How selfish do you want to be?

“What is the life of one man worth? Millions more?”

The obvious philosophical problem in times of war, the typical ‘in the end I just valued my life over theirs’ situation that bothers everyone. The usual philosophical approach would be the evaluation of damages and benefits – the approach with the least deceased would be ethically preferred. Alas, cold logic does not heroes make – heroes are those that survive beyond reasonable odds. The ‘hero status’ also depends on who writes the history books, but generally war veterans are considered to be heroes by their native people. The attitude displayed towards them varies by culture, but they are generally respected nevertheless. For our culture, they are the ‘defenders of democracy’, ‘fighting in a foreign country so they wouldn’t have to here’ (Bush reference).

Sure, the self-sustaining instinct creates a bias about it, generally nobody wants to die so they make sure they live as long as possible. This is the excuse of ‘it had to be one of us’ or ‘he would have done the same to me’. The instinct might not be ethical, but it is very important to have. Aspirations and hopes rely on that. Moreover, the ideals of democracy or Christianity have inspired countless people to go to war to kill. The attacks tend to be unprovoked, that is to say that there is no indication that the victims would have done the same to the attackers, they were mostly harmless. And yet someone somewhere decides that the lives of thousands of people is an acceptable sacrifice in order to gain oil resources or other wealth. And thus the quotation of J. Michael Straczynski is reached:

“How many people actually belonged to the Nazi party? The Communist party? The Jihad party? A very small number. But there were always plenty of other people who were happy to do the work for them, and others afraid enough to let it happen.”

So, what is the life of a person worth? There are plenty of people willing to lay down their lives for someone else, may it be a relative, a loved one, an idol, a head of state, or someone random on the street or in the trenches. Merely trading one life for another. But what really bugs me personally is that popular media tends to teach us that it is okay to kill if it is for a good cause. There are no more MacGyver-ish shows where the person saving lives does not resort to lethal violence. Nowadays even the pacifist heroes either become not-so-peaceful or have a gun-toting madman or madwoman to do their bidding. Now it seems that the American motto ‘shoot first and ask questions later’ is spreading through popular culture. No wonder punks and highly educated people are criticizing the butchering.

So, should military conflict be solved by tactics and uncontrolled bloodshed as it is now or perhaps there is a mathematical side to it? For that we would need to know how much the life of a person is worth. And for each person the price is different. But for that we have terrorists and kidnappers – as long as we are willing to pay to keep someone alive, the price of the life has not been reached.

Now please give your opinions for only thus further explanation and synthesis is possible.

“I choo-choo-choose you”–Ralph Wiggum

What is choice and is it really something positive?

Firstly, the problem of predestination – is our future defined, unchangeable or is it ‘in flux’, it changes with every choice we make? I shall ignore the in-between option of multiple realities where every possible result of every single choice is played out in a reality that may or may not be the one we are consciously inhabiting. Unfortunately there is no real way of checking whether we have a choice or it is merely an illusion. What we can ponder about is the value of choice – is it something actually good?

The reason this topic crossed my mind is actually Saving Hope. They brought up arranged marriage as a plot point – yet another damsel in distress who loves someone that is not her husband-to-be. And that reminded me that the divorce rate for modern, ‘voluntary’ marriages is a lot higher than the divorce rate for arranged marriages. This is observed in countries where divorce is allowed. Sure, the difference may be accounted by cultural differences – sometimes divorce is morally unacceptable – or by the fact that as a rule you have up to one arranged marriage per life. That means chronic divorcers raise the rate of marriages where the significant other is picked by mutual attraction. Note that this holds true for absolute and relative numbers of divorce so there is no mucking about with foggy interpretation of statistics.

But the question remains, is choice good? We tend to have problems making big decisions: who we want to become, who to marry, who to trust; sometimes we have trouble with small decisions like what to wear, what to have for dinner, where to go on vacation… Without choice there would be no fretting or regret about making the wrong call, it would be set by ‘fate’. Life itself would be on autopilot, we would simply glide through it as if it were one of those fake-4D movies where when you see water being splashed at you, there actually is water being splashed at you. This question is especially intriguing because we don’t actually know whether or not we actually have any choice in controlling what happens to us. Therefore we might be merely seeing a movie with splashing water and we would not be the wiser about it. Having choice creates the possibility of error – the mistakes we see are supposed to happen, hence not actual errors.

This problem has similarities with other problems, most famous of which would be chaos theory – by doing something that is not ‘supposed’ to be done could cause a chain of events that ends with catastrophe – not always due to the direct consequences of the action but most likely due to the extra time used. By choosing we could be dooming the entire Universe. So, is choice worth the risk?

Let’s rebunk those arguments.

Some say that choice is what makes life worth living, the quote “to live is to risk” appropriately explains why risking is necessary. Without risking, without adrenaline, all we are is pretty much drones – emotionless machines simply doing our part, never reaching higher, never striving farther, never living. Perhaps this is the case, perhaps not. After all, this is based on current experience which may or may not be based on the ability to make choices. To explain, the life we live, the risks we take, might not be optional. In this case choice does not really give us anything extra.

The same is with the chaos problem – how do we know that the natural course of things won’t end up with complete obliteration of life, looking at how humans are currently going at it, extinction is not really far off. So in conclusion, it is all a matter of perspective. As long as we don’t know whether present status is choice-enabled or not, we cannot make any real claims about the perks of either possibility. What we can say, is that the illusion choice is often more frustrating and liberating than the lack of it.

Maybe you have already made your choice and now you just have to understand why you made that choice.

Being evasive is better than being dishonest. Never force someone evasive to answer something unless you want to hear a lie.

To understand thinking is to comprehend what enables it. The neural impulses exist because of random chance, it is to say that human thought is like the ghost in the machine.

The ghost in the machine is generally considered a fluke. Random segments of code creating what could be considered a soul for a program. Mysterious happenings in the digital world, malfunctions that should never happen have intrigued science fiction writers for decades, most famously Isaac Asimov (“I, Robot” - book of short stories about robots and kids). The natural manifestation of artificial intelligence. The manifestation of single thoughts.

So perhaps thinking is not common only to ‘alive’ beings or, as some claim, humans exclusively. Because what is human thinking essentially? A flow of electrical and chemical impulses that exist due to random chance – life itself exists without a known reason. Signals in different parts of the brain cause us to have different thoughts but the cause of those signals is still a mystery. The purpose of dreams is understood on a psychological level, not a biochemical one.

If computers can ‘think’, what makes our ‘thinking’ different from theirs? Abstract thinking? Dreaming? Delusions? Difficult to pinpoint the exact reason because there really isn’t one. It’s random chance and malfunctions that create those abstract thoughts. They are not normal occurrences for the survival instinct, they are sideproducts of an extremely complicated brain trying to come to terms with everything that happens around it. They are reactions to events.

So, the end result is that thinking is a process initiated by outside stimuli. A process that may or may not carry fruit in the practical sense and oftentimes causes more discomfort than it’s worth. But for a complete waste of mental resource it does sometimes come in quite handy. And it is completely vital for being educated, for being wise enough to live life as one sees fit and for being able to teach someone the magic of the Universe. Surely that is worth something.

“Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.”

Why are evil people so hated? Because they do evil things?

Not quite, that is what defines why they are evil, not why people should dislike them. Sure, you could exclaim that evil deeds make them inherently negative influence on the society and that negativity is cause enough for all the hate. After all, that’s why the deeds are ‘evil’. But is the negative influence really there?

Since childhood we are taught that they are necessary for creating compelling and wonderful adventures that teach the common values of hope, respect, friendship etc. If it hadn’t been for the witch that locked Rapunzel up in that tower, she probably never would’ve met the prince or had a reason to grow her hair that long. Without Cinderella’s ‘evil’ stepsisters she would’ve remained average – the would have been no reason for magical intervention. Hadn’t Adam and Eve disobeyed, none of the stories in the Bible would have happened. Hell, why do we have those allegedly superawesome superheroes? Besides, do you think big successes like Bill Gates never got bullied at school?

Without anyone to contrast to, there would not be any ‘heroes’. After all, the main characters are usually portrayed as not very ambitious, all they want is to be left alone and not to fall down to the level of the ‘evil’ characters. Without anyone the protagonists would want to be better than, they would be nobodies.

Though there is a snag in the matter: what constitutes an ‘evil’ character or an ‘evil’ deed? For instance, can the Vogons be named the antagonists or is that title reserved for the police or perhaps Mr Prosser? None of them actually did anything ‘evil’ because they were ‘evil’. They only did what they were told, they did their jobs. They were given orders by their respective superiors. While this does not create a problem for the main point that evil people are not all that bad as the cricketmen are undoubtedly evil from the protagonist’s standpoint, it does raise a valid point – evil is subjective.

“One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”

For many Americans, all Muslims are evil. For many Muslims, especially those is Afghanistan and Iraq, Americans are evil. Depending on the local society and current status, different viewpoints on people means varying understandings about ‘evil’. Thus, there is no reason to claim that the witch that almost cooked Hansel and Gretel^[1] was evil or that she should be disliked for any reason. And that not just because we don’t ‘know’ whether evil people are actually evil or we are simply interpreting them as such for some probably subjective reason that may or may not be a solid and infallible argument for it – it is also because even ‘evil’ is necessary for the existence of ‘good’. Whether that contrast is actually necessary, that is another matter completely. After all, evil characters tend to be something we are supposed to fear. That may be a problem. “Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering.”

For the browncoats.

A surprisingly violent topic.

If one country were to want the demise of an another country, say someone wanted to strike down USA, how would this be orchestrated?

Well, a direct assault without proper propaganda could cause a large-scale counter-attack which could prove to be quite impossible to beat. Hence an indirect method has to be concocted. Espionage and sabotage are both great options, Sun Tzu has even given quite good instructions on how to use spies in terms of espionage:

“9. Having local spies means employing the services of the inhabitants of a district.

10. Having inward spies, making use of officials of the enemy.

11. Having converted spies, getting hold of the enemy's spies and using them for our own purposes.

12. Having doomed spies, doing certain things openly for purposes of deception, and allowing our spies to know of them and report them to the enemy.

13. Surviving spies, finally, are those who bring back news from the enemy's camp.” – Art of War

But spies can only do so much, they are most definitely of great use as catalysts. They speed up the process but they are generally unable to bring a country down on its knees on their own, they need help. Since direct confrontation is not an option, what is?

Biological warfare would do the job – eliminates the people while keeping the wealth intact. But even in such a case the land can’t be easily occupied without outside intervention. Perhaps capturing the land is out of the question, then the devastation of the country is the aim. This eliminates competition or serves as a preemptive strike against a potential foe. Surely there are other reasons as well for somebody to want a country to lose its standing in global politics or its long-maintained stability.

The nuclear option.

Now, you may wonder how come a direct military incursion is out of the question but a nuke is not. The trick in this matter is that the nuke isn’t aimed at the country but rather at its infrastructure. The explosion has to take place up high so that the only thing that reaches the underlying civilization is an EMP wave. This way the people are affected indirectly – instead of attacking the people, the electronics goes offline. As most of us rely on our electronic devices, chaos would ensue with no doubt. If you don’t believe that the lack of electronics would create civil unrest and panic then just think what we couldn’t do without electronics. No registers at shops means manual calculation, a skill many have forgotten, no credit or debit cards means all you have to pay for anything with is the cash you have at hand, with little or no cash your options become scarce. No security systems means a huge crime wave as there are no security cameras. No cell towers or phones means you can’t call for help if you are hurt, there’s a fire or you witness a crime. There is no reason beyond morality to stop the crimes and the chaos and morality sells for very little for a person in a panic.

Another thing you might wonder is that other nations will note who detonated that nuke and might retaliate. Even if you could convince them that the detonation was the doing of a small terrorist group your country could still be invaded by foreign troops as Afghanistan and Al Qaeda proved. But this chance is a lot lower as the nuke did not directly harm any human being. It merely destroyed the people’s common environment. The nuke is less likely to be intercepted because it is targeted at outer space, not a country. Sure, it is a risk but a small one. Especially if you have yet another nuke in your possession or an ally who has one.

This strategy naturally does not work in the case of small target countries but it is not supposed to – who would want to devastate a tiny nation without military incursion? Larger countries on the other hand are, well, large enough to be targeted successfully. This makes it a very handy tactic for smaller countries and nations to defend their position against bullies. The main problem with it lies in the economic standpoint – a lot of international corporations rely on large countries as do many states. If a giant, such as the United States, were to suddenly bankrupt, the economic aftershock could drag quite a few states down with it. So step one would be economic independence which is quite difficult to achieve in this day and age.

Therefore the nuclear option serves the aim of devastating an enemy better when it is used from great altitude. The EMP wave caused reaches over entire continents at heights great enough but the explosion does not. At ground level the nuke is surprisingly useless – it might take out only a city or two. An EMP on the other hand can throw the entire country all the way back to dark middle ages. Sure, the inhabitants of the country might be displeased with your actions but with hardly any means of transportation – modern cars also rely on electronics – there’s hardly anything they can do against you. And the government will be quite distracted by internal chaos so unless there already is a direct confrontation they probably won’t resort to war.

Humanitarian aid can help rebuild the victim state but the blast will leave quite a mark on the country’s position on the global scale. And that is the aim of the strike – to cripple the state. Not to wipe it off the map but to maim it.

Unbiased bigotry

Education – the grading and the positive bias.

I’d like to introduce you to two grading systems currently in use in different countries. Both systems are based on a 5-point-principle.

Firstly, a system where grades are given according to a Gaussian principle – most people get average grades, some people get near-average grades and very few get the extremes – superb success and complete failure. This way everyone actually get competent information about their results – if they are average, they will get average grades. If they aren’t, they won’t. This makes sure that everyone knows exactly how smart they are at each subject relative to the general average.

Secondly, a system where the principle is warped so that the average would get a more positive result. For example, on the scale 1-5 with 5 being the best result, the average does not get a 3, the average gets 4. This way the ‘average’ pupil believes that it (forgive me for being genderless) is smart. Therefore it thinks that it can do even better as it is already so successful.

The second system supports the average, giving them a kind of placebo effect. They think they are smarter, hence they try to achieve more. Because in their minds, they can. But is that better?

The problem with everyone thinking they can be better than the average Joe is that everyone wants to be better than the average Joe. That means less lowerclass, more upperclass. The gist of it is that is that society needs a whole lot of lowerclass. Blue collar workers are vital for a healthy society. Society does not need a bunch of people with Bachelor’s degrees who are undereducated to be specialists and overeducated to be anything less. Yet these are the people that the second system creates – unable or unmotivated to become specialists, delusional enough to become useless. This is what the first system avoids – since the average knows they are average they are motivated to remain average in terms of education and employment. This means less overeducation and more workforce. Basically less useless education.

So, which is better, optimism that can lead to more joy and unexpected successes or realism that can lead to more realistic dreams?

Fair warning: not precisely a quick read

So they say sexism is a huge problem in modern video games^[1]. Sure, it is a common problem, but this is the area that has become very loud lately. Allegedly there are too many sexualized woman characters and almost no really strong female characters. This problem manifests itself mainly in the production of large companies like Eidos Interactive (Hitman, Tomb Raider), THQ (Broken Sword 4), Rockstar (all GTA after GTA2) and others of the same ilk (Command and Conquer, Mass Effect, Jagged Alliance, Super Mario). Oddly enough, popular free games tend not to have this problem, except for some massively-multiplayer games (League of Legends, almost all MMORPGs). They either don’t have any women or they are actually comparable in usefulness and body armour (no skimpy clothing) to men. This may be because of the limited budget – it’s good to get the game running, aesthetics is not that important. Wesnoth and UFO:Alien Invasion are excellent examples of this. Sure, there some paid games that don’t have sexism problems, The Sims is rather well done in that respect, as are Portal and Mirror’s Edge. But these are minority examples.

Interestingly enough, feminists have categorized the few female characters in modern media – movies, TV shows, games and books.

The point is also made by the Bechdel test of female presence – in most video games with conversation there is rarely any conversation between female characters about anything else than men. This can be explained by the fact that most protagonists in games are men and in general, the only conversations depicted in any media tends to be between the protagonist and someone else. Hence, if there is a male protagonist, most or all communication between characters involves a male character – the protagonist.

Interestingly enough, when there are strong female characters, people find side-characters that are dubbed feminist by twisting the definition thereof.

I’m surprised (yes, I) how many people do not understand the definition of feminism. It’s not about getting women to power or dragging men down, it’s about making both genders equal. Though they are not. Sure, there are some extremist groups that want women to lead instead of men (as opposed to ‘next to men’), as there are extremist groups that want to ban birth control or kill all Muslims. There are always extremes, but that should not stand in the way of the credibility of actually reasonable activist groups that paint the world black, just not as black as the extremes. After all, even the reasonable groups say that there is a huge problem. And that fear is what they use to get power, similar to what many male pro- and antagonists do.

A question presents itself: is gender inequality still a big problem? In reality, the hysterical, bubbly stereotype is fading quickly as more and more women get educated and better jobs. Merkel is a good example.

Lest we forget, girls outnumber boys in terms of being educated. Well, up to Bachelor’s degree. Once that has been achieved, the number of women being educated sharply falls and looking at doctoral degrees, men outnumber women. This is quite understandable, then why is it so perplexing for feminists that most high-paying positions are occupied by men with PhD-s? Thinking that higher education means better qualifications for higher-paying jobs and that more men get higher education should fix this problem.

And in the topic of ‘science: it’s a girl thing’, I present this nice explanation, courtesy of SMBC:

The low number of women in higher echelons and science appears to be explained by how the society works. It is a balance created by democracy itself. Thus, the question ‘is gender inequality still a problem?’ appears to be answered. So cheer up.

It is not easy to make it in the modern world, it doesn’t matter if you are male or female.

High time to turn to the roots.

We all do things because they seem like good ideas at the time. Alas, acting on impulses I do not fancy. In facts, I prefer not to jump into the water in a strange place. I deal with facts and known variables, not wild guesses. I act when I know the consequences or I can predict them with sufficient accuracy. If some consequences depend on some uncontrollable variable, I prefer not taking the chance. I’m willing to shock myself with a homemade capacitor but only after I have seen the consequences. That way I know the risk. Don’t get me wrong, I like the unknown, it intrigues me. I just prefer to learn about it from a safe distance.

About making the best out of your life and why you should act as I say, not as I do? ‘Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach.’ I apparently can’t, but you are not me. You can be better. You can do better.

In the last few weeks I’ve used the word ‘I’ more and more. It’s high time that stopped. Facts and argumentation means more than mere opinions. They matter. So expect a change.

“Time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly so.”

As you may have read in the storyblog (look right), time is relative. Relative to the point where you start counting from, relative to the units you use. Relative even to our own senses.

We sense time is going faster when we enjoy having it, we sense time is slow when we want a period of time to end as soon as possible. For us, in a matter of minutes an hour can pass and vice versa.

Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis. Times change and we change with the times. We grow old, and die. We get injured, and die. We live, we learn, and die. It’s all a matter of time.

Kris Allen sang that every day we have a chance to live our lives to the fullest or to ‘throw it all away’. RENT claimed that a year of our lives is extremely significant and should be counted in some way. People consider funerals as times of reflection, of looking back. The Centauri had weddings for that. It is said that moments before death our lives flash before our eyes.

It is up to us what we see. We can change our lives for the better or for the worse. But in the end, we still die.

Time is overrated. It isn’t as important as people make it sound. So stop living in units of time and do something for a change.

I’m glad I’m not in China.^[1]

“Well, with everyone now on the same side, perhaps you’re planning to invade yourselves for a change. I find the idea curiously appealing. Once you’ve finished killing each other, we can plow under all the buildings and plant rows of flowers that spell out the words, “Too annoying to live” in letters big enough to be seen from space.”

 

And remember, act as I say, not as I do.

Wit. Meow. Sigh.

Some people appear to have a problem with this pretty little video propagating science and showing how chemistry and product design have a large significance for women, hence also giving the message that science is sexy and attractive and that women can be sexy *and* smart. Those people have a problem because apparently it sends the message that chemistry and biochemistry are all women are able to do and that is the most they can achieve. Or that all women are… chicks. I don’t get that.

What I do have a problem with, is the real message. ‘Science: It’s a girl thing’? Since when is that true? Science is a predominantly male subject. Sure, there are a few women who have also found the charm of astrophysics or, well, chemistry or something like that. But most scientists are still men. Sure, that is what EC is trying to remedy but dubbing science as a *girl* thing is just wrong. On more than the sexist level.

When you talk about scientists, you hardly mean boys and girls. You mean men and women. Product design and innovation takes more education and seriousness a child, boy or girl, would typically have. Thus calling ‘science’ a ‘girl thing’ in a video with, well, not really girls anymore, appears awkward. I don’t care whether you call them ladies or women, but girls is just not right.

In conclusion, whatever the EC meant or did, science is not a ‘girl’ thing. Not just because men can do science as well but also because ‘girl’ is too childish in my always humble opinion. Science is unisex.

“Don’t fear the Reaper”

People hate those people most that they vote for.

It is always easier to oppose new ideas that provoke change in the present situation. It is what American (and many other) politics rely on – the party in power lose popularity so fast they can’t be in power for very long. This is why every once in a while a new party takes space in the government and why three subsequent presidents are rarely of the same party.

Whether the president even should belong to a party is an another matter – in a large country where most people have sided with extremes a popular neutral candidate would be nearly impossible to find anyways. I’m looking at you, Americans.

Everyone’s a critic. Everyone knows how to do things better until they are forced to do it. Nobody actually wants to upset the *natural* order of things. But without knocking over some of the anthills how can they be improved upon?

Chaos propagates growth and innovation. The greatest scientific breakthroughs have been due to military research, the greatest triumphs of democracy have been violent revolutions. Sudden shifts in political power and will could sing a song of prosperity and progress. But most people fear that it would be a chirp for the worse – this causes civil unrest and exaggerated panic. But that every single action the party in power takes is an octave off sounds fishy.

While I understand the importance of hindering the political powers from pushing through their every wish, I do not comprehend to do it at every single step, even when their wish and the people’s wish coincide with each other. After all, how are they supposed to get any work done when nobody wants them to do anything? But the work must be done. Even for the first time.

This is where the critics do themselves harm. Universal healthcare is either good for you or it does not affect you, hence there is no reason to cause ruckus or make a fuss about it. By doing so they create unnecessary panic and opposition to the ruling group of people. And then they start supporting the people whose task it is to criticize everything the people in power do. And next time they vote for the critics.

It reminds me of a saying “Every revolutionary becomes a conservative the day after the revolution.”

Because it works vice versa, it also applies to general politics. The underdog becomes the big cheese, the big cheese becomes the biting dog. Again and again and again and again. It is a vicious circle that makes very little sense. Why vote for the ones you know you will hate if they are apparently no better than the people you hate but will turn to tolerate in time for the next elections?