A Long-Winded Explanation of Nihilism

There are a lot of different definitions and misconceptions about nihilism. I'd like to clear it all up. So, what is nihilism?

Let's start with atheism, which is merely the lack of belief in the existence of a god. Expand that to encompass all concepts of supernatural intelligence or an original creator - none of that exists. Assume for a moment that the universe began as a natural event, occurring from merely the laws of physics and not from the will of any intelligent entity. Continuing on from that, it would follow that everything that happened after the creation of the universe is similarly borne of natural occurrences:

Stars form and die. Planets form. Life begins as an improbable-yet-natural occurrence. Life evolves. Organisms develop various abilities, including the ability that they refer to as "thinking." None the less, organisms simply contain nothing but atomic particles combined in complex structures and all of their experiences and feelings are the result of chemical, atomic and energy reactions.

Notice how, in this model, everything is simply the result of other things that happened before it, and it all started without agency.

Now let's look at the words "meaning" and "purpose." Both imply that there is a value that something is imbued with, intentionally, by an intelligence.

I'm not going to explicitly define intelligence here to anyone's satisfaction. I think we all have a good idea of what it means, though. The ability to think, to learn, to reason, to realize, to simulate, etc. The most important aspect of intelligence, however, is agency. That is, the thing that does the thinking is motivated by itself.

Now, here's the kicker: Because, at any one moment, our reality is nothing but the sum of all the events before that moment, and these events are subject to unintelligent laws of physics, it then follows that we are not intelligent, but rather we are experiencing the illusion of being intelligent. We lack the agency necessary to fulfill the requirements of intelligence. In turn this means that no intelligence actually exists.

In sum, it also means that no meaning or purpose exists.

That realization... that reality... is nihilism.

In case you're wondering if nihilism necessitates a change in the way you behave, I'd like to also include a clarification written by reddit user xDulmitx:

Image a fair coin flip. Most people will say that it is random if a coin flip lands on heads or tails. However if I knew everything about the coin and the environment I should be able to predict if the coin will land on heads or tails. I don't just mean the basics I mean the un-knowables such as the position AND momentum of every part of that coin and environment. Is the coin flip still random even though I can predict the answer?

I hold that it doesn't matter that the universe is completely deterministic (nihilistic) since I cannot possibly determine the outcome (I can't fully model a world in which I and the model exist since the world must therefor contain my model). As such I should treat the world as being how I perceive and can test it to be. My motivations are no different from anyone who is not a nihilist since I take the stance that the only reasonable course is to treat the universe as non-deterministic since that is the only way I can perceive it to be.

Now it's time for a nihilism FAQ:

Q: If there is no meaning or purpose, why don't you kill yourself?
A: This is a question that people ask because they think nihilism is an angsty/emo/depressive argument. It isn't. Nihilism is an observation of reality. There's no emotion or distress attached to it. Thus, I am capable of enjoying my life, even while knowing that there is no purpose to life.

Q: What motivates a nihilist?
A: We are still biological entities. Our bodies need food, comfort, pleasure, friends, etc. It's not like once you realize that there is no point to anything your body just shuts down. We've always been slaves to our biological urges. Even people who claim to have transcended them are still just listening to their biological urges, they've only convinced their selves that their urges come from another place.

Q: Why don't you adopt a purpose?
A: There is a distinction between objective and subjective purpose and meaning. I acknowledge that there is no objective meaning or purpose to anything. I also acknowledge that any subjective meaning or purpose that I assign to something is only valid within the scope of my own mind. In this way, I do have a purpose, but I do not think that this purpose is somehow more important than it is.

Is Buying Expensive Things Stupid?

The weekend before last, I bought a new pair of boots. Excited by my new purchase, I wasn't shy about mentioning them to my friends and getting their opinions. As expected, pretty much everyone thought they were awesome. That was, until a couple learned how much I had paid for them.

The cost of my boots was $480, plus New York sales tax.

"It's stupid to pay that much for shoes," I was told.

But is it really?

First of all, these are beautiful, if I do say so myself. Every time I stare down at them, I can't help but admire the shape, color and feel. No other boot or shoe that I had been checking out matched what I was looking for in this sense. Some came close, but would I have been happy paying $150 for something that didn't quite please me?

The last pair of boots that I bought, a year ago, cost $100 and I loved them almost as much at first. But time went on and the nicks and scratches piled up. The weather took its toll and the leather loosened. Now, my feet wobble around in them, the ankles are slouched, and they will never return to the color they once were. To the donation pile they go.

Before that, two years ago, I purchased a pair of track boots for $215. They were bought to replace a similar pair that had lasted me 6 years of daily use. Today, they're still in use and they are by far the most comfortable boots I've ever had. There's just one drawback: they are almost irredeemably ugly. I'm not the most fashion-forward person on the planet, but they are the footwear equivalent to BCG's.

By comparison, the boots I just purchased were made to last AND they're sexy. The company that makes them has an outstanding reputation and the customers who own the very pair I have can't help but talk about them. In fact, while I was trying them on in the store, a customer came up and raved about how much his son, who has owned them for 2 years, absolutely loves them.

So, was it stupid for me to put down five bills? Sure, there is a wealth of footwear that I could have bought for much less. I might have even been able to achieve the same amount of satisfaction with both quality and style for even half as much had I looked harder. Maybe I should actually consider the cost of the shoes more objectively: is $500 a lot of money?

Sadly, for most of the world, it is. Hell, even for a great number of fellow New Yorkers, that much money is more than they spend on food, transportation, and entertainment every month. And for even more, it's greater than the amount that they put away into savings in just as long. I'm fortunate enough to have a well-paying job, and my tax refund from the previous year (despite only working for half of it) was … bountiful. Maybe it wasn't rash of me to spend that much on a pair of shoes so much as it was insulting for my friends to hear that I could do it with such ease. I guess it serves little purpose to also explain how conflicted I was about the purchase, but I can put it into another perspective.

I'm fairly certain that more people buy $500+ iPads than buy $500+ shoes. These are two items used for two different purposes, but here's the real difference: shoes are a part of every outfit, while iPads are nothing but toys for 99% of the people who own them. Similarly, for computers, would it be stupid for me to buy a top of the line computer for $1500 when I could buy a computer that could squeak by for $300?

I guess I am writing this all because my feelings were a little hurt. But hey, maybe I hurt my friend's feelings, too. Money's a touchy subject for many people. However, as long as you can afford the purchase and you enjoy what you got out of it, there's nothing wrong with spending a little money.

In Defense of a Ballhawk

Let me introduce you to Zack Hample. He's a New Yorker in his 30's who has built his life around a very interesting hobby, casually known as "ballhawking." Zack is the king of ballhawks. He attends Major League Baseball games quite frequently with the intent of catching baseballs that are hit or thrown into the stands. By the end of this 2012 baseball season, Zack will have collected over 6000 Major League baseballs over his lifetime. He has a streak of catching at least one ball per game that goes back 19 years and he frequently hits double digits. His single game record is 36 balls. Last year, he deliberately set out to establish a ballhawking record that will never be broken, snagging 1157 balls over 131 games while visiting all 30 Major League stadiums. Sit and think for a moment about the logistics of that.

Zack's hobby, and particularly Zack himself, is a magnet for trivial controversy. Going to a baseball game and catching a baseball is something that anyone who loves the sport will dream of and here Zack is, living that dream to the extreme. Many people resent that. Others see it as an easy target for ridicule. Full disclosure: I am not a ballhawk, but I am a close friend of Zack's and have attended many games with him. I have endured listening to his rants and have personally assisted in inflating his ego at times. I've known him for a good 6-7 years now, so you're going to have to trust what I am about to say about him. I'm writing this article because I have read many criticisms about Zack as a person and about ballhawking that, frankly, are not very fair. It's time to fully explore the ethics of ballhawking to set things right. Let's begin.

First, let's talk about ballhawking in general. It's a game within a game. Just like college basketball fans like to get themselves involved in the action by inventing new ways of distracting players at the free-throw line, ballhawks seek to get closer to the game by taking home a piece of it. There are many different ways to ballhawk. Zack only goes for baseballs acquired at Major League events, while some people count Minor League balls in their collection. Zack shows up early for batting practice and gets a large number of his balls thrown to him by players and coaches. Some people are only in it for the glorious game-used balls that fly into the stands from foul balls and home runs. Nevertheless, ballhawking is simply the hobby of collecting baseballs.

But this explanation isn't enough to fend off criticisms. Many people complain that ballhawks steal balls from others. They're greedy and they occasionally knock over small children in their quest to rob everyone else of a ball. This analysis is extremely short-sighted, though. First of all, the emergence of ballhawking is merely game theory in action. Balls are highly desired because they are perceived to be rare and they have added value because of their affiliation with the player who hit or threw them, therefore it is inevitable that a population of ball-seekers will emerge. Furthermore, the act of catching a ball under these conditions is exhilarating, even after the 6000th time. Chastising someone for wanting to catch a lot of balls is equivalent to ridiculing someone who collects any kind of trophy or strives for any kind of personal milestone.

The argument that ballhawks rob other fans of baseballs is not as valid as it might seem. Zack and other ballhawks are masters at "manufacturing" balls. That is, they can convince players and coaches and even grounds crew and security guards to toss them balls that otherwise would have never reached the stands. Zack has gone through the trouble of learning how to ask for a ball in a multitude of foreign languages and he interacts with players jovially to earn their respect for a toss-up. He also shows up early for games so that he is the first to get through the turnstiles and into the stands, looking for balls that have already reached the seats before anyone else. He even has an ingenious "glove trick" that he uses to grab balls several feet below him on the field. Any casual fan should readily admit that these balls were not going to reach them anyways and should not be griping about a ballhawk counting them in their collection.

What about the balls that are up for anyone's grabs? What justifies a ballhawk to get them over anyone else? Let's get something straight: even the best ballhawk only catches a small portion of the total number of balls hit or thrown into the stands. This is because luck plays a huge part in who ends up with a nugget. Also, if a fan wants even one ball, it is not hard for them to acquire. The simple effort of bringing a glove to the game will greatly improve your chances and I think it is fair to say that a fan who doesn't bring a glove has no platform to gripe from. Case in point: I have not tried particularly hard, but I have snagged a total of 10 balls for myself, including 5 in one game. All of these balls were either intended for me, hit directly to me, or promptly handed to their intended receiver after being caught. At the same time, players are eager to distribute balls to small children before they even consider giving them to teens and adults. So, when it comes to a contested ball that everyone tries to get, why fault a ballhawk for catching it over everyone else? When it's possible to obtain balls that aren't contested, it reeks of false entitlement to complain about others beating you out over a highly contested one.

Speaking of entitlement, let's not misinterpret a ballhawk's drive to acquire so many balls as this. They realize that nothing is owed to them and that is exactly why they put so much effort into going after balls. That's why the competition exists in the first place. It's true that some ballhawks lack class. They wouldn't have a reputation for knocking over kids and elbowing people out of the way if there weren't at least some culprits. But there is a central community, a network of ballhawks who communicate with each other, who collectively shun these actions. I've seen Zack pull a kid aside to remind him about these values. Just like a tourist may get the impression that all New Yorkers are assholes because they only run into assholes during their visit, so it goes with ballhawks. If you had a bad experience with one, it's likely that this person is new and overeager.

Now let's talk about the man, Zack Hample himself. Ballhawking is a lot of work if your goal is to obtain as many balls as possible. There are hundreds of different angles to approach a game from. Zack has written two books on the subject and is also the author of one of the most popular fan guides to enjoying the game, Watching Baseball Smarter. It is not a trivial undertaking, it is a passion. Some people have claimed that Zack's passion is ill-placed, that if he put half as much effort into other things in his life he'd be ... well, he'd be someone else entirely and that is totally missing the point. People like to project their own insecurities when they criticize others. I'm confident in saying that nobody who is at peace with their own passions, no matter how important or trivial, would fault Zack for making a life out of his.

Many people who have never heard of the man often jump to unfortunate conclusions with very little information. To begin this article, I gave you a few facts about Zack so that you, too, could make a judgement about him. Did you think to yourself that this guy must be weird, loser-ish, or totally awkward? What if I also told you he has a few world records in some classic arcade games? I've heard people posit that Zack must live in his mother's basement, that he's never gotten laid, or that he must be the most selfish person on the planet. Now, Zack does love attention, but he isn't selfish. In fact, he is very respected amongst his many friends and he devotes a lot of his time to maintaining contact with his fans and acquaintances. He lives in his own, very impressive Manhattan apartment, and, as for his intimate experience, let's just say that he would put any of his critics to shame.

Some of Zack's more creative tactics can draw the ire of other fans. One possibly shady practice of his is to wear the t-shirt and hat of the current team on the field, "tricking" them into thinking that he is a fan. This works especially well on teams that are visiting a long way from home. Is it dirty deception or is it, as Omar would say, all in the game? Let me call your attention back to my point about "manufacturing" balls. The only time this tactic works is when he's trying to get a ball that ordinarily wouldn't reach the seats. There are even times when I've witnessed players looking for fans to throw a ball to, standing there waving the ball and waiting for someone to speak up and claim it.

Still, is there anything to be said about deceiving the players, or even simply pestering them while they're out there trying to warm up? Such distractions are built in to baseball and players zone them out at will. If a player wanders close to the fence with a ball in his hand, his name is heard in chorus from ballhawks and ordinary fans alike. Zack is different, though. He often tries to engage the players and make it more than just another ball to add to the list. If the player is willing, Zack is always up for a game of catch, he's always vocal about thanking someone for a toss-up, and he's been known to hold conversations with players who recognize him. There's hardly anything shady going on. Clever, but not shady.

So, when you hear about this crazy guy who runs around baseball games, grabbing as many balls as possible, and you take into consideration everything I've said to defend the practice of ballhawking, you may still have your reservations about one man taking home 10 or 20 balls for himself from a single game. Don't worry, there's more to it that you haven't heard. Zack actually makes a point of giving away a couple balls at each game to young children who brought their gloves to the game, but haven't succeeded in snagging a prize. That is to say that he rarely comes home with the number of balls that he says he caught. He's not fudging his numbers, I've seen him do this at every game that we've been to. It really makes someone's day. Who knows what might have happened if those balls had been caught by someone who felt entitled to them.

More impressively, Zack uses his ballhawking prowess to raise money for charity. I can verify this as well because I am the one who helps him set up his website to gather pledges throughout the season. Fans pledge a penny or more for every ball that Zack grabs (I have a pledge in for 10 cents this year), and at the end of the year, they send a check to his charity of choice, Pitch In For Baseball, which provides baseball equipment for underprivileged kids all over the globe. He's been doing this for a few years now and it's been very successful. And it doesn't stop there. Other ballhawks are doing the same.

In a recently published flavor piece about Zack, MSN decided to call attention to his ballhawking antics, labeling him as a ball hog, asking readers to judge him on similarly scant information to what I presented in my first paragraph. Predictably, the comments section was filled with vitriol toward Zack. Of course MSN left out the part about him giving away balls and raising money for charity, but sites like MSN and Deadspin thrive on the controversy that they throw to the wolves. User engagement über alles. Balanced reporting be damned.

Sometimes Zack is a victim of his own desire for sensationalism. During his appearance on The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien, Zack played into the conversation and joked about shoving kids out of the way to get a ball, which prompted Conan to call him "the worst man in America." On many other interviews, the same formula repeats itself; so much time is spent talking about the snagging that Zack rarely gets a chance to play his other cards. The result is that even people who are casually familiar with what he does can get the wrong impression. But he's in a tough spot because he needs the publicity to fuel his baseball-related endeavors and he's ultimately at the television producer's whim.

The ethics of ballhawking make it a controversial hobby, but it is ultimately a harmless one, if not a completely natural and expected reaction to the phenomenon of a ball, touched by a star player, finding its way into the stands. You may as well vilify heckling or autograph collecting. Zack, being at the forefront of this steadily growing game-within-a-game, takes the brunt of the misinformed opinions about it. If, after reading all of this, you still think Zack Hample is the worst man in America and ballhawking is a bane on the ballpark experience, I don't have much more to say. At the end of the day, we're talking about catching baseballs at a game. If you have a problem with someone catching them all, then grab a glove and be the change you wish to see in the world.

Review: Free Will

I'd never thought much about the concept of free will before. To me, it didn't seem like it mattered if we have it or not. Free will was usually just used as a buzz word for our ability to make decisions for ourselves and to take responsibility for our actions. When I started thinking about my philosophy of nature a couple years ago, the notion of free will began to come into play, but it always seemed like a fringe philosophical issue. In fact, when I came to learn that many of the rationalists who I admire don't believe it exists, I simply shrugged and thought, "that's nice."

After having read Sam Harris' very short ebook, aptly titled Free Will, I have a lot more respect for the whole concept and what it means for society. It was quite shocking to learn that the justice system of the United States is based upon the whole idea that free will exists. What makes that point even more ponderous is that, when you give it as much thought as Sam Harris has, you find that free will really does not exist at all. This then makes you wonder what the point of a retributive justice system is. Ultimately, we're punishing people for being things that they had no real choice in becoming.

You didn't decide where or to whom you would be born. You didn't decide much for yourself in your most formative years. Even now, as you're deciding to read these words on your screen, you can't account for the reason why you're doing this instead of something else. The person that you are, at this very moment, has been shaped largely by circumstances completely out of your control. These influences come from your environment and they come from your brain chemistry, so at what point can you really say that you are the source of your actions?

The implications of realizing free will is just an illusion are many. For one, we can no longer justify acting cruelly toward others, even criminals. After all, what choice had they in becoming who they are? They were simply unlucky enough to live the life they did. The choices they made along the way weren't really exercises of free will, as they appeared to be. So many factors that they had no control over ultimately drove them down the path they were on. Now, it may be hard to relinquish the desire to punish people for violating the lives of others, and in many cases it does us no good to simply accept that the person committing a crime is just a puppet of infinite invisible forces (for instance, as the crime is in progress), but if you think about it, compassion may ultimately be the better conclusion for everyone involved.

The flip side to appreciating that people have little control over their misfortunes is also realizing that we have just as much (zero) dominion over our successes. I have a nice job right now that I worked hard to obtain and I'm currently planning for a comfortable future, but I must give credit to my parents for raising me to be responsible. I have to thank the universe for being born white and male. I also have to thank my DNA for gracing me with intelligence and curiosity, traits that not everyone is granted. But I'm not a complete success story. I'm definitely certain that I have held myself back from obtaining my potential in terms of creativity, monetary success, personal relationships, and other things. But did I really, consciously, decide to scuttle my efforts just to be mediocre? Am I a spoiled brat for being fortunate enough to have all of these factors for success on my side and not fully embracing them?

Or am I just me: a unique collection of neurons and synapses, shaped by the forces of nature into a living, breathing being that is ultimately a slave to the ebb and flow of chemicals swishing around inside my dome.

There is a point within this book when Harris describes the differences between his concept of the lack of free will and that of Daniel Dennett. To be honest, I wasn't quite sure what to make of it, so to decide whose side I was on, I flipped a coin. Not really. Free will joke. Get it? Anyways. The differences between the two arguments are subtle (If you want to know what the arguments actually are, you'll have to read the book yourself. It'll take 2 hours out of your day.), but in the end, I found Sam Harris' position to be more in tune with the principles of materialism, and, ultimately, nihilism, which is my own philosophy.

I recommend this book for one simple reason: like Sam Harris' previous ebook, Lying, it is a very short time investment, but the amount and quality of brain food you get out of it is beyond compare. Even if you're not much of an armchair philosopher, the practical implications of abolishing the notion of free will are many. One thing's for sure: you're probably not in control of whether you follow my recommendation or not.

Review: Sex At Dawn

Sex At Dawn begins with a scathing analysis of what it refers to as the “standard narrative” of human sexuality. You’re probably familiar with it: the story goes that humans are naturally monogamous and it is simply in our nature for the sexes to be completely at odds with each other throughout all phases of a relationship. The ball and chain is supposedly ingrained in our DNA. As a particularly sexually free person, I’ve always felt that this was somehow a perversion of how things really were. Nothing in popular culture seemed to address my suspicion; in fact even the most edgy commentaries seemed held back by the supposed inevitability of the standard narrative winning out. And then Sex At Dawn came along.

The scope of Sex At Dawn is broad; it is about more than just sex. In order to justify their opinions of the standard narrative and of their own theory, the authors have to string together world-beating evidence from a number of different disciplines. They talk about evolution, pre-historic society, economics, and philosophy. And, in this amateur’s opinion, they succeed.

I have to be careful because this book tells me exactly what I want to hear, and more. In fact, what makes it so astounding is that it steps on toes everywhere it strides. From anthropology, to primatology, to evolutionary psychology and beyond, apparently there are a lot of things that we haven’t been told and Sex At Dawn is more than willing to fix that for us. Its authors aren’t very well known, which makes what they have to say even harder to swallow.

But, being a rationalist, I also cannot fault the authors for their lack of notoriety. After all, an idea should be explored on its own merit, not that of its thinker. Though I readily admit that I have not checked out any sources, there are plenty of them, which makes this book an impressive feat of research, if anything. But I am not without a little knowledge and opinion in the various areas of academia that get hung out to dry and I have to say that… I concur with everything that is said by the book.

Do I really think that vital facts about our sexual nature have been downplayed and misinterpreted by researchers because they did not fit with the collectively accepted view of how we function? Absolutely. When you look into the history of sexual research (check out Mary Roach’s Bonk, if you will) and the attitude toward sexuality through the ages, along with the views that have had the biggest impact on sexual trends, it’s really fucking obvious that the mainstream concept of sexuality is wrong. The real question is “how wrong?”

Answer: very fucking wrong. We are sexual beasts. Our bodies and minds are designed to fuck. A lot. With a lot of people. We evolved without the concept of monogamy or marriage. It’s no wonder that these concepts bore us to fucking death. Of course, you may disagree with me and claim that you’re quite happy with your traditional relationship, but you must know that I am drastically simplifying things for the sake of summary. If this subject interests you in the least, I recommend that you read the book for yourself and then make up your mind.

I have looked for a few critiques of this book, but I have not heard any real damning counters to its main points. Most criticisms poke at the ways that the authors present their information. Some cite inconsistency, some are offended at the attempt to actually define human nature (didn’t you hear? It is supposed to remain nebulous!), some throw a bucket of red herrings by saying that the authors didn’t debunk a whole slew of other theories that could also be true. Some also invoke the naturalistic fallacy card, but just because something is fallacious doesn’t mean it is false. I’ve even encountered someone using evidence that the book itself presents for a point as evidence against the point. I remain in want of any real objection.

The big problem is that Sex At Dawn really ruffles a lot of feathers. Maybe too many. Maybe too vigorously. It’s really hard to imagine people who have lived their lives (personally or professionally) in the shadow of the standard narrative suddenly turning on their heels the minute they read this book. Personally, I’d love to see it start to drum up some high-profile responses. So far, the biggest name to fly its banner has been sex advice legend Dan Savage. But will a professional scientist, with their reputation at stake, lend their support to a premise that is so broad and, dare I say it, revolutionary?

What’s more disappointing is that I don’t see this book picking up much steam outside of select communities that are focused explicitly around human sexual relations. It’s been out for a while now and it feels like it has already came and went. People enjoy learning new things through pop-science books, but this book starts out by telling them that everything they know is wrong. It’s not easy for some to accept, especially when they are emotionally invested in the whole monogamy racket.

Evolution vs. Social Darwinism

I recently had an online exchange with a Presbyterian Christian who began with asserting something rather peculiar; he suggested a link between religiosity and being "fit to live." The very term "fit to live" should send chills down the spine of any decent person, but this guy threw around the term as if it was elementary. The conversation that unfolded was disturbing to me because I am not sure how many people actually share the views of the fellow who was on the other side. In any case, here is the exchange and I'll come in with my own comments at the end:

Him: When an atheist considers belief in God to be a weakness, yet the person who believes is more fit to live than the secular. Paradox.

Me: What defines fit to live?

Him: Darwinian style: fertility and health.

Me: I think you mischaracterize evolution. In fact your mischaracterization of "fit to live" is the basis of a lot of horrible philosophy. Might I even say that it is the basis for eugenics.

You are so so wrong.

Him: the basis for eugenics was the idea of the superman. that idea is false. I am not saying that we should make a superman, but where the evidence falls the religious are more fertile, how can you deny that? Survivla of the fittest many times means survivla of the fertile.

Me: Whaaaaat? Where is your evidence for the religious being more fertile? And by fertile, do you mean that religious people have better-functioning genitalia and reproductive systems or do you simply mean that they procreate more?

This, and I haven't even gotten into how misled you are about the difference between biological evolution and social darwinism, which you seem to be a proponent of.

Him: "And by fertile, do you mean that religious people have better-functioning genitalia and reproductive systems"
No. Religion does not have much to do with genetics, as you may know people in the same family can be both religious or non religious.

Why do you have to be so adversarial. Religion is not in the genetics, but instead is beneficial to survival, like say agriculture. Being secular, in evolutionary speak, is actually a disadvantage to fitness it seems. Social darwinism has to do with innate traits, which religion is not. You are the one putting me up with them to use the guilt by association. What I meant by fit to live was like how farmers five thousand years ago were more fit to live than their hunter gatherer counter parts and often drove them away. Yet farming is not something inherent to the human, with hunter gatherers many times switching to agriculture by getting it from neighbors that seem a little better off.

I do not know why you ask for proof, it may be that you want to deny deny deny for the sake of being adversarial, but here:
https://galileo.seas.harvard.edu/images/material/2800/1140/Jarvis_ReligionandDifferencesinMorbidityandMortality.pdf
something I found on health. Prayer, meditation and spirituality are actually pretty health promoting activities. Use the US versus Countries with higher religiosity like the US, India, MiddleEastern-African-Eastern European countries also have higher population growth rates than the Western European and Japanese. You want to say this is due to education or another lurking variable, but the speculation is worth looking in to.

http://whitelocust.wordpress.com/avenues-of-western-survival/what-is-the-cause-of-low-birth-rates/ here is an overview.

Why would you want to deny this anyway? It is a good criticism of religion, it makes for a good banner that secular peoples do not contribute to overpopulation. Be proud. It is something that us as humanity need to realise to group plan our way out, and denying is not going to help. Of course a lot of other factor mix in as well, as one would expect. But it seems the "meek" shall inherit the earth.

Me: I'm "adversarial" because you're totally misled. Here, let me explain.

1. You are assuming that there is a correct "strategy" to survival (there is none) and have concluded that that strategy is to procreate and spread.
   
2. You are valuing survival as if it is objectively important above all other qualities of existence (it is not).
   
3. You are ignoring the obvious downsides to population growth. (Overpopulation, resource depletion, stress from population density, property disputes, etc)
   
4. You mischaracterize evolution with social darwinism. Here, let me fix that for you: evolution is driven by changes in DNA, while social darwinism is the "survival of the fittest" based on socio-economical differences. Your point about farmers driving out hunter/gatherers is an example of social darwinism, not evolution.
   
5. You assume agriculture is objectively better than hunter/gatherer life. To quote the historian Jared Diamond: "Hunter-gatherers practised the most successful and long-persistent lifestyle in the career of our species. In contrast, we are still struggling with the problems into which we descended with agriculture, and it is unclear whether we can solve them."
   
6. Again, I want to reinforce that the switch to agriculture was not necessarily or objectively a good thing. In the thousands of years after the switch, archaeological findings strongly suggest we were undernourished due to a lack of variety and robustness in our diet. All that agriculture allowed us to do was increase our population density, which gave rise to sedentary lifestyle, war, widespread disease, etc.
   
7. It's quite diabolical to think that you will "inherit" the Earth. Like it is yours. That's cute. Don't forget that secularism is what allows your population growth to continue to the extremes that it is now.
   
8. Your view is equivocal to "whoever wins the war is right" - after all, your whole premise is based on inheriting the Earth, and how else will you do that without crushing some skulls. This is NOT evolution. It is imperialism. It is social darwinism. It is downright twisted.

In conclusion, you're totally misled about what is important. If you think population growth and forcing out opposing lifestyles simply by overwhelming them is the ultimate "right," then you're a fucking evil social darwinist. Please, stop associating this view with evolution, because it couldn't be further from it. My comment:

Oh boy, where to begin?

You can use the word "evolution" in a number of ways, that much is true. However, it is clear by this man's invocation of Charles Darwin that he is referring to the theory of evolution through natural selection. He seems to conflate social change as natural selection. This is a misconception that has justified many flawed philosophies in recent history. Just because someone defeats or displaces another person does not mean that the victor is justified, righteous, or more "fit." The framework of thought behind this justification seems to come from the preconception that there is justice in the outcomes of every decision. This is understandable, coming from someone who believes in an almighty god who oversees everything. The reality is that the world is not just and there is no universal definition of "fit to live." In fact, the act of defining "fit to live" is one of supreme arrogance.

I hate to Godwin my whole point but let's face it, the whole Nazi agenda was based on Social Darwinism. Then again, who are we to say what is right and what is wrong when, in the end, we will be defeated by someone and they'll be the only ones around to dictate morality? Still, you have to stand for something, right?

Sunday Music Reviews

I know it's not Sunday anymore, but I decided that it might be interesting to post the results of a little activity I did yesterday. It was a rainy day in New York City and I didn't have anywhere to go, so I stayed home and spent my time watching sports and listening to music. I asked my friends on Facebook to recommend an artist and album that I would then listen to and then give a short review. Here's what came of that:

Friend: Sam
Artist: Bonobo
Album: Black Sands
Genre: Downbeat, chill-out
Review: I actually have this album already, but I gave it a quick listen to refresh my impressions of it. This is staple chill-out stuff. More background music than anything, though. This is not what I call "active listening" music. The songs with Andreya Tiana are just bad though. Overall I would say there is nothing special about this album. It would go into my mix of music to zone out to.

Friend: Janet
Artist: Abigail Washburn
Album: Song of the Traveling Daughter
Genre: Country, Folk, Americana
Review: I'll be honest, I don't listen to much banjo music. The instrument seems to give an energetic quality to what would otherwise be a slow and plodding folk song. I appreciate that. I particularly liked Eve Stole the Apple, until it sort of flattens out at the end (must be all the mentions of Jesus). The rest of the album sort of blended together in this Americana sludge. Aesthetically, I didn't find anything too outstanding. Thematically, I just don't jive with Americana at all.

Friend: Danny
Artist: Random Rab
Album: Visurreal
Genre: Electronic, downbeat
Review: It starts off with a song that teases the boundary between "background music" and "active listening" and while I liked it, I wanted more out of it. That's the thing about active vs background - if you actively listen to background music, you get bored. The rest of the album seemed to hover around the same aesthetic territory, not docile enough to fade into the background, not tensile enough to make me want to pay attention to everything. It was an odd experience. I LIKED the music, but I'm not sure I liked the experience of listening to it. Does that make sense?

"Friend": Mike
Artist: Le Tigre
Album: Feminist Sweepstakes
Genre: Punk
Review: You listen to shit music, Mike. Both albums you've recommended to me so far have sucked hard.

Friend: JT
Artist: CKY
Album: Infiltrate Destroy Rebuild
Genre: Hard Rock
Review: Too much rhythm guitar and not enough hooks. And the hooks themselves aren't... hooky enough. Music like this with a lot of energy and no tension is exhausting for me to listen to. There's also something that bugs me about the voice... it seems almost falsetto to get as much angst out as possible.

Friend: Michael
Artist: Van Canto
Album: Tribe of Force
Genre: A cappella ... metal?
Review: Dooon! Dooon! Dooon! Daaaahhh! Come on, this is ridiculous. Corny subject matter. Vocal instrument beatboxing. I can't take this seriously. Rakatakatakatakatakatakataka! I mean, it's funny, but I don't think I'll ever listen to it again. That's not to say I don't listen to my own corny metal sometimes. I started cracking up at the Master of Puppets cover though.

Friend: Ky
Artist: The Avett Brothers
Album: I and Love and You
Genre: Bluegrass
Review: Uhh. Beautiful. Only about halfway through, but I don't feel compelled to rush through it at all. I wanna hear every moment of it.


Hope you found this interesting. Next time I find myself with some free time, I might just do it again. Got any albums I should listen to?