This coming Wednesday, we will be discussing the dividing line between an individual's freedom versus what freedom they have to give up to be part of a democratic social group or society.
The example of a theater goer not having the freedom to shout "fire" in the crowded theater to cause panic when there is no fire comes to mind.
On the other hand, the democratic will of the group also have to yield to the rights of the individual minorities within them so that some important principles can be upheld or the rule of law can be consistent.
What are the considerations for drawing these lines of compromises?
Is it based on utility? where curtailing the freedom to shout "fire" is such a small thing to give up to avoid group panic that can have serious negative consequences?
As the curtailing of the individual freedom become more onerous and the negative impact to the group become less so, who decides where the line should be?
Our changing attitude towards smoking shows us how the shift of the rights from the smoker to the nonsmoker over the past decades has progressed. Now that smokers can no longer smoke indoors, within a certain distance of public entrances, public parks (?), soon within cars when there is children, should we take the next step and have them stop smoking whenever they see someone within their sights?
Very often, a reasonable approach is taken in balancing the two. Most municipalities have noise by laws limiting construction within certain hours of the day to balance the need for construction within the area versus the noise that may disturb neighbors in that area.
Who decides what "reasonable" is and how do we balance that against workers who want to start at 7am or earlier so that they can avoid the afternoon rush hour traffic home versus the neighbor who wants to sleep in?
Should minority groups such as first nations, french speakers, ethnic communities, and others automatically have a veto because of their minority status?
Can we have more than one group that has veto power and what if they don't agree with each other?
Should all stakeholders have rights, "equal" or proportional rights based on impact?
Who selects the stakeholders?
Who would represent the interests of future generations and outside parties who are not present but will be impacted by the decision?
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Meeting on what is natural and why is it better
I just got back from our Wednesday Ideas Cafe discussing what is natural and why is it better.
We had a hard time coming up with a definition. "Not altered by man" suggested by Dan is perhaps the closest but then that is no indication that it would be better. In fact, most things that have been altered by man such as various foods like apples, tomatoes, etc are better after the alteration.
After all, we are constantly trying to improve things and successful in various fronts.
Medical procedures are called "interventions" as they are intervening with nature to alter the course of the disease. Very unnatural to cure someone instead of letting the disease take its course.
Maybe "natural" is a more useful term for tribes in the deep jungle where very little have been altered by man and "natural" can be used to apply to more things. People living in that environment do not understand as much about their environment and use "natural" as a form of explanation of how things behave - a kind of acceptance of what is.
Another possible source of the use of natural is from people who thinks our current society is fraud with problems and they look back to the "good old days" where less things were altered by man. Therefore linking "better" good old days with "natural". As usual, these nostalgic viewpoint are never that balanced and tends to ignore all the nasty bits in the "good old days".
It is hard to find facts to support or justify the notion that "natural" is "better".
Mano suggested that "natural" may not be useful in the absolute sense but perhaps better used in a relative sense where some things are less altered by man compared to others.
The conclusion is that we should be careful when someone tries to convince us that what they are trying to sell us is better because it is natural. They are likely trying to give us a good feeling with no basis for it, taking advantage of the slippery nature of the word "natural".
How shall we respond to that sales pitch or discussion?
First thing is to decide whether "natural" is being use as descriptive or prescriptive.
Descriptive is just describing something as from the earth and less altered by man.
Prescriptive includes an agenda trying to use "natural" to justify a point of view. For example, saying that it is "natural" to be heterosexual is just using the vague term "natural" to justify a point of view against homosexuality.
People with a religious viewpoint and believe in the existence of god would say that god want things a certain way because he is the maker. So natural can be used to denote god's will of how things should work.
For atheist not believing in the existence of god, this notion of natural does not exist.
Shula gave the example that the cup of coffee she is drinking was made by the coffee maker intending the coffee to taste a certain way. So it is natural or no surprise if the coffee taste as the coffee maker intended and therefore the taste can be described as natural (or expected). However, if no one made the coffee, then that is just how that coffee taste and there is no natural or unnatural taste.
Mike wonders if natural is just one of the many words that have slippery meanings and meant only to invite a further discussion of the topic at hand. So if someone said that a cream is made of natural ingredients, that person is inviting you to ask what these ingredients are and how they are good for you.
As usual, the discussion was very enjoyable with many diversions along the way, lots of laughter about the digressions not meant for the blog.
We had a hard time coming up with a definition. "Not altered by man" suggested by Dan is perhaps the closest but then that is no indication that it would be better. In fact, most things that have been altered by man such as various foods like apples, tomatoes, etc are better after the alteration.
After all, we are constantly trying to improve things and successful in various fronts.
Medical procedures are called "interventions" as they are intervening with nature to alter the course of the disease. Very unnatural to cure someone instead of letting the disease take its course.
Maybe "natural" is a more useful term for tribes in the deep jungle where very little have been altered by man and "natural" can be used to apply to more things. People living in that environment do not understand as much about their environment and use "natural" as a form of explanation of how things behave - a kind of acceptance of what is.
Another possible source of the use of natural is from people who thinks our current society is fraud with problems and they look back to the "good old days" where less things were altered by man. Therefore linking "better" good old days with "natural". As usual, these nostalgic viewpoint are never that balanced and tends to ignore all the nasty bits in the "good old days".
It is hard to find facts to support or justify the notion that "natural" is "better".
Mano suggested that "natural" may not be useful in the absolute sense but perhaps better used in a relative sense where some things are less altered by man compared to others.
The conclusion is that we should be careful when someone tries to convince us that what they are trying to sell us is better because it is natural. They are likely trying to give us a good feeling with no basis for it, taking advantage of the slippery nature of the word "natural".
How shall we respond to that sales pitch or discussion?
First thing is to decide whether "natural" is being use as descriptive or prescriptive.
Descriptive is just describing something as from the earth and less altered by man.
Prescriptive includes an agenda trying to use "natural" to justify a point of view. For example, saying that it is "natural" to be heterosexual is just using the vague term "natural" to justify a point of view against homosexuality.
People with a religious viewpoint and believe in the existence of god would say that god want things a certain way because he is the maker. So natural can be used to denote god's will of how things should work.
For atheist not believing in the existence of god, this notion of natural does not exist.
Shula gave the example that the cup of coffee she is drinking was made by the coffee maker intending the coffee to taste a certain way. So it is natural or no surprise if the coffee taste as the coffee maker intended and therefore the taste can be described as natural (or expected). However, if no one made the coffee, then that is just how that coffee taste and there is no natural or unnatural taste.
Mike wonders if natural is just one of the many words that have slippery meanings and meant only to invite a further discussion of the topic at hand. So if someone said that a cream is made of natural ingredients, that person is inviting you to ask what these ingredients are and how they are good for you.
As usual, the discussion was very enjoyable with many diversions along the way, lots of laughter about the digressions not meant for the blog.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
25-Jan-12 What is natural and why is it better?
This coming Wednesday at the Ideas Cafe, we will be discussing what the meaning of "natural" is when applied to food and various practices. Why do we generally feel that natural is better and is it so?
I use food as an example as that seems to be where the natural/unnatural differentiation shows up most in our daily lives. It is likely the motivation behind the trend to "organic" foods and "free range" raised meat products.
But what exactly is natural?
There are few things more wholesome than apples from a farm or orchard, freshly plucked ripe from an apple tree. Even versions of the bible mention apple as the temptation by the talking snake to lead Adam and Eve into sin.
Then I find out that the modern day apple is a result of generations of genetic engineering through grafting of different species to get to the variety of different apples that we use for eating, cooking, making cider etc., that genetically apples are found to be from crabapples or some wild variety originally far inland in Asia minor and likely not that appealing when it comes to choice of fruits.
So much with apples being natural and all of us picking up original sin for something worthwhile.
I understand that there are dog owners who are convinced that their dogs do better on a diet of raw meat. It seems right somehow and more "natural" for dogs as carnivores to be eating raw meat rather than following human diets. After all, that was what dogs and their predecessors the grey wolf, was doing so it must be natural, and therefore, better for them.
The question of course is, why are we not eating raw meat ourselves? Cooking our food is likely the most "unnatural" thing to do to our food except that it was started long time ago.
Is it possible that when we yearn for "natural", we are yearning for the familiar, the tried and true, rather than something new, different and possibly harmful?
Is it our natural conservative nature of resisting change expressed in a preference for "natural"?
We routinely have farm products but feel uncomfortable about farmed fish. Maybe some day we will also get use to the idea that fish should be farmed like all other vegetables and grains?
What other explanations may there be for a preference for "natural" products and definitions for the descriptor "natural"?
I look forward to your ideas this coming Wednesday!
I use food as an example as that seems to be where the natural/unnatural differentiation shows up most in our daily lives. It is likely the motivation behind the trend to "organic" foods and "free range" raised meat products.
But what exactly is natural?
There are few things more wholesome than apples from a farm or orchard, freshly plucked ripe from an apple tree. Even versions of the bible mention apple as the temptation by the talking snake to lead Adam and Eve into sin.
Then I find out that the modern day apple is a result of generations of genetic engineering through grafting of different species to get to the variety of different apples that we use for eating, cooking, making cider etc., that genetically apples are found to be from crabapples or some wild variety originally far inland in Asia minor and likely not that appealing when it comes to choice of fruits.
So much with apples being natural and all of us picking up original sin for something worthwhile.
I understand that there are dog owners who are convinced that their dogs do better on a diet of raw meat. It seems right somehow and more "natural" for dogs as carnivores to be eating raw meat rather than following human diets. After all, that was what dogs and their predecessors the grey wolf, was doing so it must be natural, and therefore, better for them.
The question of course is, why are we not eating raw meat ourselves? Cooking our food is likely the most "unnatural" thing to do to our food except that it was started long time ago.
Is it possible that when we yearn for "natural", we are yearning for the familiar, the tried and true, rather than something new, different and possibly harmful?
Is it our natural conservative nature of resisting change expressed in a preference for "natural"?
We routinely have farm products but feel uncomfortable about farmed fish. Maybe some day we will also get use to the idea that fish should be farmed like all other vegetables and grains?
What other explanations may there be for a preference for "natural" products and definitions for the descriptor "natural"?
I look forward to your ideas this coming Wednesday!
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Meeting discussions on "a successful life"
A number of interesting ideas came out of the discussion last night on what is a successful life.
Success is measured by a "portfolio of goals" rather than a single goal as the earlier post may suggest.
Success is also based on the evaluator. Mozart may be a very successful composer and musician to the rest of us but he apparently had a terrible life. Even if he had a good life, his goals may be different than what the general public judge him on.
We have a tendency to start off with simplistic, idealistic goals such as "kill cancer". However, as we appreciate the issue more and realize that cancer is actually many diseases with different characteristics and massive effort had been spent to get to where we are to date, we may modify our goal. Instead of aiming to "kill cancer", we may aim at "progressing the understanding of the causes of cancer".
It is the logical progression of breaking down a long term goal into smaller concretely identifiable goal that we can aim better at.
Another example of this type of goal setting is how immigrants typically say they are immigrating to a new country so that their children can have a better future. It is likely that the immigrant is not familiar enough about the new country to properly identify the exact goals he is to achieve. However, the overall picture is positive enough that it is worth doing.
Most people at the discussion did not feel comfortable about adjusting the goals in order to achieve a sense of success. It seem artificial and cheap somehow. All that we will achieve is by watering the standards if we move the passing grade from 60% to 50% so that more students can claim they have successfully "passed" or be "successful at" the course.
However, if the professor applied the bell distribution curve to the test results from all the students and found that the median is too low and everyone's results needed to be adjusted up by 10%, would we still feel that the professor cheapened the course standards?
Is being "realistic" about the goal of "kill cancer" and change it to making progress towards understanding the disease also a form of adjusting (perhaps not "lowering") the goal?
I have to think that adjusting the goal to achieve success is viable but only with good justification that is satisfactory to the person involved.
On top of that, this adjustment in the goal must also meet with approval from the person's peers and others that the person sought approval and respect from.
Changing goals is not that easy. On top of convincing ourselves that the goals should be changed to better define success, we also need to convince those whose opinion we value.
We can change our social circles but that is easier said than done.
How did we decide on whose opinion we respect? Here comes the complex social web that we are born into, by chance come into, as well as to some extent by our own choice.
There was discussion of how our parent's expectation of us sets our main goals early on and how it is difficult for us to not adopt our parent's goals as our goals.
It is difficult. But understanding what is involved is the first step towards seeing what the problem is and what may or can be done.
Then there is Shula's point that being successful is always having something meaningful or interesting to do. The day that she runs out of things to do is when she no longer thinks her life is successful.
So many ideas, so little time. We make a step forward, have a better view of the horizon, only to find the horizon moving off more than we have moved forward.
I don't think Shula will ever have a problem finding something to do!
Success is measured by a "portfolio of goals" rather than a single goal as the earlier post may suggest.
Success is also based on the evaluator. Mozart may be a very successful composer and musician to the rest of us but he apparently had a terrible life. Even if he had a good life, his goals may be different than what the general public judge him on.
We have a tendency to start off with simplistic, idealistic goals such as "kill cancer". However, as we appreciate the issue more and realize that cancer is actually many diseases with different characteristics and massive effort had been spent to get to where we are to date, we may modify our goal. Instead of aiming to "kill cancer", we may aim at "progressing the understanding of the causes of cancer".
It is the logical progression of breaking down a long term goal into smaller concretely identifiable goal that we can aim better at.
Another example of this type of goal setting is how immigrants typically say they are immigrating to a new country so that their children can have a better future. It is likely that the immigrant is not familiar enough about the new country to properly identify the exact goals he is to achieve. However, the overall picture is positive enough that it is worth doing.
Most people at the discussion did not feel comfortable about adjusting the goals in order to achieve a sense of success. It seem artificial and cheap somehow. All that we will achieve is by watering the standards if we move the passing grade from 60% to 50% so that more students can claim they have successfully "passed" or be "successful at" the course.
However, if the professor applied the bell distribution curve to the test results from all the students and found that the median is too low and everyone's results needed to be adjusted up by 10%, would we still feel that the professor cheapened the course standards?
Is being "realistic" about the goal of "kill cancer" and change it to making progress towards understanding the disease also a form of adjusting (perhaps not "lowering") the goal?
I have to think that adjusting the goal to achieve success is viable but only with good justification that is satisfactory to the person involved.
On top of that, this adjustment in the goal must also meet with approval from the person's peers and others that the person sought approval and respect from.
Changing goals is not that easy. On top of convincing ourselves that the goals should be changed to better define success, we also need to convince those whose opinion we value.
We can change our social circles but that is easier said than done.
How did we decide on whose opinion we respect? Here comes the complex social web that we are born into, by chance come into, as well as to some extent by our own choice.
There was discussion of how our parent's expectation of us sets our main goals early on and how it is difficult for us to not adopt our parent's goals as our goals.
It is difficult. But understanding what is involved is the first step towards seeing what the problem is and what may or can be done.
Then there is Shula's point that being successful is always having something meaningful or interesting to do. The day that she runs out of things to do is when she no longer thinks her life is successful.
So many ideas, so little time. We make a step forward, have a better view of the horizon, only to find the horizon moving off more than we have moved forward.
I don't think Shula will ever have a problem finding something to do!
Sunday, January 8, 2012
11-Jan-12 What is a successful life?
This coming Wednesday, we will be discussing what constitutes a successful life at the Ideas Cafe.
In one of the earlier cafes, we had discussed what is "The Good Life" and there are various ways of looking at the hedonistic, virtuous, self sacrificing and other forms of the good life.
This time around, I thought we will discuss what is the meaning of success.
Success is about reaching a goal. So a goal needs to be defined before defining success towards that goal.
In the land of the possible, a lot of school children in the US are told that they can be the president some day if they wanted to. It is certainly a possible goal, but perhaps a goal that will likely meet with failure for a big proportion of people who aim for it.
Or maybe it is a material goal. To have a target income level or asset, to be within the top 10 or 100 within a certain country or community.
Maybe it is about social justice or environmental protection. To reduce poverty levels to a set target, to reduce green house gases to a certain amount by a certain time.
Recognition by one's peers is another worthwhile goal. To be published in an esteemed journal, to win a certain prize judged by one's compatriots or a world renowned panel.
Great relationships with one's family, friends, and social circles is not something to be sacrificed while pursuing all these other goals.
This is by no means an exhaustive list of worthwhile goals to judge one's success.
Perhaps it is a combination of several or all of these goals in a balanced life where the individual goals themselves are less spectacular but the overall achievement deserves a judgement of success.
Noticed that each of these goals, if reached, opens the door to another worthwhile goal further down. Once elected to the head of state, the president thinks of leaving a worthwhile legacy. Achieving a certain wealth only expose one to others wealthier still. Even Bill Gates and Warren Buffet move on to how to make the best use of their wealth after they are at the top of the heap.
There just is no perfection or end when it comes to goal setting. Success is short lived before it becomes pedestrian.
What about going the other way.
How often have people lament how they didn't appreciate what they have until it is taken away from them? News of disasters elsewhere remind us of how lucky we are where we are. Close calls or accidents averted accentuates the good things in life we have been taking for granted till then.
So, maybe lowering our goals is a better method of getting to a successful life?
After all, golfers use a handicap system to allow less able golfers to enjoy the game. Why not life?
Please feel free to use the comments feature of the blog to post your thoughts before or after the meeting.
In one of the earlier cafes, we had discussed what is "The Good Life" and there are various ways of looking at the hedonistic, virtuous, self sacrificing and other forms of the good life.
This time around, I thought we will discuss what is the meaning of success.
Success is about reaching a goal. So a goal needs to be defined before defining success towards that goal.
In the land of the possible, a lot of school children in the US are told that they can be the president some day if they wanted to. It is certainly a possible goal, but perhaps a goal that will likely meet with failure for a big proportion of people who aim for it.
Or maybe it is a material goal. To have a target income level or asset, to be within the top 10 or 100 within a certain country or community.
Maybe it is about social justice or environmental protection. To reduce poverty levels to a set target, to reduce green house gases to a certain amount by a certain time.
Recognition by one's peers is another worthwhile goal. To be published in an esteemed journal, to win a certain prize judged by one's compatriots or a world renowned panel.
Great relationships with one's family, friends, and social circles is not something to be sacrificed while pursuing all these other goals.
This is by no means an exhaustive list of worthwhile goals to judge one's success.
Perhaps it is a combination of several or all of these goals in a balanced life where the individual goals themselves are less spectacular but the overall achievement deserves a judgement of success.
Noticed that each of these goals, if reached, opens the door to another worthwhile goal further down. Once elected to the head of state, the president thinks of leaving a worthwhile legacy. Achieving a certain wealth only expose one to others wealthier still. Even Bill Gates and Warren Buffet move on to how to make the best use of their wealth after they are at the top of the heap.
There just is no perfection or end when it comes to goal setting. Success is short lived before it becomes pedestrian.
What about going the other way.
How often have people lament how they didn't appreciate what they have until it is taken away from them? News of disasters elsewhere remind us of how lucky we are where we are. Close calls or accidents averted accentuates the good things in life we have been taking for granted till then.
So, maybe lowering our goals is a better method of getting to a successful life?
After all, golfers use a handicap system to allow less able golfers to enjoy the game. Why not life?
Please feel free to use the comments feature of the blog to post your thoughts before or after the meeting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)