You Cannot Be Serious.

Perhaps nothing touches human emotion like the death of a child.  While any death is sad and tragic, it is hard to see a young life's passing as not being senseless and unnecessary.  I guess we can see rationale behind an adult's death at times: the person's own actions led them to it (think Darwin Awards), the person was evil and deserved it (think Hitler or Osama bin Laden), or perhaps death was best for an elderly who has been in pain for a long time.  For a young child however, it is hard to imagine these things.  This is why their deaths are so  emotional, and the biggest reason why the shootings at Newtown were do different from all the shootings that preceded it and that will undoubtedly follow.  

When the NRA kept silent for about a week after the Newtown shooting, I was hopeful that perhaps they were doing some serious soul searching and would finally come out with some meaningful options and compromises.  Their eventual suggestion, to arm teachers with guns, confirmed to me that the NRA has absolutely no interest in seeing things change.  They do not see the killings in Newton as any more of a rallying cry for gun control than the death of some gang member in an inner-city.  They care about one thing and one thing only, the ability of gun manufacturers to continue selling guns and for "macho" gun owners to continue adding to their collection.  

This week Congress is holding hearings on gun control.  There are a number of proposals on the table which should be common sense and frankly do not go far enough for many people, including me.  The proposals are to ban assault rifles, limit magazine capacity, and require background checks on ALL gun sales.  I cannot understand why these are so disagreeable.  Nobody needs an assault rifle.  I was recently reading a hunting magazine (that is mostly all that is available in East Texas) where the author was specifically mentioning how an assault rifle is not used for hunting.  It is not used for sport either and nor for self defense.  So what is it for besides war and killing as many people as possible in the least amount of time?  Ditto for high capacity magazines.  Even shotguns are restricted in how many shells can be loaded at one time for a hunt.  The reason: to give the game a fair chance.  What is incredible is we allow deers and ducks a fair chance but not innocent people in a theater or classroom!  Finally there is the question of background checks.  Everyone, including the NRA, agrees that it is a mentally deranged individual that goes on a shooting spree.  So why not try to implement a method that tries to prevent that individual from getting a gun in the first place?  

During these hearings on gun control, the NRA executive vice-president Wayne LaPierre also provided testimony.  One of his core messages was that law-abiding gun owners should not be burdened due to the actions of bad people.  My question is why not Mr LaPierre?  Law abiding citizens are "burdened" in many things in our daily lives to prevent abuse and mis-use.  Here are some examples:

• Airport security - I intend no harm, so why do I have to stand in line and go through the x-ray?
• Prescription medicine - I am responsible to know what I need to take and how many, why do I need a doctor and pharmacist?
• Drinking at 21 - I was an adult at 18, so why can I not get a drink just because some 18-21 year olds binge drink?

In these cases and for that matter any instance where there is security or checks, honest, law-abiding, and honorable people are burdened to prevent abuse.  In cases such as airport security this is a good thing, because I am willing to wait 10 minutes and go through a hassle to ensure some crazy person does not kill me.  I would think gun owners would feel the same way.  And even if they do not, I think the public has a right to demand it to ensure their own safety.  Surely gun owners can take on a little burden to prevent another innocent child from dying.

These controls may not stop everyone nor prevent another shooting from taking place.  But if they prevent even one more Newtown from happening, it would all be worth it.

Dont Come Without a Solution

Before I begin with this post, a disclaimer is needed.  I work for a major oil and gas company, which means that my livelihood comes from the extraction and processing of hydrocarbons.  Furthermore, my graduate degree was in Combustion, meaning that I have spent a fair bit of time studying (and now benefiting from) the oxidation of hydrocarbons - a process that naturally produces CO2 and hopefully not too many other nasties.  I do not think any of this matters, but I am surely going to be accused of bias, so it's important I mention it.  

In the last few years or so, there has been a lot of talk of climate change and the effect that humans are having on the temperature.  It has certainly become a little bit of a fad to be in support of this cause, which is unfortunate because Hollywood celebrities are usually not the best scientists.  Now I am not anti-global warming or a climate change denier.  The truth is I do not know.  Quite honestly I do not think anybody knows for sure.  Are temperatures rising - well yes, we can measure it directly and we see they have risen.  Are humans impacting the Planet and its climate - of course, you cannot have 7 billion people going about their business without impacting the environment.  Are humans emitting more CO2 and/or other greenhouse gases - yes, we know that for sure too.  Does a greenhouse gas cause temperatures to rise - ah, tricky question: yes, but in what quantities?  Has Earth's temperature risen before, even before there were homo sapiens - yes, we see that from a number of sources that Earth's temperature has been cyclical.  What we know for sure is, humans are emitting a substance that has the potential to raise temperatures (which are rising) but the Earth has also gone through periods of cold and hot before.  Are we in a cycle, or are we shifting the path of the roller-coaster by our weight?  I do not think anyone knows for sure.

Okay, so the ardent "environmentalists" argue that we cannot afford to do nothing.  Worse, they blame industries like Oil & Gas for destroying Earth.  I have news for such people: We NEED Energy.  This is a fact of life, and especially a fact of modern life.  We need energy for virtually everything we do - from getting hot water in the morning, to lights, to the A/C or heat, to transportation, to plastics, to the clothes we wear, to the food we eat, and to basically everything we do.  In fact today we use energy even for things that are nowhere near being necessities for life or living comfortably.  What need does someone have for an iPad or a high power stereo or a giant TV.  None, but these things make life more enjoyable, and they require energy.  Contrary to popular belief, this energy does not come from the socket.  Chances are, something had to be burnt to produce that energy.  

So if you are going to make a big deal about climate change and how we are evil for burning oil, gas, or coal, propose a solution for meeting society's need for energy.  The solution cannot be for all of us to live in caves.  This general quality of life cannot be reduced and for that matter cannot be denied to people who do not currently have it.  They have every right to aspire to it.  So I say it again, bring forth an alternative to fossil fuels.  Often the very same environmentalists have already written off nuclear, so what remains?  Yes, I know, renewables.  In another post I will write more about renewables, but here is the reality. Renewables are great and offer a lot of promise.  But they are no where near sufficient for our needs and will never be.  There are too many fundamental problems to overcome and while I will continue to support having my tax dollars fund the research, the reality is renewables can never be the complete answer.  So think of something else, because currently every American consumes about 311 million BTU's of energy a year, or around the equivalent of 16,000 of the type of burner you see at the top.  If you truly care, come with a solution that provides this kind of energy, or dont bother.

Source of Morals, Part 2

My very good friend Zac Nagel, posted a comment on my previous post that merits a response.  I am still trying to determine the best way to maintain this blog as a discussion, but I am going to try replying in the form of a new post and see if it works.  I prefer this over replying to the comment in this case because I dont want what I have to say lost in a comment thread.  Before I get into all that though, this was Zac's comment to my previous post on the Source of Morals.

the presence of a moral compass within most people (e.g. the don't murder, don't steal) is more easily reasoned to be the remnant of divine programming of an absolute moral code as opposed to being developed by mankind in a vacuum.
If mankind developed this moral compass...then how does it seem logical that many people groups and civilizations (some without contact with another civilization) across all time have converged on a common set of morals (again, think no murder, stealing is bad, marriage should occur).
Conversely, why haven't we seen civilizations arise where stealing murder, etc. are prized as good things.
Doesn't it seem more likely that there is a common source that provides a template of moral direction which nearly all people (theists, deists, atheists, pantheists, etc.) hold in common?

First, let me clarify the main objection that I have and was trying to convey in my post.  It was that we do not necessarily need a God to provide us with morals.  Or at the very least, we do not need a divine messenger to tell us what is right or wrong.  It would appear that Zac may be in agreement with me there.  For if our morals are part of some "divine programming", then God has already put that into every human and so what need is there for Him to send his son as Jesus, or speak to Mohammed, or come down Himself as Krishna.  An all-powerful God should have put in the right code in the original release and not required later version upgrades.  So again, my original point was that the diversity of religions and faiths proves that man is capable of devising morals, or at the very least a divine messenger is not needed for that.

However, I will admit that I also alluded to the idea that not only is a messenger not needed, but God himself (or herself) is not needed for us to derive our morals.  And here of course is where here Zac disagrees with me.  The argument is that the fact that virtually all groups and civilizations today have essentially the same set of morals is proof that some central divine programming is involved.  First, I would disagree that all groups have the same set of morals, even though in general the overarching principles are there.  Take for example one of the most common elements, murder.  It is universally accepted by all groups across the world that murder of another human being is wrong.  Different religions though introduce different shades of grey to it.  Christianity teaches that all murder is sin (but a murderer may still make it to Heaven); Islam teaches that murder in some instances may be okay (especially if the victim is a non-believer); and Hinduism teaches that murder is wrong unless it is your duty (dharma) to kill another (e.g. a soldier in battle).  So while all three in general agree that murder is wrong, three of the largest groups in the world have different takes on it.  Surely God would have programmed in a little more detail.  But I digress.

My main argument is that God has not programmed in the morals, but rather that humans "have converged on a common set" through thousands of years of civilization.  They have all converged on the basic morals because these are what make a society fair and productive.  Over different times as groups began living together and becoming interdependent, they must have realized that it is in everyone's interest to frown upon things like murder and theft.  This was not an invention like paper or gunpowder that got invented in one place and then spread around the world.  It is more likely that different groups came up with the basic principles at different times much like different groups must have figured out things like fire and shelter independently.  It is on these basic ideas that groups then added the flavors we see today.  

The underlying concepts though are so obvious for a healthy society that it is not surprising at all that completely disconnected groups would have all "discovered" them.  As soon as groups started living together, it is easy to see a leadership structure emerge which would have devised a set of laws.  These man-made laws then became the morals of that group.  Blur your eyes, and all these different morals look pretty much the same, because even though we may be brown, black, or white, blur your eyes and we are all humans.

Critical Thinking: The Source of Morals

João Zeferino da Costa. (www.nobility.org)

ISKCON.  Original artist unknown.

I recently had a discussion with someone who made the following statement, "Everyone must get their morals from somewhere, and you need God for that".  We could not continue the discussion, but it is surprising to me that he was unable to see how oxymoronic the statement was.  This was a successful individual who got where he is today through his intellect and daily use of critical thinking.  However, in making this one statement, he failed to think through the logic of his statement and see the inherent contradiction in those few words.  

Now, he is deeply religious, presumably a Christian (but it does not matter), so I am assuming that he “takes his morals” from the Bible which he surely takes to be divine (or at least divinely inspired).  So for him, God through the Bible has provided us with what is moral and what is not.  But, the vast majority of the human population is not Christian.  In fact, no single religion is practiced by the majority of people.  Everyone, atheists and the religious, would agree with me that not all religions are divine or divinely inspired (I hope this is obvious for it may necessitate another posting).  Instead most would argue that only theirs is from God and that all others are man-made.  So, implicit in this argument is that while their flavor of morals may be from God, others have made up theirs.  That for example Islam is divine, but Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc. are all creations of the human mind.  Since all religions purport to have morals, they are essentially arguing that man has developed a set of morals in these cases.  But this negates the original claim, and hence the contradiction.  

The fact that every religion provides its followers with morals, and that at best only one can be correct, means that the vast majority of humans on Earth live with man-made morals that are neither god-given nor even divinely inspired.  And this includes atheists.  Morality is not the exclusive domain of theists. By and large, every group, culture, and society, has developed a set of values and morals that for the most part agree with each other.  Regardless of who does a better job of sticking to those, basic fundamentals like not stealing and not killing are shared across the human race.  Oddly enough, it is the religious that most often violate them, especially the "not killing" part.

I hate to break it to you, but the morals you may hold to be absolute, they were invented, by a fellow human.  What should be absolute is human dignity and respect for this Earth and all those that inhabit it.  We do not need a God to tell us that.

In Polite Company

We are all taught that one should not bring up religion or politics in polite company.  It is simply not done.  After all, you do not want to offend the other person.  I get it, but find it amusing none the less.  There are a few reasons for my amusement.

First, why does the other person get offended?  Has the individual not thought about their beliefs and values and is therefore shocked when someone suggests disagreement with them?  Second, when religion and political views are used so often to defend actions, policies, or decisions which impact everyone, why should these topics be outside the purview of any group discussion.  If everyone practiced their religion and politics inside their homes privately, then I would not have an issue if it was improper to discuss.  But it is not, and so I am challenging the very notion.  These things matter, and we do not help by making them taboo.

In the posts to come, I hope to put forth some of my thoughts and views on what I consider to be important topics.  As you can guess, religion and politics are two of the main ones.  Others are hinted at in the header image at the top: Energy (and Energy Policy), Science and Technology, Vegetarianism, and National Security.  

I started writing this blog some time back, but I am going to attempt writing more frequently this year, so this is a start of sorts.  To help with that of course, I am fortunate to have a very talented graphic designer by way of my wife help.  She has designed the header and I think you will agree that it is quite spectacular.  Hopefully the quality of this blog will be on par with the quality of her work.  

I sometimes feel a blog is a narcissistic pursuit.  Why should anyone care what you have to say through a medium that does not allow for a discussion?  I am hoping that is where your comments come in.  For me they are going to be one of the primary enjoyments of this blog.  I look forward to reading and responding to your comments and have that be the channel for a healthy discussion.  I also invite any of you to post on this blog if you wish.  Together, we can explore the most advance and perhaps odd species to walk this Earth - The Inscrutable Humans.