A Philosopher's Blog

Philosophical Essays on Many Subjects

Archives for November 2018

Bats & Climate Change

by 7 Comments

One side effect of the politicization of climate change is that there is resistance to address or even recognize problems associated with it. This is unfortunate, because the harm for these problems will be costly and widespread. One example of such a problem is the apparent impact of the changing climate on bat migration.

One example is that bats which migrate from Mexico to Texas are arriving ever earlier for the summer and some do not migrate back for the winter. For those who care about bats, the problem for them is that the bats might not be able to get enough food, thus causing a decline in their population. This provides yet another moral reason to address climate change. Even those who do not care about bats have a good reason to be concerned about their plight, if only for selfish reasons.

Although bats have a Halloween reputation as scary monsters, they are quite beneficial to humans (at least when not infected with rabies). Bats seek and devour a huge quantity of insect pests that would otherwise devour key commercial crops, such as soybeans and potatoes. While an exact measure of the economic value of bats is not possible, it is estimated that the value of bats to the United States economy is about $23 billion dollars—making bats an incredible valuable resource.

If bat behavior is altered by climate change, especially if this reduces their population, the impact on United States agriculture could be devastating, especially if the changing climate also increases the population of crop damaging insects. As such, this provides yet another practical reason to address climate change. There is also a moral reason here as well. While agriculture would not be destroyed by the decline in the bat population, the loss of this free service would almost certainly lead to a reduction in available food and increase the costs of food. This would be an added burden on the many Americans who already have difficulty in affording enough food for themselves and their families. It would also be harmful to the farmers and those who work the farms.

One reasonable reply to the moral and practical concerns is to point out that pesticide companies and seed companies will see an opportunity to profit from this situation. They will create and sell new pesticides to kill the pests that the bats now eat for free. They will also develop and sell new patented plants that will resist these pests. Then, as the insects adapt, they will create and sell newer pesticides and seeds. As such, it could be argued that the decline of bats would be good for these companies—they can make a profit. The bats, after all, do the job for free and merely save the farmers money—they are practically socialists.

While this would be a boon for the seed and pesticide companies, it would still have the effect of increasing the price of food—the farmers would need to pay for what was once a free service. There are also the obvious concerns about the environmental and health impact of new pesticides and their widespread use. Those who are wary of genetically modified foods (I am not) would also be concerned about the engineered seeds. As such, it is preferable for everyone (other than the companies that would profit from the decline of the bats) to take efforts to address climate change and keep those socialist bats working for America.

 

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

My Dungeon Masters Guild Page

Follow Me on Twitter

The Ethics of Deep-Sea Mining

by Leave a Comment

As available metals become scarcer, some are looking to deep-sea mining to feed the ever-hungry economies of the world. While terrestrial mining typically involves cutting into the earth, deep-see mining is more akin to vacuuming. The basic idea is that mining ships will deploy devices to scour the seabed for nodules of valuable metals, such as nickel, copper, manganese and cobalt. As would be expected, this new form of mining raises ethical concerns about its potential environmental impact.

Since terrestrial mining has generally been incredibly destructive to the environment and has contributed greatly to political corruption, it is important to consider the potential harms of deep-sea mining before it becomes a significant reality. As with terrestrial mining, the harms must be weighed against the benefits, so the usual utilitarian approach will be taken.

Embed from Getty Images

On the plus side, the seabed seems to have an abundance of metal resources that would probably be economically viable to mine. The metals are necessary for the modern economies of the world—they are essential for a large range of products that are taken to enhance the quality of life of millions. As such, the most compelling moral argument for mining the seabed is the economic one. But, of course, this mining would not be without consequences.

One concern is that the mining process will damage the seabed. About 30 years ago researchers used a sledge to simulate one effect of such mining—the marks remain, looking exactly as they did when they were cut. There are also organisms that live on the nodules that would presumably be killed in the process of mining and refining. The mining process also siphons up 10-15 centimeters of the seafloor, which would clearly not be ideal for the organisms living there. There is also the fact that the undesirable sediments will be pumped overboard, and they can drift considerable distances, impacting ecosystems far from the mining sites.

One obvious reply to the concern about damage is that it seems minor—siphoning up some mud and then having some silt drift away from the mining site. This, one might argue, is not even worth considering. While the apparent damage seems less than that of terrestrial mining (which can involve removing mountains), a key part of the problem is that the impacts of such mining are not known. The available evidence does indicate that recovery time from the mining would be very long—so even if the damage is relatively small, this could be offset by its duration. Beyond that, the impact of such mining is not known—it might turn out to have little impact or it might have serious consequences for the oceans and the creatures affected by the oceans. This, of course, includes humans. What is better known is the impact of processing the mined nodules—this will be done on land using the usual sort of processes. As would be expected, this can have significant environmental impact.

While it is almost certain that there will be a significant environmental cost for deep-sea mining, it is probably possible to mitigate the damage. The challenge, as always, is to get those doing the mining to engage in this mitigation. This will no doubt vary greatly between countries, which will be especially problematic because such damage will obviously not respect national boundaries. But, given that the impacts are unknown, the right thing to do would be to continue the scientific investigation into the impact of such mining, that way the true cost of the mining will be known ahead of time and possible means of mitigation can be developed. These metals are, as noted above, critical to the consumer economy that we have created and as such, there seems to be no likely alternative to deep-sea mining. Except, of course, asteroid mining.

 

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

My Dungeon Masters Guild Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Metaphysics of Meat II: The Morality of Meat

by Leave a Comment

Put roughly, vegetarians are defined by their refusal to eat meat. Vegans take it further and refuse to eat any animal products. There are, as vegetarians and vegans will tell you, many varieties of each with some involving very subtle nuances about what is and is not acceptable to eat. While this oversimplifies things, people tend to embrace these views for two broad reasons. Moral vegans/vegetarians are motivated by ethical concerns—they believe that it is morally wrong to harm animals. Some take a broader view and include the sum of harms done by consuming animals, such as the environmental damage and wastefulness of animal farming. Health vegans/vegetarians are motivated by concerns about their physical well-being; they regard animal products as being unhealthy. It is obviously possible to have both (and other) motivations, but I will consider ethics in context of defining meat.

From a moral standpoint, the concern about meat (and other products) is the harm done to the animals. For example, the creation of veal and foie gras are both moral nightmares of animal suffering. The production of eggs and milk are also often terrible for the chickens and cows involved. In the case of animals harvested for their meat, even if they are treated well, they are still killed and consumed. Since vegans and vegetarians need to eat to avoid death, they turn to eating plants and plant products.

Embed from Getty Images

The moral justification for eating plants, which are living things, is typically based on the claim that plants do not suffer. They lack, it is argued, the sort of nervous system needed to even feel pain. As such they either lack moral status or have a status that allows them to be consumed. This is despite the fact that plants are obviously alive. Interesting, and to the annoyance of some vegans I know, there has been some scientific research into the idea that plants have some degree of awareness or even intelligence. However, this line of discussion would go beyond the intended focus of this work—which is synthetic meat.

On the face of it, synthetic meat that is gown would seem to be analogous to a plant. While the synthetic meat would be alive, it would not be part of an animal that possessed the capacity to suffer. As such, it would be morally equivalent to a plant (as most people see them)—a source of food that cannot suffer. This would seem to make such meat non-meat, at least from the standpoint of a moral vegan or vegetarian. Then again, a vegan could counter that the cells needed to grow the synthetic meat were original taken from an animal, which would make it unacceptable. An obvious reply is that taking a few cells from an animal would not hurt it. This problem could also be addressed by using source animals that would be well cared for and allowed to die natural deaths. In this case, the moral objection would have to be very abstract—that there is just something wrong with consuming any animal product, regardless of any other factors.

One way to address this concern would be to create completely synthetic meat that has no direct link to an animal. This synthetic product would be identical to meat but would be completely artificial. As such, no animal would be harmed directly or indirectly in the creation of the synthetic meat, thus making it morally not-meat. The odd logic would be that if meat is murder and synthetic meat is not murder, then it is not meat. While this is a bit silly, it does have a certain appeal.

It could be objected that it is not the ethics of the meat that makes meat what it is. To use an analogy, a stolen potato would be morally different from an honestly acquired potato, but both would still be potatoes. As such, it could be argued that even “moral” meat would still be meat, and thus unacceptable to a certain sort of vegan or vegetarian. The challenge would be, of course, to show what it is about such “moral” meat that would still make it immoral. One obvious approach would be the costs of producing it—synthetic meat is and probably will remain inefficient relative to using resources to grow plant-based foods. However, this would apply to anything wasteful of resources and would not be meat specific. It would, for example, apply to the wasteful process of growing almonds in California.

Given the above, synthetic meat would be morally distinct from classic meat. On the one hand, it could be contended that this would make it not-meat. As such, vegans and vegetarians could eat it and still claim to not be eating meat. On the other hand, it could simply be claimed that it would simply be moral meat that moral vegans and vegetarians could eat, thus making them non-vegans and non-vegetarians.

 

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

My Dungeon Masters Guild Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Metaphysics of Meat I: What is Meat?

by 13 Comments

While synthetic meat (to use the term broadly) has long been a staple chow in science fiction, researchers are working hard to make it a commercially viable product. While there are many controversial aspects to lab grown meat, one matter of dispute is whether it is, in fact, meat.

As would be suspected, a legal battle is already underway over the legal definition of “meat” in the context of commercial food sales. Since this is a legal matter, the definition of “meat” in this context will most likely be settled in favor of whichever side can best lobby the relevant lawmakers.  Interestingly, the legal definitions need have nothing to do with the way chemists or nutritionists would define a food. For example, since high fructose corn syrup has a bad reputation among consumers, the industry tried to get the name changed to “corn sugar.” To the chemist and nutritionist, high fructose corn syrup is a sugar; but the sugar industry rejects this definition—they presumably see a financial advantage in fighting this legal label. While the legal wrangling over how foods should be categorized can be interesting, it does not have much philosophical relevance when it comes to trying to determine what it is to be meat. After all, the legal answer is easy and obvious: it is whatever the law says, and this need have no rational foundation at all. As such, it is wisest to move on from the legal matter.

Embed from Getty Images

While philosophers are often accused of lacking common sense, there are some who think this is where philosophy should begin. That is, when trying to define what something is, a good starting point is where we already are in terms of common sense. J.S. Mill took this approach in his discussion of poetry, electing to start with the generally accepted view of poetry and working from there. This seems to be a sensible approach and will be applied to the matter of meat.

The common-sense definition of “meat” is that it is the edible flesh of an animal, most commonly the muscle tissue. While people do refer to the kernel of a nut as “nut meat”, common sense divides this sort of meat from animal meats. To illustrate, a vegan will not smugly say, “I do not eat coconut because that is meat.” But a vegan would refuse to eat a turkey leg—because that is the meat they do not eat. As such, I will stick with animal-based meats and ignore the other uses of the term “meat.” This does entail that I am rejecting all plant-based meats—they are not real meat.

On the face of it, synthetic meat would not seem to meet the common-sense definition. It is not cut from an animal; it is grown in a vat (or whatever). Thus, it would fail to be meat. On this view, it is the origin of the meat that defines it as meat. At this point, one could raise a weird sci-fi scenario: what if scientists created an animal whose body also included vegetable matter, such as potatoes growing within a cow? The carrots would be part of the animal, but they would not seem to be meat. As such, the composition of the material also matters—to be meat, it must have the right sort of makeup (typically muscle tissue). On this view, composition would be a necessary condition for being meat (so cow-potatoes would not be meat). But composition would not be a sufficient condition. On this view, synthetic meat that was not cut from an animal would not be meat. While this quick and easy solution is appealing, it does not seem to be the final word.

Suppose that a cut of muscles cells is taken from a cow. This would obviously be a steak. No suppose that the cells were cultivated in a lab and grown into a massive slab. These cells originated from the steak and are the same. As such, it would seem to be hard to deny that the slab is not meat. To us an analogy, if someone took a plant cutting and grew a slab of the plant cells in the lab, it would seem undeniable that the slab would be plant matter (unfortunately, “plant” does not work like “meat”, so I can’t say “would be plant”). The same should also apply to meat.

There are two replies to this analogy. One is to argue that plants lack the individuality of animals and hence plant material works differently from meat. If potato was grown as a slab in the lab, it would still be potato. But meat must come from an individual animal or it is not meat. The second reply is that the “plant” slab is not plant (to use “plant” like “meat”) since it is not coming from a plant—a slab grown from potato cells is not a potato plant and hence is not plant.

The counter to these replies is to focus on the question of what the discernible difference would be between the slabs and the plants and animals. Obviously enough, looking at them in the lab would be a dead giveaway, but that would be an unfair comparison. After all, a living cow does not look like a steak. A fair comparison would be to put a steak cut from a cow against a synthetic steak in a series of tests. Some would relate to food—taste testing. Some would be chemical and genetic—to see what the material is. Naturally, the tests would have to avoid being rigged—a test that was aimed only at telling if the meat was grown in an animal would be an example of a rigged test. If the synthetic meat passed these test (it tastes like meat, has the texture of meat, looks like meat, has the amino acids of meat and so on), then it would be hard to deny that it would be meat.

So far, I have only been discussing synthetic meat that can trace its origin back to non-controversial meat. But there is also the problem of completely synthetic meat—meat that is truly synthetic and has no causal chain that links it back to an actual animal. In the ideal, it would be chemically engineered protein that duplicates the qualities of meat. To use an extreme science fiction example, think of the replicator from Star Trek. This fictional machine could create a perfect steak by assembling it from raw materials, no cow involved. Unless someone insists that an animal must die (or at least be cut) for meat to be meat, it would be difficult to argue that replicator meat or properly engineered protein would not be meat. After all, unless one knew that it did not come from an animal, one would think it was meat.

This does point to the obvious counter—someone could draw a line and insist that meat must, by definition, come directly from an animal to be meat. Anything else could be meat-like, but would need to be distinguished from meat. This, of course, nicely mirrors what Locke said in the context of personal identity regarding the use of words, “And indeed every one will always have a liberty to speak as he pleases, and to apply what articulate sounds to what ideas he thinks fit, and change them as often as he pleases.” As such, the problem of meat could be solved by having multiple terms for various meat and meat-like things. Or we could follow the lead of Hume and conclude that “…all the nice and subtle questions concerning personal identity can never possibly be decided, and are to be regarded rather as grammatical than as philosophical difficulties.” In this case, “meat” is merely a matter of language, which is to say that the problem remains unsolved.

In the next essay I will consider another approach to the metaphysics of meat, namely the morality of meat.

 

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

My Dungeon Masters Guild Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Voter Fraud & Florida, Again

by 4 Comments

After a contentious recount, Bill Nelson has conceded the senate race to Rick Scott. Before the recount, both President Trump and Rick Scott said, without evidence, that the election had been tainted with widespread fraud. Trump even advanced the bizarre claim of voters changing clothes in their cars to vote again.  As this is being written, the election has come to an end without any evidence of voter fraud or other electoral misdeeds. To be fair, there were problems in some counties—especially Broward. There were also problems with ballot design, but this did not seem to favor any particular candidate. Good ballot design is difficult, but it should be something that enjoys bipartisan support—since such design flaws would generally seem to provide no advantage to either side. Rather importantly, as has long been the case, felons were not permitted to vote—thus disenfranchising about 1.5 million citizens.  This race-driven policy has been, in part, undone in this past election, which might change elections to come. But, let us return to the allegations of fraud.

Embed from Getty Images

Given that there has been no evidence of fraud or other illegalities, it might be wondered why Trump and Scott pushed their lies so hard on the national stage. One obvious reason is that the untrue claim of voter fraud has been a stock talking point for the Republicans for a long time. As such, it makes sense that Trump and Scott would parrot this party line—it has become something Republicans just seem to say. Interestingly, both Trump and Scott made these accusations in the face of their own victories, so one could say that Trump and Scott said they won fraudulent elections. In the case of Trump, he was enraged that he had been thrashed in the popular vote while winning by the electoral college (something he had railed against in the past).

It should be noted that the Democrats have a narrative of voter suppression which they present at least as often as Republicans cry out about voter fraud. But, there is a difference: voter fraud is infinitesimal while voter suppression has a meaningful impact on elections.  In the case of Scott, he was clearly worried that he might lose, which leads to a second likely reason.

Second, Scott had an excellent practical reason to raise the specter of fraud: there was a chance that he might lose the election. Presumably he hoped that this would benefit him in the realm of public opinion or otherwise yield some advantage in achieving victory—perhaps by ending the vote counting early. To be fair to Scott, Democrats bring up voter suppression when they are losing (or have lost). But, as noted before, Scott and Trump have never been able to provide evidence of voter fraud, but there is clear evidence of voter suppression. The most obvious examples in Florida are the racist law excluding felons from voting and Scott’s Kafkaesque process for restoring voting rights. Scott has openly claimed the process is arbitrary and the available information shows that Scott favored restoring voting rights to whites and Republicans.  Florida has about 1.5 million felons who could vote, so Scott’s control over the restoration voting rights gave him considerable power over elections. As such, while fraud did not cost him the election, his control over felon’s voting rights helped him achieve victory.

Third, the deceitful narrative of fraud is used to “justify” various efforts aimed at voter suppression. By bringing up claims of voter fraud before a national audience, Trump and Scott can help fuel voter suppression across the country. The fact that they provide no evidence seems to be irrelevant, those that fear voter fraud are clearly motivated by emotion rather than evidence. When the Republicans try to suppress votes in the future, they can refer to the fraud that never was in Florida to help get laws passed and “justify” them to the public. This leads to the point of why crying fraud matters.

For those who believe that citizens should be able to freely exercise their just right to vote, using the specter of voter fraud to justify the suppression of voters would clearly be wrong. After all, it is a lie used to justify robbing citizens of a fundamental democratic right. In fact, the right to vote is the defining right of a democracy. There is also the obvious moral problem with lying.

Another problem is that such false claims can undermine the faith of citizens in the election system and hence democracy itself. This can drive down participation—people who think that their vote will not be counted or will be washed away in a tide of fraud might be less inclined to vote. The United States already has low voter participation, in part because the process is often made difficult by various laws and, of course, by the inefficiency and disorder of many elections. Given the available technology, the fact that elections are run so badly would suggest that this is a feature and not a bug. The attack on voting can also be used to pave the way towards non-democratic systems as people lose faith in the democratic process.

It might be objected that cries of voter suppression are also damaging. On the one hand, it could be argued that such accusations could lower turnout and undermine faith in the system. On the other hand, voter suppression occurs and the efforts to counter voter suppression aim at encouraging people to vote and making it easier for legitimate voters to vote. As such, when people bring up voter suppression honestly and oppose it, they are helping democracy and not harming it.

It can also be objected that voter suppression is a liberal myth. However, the evidence for voter suppression is quite strong. The American Bar Association offers a run through of various voter ID laws, noting their impact. In terms of hard data on the impact of laws, researchers at Tufts and Harvard are working on a system to sort this matter out. Georgia, where the person in charge of the electoral process just won the governor’s race, is a paradigm example of voter suppression. And, I have often noted, the laws against felons voting are intended to suppress African-American voters and do so quite effectively. My home state of Maine allows felons who are still in prison to vote. While I like to think of my home state as enlightened, it is also worth noting that Maine did not have a minority population to suppress.

There are also the facts that the laws that are supposed to be aimed at voter fraud are aimed at something that rarely happens and that they do not really address the fraud that does occur. As such, one has to infer that either the Republicans are stupidly and badly trying to stop a problem that is not really a problem with methods that do not work or they are trying to suppress Democratic voters. The best explanation seems clear.

Naturally, I am open to evidence and arguments against my views. If there is strong objective evidence of significant voter fraud and strong objective evidence that the methods used to address it are effective, then I will change my position. Also, if there is strong objective evidence that voter suppression is a myth and that there are no unreasonable barriers to voting, then I will change my position on voter suppression.

 

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

My Dungeon Masters Guild Page

Follow Me on Twitter

Griftocracy

by 15 Comments

While the United States is a republic, the current administration is a griftocracy—that is, the state is ruled by grifters and for grifters. While there are many varieties of con people and scammers, the hallmarks of the grifter are that they engage in schemes to gain the confidence of their victims and then defraud them. While there are many scammers, grifters can be regarded as being especially shoddy, unskilled and petty in their scams—or at least the term has that feel to it. That is, they lack the artistry of the true con artist and are mere fraudsters without the wicked brilliance of a master of deceit.

Trump and most of his fellows are, obviously enough, grifters. They engage in fraud but are not particularly clever about it—their grifting is often easily recognized and they are often quite petty in their misdeeds. This is not to say they do not try for big scores—sometimes they do. To be fair, they really do not have to be very clever—the Republican party (which seems largely composed of those who grift for power rather than primarily for money) actively protects them from the consequences of their actions. Given that Trump and his lot are so very bad at what they do, the obvious question is why they still enjoy a shocking level of approval and support.

In the case of those who benefit from what Trump does, such as his pushing of tax cuts for the wealthy and creating safe spaces for white nationalists and other racists, they have excellent reasons to support him. After all, while they might not be grifters, they reap these benefits. As such, it is rational for them to back Trump. What is far less obvious is why people support him who do not benefit in these direct ways and might even be harmed by Trump’s policies.

One obvious answer is that they are deceived by Trump—they have been taken in by his lies and accept them as true. In this case, they are being fully grifted. One problem is that Trump, as Trevor Noah has argued, can be weirdly honest about his lying. Perhaps his supporters still do not get that he is telling them that he has been lying or they think that he is kidding that he is lying. An alternative explanation is that they realize he is lying, but do not care.

They might think that they are in on the grift. That is, they believe that he is conning those other people, but he and his special people know what is really going on. Roughly put, Trump is lying with them and for them, but not to them. In this case, it makes sense they would support him—they are part of his group and they are pulling things over on the media, the liberals and others.

They might also simply enjoy the grift. To use an obvious analogy, people persist in playing the rigged carnival games even though most people know they are rigged. In part, this could be wishful thinking—some people might think that they can beat the rig. It is also likely that people enjoy the theatre of the scam—a social activity in which they agree to be scammed in return for having some fun. So, being a Trump supporter of this sort is like being perpetually at the carnival—they are being scammed, but enjoying it.

It might be objected that most politicians engage in grifting—they are in it to enrich themselves or are at least grifting for power if not money. On the one hand, this is a fair point. For example, the Clintons used their public service to amass impressive wealth. Members of Congress also do quite well; although some are wealthy before they are elected. On the other hand, to regard profiting off influence as grifting is to treat profiting from influence as being the same as fraud, which it is not. This is not to say that engaging in such self-service from public service is good, just that it need not be fraud. For example, if Obama or Bush gets a large check for a speaking engagement, they are profiting from public service, but not defrauding anyone.

 

My Amazon Author Page

My Paizo Page

My DriveThru RPG Page

My Dungeon Masters Guild Page

Follow Me on Twitter

%d bloggers like this: