The Best Way to Help Someone is to Not Help Them Sunday, Apr 5 2009

This post is in response to an interview in Guernica magazine. You can reach it by this link:
http://www.guernicamag.com/interviews/954/moyo/

Brief Summary of interview (for those to lazy to read it):
Dambisa Moyo is a woman born in Zambia and earned her Ph.D. in Economics at Oxford. She wrote a book, Dead Aid, that explains how aid in Africa is increasing poverty and government corruption. If you want to see examples she cites, read the article.

I strongly agree with her point of view, but I do not only think the problem of gifts crushes entrepreneurship only in Africa. Look at some creators of major companies: Bill Gates, Donald Trump, and Steve Jobs. They did not wait for someone to give them a big company. It took effort and hard work.

It is human nature to strive to survive. If there is little food available, people will find ways to get more. But, if people are given free food, they will not try to improve themselves and or their surroundings. They will become dependent on aid to keep them alive. Only when others stop offering them aid, will they actually start working and prosper.

The social welfare system is hurting entrepreneurship in America. People that would normally strive to be the best become lazy when they are handed a welfare check. This is also applicable to people with disability. Many people with disabilities can work, but they just do not have to.

If we removed the government safety net (or at least weaken it), more people will work for their own food and pull themselves out of poverty. One effective way to help them achieve it would be to create micro-loans.

Overall, welfare (and aid) systems create an environment where laziness persists. By removing this safety net, those previously-lazy people are forced to take care of themselves.

DISCLAIMER: I am not proposing getting rid of welfare programs; I am just stating my opinions on the subject. All of these statements are my opinions and may be false.

COMMENTS????

Leave a Response »

 

Welfare States – What one giveth, one must taketh Wednesday, Mar 18 2009

People like freedom. They love to do whatever pleases them. People also enjoy security. They want to have food on the table and their property save from thieves. Freedom and Security often conflict. Specifically, when governmental institutions grant services (health care, etc.) to people, they often restrict what those people can do.

Octomom. I know you are probably sick of hearing about her, but I shall still devote this paragraph to her. Many people (including me) were disgusted at the decisions she made. We felt that her 8 newborns were likely to become wards of the State (orphans, people on welfare, etc.). Our society gives services like welfare to those less fortunate which does not just hurt our pocketbooks, but also hampers our freedom. Many associations of fertility doctors set restrictions on how many embryos they can implant in a woman. Besides hurting a woman’s health, implanting too many embryos can create too many babies for the mother to take care of. Those extra babies would eventually become dependent on society for resources. Because the government want to conserve money, it creates rules (like the limit on embryos) to prevent people from being dependent on welfare or orphanages for necessities. These rules hamper our freedom.

In a hypothetical situation, you are supreme ruler of country X. As ruler, you give free medial care to all citizens. This is a huge financial burden on the government budget that is already strained from too many tax cuts. One of your close advisers tells you that 25% of cancer in country X is directly caused by smoking tobacco. By eliminating tobacco, you could save the country a significant amount of money. Would you ban tobacco?

Welfare programs restrict individual rights. (I really cannot think of a way to expand this conclusion)

DISCLAIMER: I am not proposing getting rid of welfare programs; I am just stating my opinions on the subject. All of these statements are my opinions and may be false.

Leave a Response »

 

Plant Rights & The Discriminating Vegans Friday, Jan 23 2009

Vegans are known for their strong belief in animals’ rights. Many Vegans boycott meat because they think animals deserve many rights that humans possess. They ask, “Why should a human have certain rights and animals not?” Sure, they may not have as complex a brain as us, but it still seems logical that they should deserve more rights and should not be subjugated to malnutrition and neglect.

They lean so leftist that they have almost all balance, but I’m going take it a step further. I wonder why plants, fungi, and single celled organisms should not deserve the same respect as humans or animals. Sure, they do not have intricate nervous systems like animals, but just like animals, they still create chemical responses to the environment that effect how they act. Why should we only give rights to certain organisms and not others based on the complexity of an organ system?

If I believe all of this then why do you not see me avoiding meat, plants, fungi, and bacteria? One simple reason, I would be dead. What works in theory often fails the reality check. To avoid discriminating and dying, I decided to resort to my selfish human instinct (confused by what I mean when I say ’selfish human instinct’? see earlier blog post titled ‘On a Quest to find the Selfless Human‘). I will eat things conducive to my survival and the survival of my relatives. This decision is derived from a formula: Comparable Healthiness = Nutritional Value X Accessibility. If nutritional food requires me to take a days walk to get, a less nutritious meal on a platter in front of me would be preferable. Likewise I would not eat food in front of me that contains parasites when a few miles from there I could have a steaming pile of vegetables. >

This method of determining what to eat is preferable to eating vegan because the former is not hypocritical. Caring only for certain organisms would be discrimination. Someone that fights for others rights and still discriminates would be a hypocrite. But if he/she stops fighting for rights and discriminating based on genetic composition, then the label of hypocrite would be inapplicable.

One Response »

 

The Impracticality of Separation of Church and State Tuesday, Jan 20 2009

In this blog post religion is referred to as any set of moral, mystical, supernatural, or historical beliefs because these types of beliefs constitute the framework of any religion. In this context, Atheism is a religion because believing that there is not supernatural is still a supernatural belief because it can not be tested.

Governments are set up to protect the people. They accomplish this in two ways. 1) armed forces 2) written or oral laws. These rules are set by the people in power’s beliefs. If a ruler thought killing was wrong, she would outlaw it. If she believed that homosexual marriage would cause the country to collapse, she would outlaw that too. Governing bodies work the same way. If a certain percent (usually more than the majority) thought fetuses were human and killing humans is wrong, they would outlaw abortions.

Religions also are based on beliefs. If a religion says that killing is wrong, religious leaders would discourage it. If a religion says that equal rights are good, then it would be encouraged.

When a governing body creates a laws, it bases them off its beliefs. Some laws coincide with religious beliefs essentially supporting the religion. The only government that would not support certain religions is a government with no laws. Also known as Anarchy which is essentially no government at all.

Leave a Response »

 

My Two Conflicting Views Monday, Jan 19 2009

The World’s Perspective – (In this segment, ‘The World’ is similar to brain attached to sense organs. It can gain knowledge but not act on it) If the world could think, it would not have the biased lens that plagues humans. Its beliefs would not be determined by survival because it can not act on its thoughts. After about 4.5 billion years of the world’s existence, this is its beliefs would be.

Organisms have come and gone, changing form. Eukaryotes emerged from Prokaryotes. The n cells started working together to help survival. Their forms diverged for purposes of synthesis and decomposition. None of these organisms seem better than others. They are all adapted to their specific environments. A fish could not survive in a dessert. A tarantula could not survive in the middle of the Atlantic. If the arachnid tarantula were to go extinct, another species would adapt to take its spot in the ecosystem. Extinction is neither good nor bad; it just is. This pattern has been going on for the past 4 billion years.

If a comet collides and destroys half of the species on earth, rapid speciation will occur like it did 65 million years ago and 255 million years ago. Mass extinctions are neither bad nor good because everything equals out in the long run. Even if all life on earth was destroyed, new life would emerge to replace the dead.

The Animal’s (including Human) Perspective– Unlike the earth, animals can act on their beliefs. Ideas that enable the animals to survive and reproduce would be passed into the next generation while the beliefs that are not conducive to survival are not carried on and eliminated.

Every organism is not equal. Hierarchies exist. The top and most important organism is me. Below that are the organisms that help me survive (food source and organisms in a symbiotic relationship). Then comes my family which have my DNA. If I die, my relatives can still pass on my DNA, so they should also be protected. The next group I do not really care about because they do not effect my survival rate. At the very bottom are organisms that prevent me from surviving and reproducing (parasites, organisms competing for my food, organisms competing for a mate). If the latter category were to disappear, I would have a higher chance of survival. The first three lists contain Good things while the last list holds Bad things.

Leave a Response »

 

On a Quest to find the Selfless Human Monday, Jan 19 2009

Certain species of vampire bats have a behavior where one organism forms a partnership with another organism to regurgitate food in the others mouth if the other bat does not find any. At first glance this seems truly selfless, but behavioral studies have shown that if the regurgitation is only going one way (only one is ‘nice’ enough to share), the giver abandons the partner and seeks a new one. Whatever happened to unconditional love? Obviously vampires do not have that trait. But do humans posses the ability of infinite compassion?

When it comes to having relationships with others, humans are polygamists. We develop relationships with our family, friends, distant relatives, and even random people. A common human action in our society is to open doors for strangers (especially women…sexist). Just like the bat’s behavior, this initially seems selfless. If you would ask someone why they held the door for you, they would likely respond, “it is the nice thing to do.” Would that person have done it for everyone though?

Starting off with a graphic example, if a lady gouged out one of your eyes, would you hold the door open for her? The most rational answer would be, “NO!” Like our relatives, the bats, we only open doors for people that we expect would do something good in return. If you responded, “Yes” to the question about opening the door, would you still open the door if they severely burned your arm? Burned your house down? Kidnapped your children? Killed your parents? The list goes on and on. Obviously at some point, you would stop trusting them. Mother Teresa donated her Nobel Prize money expecting that the recipients would not use the money to assassinate her. If she had thought they would use it against her, she might have thought twice about finding a different recipient. Also, a parent takes care of his/her children in a seemingly selfless way, but this is just a biological action in order to secure the existence of the parent’s genes in future generations.

Just like Bats, Rats, Trees, Mushrooms, Amoebas, maggots, and sharks, we watch out for our own survival and prevent acting in ways that would damage our survival rate. There is no selfless human, and if one appears, expect his genes to be eradicated from the gene pool when he forgets to feed himself after working at a homeless shelter for 48 hours.

Leave a Response »

 

The Irony of Organic Celery Sunday, Jan 18 2009

Organic foods are praised to be free of pesticides, poison that kills bugs and also damages humans. People cherish it for being the healthier alternative, but this may not be true (at least in some foods). Celery produces psoralen, a toxin that damages DNA and causes skin sensitivity in humans. When a stalk is damaged (likely by an animal eating it), the celery produces this chemical in higher amounts (up to 100X as much). Most non-organic farms use pesticides lowering the risk of chewed stalks. Organic farms, however, do not have the luxury of committing genocide on bugs, so stalks get are more likely bruised. They then produce their natural pesticide making up for the lack of pesticides thrown upon them.

Most plants create natural pesticides (Soy:sterility and tobacco:cancer). However harmful, we must thank these killers because without them the food we eat would be gone before it reaches our mouth. Also, many of these pesticides can turn out helpful (aspirin:blood-thinner, soy- ease effects of menopause, and spicy peppers:increase metabolic rate). 60% of the world’s human population relies solely on plants for medicine. Something that kills a beetle stops a heart attack.

PS: There is no known advantage to the poison from the Celery.

Source: Survival of the sickest by Dr. Sharon Moalem

Leave a Response »

 

Interpreting Life Tuesday, Jan 13 2009

German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche once said, “All things are subject to interpretation. Whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.” Friedrich realized that accepted interpretations were based on the people in power. To him, other interpretations seemed just as valid. Due to connotations, denotations, and implied meanings, the meaning of passages changes which is used by people in order to sway other’s opinions.

All writing contains words. For a word to be understood, it needs a definition. These volatile definitions shift whenever the reader changes. As time passes, the concept of ’soul’ had many different definitions. Just check out the Wikipedia article on it.1 If the definition of a word changes, writing with that word would be interpreted differently. Take the book The Gay Science. To us, it probably means something different than what Friedrich Nietzsche thought it represented. He thought the title meant ‘the witty science’. Due to the recent definitions now associated with ‘gay’ we probably thought it meant something different. Connotation also varies with readers. A stand up comic that cusses frequently probably has a different connotation of the word ‘fuck’ than a baptist pastor. Connotation and denotation are just two factors that cause people to perceive writing differently.

Implied meanings enable interpretations to bend like crowbars. The split between early Christians and Jews arose from a dispute of vague passages of text, “For mark well this stone which I place before Joshua, a single stone with seven eyes. I will execute its engraving – declares the lord of hosts – and I will remove the country’s guilt in a single day.” (Zechariah 3:9). The end of the quote referenced briefly guilt removal which was thought by most to be an act by the messiah. Because Jews’ and Christians’ interpreted mysterious references to the messiah like the one above differently, the groups evolved into separate religions. Jews thought when the messiah came all the righteous would rise from the dead while Christians thought it was only the messiah would come alive. A similar problem caused a split within the Muslim religion. Though both groups (Shia and Sunni) had the same religious book (Koran), they thought god’s ideal society should be run differently. The Shia thought that only a decedent of Mohammad could rule, but the Sunnis thought that a ruler’s main requirement should be righteousness.

The famous saying, “All men are created equal,” written in the Declaration of Independence underwent bountiful changes throughout USA’s history. Is there an implied “white” before men? Did the founders want it to apply to all people and just not men? Does this justify homosexuals right to marriage? Most likely the authors thought that it only included white people (many of them owned African slaves). The Second Great Awakening sparked interpretations that included women and non-whites. One of the causes for the South seceding was a difference of interpretation of whether “All men are created equal” included Negroes. After the war, women’s rights activists thought it also pertained to all people. Even today, a dispute continues based on whether that statement justifies gay marriage.

When given multiple passages to cite, groups tend to choose the one that coincides with their beliefs. In big works of literature that have contradictory statements, many stress passages that support their beliefs. Communities that believe abortion is murder and life starts at conception would mostly refer to this passage in the Jewish Bible (Old Testament), “Rebekah his wife conceived. And the children struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to inquire of the LORD. And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels” (Genesis 25:21-23) God refers to the fetuses as humans and therefore supports the pro-life argument. But the opposing side would use a different quote “bones came together…tendons and flesh appeared on them and skin covered them, but there was no breath in them.” (Ezekiel 37:10). This phrase emphasizes that the bones were still dead because they were not breathing which supports that human life begins with breathing. Breathing happens after birth, so fetuses are not living humans. Both sides use quotes in order to advance their own agenda.

Over time and distance, interpretations will change. Nothing can change that. Usually the earlier analyses are more accurate, but still can be riddled with errors. Even trying to deduce the author’s original purpose on old documents is impossible because the writer is died. Due to inaccuracy, we should we be cautious when we are told the meaning of text. There is a verse in the Koran that bans gambling. That essentially would mean Muslims should not go to Las Vegas and waste their retirement. But, what about the stock market? The Koran never mentions that. Some people only buy supreme stocks deemed safe by their Mosque. Do the Imams know more about god’s views on the stock market than the congregates? It seems to me they don’t. So why do people in general blindly follow interpretations set by other people?

1 – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul

Leave a Response »

 

Ways of Gaining Knowledge – Science, Religion, and Meditation Friday, Jan 2 2009

From the moment out of my mom’s womb, my parents told me that science is ‘the way’ to discover the cosmos. Grade school exemplified this concept. Science class taught me all about Newton, Mendel and Darwin and how they used the scientific method to explain their surroundings. Everyone surrounding me thought that this method of discovery was more reliable and truthful than all the others, so I unconsciously joined the bandwagon. I started to think science superior to other ways of gaining knowledge (religion and meditation to name a few). Now, a question looms in my head. Why is science more reliable than other methods of discovery?

Most scientists would likely answer by spiting out, “Because science is based on the use of empirical evidence (evidence from scientific experiments).” That response only explains how scientists conduct studies, not why it is better. In fact empirical evidence cannot explain many things (No scientific evidence exists to support or disprove the existence of a god). How could the best method of discovery not be able to answer basic questions the supernatural?

Religion can explain that god exists, but can’t explain many things that science can. This trade off seems similar to the conflict of capitalism and communism. Any method of discovery taken exclusively would have a fault leading to a lack of knowledge. However if the methods of discovery are taken together, the shortcomings cancel out leading to a more knowledgeable person.

One Response »

 

The Fallacy of Free Will Friday, Dec 26 2008

A couple of years ago I starting questioning the fate of people after death assuming the Christian belief that people who do not accept Jesus go to hell. The first question that came into my head stated, “What happened to people who died before Jesus was crucified? Do they all go to hell?” I pondered these questions for several months, but eventually gave up on the topic by assuming that the rules for afterlife were different back then. After learning more about the history of the Christian faith from Social Studies class in 8^th grade, I wondered what happened to people who were not told of Jesus recently after his death (around 100 CE). Were they doomed to damnation just because they were born in America?

To this, I decided to answer a question with a question. Why is there no historical evidence of a divine revelation, like Mark, Mathew, Luke, John and the Saints had, in populations that had not heard of Jesus? Some people could have obtained revelations, but other people did not list to them therefore not allowing it to be in the historical record. This statement seemed very improbable due to the fact that many people believed Jesus and the Apostles based on their words and actions, so in another area of the world they would also have believed others based on words and actions. Another logical idea that I came to mind was that some people did get the revelation and obtain followers but were killed or exiled. Later, I thought this statement impossible due to the fact that Christians in the Mediterranean were persecuted and still gained influence, so believers should also be able to do the same thing in other parts of the world. The only explanation I had remaining was that no revelations happened within populations not previously influenced by Jesus.

This new assumption confounded me. Along with other ideas I questioned at the time, I concluded that humans were just puppets of their surroundings. All actions people make are either based on their surroundings (which they do not have influence over). Do I choose to get up to go to school when my alarm rings? If I am able to choose that action, then why does everyone in similar surroundings also choose to wake up to alarm clocks? To this I could not come up with an answer except that we were all under the same influences (our parents and friends also woke up to an alarm clock) and beliefs (school is important. You are bad if you are late) while we were growing up. Why do many people in Ethiopia not wake up with an alarm clock? To this I responded “Because they grew up in different surroundings and were taught to wake up with the sunrise, not alarm clock.”

“If people are just subjects of their surroundings,” I thought, “then what about the concept of free will that I was told I possessed from the moment I was born?” That question was harder for me to explain. These two ideas contradicted each other. If I said that both were true, then I would surely be a hypocrite, so I eventually had to come to a conclusion. Due to the massive amount of evidence supporting people being subjects of surroundings and the lack of conclusive evidence for free will (bible quotes and others beliefs are not conclusive evidence to me), I now think of myself as a pawn rather than a free thinker or individual.

Leave a Response »