You are currently browsing the monthly archive for June 2012.
You know who should not have access to phone/mp3 player/distractothon 3000’s? Junior high students. Responsible use of electronics seems out of reach of many of my students. The best part is that they are willing to die on that technological hill with all the ensuing teen-age drama that seems to shadow their every step.
A solution could be cell phone jamming in particular areas where taking phone calls would not be appropriate. I just may have to ask Santa for such a device for testing purposes.
This piece is lively, bright and exciting. Not to mention way beyond my technical ability, but I love it anyways. :)
TED talks enlists Terry Moore to find out why we call our unknown variables “X”. Short, concise and illuminating.
The amount written about the environment and what needs to be done is staggering. We’ll file this report under the heading “Oh Sh*t were screwed” column for the sake of convenience. The only limits humanity respects are those of a distinctly Malthusian nature. I’d add to his general work by saying that we, as a species, tend to do something until it comes back and bites us in the ass while kicking us in the teeth and laughing. Then and only then we might get a clue and reorder our policy with regards to not scheduling another ass-kicking session for ourselves. The problem, we live in a short-term political/economic cycle that at its very base encourages short term solutions and policy based on staying in power rather than any sort of rational stewardship the environment and ultimately our lives.
Did you know why the green movement is such a joke? It’s because we still have the bounty of the earth at our finger tips. We can not or will not connect the dots about the destruction of our biosphere aka…the conditions necessary for our species to survive. Let me assure you the day will come when the Green Parties in North America take power, right about the time when scarcity of food and potable water make basic survival a pressing concern.
Enter Malthus and his “misery and vice”. Of course, the rich will won’t give a flying fig in the beginning. The grandiose structures of their wealth will keep them intact for awhile, of course backed by the coercive apparatus of the state, but those will crumble and fall into ruin as the carrying capacity of the Earth plummets. Money just isn’t that nourishing. I’m hoping that we in Canada won’t hit the wall during my lifetime because once the poo hits the fan, the radical reorganization of our society will reflect a new set of priorities that have little to do with ‘advancement’ and ‘civilization’.
Anyhow, as we dance merrily toward oblivion the UN has decided to call out some of the more obvious signs as we trundle ever more quickly to the collapse of our current way of life.
“Two weeks before the start of a global conference on sustainable development in Rio de Janeiro, the United Nations is warning that progress has stalled on key environmental goals the world’s nations have set for themselves, like tackling climate change, combating desertification and protecting biodiversity.
“The world continues to speed down an unsustainable path despite over 500 internationally agreed goals and objectives to support the sustainable management of the environment and improve human well-being,” the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) said when it released its Global Environmental Outlook Wednesday.
The world has made progress on only four out of 90 of the most pressing environmental goals and objectives agreed upon as part of the Millennium Development Goals and other international pacts, the UNEP said.”
Well, four out of ninety isn’t that bad. I mean, someone needs to win the green participation ribbon when it comes to maintaining the Earth as a suitable place to live.
“Little to no progress was made on climate change-related goals such as limiting the increase in average global temperature to less than two degrees above pre-industrial
levels or in areas such as revitalization of depleted fish stocks, protection of biodiversity and the combating of desertification.”
People want to live like North Americans, outside the bounds of reasonable consumption, insulated to the consequences of our gradual fouling of the nest.
“Overall, the world is failing to stem the loss of biodiversity, with about 20 per cent of vertebrate species under threat and some natural habitats shrinking by more than 20 per cent since the 1980s.
“We have failed,” said Elizabeth Thompson, executive co-ordinator for the upcoming Rio conference, dubbed Rio+20. “We have not properly mainstreamed the issue of sustainable development as a way of living, doing business. That is the overall reason why we have not made the kind of progress that we should have.”
What a nice way of saying we are a greedy parasitical species that is slowly digging the hole that civilization will fall into with our unrealistic expectations and desires. I think I want that my tombstone – My news of me and my death has not been properly mainstreamed…. Jesus-frak. Spare us the verbbing of nouns and just spell out how irresponsible we actually are.
“The report also produced regional outlooks. It singled out North America and Europe for their “unsustainable levels of consumption” and highlighted that North America lags behind other parts of the world when it comes to use of renewable energy.
The greatest threats for Asia, Africa and the Pacific are rapid urbanization and population growth coupled with increasing consumption, which are putting stress on already dwindling natural resources. Latin America and the Caribbean share similar worries.
Thompson said that the Rio conference is supposed to be a “transforming moment.”
The Rio conference will take place in Brazil from June 20 to June 22 and will mark the 20th anniversary of the first Earth Summit, or United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, held in Rio in 1992.”
I cannot wait for the wisdom that issues forth from this great summit of the minds. It won’t matter a whit. What I can guarantee though that once Mr.Malthus comes calling “misery and vice” will be all the frakking rage for a very long time.
Discussing the refutation of Alvin Plantinga’s ‘Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism’ based on truth as a conventional semantic property. A bit of mouthful, but very interesting stuff for your brain to chew on.
This small clip features Hitchens at his best, dismantling the arguments of Christian apologists and believers with his acerbic wit and argumentation. Consider the horrible implications of the all knowing, all seeing, all father. I for one reject the tyrannical celestial dictatorship and the misanthropic beliefs it spawns.
What? No religious tomfoolery to debunk and slam? Even the practiced old hands here at DWR need a break from the usual turkeyshoot of specious religious arguments that get passed off as ‘debate’ these days. In that light, I present this article from Alternet that attempts to give us non believers some categories to feel happy in. If you spot anything missing, feel free to proclaim so in the comment section.
1. Atheist. The term atheist can be defined literally as lacking a humanoid god concept, but historically it means one of two things. Positive atheism asserts that a personal supreme being does not exist. Negative atheism simply asserts a lack of belief in such a deity. It is possible be a positive atheist about the Christian God, for example, while maintaining a stance of negative atheism or even uncertainty on the question of a more abstract deity like a “prime mover.” In the United States, it is important to know that atheist may be the most reviled label for a godless person. Devout believers use it as a slur and many assume an atheist has no moral core. Until recently calling oneself an atheist was an act of defiance. That appears to be changing. With the rise of the “New Atheists” and the recent atheist visibility movement, the term is losing its edge.
2. Anti-theist. When atheist consistently evoked images of Madeline Murray O’Hare, hostility toward religion was assumed. Now that it may evoke a white-haired grandmother at the Unitarian church or the gay kid on Glee, some people want a term that more clearly conveys their opposition to the whole religious enterprise. The term anti-theist says, “I think religion is harmful.” It also implies some form of activism that goes beyond merely advocating church-state separation or science education. Anti-theism challenges the legitimacy of faith as a moral authority or way of knowing. Anti-theists often work to expose harms caused in the name of God like stonings, gay bating, religious child maltreatment, genital mutilation, unwanted childbearing or black-collar crime. The New Atheist writers including Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins might better be described as anti-theists.
3. Agnostic. Some atheists think of agnostic as a weenie term, because it gets used by people who lack a god-concept but don’t want to offend family members or colleagues. Agnostic doesn’t convey the same sense of confrontation or defiance that atheist can, and so it gets used as a bridge. But in reality, the term agnostic represents a range of intellectual positions that have important substance in their own right and can be independent of atheism. Strong agnosticism views God’s existence as unknowable, permanently and to all people. Weak agnosticism can mean simply “I don’t know if there is a God,” or “We collectively don’t know if there is a God but we might find out in the future.” Alternately, the term agnosticism can be used to describe an approach to knowledge, somewhat like skepticism (which comes next in this list). Philosopher Thomas Huxley illustrates this position:
Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle… Positively the principle may be expressed as ‘in matters of intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable.’
These three definitions of agnosticism, though different, all focus on what we do or can know, rather than on whether God exists. This means it is possible to be both atheist and agnostic. Author Phillip Pullman has described himself as both.
The question of what term to use is a difficult one, in strict terms I suppose I’m an agnostic because of course the circle of the things I do know is vastly smaller than the things I don’t know about out there in the darkness somewhere maybe there is a God. But among all the things I do know in this world I see no evidence of a God whatsoever and everybody who claims to know there is a God seems to use that as an excuse for exercising power over other people, and historically as we know from looking at the history in Europe alone that’s involved persecution, massacre, slaughter on an industrial scale, it’s a shocking prospect.
4. Skeptic. Traditionally, skeptic has been used to describe a person who doubts received religious dogmas. However, while agnostic focuses on God questions in particular, the term skeptic expresses a broader life approach. Someone who calls him- or herself a skeptic has put critical thinking at the heart of the matter. Well known skeptics, like Michael Shermer, Penn and Teller, or James Randi devote a majority of their effort to debunking pseudoscience, alternative medicine, astrology and so forth. They broadly challenge the human tendency to believe things on insufficient evidence. Australian comic Tim Minchen is an outspoken atheist who earns a living in part by poking fun at religion. But his most beloved and hilarious beat poem, Storm, smacks down homeopathy and hippy woo.
5. Freethinker. Free-thinker is a term that dates to the end of the 17th Century, when it was first used in England to describe those who opposed the Church and literal belief in the Bible. Freethought is an intellectual stance that says that opinions should be based on logic and evidence rather than authorities and traditions. Well known philosophers including John Locke and Voltaire were called freethinkers in their own time, and a magazine, The Freethinker, has been published in Britain continuously from 1881 to the present. The term has gotten popular recently in part because it is affirmative. Unlike atheism, which defines itself in contrast to religion, freethought identifies with a proactive process for deciding what is real and important.
6. Humanist. While terms like atheist or anti-theist focus on a lack of god-belief and agnostic, skeptic and freethinker all focus on ways of knowing—humanist centers in on a set of ethical values. Humanism seeks to promote broad wellbeing by advancing compassion, equality, self-determination, and other values that allow individuals to flourish and to live in community with each other. These values drive not from revelation, but from human experience. As can be seen in two manifestos published in 1933 and 1973 respectively, humanist leaders don’t shy away from concepts like joy and inner peace that have spiritual connotations. In fact, some think that religion itself should be reclaimed by those who have moved beyond supernaturalism but recognize the benefits of spiritual community and ritual. Harvard Chaplain Greg Epstein dreams of incubating a thriving network of secular congregations.
7. Pantheist. As self-described humanists seek to reclaim the ethical and communitarian aspects of religion, pantheistscenter in on the spiritual heart of faith–the experience of humility, wonder, and transcendence. They see human beings as one small part of a vast natural order, with the Cosmos itself made conscious in us. Pantheists reject the idea of a person- god, but believe that the holy is made manifest in all that exists. Consequently, they often have a strong commitment to protecting the sacred web of life in which and from which we have our existence. The writings of Carl Sagan reflect this sentiment and often are quoted by pantheists, for example in a “Symphony of Science” video series which mixes evocative natural world images, atonal music, and the voices of leading scientists, and has received 30 million views.
If none of these fit . . . . Keep looking. Many of the American founding fathers were deists who didn’t believe in miracles or special revelation through sacred texts but thought that the natural world itself revealed a designer who could be discovered through reason and inquiry. Naturalists assume a philosophical position that the laws operating within the natural realm are the only laws governing the universe and no supernatural realm lies beyond. Secularists argue that moral standards and laws should be based on whether they do good or harm in this world and that religion should be kept out of government. Pastafarians playfully claim to worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and their religion is a good-humored spoof on Abrahamic beliefs and rituals.






Your opinions…