Category: Philosophy

Wikileaks

MSNBC: You have more tapes like this?
Julian Assange: Yes we do.
Assange: I won’t go into the precise number. But there was a rumor that the tape that we were about to release was about a similar incident in Afghanistan, where 97 people were bombed in May last year. We euhm, have that video.
MSNBC: Do you intent to release that video as well?
Assange: Yes, as soon as we have finished our analysis, we will release it.

Thank you Wikileaks. Thank you Julian Assange. You are bringing Wikileak’s perspective calm and clear in the media. You’re an example to all whistleblowers. Julian, you’re doing a great job.

I understand more people are involved in this leak; thanks everybody. You’re being respected.

Information technology is all about information. Information for humanity.

Don’t you guys stop believing in this! We now believe in you. Many people like me are highly focused and when intelligence services want a battle: we’ll listen. People like me are prepared to act.

I understand you guys like Belgium’s law that protects journalist’ sources. As the owner of a Belgian Ltd. maybe I can help?

I’m not often proud about my country. Last week I told my Swiss friends here in Zürich that I have about 3000 reasons to leave Belgium and a 1000 reasons to come to Switzerland. I wasn’t exaggerating.

I’m a guy with principles and ethics. So thank you.

Hannah Arendt

Looks like I found myself a book that I need to read someday:


But it could be that we, who are earth-bound creatures and have begun to act as though we were dwellers of the universe, will forever be unable to understand, that is, to think and speak about the things which nevertheless we are able to do. In this case, it would be as though our brain, which constitutes the physical, material condition of our thoughts, were unable to follow what we do, so that from now on we would indeed need artificial machines to do our thinking and speaking.

— Hannah Arendt, The human condition (prologue)

The impact of a highly improbable event

Being in free time mode today I decided to continue reading Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s Black Swan book. Nassim Taleb is about as arrogant as I am, so I’m enjoying reading his book a lot.

I for example enjoyed reading how he’s pissed at today’s academic philosophers for having become exercisers in linguistics rather than getting to the point of thinking. Nassim Taleb himself needed about 350 pages of text to basically say that the Gauss curve is useless in extremistan, but usually useful in mediocristan, and that Mandelbrot’s fractals are a little bit more useful for extremistan. But not really.

Anyway, he also wrote things that we should consider thinking about. For example: We no longer believe in papal infal­li­bil­ity; we seem to believe in the infal­li­bil­ity of the Nobel prize winners. That’s a good point.

One more chapter and I’m relieved of this book. Apparently I enjoy the distress of reading Nassim Taleb’s books.

He’s going to tell me in this chapter how to deal with these highly improbable events that have a great impact, referred to as black swans. I have to congratulate Nassim Taleb for succeeding making me a hyperskeptic, which was a highly improbable event. But then again, being a software developer I’m into bottom-up acquisition of knowledge. Which means that for me it’s more easy to be Fat Tony, than to be Dr. John. You need to read the book’s chapter 17 to understand Fat Tony. I was quite a skeptic before I started reading the book. But not (always) about the kind of things Nassim Taleb asks us to be skeptic .

Pat Condell on ultra tolerant liberal left people

Not watching youtubers very often I almost forgot about Pat Condell’s video blog. Today I decided to take a look at his latest video material.

Pat Condell is, just like me, an outspoken atheist who enjoys exercising his freedom of speech to criticize various religions. Fairly often he criticizes Islam.

Before I continue I’ll remind people that, like Pat Condell, I have nothing in particular against Islam. I don’t have anything against peaceful people in general. Christian, Muslim, atheist, Buddhist or whatever: I don’t care that much. I don’t believe any of those fairy tales, but it’s your freedom to do! I do care about it when, in for example Western countries, countless Christians try to expunge you from society because “you don’t believe in anything”. For many of them not believing is worse than believing in the wrong God, or being a Satanist, or being a sadist. I want to criticize religions and I want to stress the importance of having the right to criticize religions.

Pat takes on the ultra tolerant liberal left people in this video. Just like Pat I used to be on the liberal left. And just like Pat, because I believe in things like social justice, tolerance and respect, I am no longer on the liberal left. Here’s a quote from the video:

You people have certainly reminded me , as if I needed reminding, why my political views have changed in recent years. You see.. foolishly, perhaps, I used to take freedom for granted.

But now thanks to ultra tolerant self hating-multicultural lemmings like you, I don’t.

Politically I used to always be on the liberal left. Because I believe in things like social justice, tolerance and respect. You know, the good things in life. I still believe in those things, which is why I’m no longer on the liberal left.

Apologists for evil

In this video Pat talks about banning the burka. Given that wearing a burka in Western countries is most definitely only done to make a pathetic political statement, I think it is indeed a good idea to ban burkas. Besides you’re not allowed to wear ski masks when you enter a bank either. You’re not allowed to walk naked in the streets. Yet countless people are trying to claim that these women should have a right to wear burkas. Framing it that way is of course utter bullshit: the debate isn’t about women rights at all. Claiming that it is, is being intellectually dishonest. The debate is about the right for a Islamist husband to claim ownership over a woman or a girl. This isn’t a right in Western countries. The fact that it isn’t, is a good thing.

Pat also points out that Western feminists are rather silent about women rights in Islam. Usually feminists are assertive and confident but this time, apparently, feminists are muted on the issue. Why is that? Where are they?

Ban the burka

For the person who recently debated religion with me (you know who you are): I recently read “Letter to A Christian Nation” by Sam Harris. Very interesting read. I recommend it!

Finite resources, infinite growth

For some people this post can be controversial. I added a category “controversial” to my blog for people who prefer to filter it.

We start a imaginary experiment where we start with a bottle filled up with food and room left for exactly two worms. We assume worms replicate at a doubling time of one minute. We observed in a previous experiment that the bottle is filled up in exactly one hour. They eat the food as they double themselves, etc (use your imagination).

At 11’O clock in the morning we place two worms in the bottle. At what time will the bottle be full (easy)? At what time will the bottle be half full? At what time is the bottle only 3% filled up?

Humans have a global population growth of about 1.2% per year. It’s about 1% in wealthy countries and about 2-3% in poor countries. If you want to calculate a doubling time you take 70 and you divide it with the growth percentage. Which means that at our current growth rate, we’ll double our total population in 60 years.

In 1950 we were with about 2.7 thousand million people, in 1990 we were with 5 thousand million people. In 2050 we will be with 10 thousand million people. Infinite growth isn’t possible with finite resources. In 2400 years, at current growth rate, the earth’s mass will in theory be roughly equal to the total amount of human flesh.

The main question is, how big is our bottle? Let’s go back to the worms. For the worms the bottle is about 3% filled up at 11:55. It’s half full at 11:59. It’s overpopulated at 12:00. When three new bottles are found and pipes are connected with the first, the three new bottles will be filled up at 12:02. After that will four new bottles be filled up at 12:03. After that you need eight new bottles to survive minute 12:04. In minute 12:05 it starts getting crazy proportions.

Even if our bottle is only 3% filled up now, then still at our retirement age we will inevitably be at 50% capacity. During those retirement years we’ll see the population grow at an enormous speed to maximum capacity within a few years.

I’m among the people who believe that we’re already at 70% capacity of our planet. I think we have about 30 years of finite resources left: doubling the population to 10 thousand million people, is impossible (not unreasonable to think). Moving to another bottle will take us at least several more centuries of top notch space science (so this solution is not applicable). And that’s assuming we can leverage the resources of another planet. Moving to another star is simply out of the question unless we invent technology that allows us to let a huge mass travel at the speed of light (again, the solution isn’t applicable).

A solution that I have in mind? Genetically modifying newborn humans to have an annual fertility frequency and having their fertility enabled at a mature age. Instead of based on the phase of the moon would women be fertile only once per year. And instead of at the average age of 12 would women start becoming fertile at the average age of, for example, 25.

Is genetic modification immoral? Being an atheist I don’t have any believe system that forbids me to tamper with species. It’s indeed still immoral because we don’t know what we are doing, yet. No, morality is not divinely injected by a God. Atheists are born with morals, too.

But if we have to choose between living with each other under the condition of having insufficient resources, or making a change to our species, I know which of the two I will prefer.

Now, if you do believe in a God, then you must also acknowledge that your God’s intention was for us to become intelligent enough to genetically modify our species. If not, why ain’t it stopping us? We, for example, have successfully been genetically selecting dogs for centuries. And we have started genetically modifying them (active modification: interfering with the egg and sperm cells).

Mankind will have to open this difficult discussion sooner or later.

Utilitarianism

Introduction

In a discussion some concluded that technology X is ‘more tied to GNOME’ than technology Y because ‘more [GNOME] people are helped by X’ due to dependencies for Y. Dependencies that might be unacceptable for some people.

This smells like utilitarianism and therefore it’s subject to criticism.

Utilitarianism is probably best described by Jeremy Bentham as:

Ethics at large may be defined, the art of directing men’s actions to the production of the greatest possible quantity of happiness.

— Bentham, Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation

A situational example that, in my opinion, falsifies this:

You are standing near the handle of a railroad switch. Six people are attached to the rails. Five of them at one side of the switch, one at the other side of the switch. Currently the handle is set in such a way that five people will be killed. A train is coming. There’s no time to get help.

  • Is it immoral to use the handle and kill one person but save five others?
  • Is it immoral not to use the handle and let five people get killed?

The utilitarianist chooses the first option, right? He must direct his actions to the production of the greatest possible quantity of happiness.

Body of the discussion

Now imagine that you have to throw a person on the rails to save the lives of five others. The person would instantly get killed but the five others would be saved by you sacrificing one other.

A true utilitarianist would pick the first option in both exercises; he would use the handle and he would throw a person on the rails. In both cases he believes his total value of produced happiness is (+3) and he believes that in both situations picking the second option means his total value of produced happiness is (-4) + (+1) = (-3). The person who picks the second option is therefore considered ethically immoral by a true utilitarianist.

For most people that’s not what they meant the first time. Apparently ethics don’t allow you to always say (+4) + (-1) = (+3) about happiness. I’ll explain.

The essence of the discussion

Psychologically, less people will believe that throwing a person on the rails is morally the right thing to do. When we can impersonificate we make it more easy for our brains to handle such a decision. Ethically and morally the situation is the same. People feel filthy when they need to physically touch a person in a way that’ll get him killed. A handle makes it more easy to kill him.

Let’s get back to the Gnome technology discussion … If you consider pure utilitarianism as most ethical, then you should immediately stop developing for GNOME and start working at Microsoft: writing good Windows software at Microsoft would produce a greater possible quantity of happiness.

Please also consider reading criticism and defence of utilitarianism at wikipedia. Wikipedia is not necessarily a good source, but do click on some links on the page and you’ll find some reliable information.

Some scientists claim that we have a moral instinct, which is apparently programmed by our genes into our brains. I too believe that genetics probably explain why we have a moral system.

The developer of X built his case as following: My technology only promotes happiness. The technology doesn’t promote unhappiness.

It was a good attempt but there are multiple fallacies in his defense.

Firstly, in a similar way doesn’t technology Y promote unhappiness either. If this is assumed about X, neither promote unhappiness.

Secondly, how does the developer of X know that his technology promotes no unhappiness at all? Y also promotes some unhappiness and I don’t have to claim that it doesn’t. That’s a silly assumption.

Thirdly, let’s learn by example: downplaying the amount of unhappiness happens to be the exact same thing regimes having control over their media also did whenever they executed military action. The act of downplaying the amount of unhappiness should create a reason for the spectator to question it.

Finally, my opinion is that the very act of claiming that ‘X is more tied to GNOME’, will create unhappiness among the supporters of Y. Making the railroad example applicable anyway.

My conclusion and the reason for writing this

‘More’ and ‘less’ happiness doesn’t mean a lot if both are incommensurable. Valuations like “more tied to GNOME” and “less tied to GNOME” aren’t meaningful to me. That’s because I’m not a utilitarianist. I even believe that pure utilitarianism is dangerous for our species.

To conclude I think we should prevent that the GNOME philosophy is damaged by too much utilitarianism.

Just a quote …

Thinking must never submit itself, neither to a dogma, nor to a party, nor to a passion, nor to an interest, nor to a preconceived idea, nor to whatever it may be, if not to facts themselves, because, for it, to submit would be to cease to be.


La pensée ne doit jamais se soumettre, ni à un dogme, ni à un parti, ni à une passion, ni à un intérêt, ni à une idée préconçue, ni à quoi que ce soit, si ce n’est aux faits eux-mêmes, parce que, pour elle, se soumettre, ce serait cesser d’être.

— Henri Poincaré, Nov 1909 Brussels

Hey mr. Obama

Here’s an idea if you want to inspire the generation that voted for you:

Let’s go to Mars.

Mutual respect for other’s opinions

If I would have been a U.S. citizen, I would have voted for Obama now that Ron Paul was no more candidate. Although back then I didn’t know enough about Ron Paul to have voted for him instead of Obama.

That doesn’t mean I must somehow dislike McCain, although at the end of the race I didn’t like how he campaigned. He has regained much of my respect after his concession speech. I really hope both Democrats and Republicans will listen to what he told you guys in that speech.

A lot of what Europeans think is wrong in America is exactly the kind of black and white thinking that must be overcome and that McCain & Obama have seemingly tried to address in both their speeches. Although we have our share of black & white thinkers too, sure.

Wrong & right, evil & good, right or wrong: none of these concepts really exist. They are just models. I convinced myself that of all candidates, Obama understands this most. He will listen to you, especially when you disagree, he said.

It’s in disagreement that we humans learn most from each other. It’s in cooperation and mutual respect that we make most progression.

The only rational conclusion a rationalist like me can make is that there’s no black and white. There are many shades of gray and on top of that there are many eyes who all have shades of different opinions. War, is something that turns eyes into black and white.

I conclude that the moral of respect for other opinions is still a successful meme: we saw McCain shush his audience when they were being disrespectful for the outcome of the election, we saw him giving a brave and gentleman concession speech. I repeat that I consider this meme to be the most important one humanity ever got convinced of. And for this reason, McCain has regained my respect.

Today, I’m happy that I visited the Boston Summit this year. I was in America when there was hope, now I can visit it again when there will be change.

Right?

They say the grass is greener on the other side,

… but maybe it’s the sheep who have been telling me lies

ps. Marked as ‘extremely condescending’, since it is condescending for the sheep on the other side.

Moral indulgence

In the last few days people seemingly implying a descent from superiority of moral highground to me, have called upon me (in private conversations) to decide for my readers if the content that I write is morally acceptable for planet.gnome.org. Their reasoning is that I should feel an implied responsibility for the content of that website.

If I don’t take the responsibility that readers have themselves already, I’m to be considered a coward. That’s because, according to these people, I avoid the moral responsibility to uphold an imaginary highground reputation of the organization behind said website.

It needs no illustration that this is just the opinion of a group within the GNOME community. Not the entire community. Nonetheless this seemingly moral superiority is not to be mistaken with a condescending circus show.

The moral of respect for other opinions is a meme that for the last decades (and I hope in future too) has been a very successful one. I consider this meme to be the most important one humanity ever got convinced of.

Moral superiors do not need to present empirical proof of correctness in their Sophia. The truth of their moral values are unquestionable.

Let’s assume this to be the case: it’s immoral to only assume that your readers will make up their own minds about ideas that appear on websites like planet.gnome.org. Instead, it’s a necessity that each and every author of a blog, from which planet.gnome.org pulls content, is required to have a “responsibility of content”.

I conclude that it isn’t necessary that the audience of that website gets an honest illustration of who we are: human beings who are sometimes geniuses and sometimes idiots.

Instead it’s necessary that we are portrayed as good role models. Concepts such as good and bad are of course defined by the superiors. Those concepts are unquestionable.

Let me be clear that I disagree with this.

I questioned whether only intent can either be good or bad, but that question was refuted as irrelevant. For it’s the beholder who matters. Not the producer.

The reason for this irrelevance being that an audience doesn’t take the responsibility of trying to understand intent. I disagree with this conclusion. I think the audience does understand intent.

I have decided to tag my future posts as “condescending” in case I feel the content might be interpreted as showing superiority. Don’t be surprised if the majority of posts will be tagged as such.

The freedom to choose is morally more important to me than the necessity to mark responsible content. Therefore I ask my audience, and planet maintainers, to decide for themselves.

Pro-vagina voting!

The shift of female voters going from Obama to McCain once Palin got appointed as running mate for McCain basically shows that the pro-vaginas voters in the United States want a vagina in power.

Do these voters also care about having people in power who actually know something about foreign policy? I mean, a lipstick pitbull? Seriously … what the fuck? The more I find about this person, the more her no-knowledge about politics makes me cry. This is clearly a “election” running mate: a running mate to steal as much as possible pro-vagina voters away from Obama. Not a “real” running mate.

The sex organs of an individual, and if you are a real feminist you’ll even agree with this, shouldn’t matter when voting for a president and his/her running mate. No matter how pissed you are about Obama having less female-looking sex organs than Hillary.

This is just ridiculous.

Unlike the vast majority of the Hollywood movies doesn’t the real world guarantee a happy ending. I hope McCain realizes this, now that he decided to turn this election into a Soap like Beverly Hills 90210.

Don’t forget

I am not asking your newspaper to support an administration.. But I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people..

For I have complete confidence in the response and the dedication of our citizens when they are fully informed.

I not only could not stifle controversy from your readers I welcome it. This administration intends to be candid about its errors. For as a wise man once said, “an error doesn’t become a mistake until you refuse to correct it”.

We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors and we expect you to point them out when we miss them. Without debate without criticism, no administration and no country can succeed. And no republic can survive.

That is why the Athenian law decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the first amendment, the only business in America specifically protected by the constitution, not primarily to amuse or entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and sentimental, not to simply give the public what it wants, but to inform, to arouse, and to reflect to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mould, and educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.

ps. This is an extract from a speech by JFK

Don’t forget

We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.