Socrates Third Law

Socrates third law of ethics:  you must not be surprised if you hear someone say "there was a problem with OpenSSL."

Buy a Bicycle for an African

I have become reasonably convinced that Government Aid to Africa is hurting more than it is helping. Some of the larger private aid charities are so big that they have some of the same problems. I used to adopt children through Plan USA, but that organization grew to a point where I felt it was as much about the marketing and promotion of themselves and the executives. So I stopped.

In the meantime, I came across this smaller group that makes bikes for African school-children, health-care workers and entrepreneurs. This strikes me as far more useful. For just $134, they can equip an African with a bike. Mobility is important for an economy, and these bikes drastically improves the range and speed of the people riding them. They have the advantage over mechanized transportation that they cost much, much less to operate.

It's difficult to find the best way to help, but I feel pretty good about those bicycles.  It probably doesn't hurt that I love bikes!

Hurry Up and Enjoy Life

I was driving in San Francisco the other day and came up on a lady who was driving badly: a good 10 MPH below the prevailing speed and with her signal persistently flashing.  I could tell by the hesitant maneuvers of those around her that I was not the only one who found it troubling.  She then made a terrible lane change (see option #2).  I was already a bit impatient from other bad drivers that day and could not resist the temptation to honk at her when I was finally able to get past.

A couple of lights later we were backed up.  She caught up with me and pulled up alongside me with her window rolled down.  I rolled down mine as well so she could say her piece.  She asked me -- politely, to her credit -- to slow down and enjoy life more.  Somehow, capitalism was also involved.  I'm fairly certain bad driving and bad logic does not always go together, but I do see a pattern where those defending bad driving does so with poor logic. 

I have heard and read this many times, verbally, in shows, in magazines, etc: in order to enjoy life, it is necessary to go through it slowly.  I fail to understand this premise.  How is speed related to enjoyment, in either direction?  It is true that some experiences are best at a slow pace: enjoying a well-prepared meal, spending a quiet evening with good friends, watching a whale migrating from a lazy sailboat.  Not all of life consists of these types of scenarios, though.  Many other pleasures are best with a potent mix of endorphins and adrenalin: winning a race, watching an intense movie or play, sex. 

Further, I am curious about a philosophy that says optimizing your waiting time at red lights is something to strive for.  Sure, there is a speed in the fast end that increases risk and aggravation, but there is also a speed in the low end that makes it seem like you are driving in slow motion and are getting nowhere fast.  The trouble is that these brackets are different for all of us.  The attentive drivers and the polite ones understand this and act accordingly.  A poor one invents philosophical excuses for being a nuisance.

Personally, I make no excuses for aiming to minimize the cost, in time and pain, of my transportation.  Anticipation accentuates pleasure, but efficiency increases its volume.

Love Stories from the Ancient

The November issue of The Atlantic has an article, "All the Single Ladies," speaking about marriage in today's Western world from a woman's perspective.  It is a good read, and if you are a single male it is a must.  The writer, Kate Bolick, is successful, gorgeous (when I saw her picture on the front cover I thought she was a model), a woman in a marriageable age that has an abstract desire to maybe be part of a couple, and yet continues to seek something elusive, just like many of us, not clear on exactly what we would give up our empovered single life for.

Bolick interviews and quotes Stephanie Coontz, who wrote a book, "Marriage, a History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage."  I have not read it.  The point seems to be that love in marriage is a relatively recent thing.  Bolick expands on this in the article, saying that marriage in the past was functional, something more like a business proposition than an expression of sentiment. 

I have heard this before, and it is true that marrying someone because we like them and want to have that person in our lives is a product of the 20th century.  The reason for this is progress.  The desire to build relationships this way has always been there, only the ability is new.  You can see this from the romantic love stories of the past, both real ones and fictional ones.  For instance, from the middle ages we have the story of Abelard and Heloise and the poem of Romeus and Juliet, and from the greeks the most classical story of Paris and Helen.  In Native American and Oriental folklore, I have heard several examples of young lovers paying the ultimate price for their stupidly romantic feelings.

I want to go even further back to the oldest story of all: Adam and Eve.  (Assuming the bible is older than the legends informing The Illiad, which I know is not a given.)  In the garden of eden, when Adam chose to eat from the apple after Eve did, and then side with her against god (by hiding with her), he violated the first commandment and like all other young lovers after him, paid dearly.  So much so that, according to the legend, not just Adam, but all his descendants, had to pay the price.  In my copy of the bible, this happens on the 4th page.  I cannot think of either an older or a more dramatic expression of love between spouses.

Letter to an Old Contrarian

Dear Mr. Hitchens:

I was sad to hear of your death December 15, 2011.  I have no doubt many pieces have been, and will be, written in remembrance.  There is little I can say to add or subtract from these, yet, my admiration for you is such that I must try.

There are several dimensions to this admiration.  I will mention two of them, the first being the courage of your convictions, and the intellectual honesty to go where these convictions logically led you.  You wrote scathing obloquies attacking sacred cows, with no regard how these might be received by your edidtors, your fan base, or the public at large. 

Other writers have noted how this trait made you continually defend your position on Iraq.  I find that curious; lots of reasonable people disagreed about that war.  I have been more impressed with your dissection of the Mother Theresa myth.  There was a time when I thought criticising Mother Theresa in the 20th century would have been like trying to criticise Hildegard in the 12th.  Yet, your hostility to religion compelled you to pull this off. 

The other aspect I want to mention is our shared contempt for the bullies of humanity: the fascists, tyrants, dictators, intimidators, thugs, puritans, all the various oppressors in their various guises.  They make our lives miserable and you ceaselessly, resolutely, pointed that out.  For this reason alone, your passing is a loss to us.

I know according to your own beliefs, there is nothing left of you to receive any part of this letter or my thoughts.  Nevertheless, I offer my gratitude for what you left, in impressions and in print. 

In memoriam.

Food, Good and Bad

"If it tastes good, it is bad for you."  I have heard and read this many times.  I wholeheartedly disagree.  Plenty of things taste awesome and is good for you.  I love raspberries, and they are full of fiber and B-vitamins and phytochemicals.  I love pistachios and walnuts, and   "Nuts are a powerhouse of good nutrition, packed with protein, fiber, monounsaturated fats, vitamin E, folic acid, magnesium, copper, and antioxidants. Although they are high in fat, it's unsaturated heart-healthy fats."  I love eggs and I believe they are one of the most healthy sources of protein -- the double beauty of eggs is that they fill you up fast, so that you are less likely to eat too many of them. 

Of course, you should not eat too much of what you like.  That is true of anything, though.  You should also not eat too much of what you dislike, it is just easier.  Seriously, you should enjoy a varied diet.  Eating (or drinking) too much of any one thing, especially something you enjoy on a daily basis, can get your body in trouble. 

Epicurus advocated a simple diet designed for health, rather than an extravagant one designed for pleasure.  I think it is possible to have both.  Here is a recipe for a little desert or snack that is easy to make, delicious, and contains only ingredients that are good for you.  The portion below should serve 3-4 people. 

1. 1/2 cup strawberries
2. 1/2 cup blackberries
3. a lemon or a lime
4. 1/4 cup walnuts
5. 1/4 cup raisins (golden if you like them)
6. 1/2 cup unsweetened coconut milk

Mix the berries.  Squeeze some citrus on it, to taste.  Sprinkle the raisins in.  Stir the coconut milk and add it.  Then stir the whole thing together.  Top with the walnuts.  You can also grate some of the citrus zest into the mix, after adding the coconut milk. 

If you are used to using lemon or lime with dairy, be careful with the citrus here, though.  The dairy takes the bitterness out of the citrus and leaves the sweet fruit-taste for you to enjoy.  Coconut milk is not dairy, so does not have quite the same effect. 

Another of my favorite things is yoghurt mixed with some fresh fruit and lots of freshly squeezed lemon juice.  Here I wanted to go for a vegan dish, but you could use yoghurt instead of coconut milk. 

Enjoy!

Steven Weinberg on Religion

I have always thought of religion as being a moral lever: it can make good people behave better and bad people behave worse. Since I read this Steven Weinberg quote, I wonder if he has it right instead:

With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

The Wonders and Dangers of Emotional Thinking

Here is another great grook entitled A Psychological Tip:

Whenever you're called on to make up your mind, and you're hampered by not having any,
the best way to solve the dilemma, you'll find, is simply by spinning a penny.
No -- not so that chance shall decide the affair while you're passively standing there moping;
but the moment the penny is up in the air, you suddenly know what
you're hoping.

This is an example of emotional thinking. I find it particularly useful in dating. I can go on a date with a woman, and she can be smart, funny, pretty and at ease with herself. When I tell her I am going to call her again, I probably mean it at the time, but if a week or two passes, and I have not felt like calling her, we both have the answer we need.

Do not confuse my use of the term emotional thinking with emotional intelligence. The latter is the ability to identify emotions and their causes, in yourself and in others. Emtional thinking is when you use your feelings to make a decision or conclusion.

The danger with emotional thinking is that it is useless when abstractions of any kind are involved. Abstractions can invoke emotion, but those emotions are much weaker than those invoked by specifics. To make matters worse, large numbers are abstract, at least to most of us.

This is why relief organizations use pictures of a single child, and stories of individuals, to solicit contributions. The appeal, "Abebi is a three-year old, starving Nigerian girl" is more powerful than "A quarter million Nigerian children are starving." It is a bit absurd, but very true.

Emotional thinking is an important tool in our personal lives, but it is unfortunate when people let it guide their input to discussions about social issues, or at least, when it is the overriding guide.

Betrand Russell on Asia

In 1945, Bertrand Russell wrote this about European vs. Asian culture.

Our use of the phrase the "Dark Ages" to cover the period from 600 to 1000
marks our undue concentraion on Western Europe. In China, this period
includes the time of the Tang dynasty, the greatest age of Chinese
poetry[...]. What was lost to Christendom at this time was not lost to
civilization, but quite the contrary. No one could have guessed that
Europe would later become dominant, both in power and in culture. [...]

Our superiority since the Renaissance is due partly to science and
scientific technique, partly to political institutions slowly built up
during the Middle Ages. There is no reason, in the nature of things, why
this superiority should continue. [...] It seems not unlikely that,
during the next few centuries, civilization, if it survives, will have
greater diversity than it has had since the Renaissance. There is an
imperialism of culture that is harder to overcome than the imperialism of
power. Long after the Western Empire fell, [...] all European culture
retained a tincture of Roman imperialism. [...] I think that, if we are to
feel at home in the world after the present war, we shall have to admit Asia
to equality of thoughts, not only politically, but culturally. What changes
this will bring about, I do not know, but I am convinced that they will be
profound and of the greatest importance.

This already sounds prescient, and it looks like the 21st century will prove Russell right on the mark.

Plant Resurrections

I have two examples of resurrecting plants. One is a gift, the other represents a moral dillema.

The gift is a Rose of Jericho, which I got at Christmas, from my step-brother and his wife as my almondgift (transliterated from the Danish). Though I knew that it was going to unfold, I was impressed with the dramatic transition. The two pictures below are taken just a couple of hours apart.


For the record, I believe a fascination with plant life and organic wonders is perfectly compatible with technophilia. I'm a geek, through and through.

My Moral Dillema comes from a vow to never kill a tree, which I made when I was 18. Though I'm still an environmentalist, I am much more sanguine now than I was then. Still, a vow is a vow.

Last year, PG&E came to take down a dying oak that were threatening some power lines. I was notified, but not asked, so I did not feel conflicted about this part. Hower, the stump is sprouting.



I would really prefer to see the tree die, and make room new shrubs and trees, such as the new maple I planted nearby. I wonder if killing off the sprouts is a violation of my vow. If I weed the sprouts, am I killing the tree, or am I killing weeds?

China Pictures and Great Pop

I want to write more about China, but in the meantime, I put a Picasaweb album together with about a dozen select China pictures for your enjoyment.

Magnificent China

As a bonus, I want to share a link to David Brin's essay on Tolkien: Enemy of Progress. Tolkien's seminal work, Lord of the Rings, is one of my favorite books of all time. I hold The Enlightenment to be the foundation of modern progress, freedom and prosperity. Thus, I enjoyed Brin's juxtaposition of the two. Plus, having your most cherished works and authors subjected to sage critique is a healthy excercise.

In general, there is a lot of Great Pop out there. A lot of junk, but many gems as well. I have found that I enjoy blogging, so when I am not traveling, I will point to more good stuff. I created a "Great Pop" tag for that purpose. I hope you enjoy.

Atomism Underrated

The classical Atomists are known for accurately describing chemical processes over two thousand years before empirical evidence corroborated their account. Given their limited starting point, this accomplishment is impressive.

There is something else, and more important, that distinguishes the Atomists from their contemporary philosophers. Their approach anticipated much of what we now know about science and knowledge. They were content with describing mechanical processes, instead of pursuing teleological dead-ends.

Bertrand Russell writes:

"[...] experience has shown that the mechanistic question leads to scientific knowledge, while the teleological question does not. The atomists asked the mechanistic question, and gave a mechanistic answer. Their successors, until the Renaissance, were more interested in the teleological question, and thus led science up a blind alley."

The curse of teleology is not confined to the natural sciences. In the social sciences, the undying quest for a desired result, without a full understanding of the processes and structures involved, has led to much disaster.

I named my blog after the Atomists, partly in honor of these insights -- and also because the mirthful Democritus was known as the laughing philosopher.