Melville House to Publish the Senate Intelligence Committee Report on Torture

This just happened. Melville House has outdone itself:

http://www.mhpbooks.com/press-release-melville-house-announces-publication-of-the-senate-intelligence-committee-report-on-torture/

The "Senate Torture Report," as the document is commonly known, is the product of a years-long investigation into the shocking and inhumane treatment of prisoners at the hands of the C.I.A., and the agency's vast attempts to hide its actions from both the rest of the government and the citizenry at large. It's a tremendously important work that shines a bright light on the evil that certain members of our public institutions insist, wrongly, is the price of preserving peace in our country.

Melville House, in the best tradition of letters in this democratic experiment we call the United States, is rushing to turn a heavily redacted, low-resolution, practically illegible set of images into a coherent and usable book by the end of the year. (Yes, that's in just a few weeks.) I can only imagine how chaotic and caffeinated their offices must be these days. But this is an important task. Without dissemination of information, democracy as we know it is meaningless. Only an informed public can truly self-govern in the way our forbearers intended.

Hats off to you, Melville House. What a way to close out the year.

io9: Why Eugenics is a Bad Idea (aside from all the obvious moral reasons)

I recently read Paolo Bacigalupi's short story collection Pump Six and Other Stories, which is deliciously creepy and dystopian. That anthology, and this io9 article (which I read at around the same time), got me thinking about human genetic engineering on a macroscopic scale:
http://io9.com/5925024/why-eugenics-will-always-fail

Our notions of eugenics can be roughly sorted into two categories: ways to optimize our species (for some agreed-upon and likely artificial optimal characteristics), and ways to eliminate genetic weaknesses (an extremely aggressive, sentient form of Darwinism). The former option represents selecting for a hypothetical upper bound, and the latter would be selecting against a lower bound.

When we talk about eugenics, most of us imagine the first option. The cultural connotation of the term "eugenics" includes the Holocaust, the book Brave New World, and the film "Gattaca" -- all of which involve human rights violations. In selecting for a certain ideal, a society makes mincemeat of the rights of those who fall below the arbitrary cut-off. Because eugenics usually comes with gross restrictions of free will -- and in many cases, murder -- we tend to see it as a purely moral evil. This usually brings about international intervention (the timeliness and effectiveness of said interventions being a different matter entirely), or at least the common recognition that such atrocities ought to be prevented.

The above io9 article lays out a few intuitive arguments against eugenics from a practical perspective, contending that -- morality aside -- it simply wouldn't be effective. They boil down to: imprecision, biodiversity, and the limitations of human foresight. (In essence, the short-term microscopic, the middle-term macroscopic, and the long-term in both. The article explains in further detail.) We don't know enough (and likely will never know enough) to get away with attempting to fashion our species in the image of some ideal -- not to mention that it would be impossible to get all seven billion of us to agree on said ideal in the first place. These are all, however, problems that arise when selecting for an upper bound, a hypothetical ideal specimen of humanity.

A (very) soft version of a scenario where we select against a lower bound is already in place, given amniocentesis and women's right to abort. Many women choose to abort after they receive an abnormal genetic diagnosis -- when the fetus has a genetic or congenital defect that would severely diminish the hypothetical child's lifespan or quality of life. The logic is that never existing -- which, for the record, is distinct from ceasing to exist after a period of existence -- is preferable to a life of pain and suffering with little ability to self-actualize. Self-actualization is incredibly important -- it's what makes us human and distinguishes us from other animals. This form of selection, which can be considered a mild and diffuse form of eugenics, increases the average human being's ability to self-actualize, thereby increasing (in a thought experiment where sentience is quantifiable on a scale) our species's average sentience through conscious choice by prospective parents -- a rough extension of natural sexual selection, in the way that most technologies exacerbate existing dilemmas and play upon existing quirks of human nature, rather than creating new ones where they didn't exist before. (To be clear, I recognize that I just exploded a can of worms -- that humans aren't generally more or less sentient than other humans, and that legally, ethically, metaphysically, &c. we all ought to be considered equally sentient, except in cases of limited ability to consent (i.e. children, mentally disabled persons), in which case laws are made to protect said people.)

The danger, then, is where the upper and lower bound options meet in the middle. (I'm resisting the obvious temptation to make some horrible joke about quantum mechanics and relativity here.) It's significant, therefore, that the former option is mandated by an external force and doesn't allow parents to meaningfully consent; the latter option is voluntarily initiated by the potential parents. The lower bound scenario never turns into the problematic upper bound scenario precisely because of this element of free will. The moment it moves from a bottom-up to a top-down approach -- when it veers too close to selection for an ideal, thereby impinging upon the rights of the sentient but non-ideal population -- it becomes the morally degenerate form of eugenics of genocide and dystopian science fiction. There lies the bright-line we should be aware of.

And that's all for now. I'd love to hear your thoughts!

NYTimes: Meat without Slaughter

A most interesting article on synthetic meat and its moral implications, from one of my favorite New York Times blogs (Dot Earth):

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/16/meat-without-slaughter/

I can sort of understand why some people might be "squicked" (for lack of a better term) by the idea, but I'd be all for synthetic meat, if it were indeed identical to (or better than) naturally-begotten meat and the production process were better for the environment than the current one (which I imagine wouldn't be all that hard for synthetics to achieve). I'd be curious to know what a moral vegetarian (that is, someone who abstains from meat for ethical reasons) thinks of it.

NYTimes: Could Conjoined Twins Share a Mind?

A fascinating article I found this morning:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/29/magazine/could-conjoined-twins-share-a-mind.html?_r=1&hpw

It's rather long, but well worth the read. Craniopagus twins are probably the most interesting sort of conjoined twins, in that it affects not only their physical existence, but also their mental independence. Imagine being (somewhat) mentally linked to your sibling! (That's a scary thought, given me and my sister -- the world is not prepared for such madness.) It also opens the door to all sorts of ethical dilemmas (how would you legally treat them as two distinct persons, &c.?).

It seems like it would make excellent fodder for a novel (I'm sure it's already been written about.) -- anyone have a good book about craniopagus twins to recommend?

NYTimes: Morality and Human Nature

I found this really interesting article a long while back, on the origins and development of the sense of morality in humans:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/magazine/09babies-t.html?hpw

It's really validating for an optimist; I've always believed that people are fundamentally good. We are, methinks, born with a sense of natural law, of right and wrong -- and this is only a small exaggeration. It is usually those with innate psychological imbalances, or those exposed to corrupting social influences, or those who have been driven by circumstances to desperation and folly, &c., who do evil. Humans tend not to be evil by choice; evil is often motivated by lesser vices, such as laziness, pride, and so forth.

Anyhow, you should read the article for yourself; they talk about a lot of interesting case studies and experiments therein.

NYTimes: Plants and Animals are Not So Different After All

I have been asked, quite a few times over the years, why I am not vegetarian. To those who know me, my personal sense of ethics and morality seems extremely compatible with the values espoused by many vegetarians to justify their choice. I have never quite been able to explain myself to the complete satisfaction of the inquirers; this article does a very good job of it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/science/15food.html

What do you think?

NYTimes: Facebook's Zuckerberg on the Hot Seat

Time for him to face the music:

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/02/zuckerberg-on-the-hot-seat/?hpw

Zuckerberg is in over his head.

Facebook has grown so quickly that I don't think Zuckerberg really had time to take a step back and consider all the long-term consequences of some of his actions; at twenty-six, he's at the helm of one of the most successful start-ups in the tech industry. His ethical uncertainty is rather frightening. He has a great deal of real-world power, and he appears to be bound not by any conscience of his own, but rather by public sentiment, when it grows too loud against him.

At least the Google guys have said, "Don't be evil." Zuckerberg would do well to learn from their example.

NYTimes: In Leaked Lecture, Details of China’s News Cleanups

The principles of journalism, China-style:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/04/world/asia/04china.html?hpw

It sickens me, sometimes, this perversion of journalism. I was, for a time, quite enamored of the Woodward and Bernstein story, and while it comes as no surprise, I'm still saddened by the extent of state control of the media in China. It goes beyond censorship; this is basically mind-control. The government and the media getting this chummy is never a good thing.

There is also a certain (most likely intentional) irony, methinks, that this article was published on this date.

Open Letter: Climate Change and the Integrity of Science

This is the most concise, logical piece I've read about global warming in a long time. It's written by scientists, of course.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/328/5979/689

We need people like this in charge, advising the politicians, working on solutions. We need everyone else, especially those die-hard global warming deniers, to listen to them, instead of vilifying them as egg-heads and fear-mongers. We need the average American to pull his head out of the sand and recognize that his happy little bubble of ignorance is not the center of the universe, and think of the children, dammit!

I didn't realize I was so bitter at stupidity. Hmm.

NYTimes: All That is Wrong with Religious Dogma

This is the story of a good woman who did what was necessary to save a life. This is the story of how the Catholic Church, despite her years of innate virtue and selfless service, cast her out of the fold for this same action, because of the rigid convictions of a few frocked men in Rome. Read it and weep:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/27/opinion/27kristof.html?hp

This is why intelligent people are losing respect for religion. Will the Vatican reinstate witch trials, next?

NYTimes: Censors Without Borders

Not governmental censorship (this time), but self-censorship:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/16/books/review/Parker-t.html?ref=books

As someone with an abiding and vested interest in literature, I find this to be seriously scary. It's more insidious, and more effective, than attempting to actively silence those who write provocative or unflattering things about the Chinese government. Might makes right? Really?

This raises, of course, the very question that was central to the earlier Google China affair: is it better for a population to receive partial (censored) information, or no information at all?

NYTimes: Genetic Testing for Incoming Freshmen at UC Berkeley

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/19/education/19dna.html?hpw

They call it "nutritional genomics".

On the one hand, I can understand the university's practical concerns. They want to be able to keep tabs on high-risk students; maintaining that level of vigilance for the entire student body would be impossible. To the extent that the school operates in loco parentis, it makes sense for the school to have a comparable level of information to a guardian or personal physician.

On the other hand, the concept of requiring students to submit to genetic testing sits uneasily with me. This is Big Brother at work at one of the most passionately liberal campuses in the country. There is always the possibility, however remote, that it could spill over into other aspects of student life. Administrators intend to use genetic information to advise certain students about drinking, eating habits, and the like. What if it grows to encompass access to athletic teams, for instance, or academic course load? What if the very human elements influencing these processes cannot help their subconscious biases?

The slippery slope argument is, in many cases, a fallacy. I hope that it remains so, in this case.

NYTimes: The Elgin Marbles, a Test Case for Antiquities Repatriation

This is personally interesting to me because the Metropolitan Museum of Art was a formative part of my middle and high school years. I knew the Met well enough, at one point, that I didn't need a map to navigate it (being in California nine months of the year has eroded my abilities thereto).

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/arts/09abroad.html

It's in part an issue of cultural identity. If the modern state can unequivocally lay claim to a certain cultural inheritance, methinks, then it has extremely valid cause. If it cannot show that it is the only logical heir to a particular classical or historical society (this is generally rather rare, as most cultures, if not political or social entities, have been fairly consistent through the centuries), then others with equal claim, and even those representing the interests of the greater scholarly or artistic community, often claim a physical right to said objets d'art. It's particularly interesting because Classical Greece has spawned so many heirs of the mind; practically all of Western Europe, and the Western world at large, can trace its philosophical and cultural roots to Greco-Roman thinkers.

There is also the question of integrity of historical sites. Of course, no one should go and take apart a centuries-old facade and ship the various pieces off to museums around the world (as much as that happened in the past, and on a smaller scale, continues to happen today). But should a monument that is falling apart be restored on its original site, or should the pieces be distributed to museums (especially pertinent if the originating state does not have the technology or resources to restore the monument, and foreign teams end up taking over the project, often with the intention of appropriating some of the artifacts for their own countries)? Does physical proximity to the historical site add significant value?

There are loads more questions to be asked and answered. Discuss (yes, I read and respond to comments).

loltheorists: Schroedinger's lolcats

http://community.livejournal.com/loltheorists

For those of us who appreciate (corny) jokes about smart but dead white guys. Well, mostly dead. (I mean, most of them are dead -- the former phraseology makes them sound like zombies.)

With regard to the title of the post -- yes, I went there.