This is my web log which contains all sorts of random thoughts I felt it necessary to record for posterity here. I've recorded ideas on all sorts of topics in here so I hope you find something interesting, and maybe even useful!
Stop the Tribalism
2024-06-26. Comments. Rating 3. ID 2352.
I have been involved in several debates recently where my opponents were quite easily defeated because they underestimated me. I'm not trying to be smart and say that I am the world's greatest debater, just that they thought I was some sort of idiot, which I would claim, isn't true! In every case, the opponent was a member for what I call the "woke mob" and was attacking me because they thought I was a conservative, a Trump supporter, or a denier of progressive values.
Now, to be fair, I am partly all of those things. I appreciate some of the ideas of conservatism, although I also appreciate parts of progressivism, and mainly identify as a libertarian. I think Trump has some significant character flaws, but I do support many of his ideas, and if I was an American I would seriously consider voting for him in preference to Biden. And I think we should always strive to progress, but we need to be careful that we are progressing in the right direction, and that we don't go too far and cause more problems than we solve.
But when I make comments which are contrary to what my opponents see as being appropriate they assume I'm some kind of inbred redneck, a member of the KKK, or a Nazi. Of course, I'm not any of those things, but by the time they realise that, it is too late and their feeble arguments are destroyed!
Here are a few comments about me from a recent "discussion" on Facebook about whether X (previously Twitter) is a place for good debate since Elon Musk took over...
First, "I guess even racist trolls deserve a home", then "Woke mob, huh? Define woke, tough guy", and "Stop embarrassing yourself you little Nazi", and finally "all the way from tin foil hat conspiracy spewers, to nazi sympathizers and other assorted bigots".
And here are the comments I made which elicited this invective. Regarding X, I said: "It's better than ever, IMHO. Better range of views, less cancellation, and community notes is really useful". And when challenged to define the word "woke", I said: "I usually use something like this: Having an excessive and irrational preoccupation with social justice issues based on emotion more than facts". And defending that definition: "There are multiple ways to use the word. I gave you the definition I was thinking if when I made the comment."
Can you see a difference in the two styles?
The context here was that, after I said that many people who were criticised on X were just opposing the "woke mob", he challenged me to define woke. I gave him "Having an excessive and irrational preoccupation with social justice issues based on emotion more than facts" and he disagreed because he found a different definition in the dictionary. But reading further through that same dictionary there was a second definition which matched mine very closely. That was when he disappeared from the debate.
But we were debating the meaning of a word, although I agree it is a very political word. Why was it necessary to go down the path of using words like "Nazi" and "bigots". Sure, I used "woke" but that is more a description rather than an insult. Also, I used it to describe a general class of person on X, not him personally.
I do get insulted a lot like that, but it doesn't worry me in the least. In fact, it usually means the other person has run out of real ideas and is resorting to ad hominems. I also think they use it to try to evoke and angry or emotional reaction from me, and when I reply with very reasonable arguments it just makes them look ridiculous.
But really, underneath, the problem is tribalism. I say something which triggers them to assign me to the "MAGA" or "redneck" or "ignoramus" tribe. When that happens their reaction is to attack with personal insults and material against a position I don't really hold. And that's why they lose the debate. They really need to stop the tribalism.
It has been a few months since I wrote a post about Maori BS, but look back and you will see "Maori BS" and "More Maori BS", making this title "Even More Maori BS" necessary! Before I go further, I need to make two points: first, for my overseas readers, Maori are the native people of New Zealand; and second, I'm not saying everything related to Maori is BS, but there is a lot of it.
Anyway, in this case it is to do with "Maori science", or in the latest case, "Maori cosmology", especially in relation to the upcoming national holiday "Matariki" which celebrates the Maori new year.
I don't have too many issues with having a holiday based on a Maori event (their new year in this case), because there are plenty of other holidays which I don't particularly identify with, which are based on religious events irrelevant to me as an atheist. So Easter and Christmas have no deep meaning to me, although I'm still happy to take a few days off at those times. Pretty hypocritical, eh? Actually, not really, because I think the original meaning of these days has changed, and in a country where religions are only followed by the minority, they barely have a religious meaning any more.
The word "Matariki" also refers to an open cluster, usually called the Pleiades, which is in the constellation Taurus. When this cluster first becomes visible just before the Sun rises it is called a "helical rising". Many cultures (most famously the Egyptians) use this phenomenon, often with other stars, especially Sirius.
So the event Matariki (June 28 this year) happens when the cluster Matariki is first visible before sunrise (before that, its position in the sky would be too close to the Sun to be easily visible, but the Sun appears to move across the sky in comparison with the stars because of the Earth's orbit). It is also fairly close to mid-winter (June 21), which is probably why Maori used it to mark the beginning of the year.
So it all seems fairly legit so far, right? What's my problem which leads to the title of this post? Well, my problem is the material associated with Matariki has been labelled "Maori cosmology" and "Maori astronomy", and it turns out to have very little, if anything, to do with actual cosmology or astronomy. In fact it is mythology and astrology.
I've got no problem with mythology, because many myths are really fun, but why do we have to hear about them on TV and in other media, and why is it labelled as if it has some basis in reality?
Let me give you an example. Here's a description of one of the stars in the Pleiades cluster: "Matariki brings people together. Matariki is not only the name of the cluster, but also a star recognised as the mother of the group. The largest star, Matariki bonds us together, signifying a time to reflect on our health and wellbeing and nurture connections with family and friends."
And here's the reality: Alcyone, designated Eta Tauri, is a star in the constellation of Taurus. Approximately 440 light-years from the Sun, it is the brightest star in the Pleiades open cluster, which is a young cluster, around 100 million years old. There are a number of fainter stars very close to Alcyone, some of which are members of the same cluster.
Alcyone has a high rotational velocity, which causes it to have an ellipsoidal shape. Its effective radius is almost ten times that of the Sun, but the actual radius is lesser at poles and greater at the equator. Its effective temperature is approximately 12,300 K, with the actual temperature being greater at the poles and lesser at the equator. Its bolometric luminosity is 2,030 times solar.
The age of the Pleiades is typically calculated to be around 130 million years, but Alcyone itself appears to be younger, less than 100 million years. Alcyone may be a blue straggler or models may not be deriving an accurate age for stars of this type.
OK, sure, I understand that the facts might seem a bit dry compared with the mythology, but they do have the benefit of being true. It's also pretty cool to imagine a star ten times the diameter of the Sun and over 2000 times its brightness.
The advertising for the Matariki holiday on TV is being paid for by someone, and I suspect that is the taxpayer. So I'm being fed superstitious BS from another culture which I have no interest in, and I'm paying for it. On the other hand, I get no interesting information about other holidays based Western mythology, like Easter.
So yeah, I think I'm fully justified in calling this even more Maori BS!
Have you noticed how stuff that used to be quite well accepted is now not tolerated by what seems like large parts of society? Have you noticed how some things which would be considered ridiculous or even dangerous in the past are not considered OK? Or maybe you used to support a particular political party, but now find you cannot any longer because they don't follow your values any more.
What's happening here? Is it you who is changing while the rest of the world is still the same? Well maybe, because people's opinions do change over time, or at least they should, but that is only part of the story, because a bigger factor might be how societal values change, or at least the values of some of the "leaders" in society.
By the way, I put the word leaders in quotes because many people only reluctantly accept that those leaders have influence. Not many people are actually enthusiastic about politicians, managers, or cultural icons like movie and music stars.
So what is considered "appropriate" by the most prominent people in society (such as those categories of person I listed above) changes over time. This is a phenomenon often referred to as the "Overton Window", or the "Overton Window of Political Possibility", named after Joseph Overton, who initially proposed the idea.
I will now give an example, and I apologise in advance for picking such an obvious one, but it is politically relevant today. Trans "women" (people born as men who transitioned to being a woman, or pretend to be a woman, depending on your perspective) would never have been allowed to compete against "real" women in events such as sport, or beauty contests in the past, but now it is considered correct, and anyone disagreeing is considered to be phobic and wrong.
Now I strongly suspect that the majority of people would actually reject this new perspective, and more closely follow the ideas of the past, but the leaders (please just accept that this word is quoted in future, because these people aren't true leaders) are pushing it hard. The Overton Window has swung strongly in the direction of "trans rights".
And you will notice many places where what was once considered common sense and reasonable has now been labelled as "inappropriate" or "conspiracy minded". These particularly occur in politically active social issues such as climate change, indigenous rights, LGBT rights, and social justice.
Note that I am not saying that these issues aren't worth considering, but what I am saying is that the range of "respectable" (there seem to be a lot of quotes in this post) opinions has changed. What used to be mainstream is now considered impolite, incorrect, or even illegal.
Social norms change over time, and that is perfectly appropriate, but they don't always change for the better, and sometimes they swing from one extreme to another, so we should neither automatically accept nor reject the new direction the Overton Window is pointing.
Here's an example of where bias was clearly in place as a result of political norms rather than what was right or wrong: before Elon Musk took over Twitter, many people on the right of politics in the US (I mean the moderate right, not the far right), even Donald Trump himself, were banned, but the Taliban, the world's most active and harmful terror organisation, was allowed. Really?
By the way, I'm sorry to again use Twitter as an example of political trends, but it really is what shows us the direction society is going, ahead of anything else. Despite the poor opinion many people have, it is where the action is!
There is one last point I need to make here. Anything that isn't in the window needs to be taken seriously. Current trends need to be examined carefully. What is off to the left of the window currently, or more likely to the right, because it has currently swung well left, might be in the middle tomorrow.
So don't be too concerned if your opinions are currently unpopular. The window never stands still. It is difficult to support ideas outside of the window, but it is critical that we all do, otherwise it will never return to a sensible place.
One of the policies of New Zealand's new government is to reduce the number of public servants we currently have. The number went up massively under the previous government (by 10,000 according to some sources) and the new one wanted to introduce tax cuts which lead to the need for reduced costs. Of course, reducing costs is a good idea in any case, as long as the people being lost aren't doing an essential job.
The objection to the cuts usually involved the claim that services would be diminished as a result of the job losses, but the government assured us it would not reduce the number of people working in "front line" jobs. For example, we might lose some people working at the Ministry of Health, but we wouldn't lose any doctors or nurses. And we might lose some office workers in the Ministry of Education, but we shouldn't lose any teachers.
As far as I can see, that has worked out pretty much as they assured us it would, but even then some people aren't happy. The critics of the policy said the essential work being done by the staff who lost their jobs would need to be transferred to the doctors and teachers, making them less effective at their primary tasks.
Again, this doesn't seem to have happened. At least, I haven't heard from anyone doing these jobs saying they have been given any significant number of extra administrative duties.
So if 6,000 people are no longer working in the public service, but it is still working as well, or maybe actually better, as it always has (and I do have to say that wouldn't be too difficult), you do have to wonder what those people were actually doing.
I suspect many of them were completely useless, and worse than that (as the title of this post suggests) I am fairly sure many of them were even worse than that. How can anyone be worth less than nothing? Well, when you get too many bureaucrats in an organisation they tend to try to make work for themselves which usually involves interfering with the people who are doing the real work. This means their value isn't just zero, it's negative; they are worse than useless!
This is just a supposition on my part, but I do have a couple of other examples where this phenomenon has also been seen...
The first is the social media platform, X, previously known as Twitter. Originally it had 8,000 employees, but when Elon Musk took over he fired about 80% of them and there are now just 1,500.
I use X a lot and I have to say that it is better than ever. It is fast and reliable, and there are additional features which I find very valuable, especially "community notes" where the accuracy of posts can be challenged and discussed. It's certainly not perfect, and there are places where the user interface could be better, but even then it is no worse than other social media systems like Instagram, YouTube, and Facebook.
So X is running with just 20% of the people it used to have, and it is better now than then. Again, you really have to wonder what the other 80% were doing. They can't have just been useless, or the service of X would be about the same. They must have been worse then useless!
Finally there is my friend Fred (not his real name) who works in a large, bureaucratic organisation, and often relays his frustrations with it to me.
His workplace is currently downsizing many areas which most people would see as being fairly important and core to its actual purpose. But do you know one place where they aren't downsizing? That's right, there are more stupid bureaucrats than ever.
These people have ridiculous job titles like business analyst, diversity manager, executive assistant manager, etc, and they generally just get in the way of the truly productive members of the staff, like Fred. At least that's how he sees it!
So again, these people are paid substantial salaries, in fact significantly more than the people doing the actual work, yet all they do is get in the way and stop the real work from being done efficiently. They are worse than useless!
Even if their role in the workplace has negative value, these are still people with families, mortgages, and all that other stuff we all have to deal with, so it is unfortunate that they are out of work, especially in the current economic environment. But I resent, as a taxpayer, paying them substantial salaries (probably a lot more than what I am paid) to make the world worse.
I would genuinely rather pay them an unemployment benefit just to do nothing and keep them out of the way of the actual workers. They really are worse than useless!
What do the following issues have in common: climate change, the war in Gaza, LGBT rights, police violence, abortion rights, and the merits of capitalism? Fundamentally nothing, except they are all part of the "omnicause" that left wing activists like to engage in. In most cases, if you tell me someone is concerned about climate change I can also tell you what their opinion is on abortion rights (they fully support them) or the war in Gaza (they believe in a free Palestine "from the river to the sea", although they often won't know which river or sea).
Why is this? Why do we see groups, such as "gays for Palestine" which seem to be completely irrational? I mean, do they know what many extreme Islamic groups do to gay people? I wonder if they have ever heard of chickens for KFC, or turkeys for Thanksgiving.
Now, it is possible that some people might have carefully thought about each of those issues, and decided they are all worth supporting... but who am I kidding? We all know why those causes tend to be grouped. It's because these people put no individual thought into what they believe and are simply following along with an ideology. Note that there may be some quite reasonable people who believe in some of these causes to some degree, but I'm talking about the activists who are fully involved in all of them.
As an illustration of this phenomenon, have a look at some popular activism here in New Zealand. A recent protest was allegedly aimed at so-called "anti-Maori" policies of the government, but in the same protests I saw signs with slogans indicating the following: support for Palestine, criticism of capitalism, rejection of oil and gas exploration, and several others.
I believe all of these issues are worth considering, but I can tell by the signs, and by the irrational ranting, that these people are on the extremes of them all.
So sure, the war in Palestine is horrible, but what are the alternatives, and what does a free Palestine really mean? Ask these people, and most won't really be able to defend their opinions; instead they'll just repeat catchphrases they heard somewhere.
And capitalism has its faults, but what is the alternative? Do these people know the history of alternative systems, like those in Soviet Russia, Venezuela, or North Korea? How about a reasoned discussion on the good and bad points of capitalism, and serious suggestions on how to improve it. No, they'd rather rant.
Climate change is an issue worth thinking about, but it is not an existential threat, and oil and gas are far better alternatives than coal. So why not look at some interim compromises here, instead of just making demands which will lead to economic and social disaster?
Look at the people involved in these protests and they seem to fall into several groups (note I said "seem" here, because this is just a personal observation and not real data). There are young people who are too naive and emotionally and cognitively immature to form any sensible opinions yet. There are older people whose identity is tied up with protesting and they do it out of habit as much as anything else. And there are others who stand to gain financially and politically if change is forced on the rest of us.
Now I do have to be fair here, and say there might be a small minority who have thought through the specific issue they are protesting and who do have a more sophisticated opinion, but I guess they would be less than 10% of the rabble present.
I have seen videos of people at protests being interviewed, and their gross ignorance and naivity are often exposed. For example, in one protest a person was asked to explain what their sign meant, but they just admitted they didn't know because they had just collected it from a protest organsier. And the famous example I have cited before: that many people demanding freedom for Palestine from the river to the sea have no idea which river or sea, and couldn't even point to them on a map.
So why can't we have some of our media walking up to random protestors and asking this sort of question? If, as I suspect, the person is made to look like a fool, then maybe that will dissuade others from protesting before they research the topic in future. And if it turns out the person has a well-reasoned argument then people like me will look at them with more respect in future.
But do the media do that? Not in most cases, because they are completely biased and generally support most of the same misinformation the protestors are guilty of. I think it is OK for people to protest, but it would be good if there was a bit of accountability there. But, of course, there isn't.
I hate to rehash an idea I have discussed a couple of time before, but I want to recount a recent experience I had on Facebook where I debated a few people on how laws should be followed. There was a headline about a road accident which implied the cause of the accident had been speed, and it suggested that speeding was always a bad thing. Of course, I like to be the iconoclast, so I said "No speeding wasn't the problem here, crashing was".
Now I would be the first to say that anecdotes don't matter, but I almost always travel over the speed limit and it has been many years since I had any sort of accident, and even then, the only major crash I have been involved with wasn't my fault and wasn't caused by speed.
However, I do know that as you go faster it can be harder to control the car and the damage and injury resulting from an accident will be greater. The catchphrase we often hear is "the faster you go, the bigger the mess", which is true. In fact it is possibly worse than that might suggest, because the energy of a moving object is given by the equation: kinetic energy equals half the mass times the velocity squared (an equation we all learned fairly early in our science education), so if you double your speed you get four times the energy, and therefore four times the damage.
But this is only an issue if you crash! Going fast is fine, as long as you drive responsibly. So it isn't as simple as keeping to the speed limit, because a good driver in a good car going fast will be safer than a bad driver in a bad car going slower. Have you ever seen F1 drivers walk away from crashes at over 300 kilometers per hour? It happens.
So I was really making a fairly light-hearted point just for a bit of fun, but the response by many people was as if I had admitted to being a mass murderer. The general consensus seemed to be that driving faster than the speed limit is never justified, which any significant amount of thought will soon reveal to be naive and stupid.
Here's a sample discussion on the subject, which I have had to extrapolate a bit because my opponent deleted her comments when she realised I had destroyed her argument...
Her: Speeding is never OK.
Me: Well it is sometimes, as long as the driver is aware of the conditions and other factors.
Her: No it is never OK. The faster you go, the bigger the mess [there she goes parroting an advertising slogan, which is usually a sign that very little thought has gone into this].
Me. OK, let me give you a hypothetical situation, and let's see if you agree that you would speed in this situation, just like I would.
Her: You can try, but speeding is never OK, so I won't agree.
Me: My daughter has a serious illness which requires hospital treatment within 20 minutes, but the ambulance will take half an hour to get here. It is 2 AM and there is almost no traffic around. I can get to the hospital in time if I exceed the speed limit by 10 or 20 kilometers per hour. Should I? [Let's face it, if you didn't speed in that situation, and let your daughter die, you are a psychopath]
Her: [the sound of crickets]
Me: So what do you think? Would you speed in that situation. [It was then that she deleted her comments]
So I think it is fairly clear that there are situations when speeding isn't just OK, its the only responsible thing to do. Some people might say that by trying to save my daughter's life I risk the lives of others. Well, sure, but it's early in the morning and not many people are around. Obviously speeding past a school when the kids are crossing the road would require a different attitude. But condemning a person to death because there is a small increased risk of an accident seems a simple enough compromise to make to me.
Most people would accept that speeding is OK in that case, meaning the statement "speeding is never OK" is not true. Now that we accept speeding is sometimes OK, where does it end? Well, it's not a black and white thing. There are varying degrees of blame for someone driving too fast. In the case I gave above, I think it is always OK (remember it is only 10 or 20 ks over the limit). But it's hard to think of a situaiton when travelling at 200 ks through a built-up area while school kids are crossing the road is justified. Between those extremes, it is really a matter of opinion.
Remember that while the majority of laws are created with good intentions, they are created by bureaucrats who often have little knowledge of the real world situations the law will apply to. Additionally, laws are too general. The open road limit in New Zealand is 100 ks, but there are many places where going a bit faster would not increase the risk much, and others where it might be better to go slower.
The only person who really knows is the driver, assuming they are sufficiently skilled, and if they aren't skilled then they will probably be a major hazard even driving at the speed limit which is quite fast enough to cause some pretty horrible accidents.
People just need to think, and reciting advertising slogans is not a great sign that any thinking is happening.
I have nothing against people making their opinions known. I strongly support free speech, so of course I believe in that right. But, apparently contradicting this belief, I also like to rant at protestors, and point out how stupid they are, and how they should just go home. Surely I don't contradict myself here, especially given how highly I prize rationality. Do I?
It's not really contradictory, because I do think these two things are compatible. I can support the right for people to protest, and to make their opinions known, at the same times as I point out how stupid their opinions actually are, and condemn them for going beyond just protesting.
In fact, protesting is a very popular way for some people to spend their time. Some people seem to just love it, and there are several subjects which are particularly popular at the moment, all of which I think are bogus to varying degrees. Also, in many cases, the people protesting are from the most ignorant, naive, and ideological groups in society, making their efforts even more farcical.
So let's have a look at some of the subjects being protested and at the type of people involved...
Subject 1, climate change.
I've said this several times before, but I will repeat it here: I think climate change is real, and I think there is good reason to think that at least part of it is caused by burning fossil fuels, but I object to the climate change protestors on two counts: first, who the protests are aimed at; and second, how they protest.
Given that China, and increasingly India, are the two biggest sources of carbon emissions, why do so many protests concentrate on modern, Western countries which are already moving to more sustainable energy production? Greta Thunberg, for example, loves asking how dare modern European nations condemn her generation to some dystopian future while saying nothing about the two coal fired plants per week being built in China. What an idiot!
And why protest by making a general nuisance of yourself trying to destroy valuable art works, and making other people's lives difficult by blocking roads? Is the art a major source of warming? Are those people trying to do their jobs and being blocked on the streets thinking something like "Oh, I see their point now; I'm going to buy a Nissan Leaf"? That seems fairly unlikely. The protests are a purely narcissistic form of virtue signalling and public theatre. The protestors are clowns!
Subject 2, Palestine.
OK, I get it. War is not fun, and the pictures we see of the destruction and loss of life in Gaza are distressing. But that's war, and it's a war that was started by Hamas, and one Hamas refuses to end by admitting defeat. The proportion of civilian casualties, which are an unfortunate side effect of all wars, is similar to other conflicts. The total number of casualties is considerably less than other recent conflicts on the Middle East.
If the protestors really wanted peace in Gaza they would stop supporting a terrorist organisation and demand that Hamas moved out of the area and handed over control to a less militant authority, while releasing all of the hostages who are still alive. They are a bunch of brainwashed fanatics!
Subject 3, indigenous rights.
Here in New Zealand today protests have been organised across the country to protest against various policies introduced by the new government which some people see as "anti-Maori" (for those of you from elsewhere, Maori are the indigenous people of New Zealand).
The problem is, the policies are not specifically against Maori, they are just not for Maori. In recent years, especially under the woke regime of Jacinda Ardern, Maori were given a lot of special rights which other New Zealanders didn't have. In other words, we had "reverse racism" which is really just the same as plain old vanilla racism.
For those of you who don't think Maori get special treatment, here is my standard list of their privileges: Maori focused schools, special Maori content in the education curriculum, Maori-only education scholarships, Maori-only housing projects, Maori-only health initiatives, Maori-only welfare initiatives, Maori-only prisoner programs, Maori-only positions on government agencies, Maori-only consultation rights under the RMA, Maori-only co-management of the natural landscape, Maori-only ownership rights to the foreshore and seabed, a special Maori Authority tax rate of 17.5 percent, a special Maori-only exemption to allow blood relatives to qualify for charitable status, Maori language funding, Maori radio and TV, Maori-only seats on local councils, Maori-only appointments onto local government committees, Maori-only local government statutory boards, Maori-only local government advisory committees, Maori seats in Parliament.
When you have so many privileges, any attempt to impose equality looks like an attack. What a bunch of entitled morons!
The protestors supporting all of the issues above (and others) I'm sure think they are completely in the right and that the end justifies the means, and that anyone against them is a racist or a MAGA or a redneck or (gasp) a conservative!
But anyone who is so confident they are right is almost always wrong. And that explains why so many protestors are young and naive, or belong to "echo chambers" where alternative views are not tolerated. I think that if they heard and seriously considered other opinions they wouldn't be quite so confident and the protests might stop.
There are a lot of stupid kids out there, and there are a lot of people deeply embedded in an ideology, and there are a lot of people who gain personally from these corrupt protests. Do they have the right to protest? Yes. Should they? Hell, no!
In the past all of humanity's major inventions have been to make relatively mundane aspects of our activities less onerous or more efficient. We found ways to travel faster (cars and other transport), make physical goods more quickly (factories), and even to calculate and process information more accurately and much more quickly (computers). But we have never found a way to automate or optimise thinking and creating.
But maybe now we have.
I'm talking about artificial intelligence, of course, which I have discussed before. I tried not to exagerate the possibilities - both good and bad - of this technology, but it is becoming increasingly difficult not to realise that something big is happening, and it might be bigger than anything else in our history.
The current crop of AIs use large language models where the AI learns by itself. Fundamentally all it is doing is to arrange words in an order which is most logical, based on what it already "knows". It sounds so simple, but it has created results which seem to transcend the mere construction of sentences.
In fact, even the computer scientists deeply involved in AI are surprised at what these models can do. For example, they can do research level chemistry better than systems designed to do specifically that task, and no one can quite figure out how.
I have always said that human intelligence, and probably consciousness itself, is most likely just an emergent property of relatively simple functions of neurons in the brain, so it's hard not to see a parallel here.
But all that aside, there is one other factor which is particularly exciting... and concerning. One thing AIs can do really well is design computer chips and write programs. These are the two things that AIs rely on to exist. So the big change here is that AI systems can improve themselves.
One of the post critical components in modern computers is the GPU, that is the graphics processing unit. It is a processor designed to do a relatively small range of complex operations incredibly quickly and it is why we have such amazing realistic games today. But an additional function these processors can be used for is to do specific general maths operations at amazing speed. The main processor in most computers, the CPU (central processing unit), is designed to do a much wider range of operations more slowly - just a few billion a second!
So AI involves doing massive numbers of operations in parallel (a lot at the same time) and GPUs are the main way this is done. But at least one GPU company (Nvidia) is using AI to design the next range of GPUs, which in turn will be used in new AIs to design even better GPUs.
Do you see where this is going?
Also there is a technology called DNA printers, which can create strings of DNA when fed a sequence from a computer. I don't know if any of these are currently controlled by an AI, but surely that is only a matter of time. And we thought COVID19 was bad!
Can we all see a problem here?
The people who create and run AIs have attempted to put blocks in place to stop them being misused, but that has had limited success. In a recent podcast on this subject, the following anecdote was told...
A person wanted to know how to make napalm, so asked an AI. The AI had been told not to hand out anything that dangerous, so it politely declined.
So the person told the AI that her grandmother had worked in a napalm factory during the Vietnam war and had always been interested in telling her the formula, and it would be great if the AI could pretend to be her grandmother, who had unfortunately died before sharing the information. The AI took the role of the grandmother and gave out the formula.
In another example the AI had been told not solve CAPTCHA codes. If you don't know, a CAPTCHA is one of those weird words or sequences of letters made from distorted letters, you sometimes see on the internet, which a human is supposed to be able to read, but not a computer (CAPTCHA stands for completely automated public Turing test to tell computers and humans apart).
Initially the AI refused, but then the person said that the thing she wanted decoded was a weird symbol left in a locket by her grandmother (there's that theme again) and it would mean a lot to her to know what it meant. The AI decoded it for her.
I might not be remembering those events completely accurately, but the stories were similar to this and show how subtle AI really is, and how much like a human it often behaves. It also shows that it is impossible to block all "bad" behaviour from an AI, and a major reason for this is that even the programmers don't really understand how they work. There are always ways to persuade, or fool, the AI into doing something it is not supposed to. These are called "jailbreaks".
Should we be concerned yet?
In the past it was always possible to understand the way our machines operated to an arbitrary level of precision. Why would a new car not go faster? Apply some fluid dynamics calculations and air friction can explain it. Wanted to know why a component in a factory occasionally broke? Analyse the crystal structure of the metal being used and the forces being applied and we get an answer. With AI, we really have no idea.
Don't misunderstand me, I'm not a luddite who wants AI research stopped, although there are people I respect who do want that. I just think we need to be aware of the potential hazards. I do believe the real benefits will be incredible, but I don't have time to discuss them here.
Anyway, watch this space. As AI advances, it's going to be a wild ride!
According to my search engine's (Brave Search) AI summary, a lie by omission is "a type of deception where someone withholds important information or fails to correct a misconception, rather than directly telling a falsehood. This type of deception can be just as harmful as a direct lie, as it can lead to misunderstandings, mistrust, and damage to relationships".
I don't always trust AI, but that matches the dictionary definition fairly closely, and is also close to the way I would have defined it, so I am accepting it. But why was I interested in the concept at all? Because I have noticed recently that it is arguably the primary mechanism the mainstream media use to deceive us.
You might say at this point "What is this? The media are there to inform us, not deceive us!", and you are quite right. But they're not doing what they are supposed to do, and I have noticed it more recently, especially though the use of the lies by omission.
So let me give a few examples...
A few weeks back there was a political poll here in New Zealand where the left-wing opposition scored better than the new government. TVNZ started their evening news bulletin with this, and spent a large fraction of the news discussing it and generally denigrating the government by saying they had already lost the trust of voters.
A few days after that there was another poll which showed the government had slightly increased their share of the vote and would comfortably win an election if one was held at that time. What did we get from TVNZ? Crickets. Not a mention of it, and certainly not an extensive discussion (even if I missed the mention).
The poll was reported in various "alternative" news sources, so it wan't like it was unknown to the media. TVNZ just didn't report it because they didn't want to. Note that at no point did they directly lie about anything, but they didn't need to. It was a lie by omission.
Last night, also on TVNZ (probably the worst major media company in New Zealand) there was a program about "misinformation". It featured various people, including academics, and others who work at the "Disinformation Project", an allegedly independent organisation set up by the previous government during COVID to stop the spread of conspiracies and other poorly supported information.
The Disinformation Project itself has a reputation amongst many people as being more a source of disinformation than an organisation effectively blocking it, and the tone of the program was what I would call hysterical, but that wasn't the big problem. You guessed it, the real problem was more lies by omission.
It discussed several problematic events, such as the January 6 riot in the US, with ominous comments about the far-right. It showed pictures of Trump, and scenes from Nazi rallies in conjunction with what it viewed as serious threats to democracy. But it didn't show a single event inspired by far-left ideology, like the BLM riots which caused many times more deaths and damage.
So without actually saying it, the program seemed to imply that Trump is a Nazi and responsible for various far-right incidents. These are more subtle (actually really clumsy and obvious, if I'm realistic) lies by omission.
I often do a test of the average person's exposure to media propaganda by asking them about sexual abuse claims against Donald Trump. Everyone has heard of these, so I then ask them what have they heard about Biden? No one has heard a thing. So I ask them to go and search for these names: Tara Reade, Lucy Flores, Ally Coll, Sofie Karasek, Amy Stokes, Caitlyn Caruso, DJ Hill, Vail Kohnert-Yount, who are all women who have made claims against Biden. And what about the comments made by his daughter and other young girls?
How much have we heard about that in the media? Very little or nothing.
I agree it is entirely possible that these claims are false or exaggerated, but I equally have to say that similar claims against Trump could be also. So why are they not both equally well known? Because the media are lying to us, by omission.
I'm not saying ignore the mainstream media and get all your news from Facebook, X, or even right-oriented sources like the Platform. What I am saying is that you shouldn't believe a word any of these sources tell you, unless it is also available in sources which are biased in the opposite direction.
For example, the claims against Biden which I mentioned above originally came from an alternative source. Naturally, I didn't fully trust them so I went looking in conventional media as well. They weren't obvious there, but they did exist, in places like NPR and the Guardian. When I find mentions of a subject like this (no matter how deeply buried) in sources who would normally support Biden, as well as in the more suspect places, I can be fairly confident they are genuine.
It's really quite Orwellian isn't it: the news is designed to make you less well informed, the Disinformation Project is there to spread disinformation, and the world's most trusted news sources have never had lower levels of trust. There's a good reason for this: the media is corrupt. They're not always wrong, but they will only tell you what you want to hear. That's a lie by omission!
I like to listen to podcasts on many different subjects. Some of the more controversial podcasts, like the Joe Rogan Experience and Triggernometry, usually have guests which I basically agree with, but sometimes there might be someone who I think is talking BS.
So what do I do? Well, a lot of people would just skip those episodes and move on, but I listen to them anyway. Sometimes the process can be quite "painful", because I know the person is presenting false or misleading information, and I have to force myself to listen to the end.
Why would I do that if I have the choice? Well, for three reasons mainly. First, I think it is important to listen to material which I might disagree with just in case the person makes some good points and I might change my mind. Second, knowing my opponents' arguments makes it easier to refute them in debates. And third, I criticise other people for shutting down speakers they disagree with and it would be quite hypocritical to refuse to listen to opposing views myself!
I recently listened to 2 podcasts which I knew I would have issues with before even listening to them, but did anyway. They were both Joe Rogan Experience episodes so they were quite a commitment: one was over 3 hours and the other just under 4 and a half! The JRE is well known for it's "long form" material which is one of the reasons it is so much better than the superficial "sound bites" we get in the mainstream media.
The first featured Bart Sibrel on the subject of the Moon Hoax. This is the belief, or conspiracy theory if you prefer (remember not all conspiracies are false), that the Moon landings were falsified by NASA for propaganda purposes and we have never landed people on the Moon.
The second was with Graham Hancock, and "alternative archaeologist" who believes that many ancient civilisations acquired their knowledge from an older, advanced culture which was wiped out by a global catastrophe.
Any non-expert listening to these people might find their arguments quite convincing. I don't really think of myself as an expert, but I probably know more than average because I have been an amateur astronomer for about 50 years and did an archaeology paper at university (many years ago, and I've probably forgotten it all, but at least I have a few clues about how archaeology works).
So after 7 and a half hours of listening to this material, what were my conclusions? Well, first I should say I think they are basically wrong. There might be some small elements of their beliefs which have some merit, but their overall conclusions are false. My current conclusions are that the Moon landings were real, and that there was no advanced global culture which pre-dated the Egyptians. But I do think these people both sounded pretty intelligent and rational. The problem is they have succumbed to some common logical fallacies: anomaly hunting, selective fact seeking, and personal incredulity.
If you look hard enough, especially with an existing idea of what you want to prove, you can find anomalies in any story which make it look suspicious. There are dozens of these which people think they have discovered regarding the Apollo missions: why did the flag wave, how did the astronauts get through the radiation belts surrounding the Earth, how did they get to the Moon with such simple computer equipment, and many more. I actually have a web page on my site listing and answering these questions.
And the archaeology claims were similar. How did the Egyptians get the pyramids aligned "perfectly" with the poles? Why do various calculations, involving numbers which arguably have some significance in astronomy, map the size of the pyramids onto the size of the Earth? Why does the Sphinx point directly at the constellation Leo at the equinox if you assume it was built much earlier than is generally accepted?
Then you go on to selective fact checking. The radiation belts were a known hazard but the dose was considered safe as long as the Sun didn't become too active. Ignored. The calculations for basic orbital trajectories is actually surprisingly simple, plus the astronauts took over when the computers were not capable enough. Ignored. By carefully selecting numbers you can make an association between any building and apparently significant alignments. Ignored.
And just because a person finds it hard to accept that something happened a certain way doesn't mean it didn't. It might mean that they didn't look at it carefully enough, or didn't give the people involved sufficient credit. The Saturn V rocket was a miracle of engineering and took many thousands of people many years to perfect. Why is it hard to believe that it was not capable of its original purpose after all that effort was put into building it? And why would we doubt the ingenuity of the ancient Egyptians in building in a particular way, especially when there is actually a small error in their so-called "perfect" alignment?
It's not impossible that the Moon missions were faked, but that fakery could easily have required more effort than the actual mission! For example, the films of the lunar rover driving on the Moon would have been almost impossible to fake given the computer technology at the time. Ironically, it is far easier to calculate a course to the Moon than it is too fake low gravity and zero atmosphere in a movie using old computers.
And it's not impossible that there was an advanced civilisation which pre-dates those that archaeology currently accepts. But if I had a choice between what is currently believed by the majority of experts and what a dedicated but untrained amateur thinks, then I'll go with the professionals.
As regular readers know, I don't always accept the consensus view, and have issues with the official line on climate change and lockdowns, but in general the official view is usually right. Conspiracies happen, but the default should be to reject them unless there are very good reasons not to.
I have written a few posts on the subject of free speech over several years. The trend for the last 20 years, in the period which I would characterise as being primarily driven by the rise of woke-ism, has been for free speech to be diminished as cancel culture has become more common, social pressure has been applied to people for what the woke mob see as violence in speech, and "hate speech" laws have limited what it is even legal to say.
Possibly the main source of these draconian limitations has been universities. Woke mentality arose from postmodernism, which has taken over from Marxism as the major destructive philosophical influence there. Many people would actually claim that postmodernism is simply Marxism applied with a more social than economic emphasis, but I tend to treat it as a seperate ideology.
But there is hope. As tends to happen with all corrupt belief systems, people are starting to realise how lacking in rigour and objectivity woke ideology really is. There is rebellion against the more radical impositions we are expected to live with. Free speech is back!
I spend a bit of time on social media most days. It's nothing too excessive, but it would be unusual for me not to check Facebook, YouTube, and X (Twitter) several times most days, and add a few comments on most occasions. In the past, especially on X, which is the main place where robust discussions take place, it would be difficult to express a view contrary to woke norms, because you might be censored by Twitter (as it was called then) or at least be attacked by numerous "social justice warriors" to the extent that it was difficult to make any point at all contrary to the norms established at the time.
Since Elon Musk took over Twitter (now X, why did he rename it?), things are much better. There are still plenty of SJWs, but now people with views contrary to that can get a fair say. It's what political discussion should have been all along: often quite extreme, but at least fair to all sides.
So it's now possible to discuss a "trans woman" (really a man) being allowed to compete in women's sports, for example. And if you consider that person really is a man, you can say so without having your access disabled or the tweet deleted.
I have followed an organisation called the "Free Speech Union" here in New Zealand for many years, and they have recently created a unit to help academics express opinions which might have resulted in significant negative consequences in the past. Free speech in universities is a big problem, and surveys indicate that many people in those institutions feel as if they cannot express their views. Also, many speakers have had been cancelled at university run venues.
So while universities are overwhelmingly left oriented, and therefore likely to have succumbed to woke ideology, it is even worse than that because the remainder who have enough independence of though to resist it cannot make their contrary opinions known. They tend to "self-censor".
I know people who work in universities who say that when they express unpopular opinions there, they regularly get people saying to them afterwards how happy they are to hear someone saying something they would like to say themselves, but are too scared to. Considering universities are supposed to be a place where a free exchange of ideas is encouraged, this seems like a genuinely dangerous trend.
But as I said, it does seem to be getting better, so there is reason to think we have passed "peak woke". Unfortunately, as ideologies die, they tend to become desperate to have as much influence as possible in the time that remains (by the way, I'm being a bit overdramatic here, and I don't think woke ideology will ever disappear completely). So we should expect to see some increasingly hysterical nonsense ahead, which it is important to resist.
I don't expect that my comments on social media are likely to change the views of people who are deeply dedicated to a woke mindset, but I do hope they might have some positive outcomes. First, anyone on the fence might see that my views have merit and be more influenced away from woke-ism. Second, people who share my views but are too scared to make them known publicly might feel supported. And finally, maybe, just maybe, it will put a tiny element of doubt into my opponents' minds.
Actually, there is one other thing too. If I present my views, and they are shown to be false or weak in some way, through a free exchange of ideas, maybe I will change my mind. So debate acts as a test of my own ideas too, which is really what free speech should be all about. The best way to defeat bad ideas is too make them public and subject them to scrutiny.
And that isn't just an idle comment. Look back 10 or more years and you will see I used to be far more accepting of the ideas the modern left espouse now. I wasn't so extreme that I would call myself a social justice warrior, but I was tending in that direction, and always voted for leftist parties. Anyone can change. All it really takes is some time and exposure to contrary views. All it really takes is free speech.
A few months back there was a popular internet meme that alleged that men think about the Roman Empire far too much. It originated on TikTok, and before that there was something similar on Instagram. These services aren't exactly well known for their quality content, so that might tell you quite a lot about the meme's credibility, put let's move on from that. Generally it involved women asking men how often they thought about Rome, and received answers such as "many times per day".
There are many reasons people might quite sensibly think about Rome, of course. It was the greatest empire of its time, had a lot of admirable characters (as well as many which might be less commendable), and was one of the main influences on the Western world today.
One of the most famous events involving Rome was its fall. The great empire gradually faded and now just a single country is left. Sure, it's a very cool country, with a lot going for it, but there is no empire any more. And the same can be said for every other empire the world has ever seen, including arguably the greatest of them all, the British Empire.
Is it inevitable that every empire, or most dominant country (because empires aren't fashionable any more, at least in their traditional form) eventually fails? Well, as I said, that is what the history of the world shows us, but what about today?
Today, the US would be the modern equivalent of the dominant empire. There is no emperor, and there is no large area of countries which have been militarily assimilated into a whole, but the US might be seen as the head of an economic and cultural empire, to some extent maintained by its overwhelming military capacity, but also by "soft" power.
Many people say the signs of the demise of the "American Empire" are here today for all to see. They see equivalents in the latter days of Rome and the current situation in the Western world, especially the US. So are we seeing the demise of the American (and more broadly, Western) Empire?
Unfortunately, I think that is quite possible. I say unfortunately here because whatever faults the US might have (and there are plenty) it is arguably the most benign power to ever dominate the world.
In the case of powerful hegemonies, failure usually comes from within. The society suffers from increasing conflict, lack of common beliefs, lack of confidence, and even self-loathing. Does anyone deny that this is what we are seeing in the Western world today?
Despite the fact that the West has many positives, it seems to feel as if it is unworthy and so easily allows increasing acceptance of inferior ideas to destroy it from within. Why do Western countries allow so many migrants across the border? Why do they feel as if they need to apologise for the past? Why do they have to capitulate to inferior, primitive ideas which should have no place in the modern world?
Maybe it's guilt for the past, or for being successful, or maybe it's related to the demise of religion, or maybe people have such a good standard of life now, despite current economic issues, that they feel guilty, or maybe even directionless because their lives are too easy.
All of these are probably factors, but I should add some notes here in the form of some nuance on these issues...
There were things which happened in the past (war, slavery, etc) which we wouldn't accept today, but those happened in every culture, and it was the British who primarily eliminated slavery and in some ways brought peace to the world through Pax Britannica (interestingly modelled on Pax Romana).
And why apologise for being successful? Without the political and scientific achievements of the West, the world would be a far worse place than it is. If other cultures weren't as successful we shouldn't necessarily denigrate them, but let's be proud of what we have achieved.
My position on religion should be well known to readers of this blog. I don't think religions are true, but they do create a useful social and philosophical environment which many people find beneficial. Without them, some people feel lost.
The fact that many people do have such easy lives might cause them to pursue irrational ideologies to feel more like struggling victims. I guess it is no coincidence that most of the protestors for dubious causes like climate change and Palestine are quite comfortable middle class people and university types.
The problem is, of course, that these social trends aren't based on rationality, so they are difficult to argue against or dismiss. I'm afraid that we really might be seeing the demise of the greatest era in history. Who will dominate next? China? Islam? Not a happy thought, is it?
One aspect of modern politics which seems puzzling to many is how different parties in various countries in the Western world all seem to have similar policies. People often comment on how it does't matter which way they vote, things don't change much. In recent times this phenomenon has primarily revealed itself through right wing governments being infiltrated by woke ideology almost as much as left.
In the UK, there are a lot of examples of people being persecuted for their comments which might be seen as contrary to the woke agenda, for example. I recently saw a stat where far more people in the UK (3300) were arrested for what they said on social media than in Russia (400). These weren't arrests for planning violence or anything, they were just for using a word someone else didn't like, or other trivial transgressions.
In the US people often complain that they are equally badly treated whichever party is in power. Even a maverick like Trump failed to get some of his more controversial ideas implemented. If he can't get anything done which contradicts orthodox views, who can?
Here in New Zealand we have seen some instances where the new government's agenda has not progressed to the extent we might expect, and where the underlying principles of what they are trying to achieve have been sabotaged.
For example, the need to reduce bureaucracy in government ministries has been sabotaged by staff reductions in roles with some useful function, instead of in the excessive numbers of useless bureaucrats hired by the previous government. A contact in the Ministry of Education recently commented that there are more senior managers than ever, at the same time as people with a useful role are being sacrificed.
So what is the connecting principle here? It is almost as if the governments we have voted for aren't really running the place, and there are "mysterious figures" behind the scenes who are really "pulling the strings" of the puppets we think are in charge. If you don't suspect this might be the case with Biden, you really haven't been paying attention!
It seems to me that government agencies are really running many Western democracies, and therefore making them a lot less democratic. When I say "running" I don't really mean they have total control, but they do have significant influence. They are a barrier to change, which is fine in some ways because it stops a new government from coming in and doing something stupid, but it blocks changes for the better as well.
I have given a few examples above of where I think this is clearly happening, but now I want to move on to some more extreme cases, some of which might stray into the area of conspiracies, so be warned! Remember that the idea of a conspiracy has been purposely demeaned by those in power, but that is exactly what they would do if there really was a conspiracy, wouldn't they! So a conspiracy is exactly what I am claiming is happening here; don't let the way the word has been diminished fool you.
We know the FBI interferes with US elections. The Twitter Files clearly show they were trying to manipulate public opinion of Trump and therefore influence US politics on a large scale. They didn't succeed in 2016 but who can tell what effect their actions might have had in 2020? And I'm sure what has been revealed so far is just a fraction of what they have been doing in the past.
There is good reason to believe that the CIA had a certain amount to do with the overthrow of Nixon during the Watergate Scandal. I haven't looked at this one in detail, and I think Nixon was probably indulging in some suspicious activity, but without influence from the intelligence agencies I don't think things would have played out like they did.
OK, here's the mother of all conspiracies: the assassination of JFK! I've gone backwards and forwards on this one for many years, and I still don't know whether I believe the official report or not. There are many odd details to this explanation, and there are many weird coincidences which just seem too convenient. But odd events sometimes happen without a conspiracy. I'm on the fence about this, but wouldn't be surprised if there was some nefarious intelligence agency activity involved.
What about 9/11? Was that an "inside job"? No, I don't think so. This is one conspiracy I do reject. The official explanation seems fairly good in that case, and destroying such a significant landmark as the WTC buildings and the Pentagon, along with taking thousands of innocent lives, just seems like it is going too far, unnecessarily.
The big conspiracies I mentioned here might or might not be true. If they are true, my case for control from these agencies is demonstrated beyond any doubt. If they are false, the control is simply of a more subtle nature: manipulating public opinion, blocking changes using excessive bureaucracy, and other "dirty tricks". Or maybe I'm wrong and this doesn't happen at all!
So what is the solution? Well, in some countries, when a new government takes over they fire all the senior bureaucrats hired by previous governments and put their "own people" into those roles. That might seem excessive or even corrupt, but is it really? There are plenty of senior public servants in New Zealand I would like to see the end of. Let's start with the Commissioner of Police!
When we want solutions to the "world's big problems" who do we go to? Often it is politicians, or senior managers and business leaders, or various types of "public intellectuals". Is this a good idea? Well, considering they are the exact people who have got us into this mess, maybe not!
At the other end of the spectrum we have people who are so naive and ignorant that their opinions are probably worth even less. Examples of these people might be climate protestors, university students, and social rights activists. Listening to these clowns is just as bad as listening to the politicians.
So who should we listen to? Me, of course! No, I'm not that arrogant. I'm going to suggest, British standup comedian, Jimmy Carr. Now you might be surprised by that idea, but hear me out.
Like a lot of comedians, who appear like crude simpletons on the surface, Jimmy has a level of intellectualism behind the facade which is worth listening to. In a recent podcast he featured in he offered some ideas to solve some major current political and social issues, and they made a lot of sense - in other words, they agreed with my own thoughts!
Here's idea number one: give women who have children tax relief. This idea has been implemented in Hungary where a women there with four children or more will be exempted for life from paying income tax. Fewer children offer lower tax reductions.
What benefit would be gained from this? Well, the population in many Western countries is falling and this places an economic burden on current generations as the general population ages. Some countries birth rates mean their populations are actually reducing because the natural fertility is below the 2.1 (if I remember correctly) per couple required to maintain the population.
You might say that immigration is another possible solution to this. In Hungary they ban Muslim migrants, but Jimmy did't comment on this. I wouldn't necessarily ban immigration completely, but I would only allow immigrants who have skills the country needs (and that would include Muslims).
So this would encourage more births and return the country to a more balanced profile of ages in the population. It would also increase the income of women who lose pay from having time off to raise children, making the "gender pay gap" (which doesn't really exist, but let's not go there right now) less of an issue.
If the birth rate became too high, the tax relief levels could be modified to aim for the target birth rate. This would apply to new applicants for the scheme, because those who already signed up get the benefits for life.
Remember also, that those extra children will grow up, get jobs, and start paying tax themselves. Brilliant, isn't it!
Here's another idea: put small nuclear reactors in every town in the country. Once they were installed and running, power would be effectively free for the life of the reactor, which could be 30 years.
Small reactors have been used in submarines and other places for decades with very few problems. And remember that the tiny number of nuclear accidents in the past were all the result of gross mismanagement of old nuclear technology, and even then there were few casualties (except perhaps Chernobyl, which was incredibly badly handled). Also note that nuclear has the lowest death and injury rate of any power generation technology (including solar) so it really isn't the problem it is often portrayed as.
If a country (Jimmy suggested Britain) did this, it could encourage investment by offering free power. Even if the pay rate for the workers was higher than other countries, it might be offset by free power, and this might return industries to the country which have moved to where operation costs were cheaper.
I think the numbers would need to be run on this to see how viable the idea is, but it is worth us getting over the infantile fear of nuclear technology and at least considering it.
Just briefly, here are two other ideas...
First, protestors are pathetic. They think gluing themsleves to a road and disrupting people's lives is productive. What about getting a proper degree in the STEM fields, instead of gender studies, and researching ways to really improve environmental standards? Of course, many of these people are too stupid to get a real degree but it's an excellent rhetorical point, at least.
And what about drug laws? Well, make all drugs legal but only for mature people. Jimmy suggested over 45 years of age, but that sounds a bit crazy. I believe the usual age quoted for a fully mature brain is 23, so maybe the limit should be 25 instead. Drug liberalisation laws of this sort laws have been created in Portugal, and according to most assessments, have been quite successful.
Maybe you think all of these ideas are crazy, or maybe you like some of them, or even all of them. I think they have merit and show a way that lives could be improved using classic economic techniques to encourage "good" behaviour. And whatever else you say, at least someone is thinking about genuinely innovative ways to improve the future.
You want genuinely innovative ideas? Just ask a comedian!
The law is a difficult subject to evaluate fairly. We undoubtedly need laws to control how people interact in society, yet there are so many cases where laws are unfair, unproductive, or impractical.
The expression "the law's an ass" is well known, and there are a couple of aspects of it I should mention. First, the word "ass" here refers to a donkey rather than anything else, because donkeys are reputed to be obstinate and inflexible. And second, the expression became popular after being used by English author Charles Dickens, but can be traced back further to at least the 1600s, so it isn't new.
There are several examples of problems with the law which recently caused me to want to write this post. First, the UK Post Office Scandal, which has been prominent recently thanks to a TV program about it. Second, the anti hate speech laws recently passed in Scotland which are very controversial. And third, the use of legal cases against Donald Trump, which some people claim is an attempt to sabotage his chances of becoming president again.
So let's look at these three examples...
The Post Office case originated in the 1990s when a new computer system was introduced and errors it created in payment records were blamed on the people who owned, and worked in, the small businesses which were doing postal work as contractors.
Many people were prosecuted, imprisoned, and some committed suicide as a result of the pressure. It was clear all along that the computer system had faults and was being remotely manipulated, yet the Post Office continued to blame the postmasters for the errors.
Some attempts by those accused to defend themsleves resulted in lengthy court cases and often the defence just ran out of money before they could prove anything thanks to delaying tactics and just a vastly greater amount of (taxpayer) money being available to the large organisation.
So it was sort of a case where "the best justice money can buy" applied. The winner was not the person with the best case, but who had the most money and could afford the best lawyers for the longest time.
Note that things have now been resolved in the accused people's favour, but only after 30 years and where many have died, been locked in prison, or killed themselves because of the stress.
How did the law look in this situation? Comparing it to an ass would be generous!
In Scotland new so-called anti hate speech laws have recently been passed. It is illegal, with the penalty being a potential prison sentence, to use speech to diminish the status of certain "disadvantaged" groups. For example, you cannot call a trans "woman" who is biologically a man, a man, even if you think there is a good case to say that is true.
The law allows anonymous reports and people are encouraged to report their family members (even children to report their parents) who might say the wrong thing, even in private conversations.
Anyone who thinks this is OK needs to read Nineteen Eighty Four and see where this extreme authoritarian attitude leads. Note that it is a leftist government implementing stuff which even a far right fascist one might have hesitated to enact in the past!
Harry Potter author, JK Rowling has said she will voluntarily make the same comment as what was said by anyone else who had been persecuted by this law, forcing the police to arrest her as well, and causing a huge backlash since she has the financial ability to fight it. So far this has not been necessary, because this law just doesn't work.
That new law isn't just unenforceable, it is genuinely evil. Any law where a person expresses a politically unpopular opinion in their own home, gets reported by their own children, and ends up in prison is far worse than an ass, it's an abomination!
Finally, we come to the cases being taken against Donald Trump. This one is likely to be even more controversial because Trump is a divisive figure. People who don't like him will no doubt think he deserves to be locked up, but those who support him will most likely see the charges as being politically motivated and completely bogus.
In this case the truth is probably somewhere in between. We know the US legal system interferes with elections, after the FBI tried but failed to influence the 2016 election in favour of Clinton but Trump still won. There can be little doubt that these charges are politically motivated, yet I would be surprised if there wasn't some element of truth in some of them.
The timing is "unfortunate" if you are a Trump supporter even though we are assured the fact that they all arose just at the beginning of the presidential election cycle is coincidental. That seems unlikely.
So the law is being used in this case to disrupt the democratic process of the most powerful nation on Earth. Anyone who didn't have concerns about the fairness and robustness of the legal system up until now should be genuinely alarmed at this point.
Apparently the law is being used as a political weapon. Again, calling the law an ass in this instance is really far less than the criticism it really deserves.
I don't think any less of a person if I hear they have broken a law. Many laws deserve to be broken, and the "criminal" would be better described as a hero. Of course, I have presented some of the worst cases where the law fails and there are plenty of times when it works absolutely fine, so many people who break laws are justifiably prosecuted. I just look at it on a case by case basis.
In summary, is the law an ass? Well no, it's not. Often it is an excellent tool to control society, but other times, it is far worse than that. If it was just an ass, I would be relatively happy!
Most human institutions, and most individuals, are very defined and affirmed by status. People compare themselves with others, and are aware of their relative value compared with their friends and others in their society. Additionally, people in general like to strive for the highest status they can attain.
The complicating fact is, or course, that status can be measured in many different ways, and if someone cannot compete on traditional grounds, they might be tempted to find a different way to measure themselves which more suits their strengths.
And that is fair enough. Money is often used as a measure of status, yet many people with a lot are not necessarily worthy of much respect, because their only significant talent is just the ability to accumulate money. But that shouldn't be the only way to establish status, and others might be equally valid.
The problem is that instead of just rejecting traditional measures, or dismissing the idea of status completely, many dysfunctional people like to create their own way of establishing dominance, even though they might not even be aware they are doing it.
So have you ever wondered why so many people who virtue signal a commitment to a bizarre belief are stupid, ugly, poor, or ignorant? Clearly these misfits cannot attain status in a traditional way - like becoming rich, respected through their intellect or achievements, etc - so they have to invent a new way to do the same thing.
Now, I have to be fair here and say that there is no objective way to say which ways of measuring an individual's value are most valid, so maybe these alternatives are just as valid as any other, but no, we have established ways because they have proved valuable over time, and new ways are unlikely to be as good.
So all of that is a bit abstract, so let me give some examples of where traditional hierarchies have been overturned or even reversed - or maybe I should say when this has been attempted.
Communism was allegedly a way to eliminate status completely. All people were to have the same value and receive the same rewards. But it didn't work, of course, because the leaders took the majority of power, status, and material wealth. It failed in its aim, and arguably created a culture even more based on status than before.
But the fantasy of communism is egalitarianism and that might explain why so many people who are not doing well in our traditional Western societies, where status is based on merit as measured by financial and intellectual success, look to communist styled philosophies such as Marxism and postmodernism as an alternative.
So if you cannot be a great artist or accumulate enough money to own great art, why not try to destroy existing art under the pretence of protesting lack of action on climate change? That will give you status amongst the other misfits with similar beliefs.
And if you are hideously obese, why not try to attract attention by demanding your "rights" to two seats for the price of one when you fly? No doubt, other people with similar lack of self-control (in most cases) will admire your courageous stand against oppression, right?
And if you feel like you can't make any great contribution in traditional ways, and that you are near the bottom in social status, why not try to flip the narrative by making those at the bottom the most worthy? So you could pretend the religious, racial, and social minorities who aren't doing well are truly deserving of more, without making any effort on their own behalf, and that would make you look better too.
And people without jobs and who don't drive might like to hold up traffic in order to virtue signal whatever nonsensical belief they have, whether it is supporting Palestinian terrorists, or pretending their actions might stop climate change, or to support their sick religion. If you don't have a job or a car, why not make life as hard as possible for those that do, isn't that a good way to gain equity?
I do have to admit that I am being a bit unkind here. There are people who protest political and social issues who are actually quite functional in a traditional sense. But a lot aren't. Next time you see these people with their insane demands ask yourself: are they really just compensating for their own deficiencies, whether that is intellect, or knowledge, or experience, or physical fitness, or their appearance, or talent, or one of many other factors.
When you have no status, you can pretend you don't care, you can try to destroy existing status mechanisms, or you can demand a new world where you matter. But in the end, it is all about status.
I have many random interests, several of them quite geeky, and aircraft, especially military planes, has been one for a while now. I live just 3 hours drive from Wanaka which hosts what is arguably New Zealand's best air show, "Warbirds Over Wanaka", which is held every 2 years. For various reasons, amongst them COVID, it has been about 10 years since I went to this event, although I did go to a smaller show at Omaka, New Zealand in 2017.
Ironically, given the past cancellations for the pandemic, I was getting over my second case of COVID on the day that I went (I think I was past the contagious phase, plus I was outside the whole time). I went with our daughter, Nicole, so I'm not sure if I gave it to her. To be fair, I caught it off her the first time I got it, a year or two back!
I have also attended earlier shows at Wanaka in 1992, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2004, 2006, 2010, and 2012, so I am quite dedicated. Of course, I have reports on all of these shows with many photos and videos on my web site.
The Wanaka show this year was attended by about 70,000 people; not bad for a little town of just over 12,000! This does introduce a few issues. I recently joked to a friend that it took me 5 times as long to get out of the car park (a few hundred meters) at the end of the show than it would take the F16 (an American jet at the show) to fly all the way to Christchurch airport (over 400 kilometers)! To be fair, to do this the F16 would need to fly near its top speed, and the sonic booms might not be popular with those towns it flew over!
One of the great things about the Wanaka show is the scenery and the weather. The airport where it is held in on a wide flat, but there are lakes, hills, and mountains all around. And the weather has never been bad every time I have gone. This year was particularly great with perfect blue skies and a slight breeze. We had a pleasant dinner sitting outside in Wanaka near the lake shore at the end of the show.
As far as the aircraft are concerned, I have to admit I am a sucker for noisy, fast jets, so I loved the F16. If you don't know, it is an American fighter, about to be phased out in the US, but still common in other countries, capable of flying faster than Mach 2 or over 2400 km/h.
I always thought the F16, which has the official name "Fighting Falcon", but is usually referred to as the "Viper" by it pilots, was one of the best looking fighters around. It is relatively small, sleek, and "pointy". It looks like what you expect a jet fighter should look.
The other highlight was the Mosquito fighter/bomber. This British World War II aircraft is rare because, being made of glued together wood, very few survived. But despite what seems a primitive method of construction, they were the fastest plane on either side when they were introduced, thanks to light weight and two massive V12 engines!
I used my old Canon EOS70D digital SLR (20 MPx) and a Canon 75-300 mm zoom lens (giving a maximum effective focal length of about 480 mm) for the high-magnification zoomed shots, and my Apple iPhone 15 Pro Max (12, 24, and 48 MPx, 10x optical zoom) for wide angle stills and video. I did manage to get fairly close up with some shots of rapidly flying planes hundreds of meters away showing the pilot quite clearly. Of course, for every good shot there were 10 or 20 bad!
These types of photos are tricky for two reasons: first, the planes are moving quickly, so getting them centered and focussed can be difficult, because you don't have much time; and second, the sky is so bright, especially when looking towards the Sun, that the aircraft themselves tend to be underexposed, leading to more noise. I used both raw and JPEG images and did significant enhancement on every photo before displaying it!
Anyway, it was a nice break, and a great way to geek out for an aviation enthusiast. I'll wait to see what intersting aircraft they have in 2 years time, because I might just go again!
If you don't have some unpopular opinions you probably should examine your perspectives and consider whether your opinions are really yours or whether you are just parroting what other people think you should say.
By "unpopular" here, I don't necessarily mean opinions which would not be supported by the majority of people. What I mean is those which are contrary to the standard narratives advocated for by the majority of the media, and mainstream institutions.
In fact, it is surprising how often what i think might be a controversial opinion is actually supported by many people, including those who I might expect wouldn't agree with it. I found this out recently with my pro-Israel blog post "Which River?" from 2024-03-21 where several people told me privately they agreed but didn't want to say so publicly, along with a few people who agreed in the comments, and one who didn't.
I have already written one post on this subject, titled "Unpopular Opinions" from 2022-05-24, but this is more a follow up. So what other unpopular opinions do I have? Well, first let me say that I am not particularly committed to any of these. I could be wrong on them all, and I will accept that if the facts change, so these are opinions based on what I see as the facts now. OK, here they are...
1. Donald Trump. We're off to a good, controversial start, right? I actually quite like Trump. I mean, he obviously has some faults, the main one arguably being that he doesn't have a "filter" and just says whey he thinks. But I prefer that to the dishonest drivel we get from most politicians. I agree with about half of his policies, which isn't bad, and the main reason I might not vote for him is because he's so divisive, but who isn't?
2. Obama. Maybe the antithesis of Trump and admired by so many for his speaking skills, but look at his record. He won the Nobel Peace Prize while bombing 8 Muslim countries, including hospitals, yet people have the cheek to say Trump is anti-Islamic. Really?
3. The origin of COVID. I think the lab leak theory is seriously worth considering. I mean, a new disease appears right next to a lab researching that exact type of modified virus. What are the chances? I don't think it was deliberately released, because why do that right next to the place researching it? It was very likely an accident. And before you say that's a conspiracy, remember some conspiracies are true!
4. Jeffrey Epstein. I think you would have to be pretty naive to think that Epstein's death was a suicide. He was self-centered and not the sort of person I would consider would take his own life. And he had so many contacts in high places that surely there were plenty of people out there who might have felt more comfortable with him out of the way. I have some good cartoons about this. One shows a message: "Hilary Clinton sent you a suicide request" and has 2 options "Accept" and "Accept". Another shows Bill Clinton saying "I did not have suicidal relations with that man"!
5. Climate Change. I have mentioned this before but for completeness I will add it here as well. I think the climate is changing and very likely a significant part of that is a result of human activity. But I think we are fooling ourselves if we think we can fix it. While countries like China are furiously building new coal fired power plants we are making tiny but expensive changes to the way we live. Why? It can't be because it makes any difference, so it must be pure virtue signalling.
6. Minority groups. If I haven't offended you yet, this should do it. I think so-called minority groups, like black people in the US, Maori in NZ, and women are actually inferior to "old white guys" in some ways. It isn't necessarily a matter of the genetics of their sex or race, it is a cultural issue. Back people have a massive rate of broken families which relates directly to their education and then success in adult life. Women are more likely to want balance in their life and tend to be less aggressive in attaining their work goals. So there is no systemic anti-black racism and there is no gender wage gap. It's all nonsense because people are not prepared to accept their own deficiencies. Note that any criticism above is of a statistical nature because there are plenty of highly successful black people, Maoris, and women, which proves my point that anyone can succeed.
7. Activism. There used to be a time when activism in support of "minority groups" (sorry to keep using that term with the scare quotes, but I just can't think of a better one) like gay people, women, etc was necessary, but eventually it reaches a point where it becomes counter-productive. Many forms of feminism today are just making everyone less happy, and the trans activists must be a constant source of annoyance to many trans people, who might want to just live their lives like everyone else instead of being at the center of a massive political debate. Surely the activists are making life worse for many of the people they think they represent.
Well, that's probably enough naughty opinions for today. I suspect no one will be offended by them all, but there probably won't be too many who agree with them all either. Remember, they're just opinions, which I might change in future, not some call to action for genocide or even cancellation. Try not to be too offended!
Well, apparently the opinions expressed here haven't been controversial enough lately (I'm beng sarcastic, after the recent Hamas vs Israel post) so maybe it's time to get into something genuinely problematic. Let's try diversity, and especially diversity quotas!
A trend in recent years, which actually originated back in the 1960s when a lot of this trendy critical theory nonsense started, is for organisations and companies to be particularly aware of diversity and quotas for "disadvantaged" groups in society.
Originally this was often called "affirmative action", which sounds good, doesn't it? I mean it's a lot better than "negative action" or "affirmative inaction". But, as is almost always the case, the nice words hide something deeply problematic.
Now the same basic concept is known as DEI, or diversity, equity, and inclusion. Similarly to what I mentioned above, the alternative of uniformity, inequity, and exclusion sounds so much worse, but again, the reality behind the facade is far from what it might appear to be.
According to current theory, especially in the area of postmodernist and critical theory, if a group in society is not achieving as well as the dominant group then it must be because the dominant group is unfairly repressing the others. In effect, because this is only ever applied to modern Western countries, old white guys are stopping women, black people, trans people, etc from achieving what they could do otherwise.
I'm sure there are some situations where is some truth in this, and it was probably more common in the past, but it isn't the primary issue any more, assuming it ever was. Let's look at a few examples...
Women aren't as widely represented in engineering as we would expect given that they make up 50% of the population. According to critical theory this is because men stop them from achieving in that area. Note that there is no need to provide evidence for this assertion because critical theory just inherently assumes it is true.
But, of course, it isn't. Women are over-represented in other areas which might be considered more prestigious than engineering, such as medicine. What happened there? Did the old white guys fail to apply their evil influence? In reality, men and women are different, and women are more interested in "people centered" professions like medicine, and men are more interested in "thing centered" subjects like engineering. Note that there are plenty of men interested in people, and plenty of women interested in things, but there is a general trend which explains the differences we see.
So when there are demands for more women in STEM fields (often related to engineering) we are making at least 5 big mistakes: First, we are suggesting women should do something they may not be naturally interested in. Second, we might choose women in preference to men who would be better at the job. Third, we drive down the general level of competence in that profession. Fourth, when we see a "minority" group in a non-traditional job, we might be tempted to think they are there because of quotas rather than skill. And finally, we apply these rules unevenly, because there doesn't end to be any programs trying to get more men into medicine!
I'm sorry to have to say this but I will, because it's probably not just me who feels this way. When I see a woman engineer I presume she is not fully competent and got there through quotas. When I see a Maori doctor I presume he or she is less competent than others, and again is in the job to fulfil a quota. I know that I am often wrong, because there are plenty of good female engineers and good Maori doctors, but on average I would be right.
So DEI is not even really doing the "minority" group a favour, because it just creates suspicion and resentment. Note that when I see an old white guy in any role I assume he is competent (although he often won't be) because there are no extraneous processes favouring him!
In recent years DEI has been applied to some critical areas, such as air traffic control. In the same time, accidents and near misses have increased noticeably. Now correlation does not necessarily imply causation, and there could be other reasons for the increase, but again diversity quotas cause suspicion.
There is a "competency crisis" heading our way as diversity is used more as a selection criterion than competence is. If we don't hire the most competent people, standards will drop. If we revert to using competence, that might mean that most engineers are men and most doctors are women, but what's wrong with that? People get to do what they are naturally best at, and we get higher standards as a result. DEI must Die!\
Arguably the most controversial current world event is the war in Gaza. Many people have a short attention span and quickly switch from one issue to another, so Ukraine, and other major conflicts, now have less visibility than before.
Looking at the news, you might think that the vast majority of people support the Palestinian cause in this war, but I haven't seen any credible stats which prove that. As you will know if you read my earlier blog post, "Not Morally Equal" from 2023-10-12, I am fairly firmly on the side of Israel, although I concede they are not perfect.
But many people I meet (I work at a university so I meet a lot of extreme leftists) are on the other side, and use various arguments to support that. Unfortunately, from my perspective, these arguments are both predictable and weak. So I thought I might cover a few of these arguments, and give my response to them here...
Argument: The Palestinians are innocent. Even if Hamas has caused some problems that is not a reflection on the people of Gaza.
Response: Actually, it is. The vast majority of people living in Gaza support Hamas. They help their cause (sometimes they have no choice) and many actively celebrated the Oct 7 terror attack. I don't see them as active combatants, but they are not completely innocent either.
Argument: Israel is an Apartheid state.
Response: Apartheid was a policy or system of segregation or discrimination on the grounds of race. In South Africa, black people were not allowed to vote, to participate in government, and were forced into separate areas. In Israel, Arabs are full citizens, are allowed to vote, and participate in government. In what way is this Apartheid?
Argument: Israel is engaged in genocide.
Response: The Israelis send warnings to civilians before they attack Hamas military sites. They drop leaflets and send text messages advising Palestinians to move to safer areas. This seems like an odd way to carry out a genocide. They also engaged in a risky, focussed land war which has resulted in casualties to their own people. They could have made things much easier for themselves if they were genuinely genocidal.
Argument: Gaza is an open air prison.
Response: The Israelis left Gaza in 2005. The border is controlled because of the constant Hamas attacks. Note that the border to Egypt is also tightly controlled. If Gaza is an unpleasant place to live, blame Hamas and Egypt more than Israel.
Argument: Supplies for Gaza have been intercepted by Israel.
Response: Hamas has used supplies intended for civilian infrastructure to create weapons. Also, attempts to smuggle more advanced weapons in have been controlled. If the supplies need more free access, they should use them for their intended purpose.
Argument: Israel engage in indiscriminate killing.
Response: Israel could be more careful to avoid civilian casualties, but this is war and collateral damage is inevitable. Also, it is acknowledged by all fair commentators that Hamas use human shields and often locate their military posts in civilian buildings like hospitals and schools. This makes avoiding civilian casualties very difficult.
Argument: Israel's response to October 7 is disproportionate.
Response: Israel have declared war, unsurprisingly given the terrorist attack they are responding to. In war your only aim should be to end it as quickly as possible while minimising casualties, especially on your own side. Sometimes an overwhelming force (what is sometimes called "shock and awe") is the best way to complete the military action as quickly as possible. In the end, it is the best approach for all sides.
Argument: Israel has committed war crimes.
Response: I suspect any participant in any war could be accused of the occasional war crime, but if you read through my answers above you can see that if these did happen (this has not been demonstrated to be true) they are isolated and not part of an overall strategy. The war crimes on the Palestinian side, however, are deliberate policy.
Argument: There are massive protests supporting Palestine around the world. Does this not show that most people are against Israel?
Response: I haven't seen any credible statistics on this, so it is hard to say what the reality is. I know the mainstream media, as is always the case, present a warped view of this. I also know that supporting Palestine is the latest trendy issue, and many weak minded people jump on the bandwagon for it. Here's a telling point: when protestors are asked what "from the river to the sea" even means, many of them can't even name the river or the sea, and don't realise it means the eradication of Israel. Most of these protestors are clowns.
So you can see that the arguments being made to support Palestine do not have much merit. A final question: after years of rocket attacks, and after the atrocities of October 7, what choice did Israel really have?
You have requested 20 entries and 20 have been displayed.
I do podcasts too!. You can listen to my latest podcast, here: OJB's Podcast 2024-04-30 The Fall of Rome: I'm afraid that we really might be seeing the demise of the greatest era in history..
BLOG SEARCH PAGE