach acceptance and understanding of the moral views of others, and respect for honest differences of opinion.

2. My second principle is related to the first, and must be considered in tandem with it. Realizing that everyone has a different set of moral views is good, but we must also realize that individuals' moral frameworks are constantly being "tweaked," and may even be significantly altered through experiences, discussions and debates. Discussion and debate on moral issues is also extremely critical for establishing and maintaining a just and fair moral consensus within a society, which I will refer to as a "moral zeitgeist".

Just as it is very difficult to establish a fair price for goods and services in a command economy or any other economy where there is insufficient consumer information, it is difficult if not impossible to have a truly just society when there is not sufficient freedom to allow the creation of a moral zeitgeist that is representative of the views of all members of the society.

Although I dislike the idea of having an exception to principle #1, I am forced to conclude that in the scenario where there is moral opposition to free and open discourse (and not just political and social opposition by the elite/men), we should nonetheless be obligated to intervene, and do all in our power to promote freedom of discourse (which encompasses freedom of speech, thought, religion, assembly and freedom of the press). I believe this is essentially analogous to the need for antitrust laws in a free economic system, that is, necessary to preserve the integrity of the system itself.

I must add a disclaimer here, because the preceding paragraph could be interpreted as condoning violent action toward any unfree state, and could also imply that I believe the absence of freedom is the only justifiable reason for international military action. Neither is true. To the first assertion, I would respond that military action is not the only way to influence the expansion of freedom in a society, and should in fact be a last resort (see my post The Altar of Freedom). On the latter question, I believe that the moral zeitgeist in a society can provide other justifiable reasons for military action (such as the strong beliefs against genocide in the zeitgeist of western nations). I am only saying that all free nations have a serious obligation to advance freedom around the world.

In those societies where that freedom does exist, the most fair moral zeitgeist will come when people are engaged and active in society. People should endeavour to discuss their moral views as much as possible, and seek out different views and perspectives in order to refine their own morality. Challenging the views of others and advocating one's own beliefs (in a way consistent with principle #1) should be encouraged, as the resulting debate will be inherently valuable to both parties as well as to the society.

3. The third thing that people need to consider in a morally relativistic world is that they have only partial control over the moral zeitgeist of their society, and that even if an individual view conflicts with that consensus, there must be an understanding that it is a consensus. Just as all people must pay the market price for goods, or live with the consequences of doing otherwise, those people who choose to act against the established morals of their society must face a different set of consequences. One of the attacks most often levelled against moral relativism is that we have no right to apply consequences in such a world. I strongly disagree, and believe that it essentially does not matter whether a given action is always wrong, if it is wrong according to the freely established consensus of a society, the perpetrator must live with the consequences of his/her violation.

4. The fourth and final principle I would advocate is similar to one I have previously advocated on an economic and social basis. I have previously argued in favour of Robert Wright's nonzero hypothesis, which argues that societies compete and evolve based on their level of nonzero-sum interactions. The most successful societies, he argues, are those that have the highest proportion of non-zero sum interaction.

I would take the same argument and apply it to systems of moral interaction. In a morally relativistic world, the most successful moral systems are going to be those that are morally nonzero-sum. What I mean by this is that people facing moral dilemmas in any society are often going to have a number of (personally) morally acceptable choices. Especially in situations where a moral dilemma involves others, the nonzero hypothesis would advocate taking into account not only one's own morality, but the morality of other stakeholders (or your best guesses about their morality, based on personal experience and knowledge of the prevailing zeitgeist). The best choice would be the one that satisfies your individual morality, and also creates the largest number of moral win-win scenarios.

How do we do this? How do we create tolerance and understanding, while at the same time vigorously promote debate and discussion? How do we decide what consequences are appropriate for those that do not accept the moral consensus? How do we promote nonzero-summness? The answers to the former questions lies in Wright's answer to the latter.

Wright shows in detail that increases in non-zero sum interaction are based on two things, communication and trust. I will leave that particular explanation in his capable hands, but I will expand it to cover my other proposals.In terms of promoting tolerance and understanding, both communication and trust are vitally important.

Improved communication allows people to discover far more information about other people who may be geographically or culturally different, and to obtain far more information about various moral theories and systems.

Trust helps people let down their guard and discover things that may be unfamiliar to them. Trust that other people are going to be reasonable and accepting of different views also promotes mutual understanding and exchange. Both communication and trust help people see others as "someone like me" rather than the proverbial "other", which is something Wright discusses extensively in his book.

The advantages of communication and trust in promoting open debate and enabling gradual changes to the moral zeitgeist are self evident and cannot be overstated. Establishing fair consequences and making sure everyone understands those conseqences is also vastly easier in a communicating, trusting, nonzero-sum world.

Now I believe we have established a pragmatic and intelligent ethical system in the case where humanity is an accident of the universe, the next question lies in reconciling it with the conclusions reached in the Prophet's Tale, and combining the two worldviews into a philosophical foundation from which to justify my empirical beliefs. That daunting task awaits in the final post of the series...

The Prophet's Tale (3 of 5)

Say we accept one of the following principles as valid:

1. A creator designed the universe in a way conducive to the emergence of life and/or intelligence
2. There is an underlying principle in physics/cosmology that limits the universe's properties to only those conducive to life and/or mind.

3. The existence of the universe requires an observer, and therefore only universes with a capacity for consciousness can exist.

These three arguments have in common one thing; they all presume a unique place for life in the universe. Other than that unifying idea, the three theories are fairly dissimilar.

However, I believe that it is not necessary to know for certain which of the three is true. The fact that they all agree life is unique is enough information for me to go on building my philosophical foundation.

If life holds such a central, unique place in our universe, it follows that life likely has some purpose. Whether this purpose is to follow or seek knowledge about a creator, or to sustain the existence of the universe through observation, or something else entirely, at this point it only matters that our existence does indeed have some meaning.

Once we accept that life has a purpose, I think we must also accept that we don't know what that purpose is. Here many people will disagree with me, but I simply have not seen any substantive evidence in any one direction. There is enough information, however, to draw two other conclusions:

1. Since we don't know what life's purpose is, we cannot be sure if it has already been fulfilled. I therefore think that we must work, as the most advanced life we know of, to ensure life's survival until that point that we discover our purpose has been fulfilled. Alternativeley, if our purpose turns out to require our continued existence, I believe we must attempt to prolong life until the end of the universe.

2. Since we cannot know if life has fulfilled its purpose (and cannot work to fulfill it if it remains unfulfilled) unless we know what it is, I believe that it is logical to adopt an "interim purpose" of searching for the overarching meaning of our existence. Since that meaning almost certainly has to do with either ourselves, the universe or a hypothetical creator of the universe, I would go so far as to adopt a more specific "interim purpose":

*Humanity, as the most complex life known, should strive to find the meaning of life's existence through the exploration, observation, analysis and experience of as much of the universe, and the life that exists within it, as possible*

So, if we accept a model of the universe that suggests an overarching meaning of life, I believe we must also accept that our two greatest goals should be the survival and propagation of life, and the acquisition of knowledge about the nature of life and the universe.