Does that mean we should keep polluting and consuming fossil fuels and other resources at exactly the same rate of growth that we are currently? Do we really think that we can just keep increasing our energy consumption and the oil will be there indefinitely, or that churning smog into the air from oil, gas and coal wont ever have any ill affects (look at china)? Do we think somehow the earth and its resources are infinite and can withstand a never ending increase in global population and industrialization? Should our economic interests forever outweigh the need for future sustainability?

I did some thinking about that the other day and made some interested realizations. Want to hear?

First of all, I don’t think anybody is really happy about dying at any age. I don’t think a person would be any happier about dying at the age of 1,000,000 than at the age of 60.

But lets assume this immortal transformation of your human body was possible. What would life be like? Well, I assume you’d probably live a few million or billion years on the earth. You’d probably be able to rise to power during that time and rule the place. It is possible even that humans might be able to colonize other worlds during that time, who knows.

The trouble is, the Sun is eventually going to go supernova and take this earth with it. If you’re still here then you will be ejected out into the galaxy in the cold vacuum of space for thousands, millions, or billons of years. You’re going to be cold, uncomfortable, and bored. Eventually your body would be attracted to a star by its gravitational pull. You’ll be pulled into the corona where you will essentially “burn in hell” for several billion years until that star goes supernova too. Then the whole process will repeat itself. After many trillions of years, the sky will start going dark as entropy takes over and all of the energy in the universe is exhausted. Stars will sart burning out and the universe will become cold and black, no heat or light anywhere.. and it will stay that way for the rest of eternity. What are you going to be doing during this time?

suddenly.. immortality in a human body doesn’t sound so attractive..

First let me back up by saying that I am a utilitarian.  What this means is that I do not believe morals exist because they are handed down by God or gods.  God might indeed exist, but thats not particularly relevant.  Instead, I believe moral rules, obligations and even political laws exist for a sole purpose: to increase human happiness and decrease suffering.    I distinguish this from pure hedonism or the philosophy of “if it feels good, do it.”  There are indeed many actions like taking drugs that feel good and might make you happy in the short term but in the long term cause more suffering and pain to self and others.  I also say God is irrelevant to the discussion because I feel if God exists, he too must be a utilitarian!  The reason is that I do not think a supremely intelligent being “who is love” would create moral rules or laws arbitrarily or for his own amusement.  God would not outlaw something “just because” or to test people’s faith.  He must have a reason.  With something like stealing or killing it is obvious that when people perform these actions that they cause misery and pain, so it would make sense that God would outlaw them.   But more on God and morality another time.  For now you will just have to agree or disagree with me that morality exists for a purpose (human happiness) and does not stand in its own right.   It is a means, not an end.

Secondly, I am not a moral relativist, at least not in the strictest sense of the word.   Moral relativism is the philosophy that morals are relative to either the culture or the individual.  What is right for one individual or society may not be right for another.  There is some truth to this.  C. S. Lewis in one of his books talks about modesty as being relative to the culture, such as the amount of skin that must be covered up and how much is allowed to be shown.  In one culture, a lot of skin must be covered up in another not as much.  The reason is that in the latter culture, people are used to seeing a lot of the human body and as such it does not incite feelings of lust or tempt people into unchasteness.  One could argue that this is in a sense “moral relativism” but Lewis would deny such a claim.   Or one could bring this down to the individual level.  It might be okay for you to drink, because you have a temperate personality and not prone to getting drunk, however it might be wrong for me to drink if I were a recovering alcoholic.  So there is some truth to that as well.

Moral relativism, despite elements of truth to it, has some obvious problems.  If morals are relative to the culture, and that culture believes its necessary to sacrifice the first born infant, is that morally acceptable?  In some cultures they still perform cliterectomies as part of a ritualistic coming of age ceremony.  Is it right to say that this is an acceptable practice within that culture and we should ignore it?  Or do we have an obligate as outsiders to step in and stop this from happening when possible?  If an individual believes no one should own personal property, does he have a right to steal my car?  There are countless examples where relative morality comes to conclusions  that we won’t feel comfortable with and would be difficult to create a society we’d want to live in.

So on the one hand, there are some areas where morality seems relative and others where it seems morality is relative and others where it seems it must be absolute.  What are we to make of this?  I believe the problem stems from blurring the lines between morals and values.  I define morals as the specific rules about what is right and wrong, such as “do not steal” or “do not commit adultery” to borrow from the ten commandments.  I define values as the things moral rules are defined to protect, those things that promote human happiness (remember, utilitarian here) and decrease human suffering and pain.  Values are such things as “truth”, “love”, “life”, “freedom”, etc.  Now my thesis here is that morals are generally relative to the time, place and situation, whereas values are absolute.   For example, nobody values killing for its own sake except the criminally insane.  Life is a human value, not death.  As such its an absolute.  However the moral rule might change depending on the situation.  We generally believe that it is okay to kill in self-defense..   So the rule, the moral, is relative to the situation.  Its okay to kill in self-defense, because doing so protects your own life and might also stop a murderer.  Its not okay to kill for fun.

What is interesting about this philosophy is that with the exception of the criminal psychopaths, we all share the same values.  You can see this in the pro-life versus the pro-choice debate.  Both groups ironically share the same values!  The pro-choice group believes that it is okay to terminate a pregnancy because the embryo prior to the first trimester does not feel pain and is not truly a human being yet, or perhaps they belive the embryo might feel some pain but this is very limited and better than the woman having to give birth to a child she can’t raise.  On the other hand, the pro-life groups feel that abortion is wrong because the embryo is developed enough to be considered a human being (perhaps at conception), does feel pain and should be protected.  Also many feel that abortion causes side-effects both physical and emotional that harm the woman.

These are admittedly simplified views of the two groups and there are other variations but they’ll suffice for my example.   I think it can be proven that both groups actually share the same values, they just disagree on the best moral rules to protect and promote those values.  Both groups believe in personal freedom and the preservation of life.  The pro-lifers would be just as against a government program forcing women to have babies and the pro-choicers would be just as against the government forcing women to have abortions the way China does currently.  The two groups disagree because the two values come into conflict in a way that is not obvious to resolve.  The pro-lifers believe that personal freedom must take a backseat to protect life and the pro-choicers believe the opposite or that human life isn’t in the picture yet to need to be preserved.

This has some interesting connotations.   First it means that moral rules, or at least some of them, are relative to the situation at hand.  This shouldn’t concern us.  This isn’t the same as saying morality is “whatever I feel like” or “whatever society says is good.”  We can judge one society or culture as being better than another based on the health, happiness and other values that we all share.  Of course, its difficult to judge your own culture and easy to misjudge someone else, but this should not dissuade us.  We should try to look objectively passed our own bias at other cultures, other points of view and ask, “does this work?”  Does this make people happy, keep them healthy, prevent disease, death and misery?

This also means moral rules can change depending on the time in history. One thousand years ago,  protection of the environment was not a big concern.  If the environment is as big of an issue as some scientists say it is, than we have a moral obligation to protect it, to change our personal habits as well as our political ones to protect our air, food, energy and climate.  This is a new moral concern, relative to our situation and point in history, but the values are the same – human health and happiness.  You may disagree that the environment is a big concern, but even the most ardent right wing extremist will hesitate to shout “Pollution is good!”  This is because we share the same values and just disagree on the rules.  Similarly, other moral concerns may fall by the wayside.  If for example, there was such an abundance of technology and production of goods that everything could easily free (Star Trek fans will recognize this theme) the moral need to protect wealth, business and property may no longer be a concern.  I’m not saying this will ever happen, but we could imagine it.

I think most people, even particularly religious people, have a sense of this utilitarian concept of morals versus values, even if they don’t express it.  Religious people will not very often say “its right because god says so, and thats that” except for the most extreme among them.  I had a conversation with a conservative Christian about whether premarital sex was morally acceptable.  He told me “if pre-marital and extra-marital sex were outlawed, sexually transmitted disease would be reduced dramatically or wiped out entirely.”   He did not attempt to persuade me on purely religious grounds but he was basically saying that we as human beings would be better off if we followed this moral rule.  Although I disagreed with him, its a point I can respect.  At that moment, we were sharing the same values, even if we differed slightly on the moral rules.

We often disagree on moral principles because it isn’t always obvious what the correct moral action happens to be.  I already mentioned the abortion and environmental debates as a examples of this as are other disagreements between liberals and conservatives.  Often,  two opposing sides will accuse the other as being amoral.  While I think there are definitely plenty of amoral political figures, I think the average person has a pretty decent moral compass, regardless of which camp they fall in.  I have met very moral liberals, conservatives, moderates, theists, atheists, agnostics, humanists and fundamentalists.  I have also met crooks of all flavors.   Most would agree on things like respect for others, hard work, pursuit of love and truth, protection of children, etc. are all values we should promote.  They just don’t always agree on exactly how to do that.    There are countless gray moral areas even in just day to day life.   I think the solution here is to stand outside our own personal biases and view morality as another scientific inquiry with the purpose of increasing happiness and protecting life.  Moral knowledge will need to be flexible and increase or change, rather than just basing it solely on religious grounds, or ignoring the questions entirely.

One should keep in mind that the concept of the soul in the west as far as I know did not originate within Christianity or Judaism, but rather in Greek philosophy.  As such, the old testament does not talk much about a soul or afterlife (there are a few passages that hint.)  There are also some Christian denominations, such as Seventh Day Adventists, that do not believe in an immortal soul, rather that we will be resurrected during the final judgement.  In Buddhism, the concept of an immortal soul is generally not believed in as much compared to other eastern (hinduism) and western religions.  However, Buddhism tackles this problem in a complex manner thats too much to talk about here.    Suffice it to say there is some ground here for disbelief in the traditional notion of the soul even among different world religions.

Generally when people talk about the soul, they seem to define it according more or less three things: Memory, Will and Consciousness.  That is they believe you retain your memories and personality in the afterlife, that the soul is what drives the will and allows us to make choices, and finally that the soul is the “seat of consciousness”–it is how we are aware of our thoughts, emotions and our environment.   They may say that the soul is all three, or one of the three, but they usually define it according to these terms.  Below are my issues and questions revolving around each of these concepts as it relates to the soul.

Memory

Many people believe that our memories are held or part of our soul.  If the soul holds our memories, and our memories will exist in the afterlife and are not dependent entirely on our physical brains, then people would not get amnesia from a concussion.  Diseases such as Alzheimer’s also affect memories.   Even the simple passage of time seems to erode our ability to recall events.  If memories are tied to an immortal spirit, why is this so?

Will

Its well known that drugs alter behavior, whether simple beer or prescription medicine, or something harder like marijuana or heroin.  If the soul has free-will, then why would drugs and other physical issues change our ability to make moral and rational choices?  Why would a drug that enters the body affect a ghostly spirit that is supposed to be independent of and controlling that body?  Alzheimer’s also affects behavior, sometimes as drastically as taking drugs and there have been cases of people who have suffered some sort of injury to the brain that causes their personality to completely change.

Consciousness

If the soul is “mere consciousness”, that is, just pure awareness and is not dependent on the body, then what happens to it when we’re sleeping?  We have dreams, but we also have times during the night where we do not dream at all.  At that point, we’re not aware of anything.  As far as i can tell, I don’t have any awareness until I either start dreaming again or wake up.  Its even difficult to tell how much time has passed.  One could easily imagine death as a sort of dreamless sleep.  Again, If consciousness is defined by or dependent only on an eternal, non-physical soul, why would external influences such as drugs change our mental awareness and thoughts, instead of just our physical sense such as sight and sound?

So I find that there is a lot that I agree with conservatism and a lot I disagree with.  I think right now with conservatives on the defensive, liberals and moderates alike need to listen to their concerns.   We cannot assume that liberal ideas and  ideology is just automatically correct and without fault just because they hold political sway for the moment.  The political pendulum will eventually swing back the other way and liberals will want the same courtesy from their neighbors and representatives alike.

I think the most valid gripe that my conservative friends have with the current administration is spending.  The focus at the white house seems to be “save the economy at all costs.”  I believe debt in general is a very bad thing and its something that I personally struggle with financially.  We have spent billions of dollars of money we don’t have and our government is up to their ears in debt to foreign investors.  This cannot be good.  I realize the logic behind the bailouts was to help the economy and prevent layoffs.  I indeed hope that the auto-bailouts turn out to be a good investment and save jobs.  However the extra accumulated debt makes our country vulnerable to foreign interests and risk of government collapse.  We can’t keep doing this forever.  Bill Clinton, generally considered the liberals favorite, was actually quite conservative on this issue as he fought for and realized a balanced budget during his term.  We have completely undone his work.   Our government is also a partner in the auto-industry, something that I find makes me a little queasy.  Regulation is one thing.  Outright ownership and manipulation of non-government companies is something else entirely.

I am almost sick to death of the debate on healthcare and hesitate to bring it up.    I think most agree that healthcare needs to be reformed and that the largest insurance companies (Cigna, UHC, etc.) currently have a monopoly on the industry.  I have heard too many horror stories of coverage being dropped or claims being denied when something major happens.  I personally know families that cannot get their children on any kind of government program such as CHIPS or Medicaid.  If you visit even an extreme conservative’s website such as Ann Coulter, even they will admit there are problems.

What I feel is happening with this issue through fault on both sides is that more venom is spouted by our politicians than substance.   I’m sorry but a “public option” is not communism or socialism.  Go talk to my brother who took a 6 month tour of Europe or do the same and then you’ll know what true socialism is, with both its warts and benefits.   There are both.  Liberals who think that socialized healthcare is some sort of utopia are just as deluded as conservatives who believe it to be the greatest evil since Stalin.  Nor do I buy into the “slippery slope” argument in any form.    I think a public option is already a good compromise and one of the reasons I voted for Obama.   However now even this possibility is slowly being killed and Obama is allowing it to the point that I no longer know where he stands.   Compromise is great.  A compromise of a compromise of a compromise seems a bit too watered down for even this old moderate.

What i would like to see is to see the public option revived.  It will doubtless be imperfect but should be a lowest common denominator for Americans that cannot get a better form of health insurance.  In fact, while I think it should be available to anyone, there should be some built in costs or limitations that make it desirable for Americans to get on a private insurance plan if available.  At the same time, we should take some conservative advice and reduce some regulation on the health insurance companies that are supposedly stifling competition and enforcing the current monopolies.  I wish I knew more of the details of these regulations but frankly i don’t.  However anything that stops competition is a bad thing in my book.  This could be a good “two-pronged” approach that perhaps gives something to both sides and forces the insurance companies to start behaving.

I doubt this will happen though.  I firmly believe that the big insurance companies like things just the way they are.  They neither want a public option that will lose them customers nor removal of any regulation that will allow some new upstart company to challenge their racket.   I suspect that their lobbyists are fighting on both fronts.

Meanwhile, remember the environment?  Remember all this talk of global warming?   Remember the carbon reduction and renewable energy and new “green” jobs and investment in new technology?  Yeah, neither do I. I could normally criticize the republicans for their silence but its been so long since either side talked about it that I wonder if even Al Gore is  still alive.   Before the election, republicans of the non Palin variety seemed to be slowly coming around and admitting there were problems and proposing conservative approaches to solving the environmental issues.  What do we have now?  Not a peep from either side.  With all the focus on healthcare and the economy, what i consider the 800 pound gorilla of issues has been completely lost in the fray.  Here is another opportunity to take multiple approaches to solving the environmental crisis, both with increased regulation and government investment, and conservative friendly tax incentives to encourage corporations to reduce energy use and pollution.  It doesn’t seem like either is getting done.  For those who doubt that global warming is an issue, there are plenty of other problems to solve–Pollinator decline (we need pollination to continue in order to…you know…grow our food), ocean life is going extinct from over fishing and pollution, landfills are growing with our useless electronic junk, and we’re eventually going to run out of oil and gas, just to name a few.   Pick something and lets try to solve it.  No takers?

Anti-Science

Sometimes I’m just amazed at the lengths people will go to in order to protect their religious beliefs. In many cases, hard facts are staring people right in the face, and they will make up all kinds of excuses as to why the facts must be wrong. The sad part is, most of the time these facts are not in direct conflict with any scriptures. In most cases, they are in conflict with traditional lines of thinking which were derived in some form or another from the scriptures. One of the most irritating examples of this is Christians who insist the planet is only 6,000 to 10,000 years old. The Bible is very ambiguous in its historical account of the early days, but that doesn’t seem to stop people from trying to piece it together and come up with ridiculous ideas. Then of course, being the manipulators they are, try to force other good hearted Christians to believe it by making those people feel like if they don’t agree then they are not only disagreeing with them, but disagreeing with the Bible itself. And like the sheep they are, they usually go along with it. Then they try to force schools not to teach scientific facts and theories and hold society back for a few more hundred years to live in ignorance. Now, I’m not saying scientists are always right. For example, when it comes down to it I consider myself a creationist. There have been no proven or even theorized workable solutions to explain where life originally came from on this planet. (despite what some athiest will tell you) which only re-enforces my belief in God. But just because some species may have changed along the way, or evolved, doesn’t have anything to do with God, or the historical events in the Bible. Being how vague the book of Genesis is, I can’t even see why people feel the need to interperate it literally. Even if it were eventually proven that abiogenesis is possible (life from no life) that would still not preclude the possibility that it was all part of God’s plan. So what this essentially tells me is that people who fight against scientific progress are essentially scared that their faith will be proven wrong. In many cases, since this is driven by people in high religious places, it isn’t fear of going to hell that motivates them, rather fear that they will be made a fool of, or loose their power over people. Being that I’m always searching for “the truth” I’m open to any ideas to be considered, analyzed, and at some point make a decision whether it is right or wrong based on all available facts. This makes me one of the most secure people when it comes to my faith. I know I’m right because I’ve examined all the evidence available. Other people live in a closet and block out anything they think might contradict their faith and so when it comes down to it, even though they may seem like they have strong faith, it is quite the opposite. You should always change faith to fit the facts, not change facts to fit faith. If the facts are in question, then do more research, ask more questions, have more debates. Eventually the truth can be known.