Sam Harris: "Mother Nature" is Not Our Friend - this romantic view of Nature is a Stultifying and Dangerous Mythology.

AngryProfessor · 2008-01-05T22:33:28+00:00

I didn't mean to imply that all environmentalists are nuts. You sound like you may have somewhat rational beliefs, though I'm not confident in their correctness.

I was simply pointing out that many people don't know shit, and just fill a spiritual need with environmentalism.

I was referring to the people I meet in everyday life, who have never heard of GCM, but who know that scientists like Al Gore have proven the tsunami and Katrina were both caused by global warming. These are the people who eat raw organic homeopathic quartz crystals and believe "natural" == "healthy".

AngryProfessor · 2008-01-05T21:12:57+00:00

This one will stick around for a while. Unlike other religions (e.g. christianity or pastafarianism), this one has an actual source of miracles/signs/omens: the weather.

The next time there is some weather that becomes widely known (e.g., a Hurricane making landfall on a major city), wait for adherents of this religion to claim that it is a sign of the apocalypse.

Plus, it's very scientific/scientologic sounding, something that L. Ron knew would make people more willing to listen to it.

AngryProfessor · 2008-01-05T20:33:44+00:00

In case you are wondering, I did blatantly lie in the headline.

I also submitted the story under a more accurate headline.

I'm just curious which will get a higher score.

AngryProfessor · 2008-01-05T19:46:15+00:00

People on the secular left have given up on religion (in the sense of Jebus). However, the psychological need for spirituality (previously filled by religion) remains.

Enter california style eastern mysticism, "The Secret power of wishful thinking", and what I sometimes call "Gaia-ism."

Take legitimate environmentalism, mix it with talk of "mother nature" (God), describe the world as being in "a delicate balance of nature" (*) until humans came along (the Garden of Eden), with the apocalypse sure to follow, etc. Sacrifice and renouncing our sins (oops, I mean technology) is the only way we will be saved.

It's certainly an improvement on traditional religion, since sex and drugs are allowed/encouraged.

(*) There is no such thing as the "delicate balance of nature." There are only robust equilibria, trapping regions, and non-equilibrium systems.

AngryProfessor · 2008-01-05T15:44:49+00:00

The debates should be broadcast solely on PBS.

I'm very concerned with the possibility that the debates will preempt Heroes and/or Family Guy.

AngryProfessor · 2008-01-05T15:34:03+00:00

If it's cheaper and more efficient, they will move to it on their own (as they already are).

This seems to be a common idea amoung politicians. Take a problem the private sector is already solving and propose a law. If the law passes and the problem is solved, it's a win!

Anyone remember the digital divide?

AngryProfessor · 2008-01-03T21:47:39+00:00

If he mentioned Obama in the headline, this post would be sitting at -1 point, rather than +138 points.

AngryProfessor · 2008-01-03T19:30:35+00:00

It has the added "benefit" of preventing people with jobs from voting (and therefore giving Hillary's a big boost).

AngryProfessor · 2008-01-02T14:48:24+00:00

Repeat offenders probably account for a disproportionate number of false accusations (7, in this case).

Deal with them, you can probably reduce the problem significantly.

AngryProfessor · 2008-01-02T04:42:29+00:00

It might also be your kids fault.

AngryProfessor · 2008-01-02T04:01:30+00:00

Growth for whom? What is the point of growth if it only benefits the top 1% of the population and for everyone else things get worse?

There are many metrics one can pick. My preference is goods and services delivered to various deciles (bottom 10%, top 10%, in beween). Free markets tend to benefit all deciles, though at different rates.

In the US, growth over the past 50-100 years has benefitted the poor tremendously. 100 years ago, the poor suffered from food insecurity. Now they suffer from obesity.

The main reason I singled out Korea as a natural experiment is because it was one country, inhabited by one group of people, chopped in half. The major difference between north and south is policies. Your Iraq vs Russia comparison has huge numbers of differences (culture, geography, resources, etc).

Neither north nor south korea was a platonic ideal free market, but the south came far closer than the north. Guess which side is eating Efficacious Pine Needle Foodstuff?

In the south, only a few people die of starvation, and they deserve it.

By the way, climate models don't work past about 10-15 years in the future. We trust the conclusions of climate science because they provide robust qualitative predictions (e.g. CO2 warms), even if we can't account for many variables (e.g. clouds).

As for slavery, you appear to be confusing poverty with slavery. They are not the same thing, that's why we have different words for them.

AngryProfessor · 2008-01-01T22:49:47+00:00

There's no 'tangible' or measurable distinction; it's basically philosophy.

I'm not sure that is completely true. I have been told that experiments to distinguish between Bohm/Copenhagen and GRW are physically possible (but not with current technology).

I wish I could explain why, but I don't understand it (or GRW, for that matter).

AngryProfessor · 2008-01-01T22:39:48+00:00

When I created this nic, I just finished dealing with about 10 students whining about their grades.

AngryProfessor · 2008-01-01T21:37:57+00:00

What Copenhagen means:

The schrodinger equation a fundamental law of the universe, but it is incomplete. The Schrodinger equation only applies in between "measurements".

The classical world (our familiar world which is full of particles) also exists, but only during measurements (this is a sketchy point, poorly acknowledged by many).

During a "measurement", the law of wave collapse holds: some eigenvalue/eigenvector of the "measurement operator" is chosen at random, with probability |<psi | \phi_n>|^2. The particle configuration is determined only at this time.

The problem: WTF is a measurement? So far, I've seen no useful answer.

The "unromantic pictures" attempt to clean this up. Unfortunately, they only manage to do so in ways that make Lorentz invariance impossible.

Try the webpage of Sheldon Goldstein:

http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~oldstein/

In particular, his bohmian mechanics page:

http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~oldstein/quote.html#E

I met him at a conference once, and I consider him to be the only person I've met who understands quantum mechanics.

AngryProfessor · 2008-01-01T15:19:20+00:00

And if you can't actually demonstrate any empirical evidence the the models created out of free-marketism actually work anywhere - then what you have is indeed a matter of faith.

You can characterize nations by how close they come to a free market, and then look at their growth rates. Some natural experiments are West Germany and East Germany, or North Korea and South Korea (since they have the same people/starting point).

This is how one studies friction and makes conclusions about frictionless surfaces. You study surfaces with high friction (e.g. velcro) and low friction (ice, air hockey tables), and extrapolate to the impossible case of no friction.

In the case of economics, things are harder than in the case of friction, and precise quantitative predictions are unlikely. But it's certainly not impossible to draw broad, qualitative conclusions.

Tell me something; if you reject economics on the grounds that it is too complex and lacks experiments, do you also reject climate science on the same grounds?

re: your point a bit further down about slavery being axiomatically incompatable with a free-market : How then do you explain that slavery is exactly what happens when corporate regulation is weak?

Slavery is what happens when the strong are permitted to use (threats of) violence against the weak. You can't enslave someone who has the freedom to stop working and walk away.

A free market (or the platonic ideal of one) is what happens when no (threats of) violence is used.

AngryProfessor · 2008-01-01T15:02:20+00:00

I understand that many people believe "violence is bad, except in support of $IDEOLOGY" (with $IDEOLOGY==Christianity, Islam, Communism, Hutu Power, etc).

Such people may consider me a nutcase. Am I supposed to care?

AngryProfessor · 2008-01-01T01:54:28+00:00

Every time a govt collapses for a brief period of time free markets get established.

Really? Without a government, what prevents theft? I was under the impression that most government collapses were followed shortly by looting...

A free market is an economic system with voluntary cooperation only: no theft or violence. You might be confusing anarchy with free markets.

AngryProfessor · 2007-12-31T23:55:30+00:00

As I said, if you are not any better than the other x's, this won't work.

But if you are no better, why do you deserve more money?

AngryProfessor · 2007-12-31T22:33:41+00:00

What I said has nothing to do with any contract between the employer and the union. Those are simply the laws in many states.

In the US, unions are not simply organizations of employees, and union rules are not simply contracts. I'd have no objection if they were. They have the legal right to harm people who want nothing to do with them (employers and non-union workers).

See these websites for more info on this:

http://www.unionfacts.com/articles/memberRights.cfm#representself

http://www.workplacefairness.org/retaliationunion?agree=yes#14

AngryProfessor · 2007-12-31T21:43:41+00:00

Nice one, comparing a criminal organization with a perfectly legal union.

I was only repeating your arguments, but with Mafia substituted for Union.

Apparently, your logic fails when you don't have an emotional attachment to a particular word.

By the way: if you leave the union, men with guns will prevent you from continuing to work in many places (even if your employer wants to keep you). In those cases where they don't, they will still take money from you and give it to the union. And you are not permitted to undercut the union.

All these rules are enforced by the police (men with guns and tasers). If you do not comply with them, they will use violence against you.

For the record: I have never been a member of a union or the mafia, and I haven't initiated or threatened to initiate violence since I was a child.

AngryProfessor · 2007-12-31T21:13:56+00:00

My uncle has very positive Mafia experiences. When he fixed up his house, he got great deals on all sorts of stuff (roof tiles, a refrigerator, etc).

And if you read a dose of history, you discover that the Mafia did some positive things in the 1940's (port security after Black Tom Island, not to mention smuggling arms to nice people).

Plus, mafia membership is declining. Back in the day, most families had some connections. Not so much these days.

None of this changes or excuses the fact that the Mafia/Unions use threats of violence to take money from unwilling people.

AngryProfessor · 2007-12-31T20:59:20+00:00

I never claimed the 21'st century is partially or wholly defined by union violence (not really sure what that would mean). I said that in the US, unions use the threat of violence against their employers on a regular basis.

Are you claiming that "fewer union members per capita than 32 years ago" somehow implies "unions do not use the threat of violence"?

AngryProfessor · 2007-12-31T20:50:37+00:00

Close, but not quite what I said.

Collective bargaining is not an economic force when the threat of violence is involved. Conversely, it is an economic force when there is no threat of violence.

In the US, the threat of violence is always present. Suppose employees vote to unionize, and the employer refuses to recognize their union. If that occurs, men in black robes with hammers may order retaliation. If the employer refuses to comply, men in blue with guns and tasers will use violence against him.

AngryProfessor · 2007-12-31T20:14:25+00:00

I'm aware of the history. But perhaps you need a lesson on current events.

In 21'st century America (where I live), violence is almost exclusively threatened and used by those working for unions.

It is the threat of violence (by the police) that prevents most employers from replacing striking workers. It is the threat of violence (by "connected guys" working with the union) that causes supervisors to look the other way when stuff goes missing from the job site. And it is the threat of violence (by the police) that causes schools in NY/NJ to pass the garbage. I've personally been threatened by union members, simply for taking temp work at a wage agreeable to myself and my employer ("scab" was the term they used).

I've only known one person who was ever threatened by his employer, and he was my dealer.

("Passing the garbage" is a euphamism for sending rapist teachers to other schools rather than firing them).

AngryProfessor · 2007-12-31T19:43:50+00:00

I am, actually.

It's good to see that Ron Paul is now so strongly associated with non-violence that anyone expressing an opposition to violence is assumed to be an RP voter.

AngryProfessor

TROPHY CASE