A Philosopher's Blog

Philosophical Essays on Many Subjects

Archives for January 2010

The Time Traveling Bacterium

by Leave a Comment

Cyanobacteria, NOAA, http://www8.nos.noaa.
Image via Wikipedia

While my dreams sometimes seem to derive their content at random, often I know the exact inspiration of the odd nightly workings of my mind. A while ago I happened to see a segment on CNN about a young lady who almost died from H1N1 and then that evening I read Heinlein’s recursive time travel tale “By His Boot Straps.” That night I had a rather odd dream about a time traveling bacterium. Yes, I do know that H1N1 is a virus, but even in a dream I somehow knew that only a bacterium would work. So, here is the story of the time traveling bacterium.

Imagine, if you will a mutant bacterium that might well be an impossibility. While normal bacteria divide, this bacterium cannot. Instead, it travels backwards in time.

Naturally enough, after it goes back it will then move ahead  in time at the normal pace and will (let us assume) eventually met up with itself. Then the pair (or rather the one) will also go back in time. Once more they (or it)  will go forward in time at the normal pace and the pair (or one) will meet up with itself once more. The four (or one) of them will then go back once again, only to travel forward again, and thus there will be eight (or one). The eight (or one) would, of course, go back again and then there would be sixteen (or rather just one).  And so on.

Now imagine that this bacterium dwells within the body of a human being. Naturally, the immune system of the body will attempt to destroy the bacterium. Unfortunately for the host, the bacterium simply travels back in time when it is threatened with destruction. This, of course, merely multiplies the bacterium. It keeps traveling back in time, multiplying and multiplying via this method. Of course, eventually the bacterium will reach half the population that would kill the host. When it makes the next jump back in time and the forward trip to meet itself, this will result in the death of the host. Horribly, the host will seem to die instantly as the lethal population suddenly appears in his/her body.

The bacterium will, of course, end up in other hosts and repeat the process over and over again. With enough time, it would seem that the bacterium would eventually destroy all susceptible organisms on earth and perhaps crowd out everything else-thus resulting in an earth with a population of one.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Prisoner Denied D&D

by Leave a Comment

A D&D game session in progress
Image via Wikipedia

In a rather odd story, a prisoner in Wisconsin has lost his appeal to keep his D&D material (that is Dungeons & Dragons).

This is the result of an anonymous letter sent in 2004 alleging that the prisoner, Singer, was forming a gang around the D&D game. Of course, anyone familiar with D&D will know that while D&D players seem a bit gang like (strange lingo, obsession with loot, and so on) they are rather far from the sort of gangs that people need to worry about.

The reason given by officials is that  D&D “promotes fantasy role playing, competitive hostility, violence, addictive escape behaviors, and possible gambling.”

The first part of the charge is obviously true. D&D is all about fantasy role playing. Saying that it promotes this is like saying that track promotes running.

The other claims are far more debatable. They are also, as Socrates might say, the old charges that have been trotted out against gaming for decades-despite the complete lack of adequate evidence for such claims. My own experience has been that while gaming does tend to attract people with a desire to escape reality, gamers seem to be no more prone to violence or gambling than non-gamers. These matters are, of course, subject to empirical testing but the burden of proof rests on those who claim that gaming has these effects.

As I see it, it would actually be a good thing to have prisoners playing D&D.  After all, time spent playing D&D would be time in which they are not doing things like using drugs, raping each other, engaging in real violence, or engaging in other activities that create real harms.

D&D also tends to encourage reading, an interest in numbers, as well as the development of the imagination. It can also help people develop social and cooperative skills. True, players can elect to be evil and do evil things to one another, but that usually teaches the lesson that being evil does not work very well.

A more reasonable justification for not allowing prisoners to play D&D is that prison is supposed to be punishment. Therefore, the officials argued, prisoners should be denied what they enjoy.  This, of course, assumes that keeping prisoners bored is a form of punishment and that this has desirable consequences.



Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Regulation

by Leave a Comment

Leviathan Thomas Hobbes, 1651
Image via Wikipedia

Despite the devastation of the economy by the financial folks, there are still people who are crying out against regulation of the economy. In many cases these people are just spewing words placed into their minds by pundits. They speak about the free market, the invisible hand, and market forces as if these are benevolent deities that will make all things right. Naturally, they regard any attempts to limit these divine forces as socialism, communism, and oppression.

Interestingly enough, many of the same folks who cry for a free market are also a bit obsessed with severely limiting personal privacy and personal liberty. These folks cry out against same sex marriage and cry for the Patriot Act and its ilk. They do not even seem to realize that they are crying for a free society for the money people and a restricted society for all the rest of us.

My own view is a fairly moderate one. While I am not a Hobbesian, I do agree that some people do need to be compelled to behave by the use of force. I also agree with Mill that it is better to have more liberty than less but also that freedom does, ironically, require restrictions on people’s liberty. Put in a nutshell, I think we should restrict people to the degree required to prevent folks from harming each other but that we should not go beyond this. I am, of course, just stealing Mill’s view.

Unlike some folks, I think that this also applies to the market. While some folks cry for a free market, they do not cry for a lawless society. Interestingly, these folks see the need for laws restricting behavior such as theft and murder. They also see the need for laws protecting property and rights. They rightfully regard a lawless society as a place of danger and as undesirable. However, they seem to think that human behavior is magically changed by the market. So, while we cannot allow people to engage in same sex marriage, we can safely allow financial folks to run free and wild. After all, their reasoning goes, the market will sort things out.

However, if the market can do this, then it should also apply across all of life. After all, if the financial folks can be allowed to run wild and free within the magic of the free market, then the same should apply to everyone. Unless, of course, those financial folks are not human beings but some other different race that can do just fine without laws or restrictions.

So, if human beings need laws to regulate their behavior, this also applies to their economic behavior.  Thus, we should no more have a lawless economy than we should have a lawless society. Naturally, the financial folk will complain that they cannot make as much money as they could without such limits. But, I am sure that rapists believe that they could commit  many more rapes if only people did not insist on preventing them from doing so.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Stray Animals

by Leave a Comment

Picutre of Lt.
Image via Wikipedia

As everyone now knows,  Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer of South Carolina made news by seeming to compare the folks who receive government support to stray animals.

His exact words were:

“My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals. You know why? Because they breed. You’re facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don’t think too much further than that. And so what you’ve got to do is you’ve got to curtail that type of behavior. They don’t know any better…”

Interestingly enough, Bauer does have a point. However, it is not the point he thought he was making. Now, if we take the companies that we bailed out as being analogous to stray animals, then he is dead on. By providing these companies with tax payer money we are simply encouraging their bad and irresponsible behavior. As he argued, we need to hold stray animals like Goldman Sachs accountable and make those feral fat cats give something back in return.

Bauer also said the following:

“I can show you a bar graph where free and reduced lunch has the worst test scores in the state of South Carolina,” adding, “You show me the school that has the highest free and reduced lunch, and I’ll show you the worst test scores, folks. It’s there, period.”

Bauer seems to be right about this. Schools that have the free and reduced lunches do tend to have lower test scores. However, Bauer is making an error in his causal reasoning. It is not the free or reduced lunch prices that are lowering scores. After all, imagine if top scoring schools were given free lunch programs. This would not result in lower scores because the price of lunch has nothing to do with academic performance.

The most likely explanation for this correlation is that there is a another factor that is causing both (he is thus committing the fallacy of ignoring a possible common cause) effects. To be specific, poverty leads to a need for reduced price or free lunches and likewise tends to result in worse academic performance. Schools in poorer areas obviously tend to pay teachers less and tend to have far less money for supplies, equipment and programs. Also, people who are poor generally lack the resources to provide their kids with what is needed to do better in school. As such, the culprit here is not the lunch programs but rather poverty.

As a final point, it continues to amaze me that people can reach fairly high political offices without having an adequate grasp of what to say and not to say. I can understand a person making a quick and stupid slip, but Bauer developed his remarks at length. Even his attempts to defend himself merely dug a deeper hole. Then again, it is interesting to see a politician who seems to be willing to say what he really thinks-even if it is rather horrible.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

iPad

by Leave a Comment

As the world now knows, Apple has announced the iPad. Interestingly, if you go to the Apple site and search using “iPad” you get this:

iPad

iPad

About iPad
A note pad in the shape of the white iPod with video, with an elongated screen to fit more text.

What’s New in this Version
– Now on an iPod with video (5g)
– New font face and size
– Now overflows with a scroll bar
– Updated graphics

Presumably Jobs will have the iPad folks “vanished” along with their little note pad, too.

While my invitation to Apple’s event was presumably lost in the digital ether, I have seen the coverage of the device and hence think I am fully qualified to engage in some commentary.

While touchscreen tablets have been around for a while, their acceptance has been lackluster at best. However, Apple has worked its media magic once more and seems to have the world in a fine frenzy over their tablet device. Of course, whether folks actually buy it as they did the iPod  remains to be seen.

Speaking of the iPod, the iPad seems to essentially be a big iPod Touch.  This is both good and bad. On the good side, the iPod Touch is a great piece of hardware and what is essentially a bigger version means that users will have all that Touch goodness with more screen space. Plus, users will have access to the apps for the iPhone/iPod Touch.

On the bad side, one reason I like my iPod Touch is that it is small enough to carry about easily. While the iPad is smaller than a typical laptop, it is bigger than the iPod Touch or iPhone.  As such, it is not as easy or convenient to carry about. I can put my iPod in my pocket or strap it to my arm.  Not so for the iPad-carrying it would be like carrying a book or netbook.

Of course, when I carry my netbook I get a full computer for my carrying effort. It can run normal programs such as Firefox, Word, Dreamweaver, Elements and so on. Plus, it has a keyboard for text entry. As presented, the iPad does not run normal Mac programs. So, for example, I could not use it to run the program I use to record my grades, Micrograde.

Naturally, there are iPhone apps that provide some of the functionality of standard programs (for example, Documents to Go provides what amounts to a mini version of Office) and with internet access the user can (possibly) run online programs.

It also comes with an iPad version of iWork, so it does have that as an office option. Of course, I don’t use iWork, so that is not terribly compelling.

If the iPad had been a full computer rather than a big iPod, I would have been sold on it. Since it is a bit smaller than a normal laptop and I rather like the iPod Touch touch interface I would have found it very useful. However, a big iPod is less useful to me, since I  need the ability to run standard programs rather than just iPhone apps.

I do, however, see some obvious uses for the iPad. As noted above, a user can get some of the functionality of normal programs by getting the right Apps. So, the iPad can be made to function like a normal computer. Also, it does provide a larger screen for browsing and watching videos, which are two killer functions.

Of course, since the iPad falls between an iPod Touch and a netbook, someone who already has both of these might find the iPad less compelling. I predict that sales will be good-which is hardly going out on a limb. Then again, I do have this vague feeling that consumers might think  “why should I buy an iPod that I can’t fit in my pocket?” I’m sure Steve Jobs has the answer.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Eating the Happy Dead

by Leave a Comment

Meat
Image by yum9me via Flickr

In my previous post I mentioned that reading an  article in Newsweek entitled “Vegetarians Who Eat Meat”,  got me thinking about two issues. The first is whether a person can be a vegetarian and also eat meat. The second is whether the way the meat animal is raised impacts the morality of eating it. I addressed the first issue in that post and I now turn to the second issue.

Some folks who were (or still claim to be ) vegetarians have returned to eating meat and justify their consumption by making a moral argument. The gist of the argument is that the morality of eating meat rests not on the eating of meat but on how the animal was treated prior to becoming meat. To be more specific, the idea is that if the animal is lovingly raised in an environmentally sustainable way, then the consumption of its dead flesh is morally acceptable. In contrast, eating meat raised in the usual way (such as factory farming) is not acceptable.

There does seem to be some merit to this argument. If it is assumed that the unhappiness and happiness of animals matters, then a stock utilitarian argument can be trotted out. Treating food animals well generates more pleasure for the animals and, in contrast, treating them badly generates more pain. If pain and pleasure are the currency of morality, then treating food animals well would be morally better than treating them badly.

From this it would presumably follow that folks who only eat the animals who were well treated would have the moral high ground over those who eat animals who suffered before becoming meat. This is because the folks who eat the happy dead are not parties to the mistreatment of animals. Except, of course, for the killing and eating part. After all, both the happy cow and the sad cow meat…I mean “meet” the same end: death and consumption.

The fact that the animals, happy or sad, end up as meat might be seen as what is important to the ethics of the situation. This seems reasonable. After all, if someone intends to kill me my main concern is with my possible death and not whether the killer will be nice or not.

But it also seems reasonable to be concerned about what comes before. To use an analogy, imagine two legal systems. While both hand out the same punishments, one system treats suspects horribly: they are locked in fetid cells, poorly fed and treated with cruelty. The other legal system treats suspects reasonable well: they can get out on bail, cells are clean, the food is adequate and cruelty is rare. There seems to be a meaningful distinction between the two and this would also seem to hold in the case of meat.

As such, I do think that the folks who eat the happy dead can claim a slight moral superiority over those who dine on cruel food. But, there is still the obvious concern about whether the consumption of meat itself is acceptable or not.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
%d bloggers like this: