Select Page ::

Arithmetic Is on China’s Side – Truthdig

Posted on August 10, 2017 by Danzig

Eden Collinsworth

Eden Collinsworth is a former media executive and business consultant. She was president of Arbor House Publishing Co. and founder of the Los Angeles monthly lifestyle magazine Buzz before becoming a vice president at Hearst Corp...

Some 30 years ago, I took a bullet train from the airport in Shanghai to the center of that city. I was being hurled ahead at 268 miles an hour on a thin layer of air between the train and the magnetized narrow tracks. But that was not what fueled my disbelief. Far more disconcerting was what I saw outside the window when we slowed down: Some of the peasantsknee deep in rice paddieswere talking on cell phones.

Entering the telecommunications age with satellite-based platforms, the Chinese were able to leapfrog over the expensive cable-based systems in the West. Currently, over 75 percent of its 1.3 billion-plus people have at least one cell phone.

Even before Donald Trump forfeited the United States place at the global table, Chinathe worlds largest nation with a self-appointed government that seeks access to global markets and resourceshas been chipping away at the edifice of Americas dominance. As of May this year, the U.S. debt to China was $1.102 trillion, which is 28 percent of the $3.9 trillion in Treasury bills, notes and bonds held by foreign countries.

Chinas state-owned firms have sought out iconic Western companies for direct investment, taking stakes in Greeces largest port, Portugals biggest power plant, Londons Heathrow Airport and Canadas energy giant, Nexen. These are only a few of the Asian countrys investments in an unprecedented range of overseas deals projected to be worth between $2 trillion and $3 trillion by 2020.

The Chinese government has built other countries infrastructures, and it has made loans to nations hobbled by deficit. To add to this outreach, China is spending billions of dollars a year in the most extensive program of image-building the world has ever seen.

There was a time when WesternersAmericans in particularthought that the Chinese would convert to Western ways. But China has not become more like us. Indeed, it would be an understatement to say that China stage-manages the exposure of Western ideas to its citizens. So, no, the Chinese do not intend to become like us.

Chinese cultureformed over 2,500 yearsembraces a Confucian perspective, which is in stark contrast to the linear rationalism attributed to Western belief. Confucius Analects(sayings) concentrate on the practical rather than the theoretical. They advise against reducing morality to a universal truth. Unlike the West, where Judeo-Christian ethics designate a non-negotiable right and wrong, the Chinese do not adhere to absolutes. Since China comprises 20 percent of the planets population, one in five people in the world believes there is no single way of being wrong and many ways of being right.

Where does that leave the rest of us?

We in the West would like to believe that individual freedom determines our choices, but in reality we are ruled in large part by the prevailing time in which we live, and our world today is interconnected. Like it or not, we must confront a challenging question: What will anchor us in our own distinct beliefs and ethics while respecting other distinct cultures with different ethical and political systems?

To consider this, well need to take our eyes off the mirror in front of us and look at people with different truths and values, because only then will we be able to make the difficult decisions. At times, those decisions will require us to relinquish some part of our ground. At other times, they will call on us to protect the ground we are determined to hold. It will be these hard-won decisionsnot the false promises of politiciansthat will enable us to navigate the future of our conflicted, crowded world.

Visit link:

Arithmetic Is on China's Side - Truthdig

The real issue in the campus speech debate: The university is under assault – Washington Post

Posted on August 10, 2017 by Danzig

By Nicholas B. Dirks By Nicholas B. Dirks August 9 at 12:27 PM

There is no doubt that public concern about the vitality of free speech and political debate on American college campuses has legitimate causes. However, the current round of attacks from the extreme right and left is a pretext. It is part of a broader assault on the idea of the university itself: on its social functions, on the fundamental importance of advanced knowledge and enlightened debate, on the critical role of science and expertise in public policy and on the significance of intellectuals and serious thought leaders more generally.

It came as a nasty surprise when headlines this past winter and spring proclaimed that free speech at the University of California at Berkeley was dead. The initial image was indelible: an out-of-control bonfire on the central plaza, protesters using black bloc tactics storming the student union, a campus police force overwhelmed by unprecedented violence which declared under duress that it could no longer control the event and had to cancel the appearance of the self-proclaimed troll and provocateur, Milo Yiannopoulos. The next morning we woke up to a tweet from the president, threatening us with the loss of federal funds over our apparent inability to protect free speech.

The headline was repeated later in the spring when Berkeley was unable to schedule Ann Coulter on the only day she decided to visit the campus (contrary to many press reports, we never cancelled her visit). And it was repeated recently when the Berkeley College Republicans complained that their invitation of Ben Shapiro was being blocked, when in fact the administration was actively working with the student group to identify appropriate accommodations in an effort to ensure that the event could go forward without disruption.

The headlines took hold not just because of Berkeleys historical and now iconic relationship to free speech, but because they played into the narrative that college campuses in recent years have morphed into cocoons of political correctness that, in their effort to provide safe environments in which students can live and learn, have shifted from policing protesters to policing speech. This narrative has been so strong in certain quarters that conservative support for universities appears to be at an all-time low.

It is true that there were many students, and a significant group of faculty, who held that Yiannapoulos in particular pushed the envelope beyond what the university should tolerate. Yiannapoulos had been known invidiously to identify individual students, as in the case of a trans student he publicly mocked at an event at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee a few months earlier. And protests around Yiannapouloss appearances in Seattle and Davis had turned violent. A group of more than 100 faculty petitioned the administration to cancel the event, citing both public safety concerns as well as the rumors that Yiannapoulos was planning to name and attack individual students.

At Berkeley, as at other college campuses across the country, ensuring that students from minority backgrounds feel welcomed and supported, while also insisting on the unfettered exploration of diverse ideas, raises complicated issues even without the eruption of violent protest. Indeed, free speech controversies are embedded in what might seem to be fundamental contradictions, most notably between widely held campus commitments to diversity, inclusion, and social mobility on the one hand, and the constitutional right to free speech on the other.

Faculty and student concern also reflected the fact that for years, important intellectual currents on college campuses have taken aim at core liberal values on the grounds that they have consistently masked the real power relations that make the speech of the marginalized and oppressed seem far from free. However, the desire to insulate the campus community from offensive views has created even greater challenges for the university, and put at risk the animating spirit of the liberal arts. This small-L liberalism meaning the kind of openness to breadth and diversity subscribed to by conservatives and liberals alike is fundamental to the utopian mission of the university.

For the most troubling issue we confront today has to do with the loss of faith on the part of those holding different political positions in values and institutions that must provide the foundation for the real political work ahead: to make our society genuinely more inclusive; to take on the great challenges, local and global, that confront us; and to allow deep political differences to be debated with respect and serious efforts at mutual understanding. And here the (small-L) liberal role of the university is central, as it has historically served as a model for the kind of civil society that includes robust intellectual exploration and argument.

This is a vision of the university that has deep opponents, from some quarters of the left, but today much more critically from the right. Increasingly, attacks on the university come from those who oppose diversity in American life, who distrust intellectualism as an elitist enterprise, who believe that universities undermine what they see as authentic American values, and who have come to view science as a corrupt enterprise bent on imposing political objectives under the rubric of objectivity. These opponents have been fueled and supported by big money for decades, as Jane Mayer has brilliantly shown in her recent book, Dark Money.

My real worry therefore is that the attention that is increasingly directed towards universities especially towards public universities such as Berkeley that already grapple with precipitous declines in state funding is part of a more general and sinister assault. This is the assault on truth, science, humanism, cultural openness, decent social values, global collaboration and institutional commitments to free inquiry, unfettered debate and the unwavering pursuit of new and more reliable knowledge. And let there be no misunderstanding: the targeting of university events by extreme groups on both the left and the right threatening (and on occasion, as at Berkeley, enacting) violence not only requires massive expenditure and represents an immense disruption to campus operations, but undermines the core of what a university stands for. Violence is the exact opposite of free speech, the antithesis of our fundamental values.

There is a growing move to use current controversies to regulate free speech on public campuses. In North Carolina, a new bill similar to bills that have now been passed in many other states, including Colorado, Tennessee, Utah and Virginia, and that have been introduced in states like Wisconsin and California promising to ensure the free exercise of speech on public college campuses was just passed by the state legislature. At first blush, the bills seem reasonable, even necessary given some recent controversies. If you read through them, however, you realize that there is another agenda altogether in some of the provisions. Examples: State legislatures are to be given the authority to monitor free speech on campuses, demanding yearly reports, insisting (and thus defining) administrative neutrality on all political issues, imposing new rules for student discipline (including expulsion) around any perceived disruption of free speech (again, defining what disruption might mean, as opposed to the exercise of their own free speech rights), and ultimately taking direct responsibility for controlling campus unrest.

The ideas in these bills draw from language developed and promulgated by the Goldwater Institute, a right-wing think tank that has been actively campaigning to introduce more conservative political views on American campuses. These recent bills, however, do much more than introduce ideas, for they are concerted efforts to take direct political control over public colleges and universities.

We have serious work ahead to ensure that college campuses not only understand the full set of legal issues around free speech but also embrace the need for robust representation and debate across the political spectrum. Those on the left who have sought to close down offensive or dissenting views have provided an easy target for the right. By rejecting the procedural commitment to free speech, they have also undermined the substantive value of free speech, which will come back to haunt them as a precedent to censor expressions of their own views. Those on the right who have used invitations to controversial speakers to create headlines rather than foster intellectual exchange have in turn used the thinnest of procedural reeds to undermine the real substance of free speech as well.

As students begin returning to college campuses at the end of August, so too will more controversy over free speech. At Berkeley, Shapiro will soon speak, and Yiannopolous recently announced that he would be inaugurating his new seven-month college tour, the Troll Academy, on our campus in early fall. The good news here is that even for Yiannopolous, Berkeley is still synonymous with free speech. Let us hope, however, that the issues around his visit remain about speech, not violence, and that the debate over controversial speakers becomes less shrill. While we welcome a test of the limits of our spirit of inquiry, we would rather not test the resources of our police force once again.

At the same time, however, efforts either by think tanks like the Goldwater Institute, to say nothing of Fox, Breitbart, and other news media that seek only to caricature and ridicule the very idea of the university, are not designed to open the university up, but rather effectively to shut it down. This is part of a full-throated campaign to close the American mind. The time has come to defend the university vigorously, even as we insist on seeking to open it up further: to new ideas, to even more vigorous debate, to more students who have never had the opportunity for advanced education, to engagement with the world, and to the public more generally for whom the idea that college is a public good needs stressing, and demonstrating, today more than ever.

Nicholas B. Dirks is former chancellor of theUniversity of California at Berkeley.

UC-Berkeley readies police as Ann Coulter plans to speak in public plaza on campus

Berkeley gave birth to Free Speech Movement in the 60s. Now conservatives demand to be included.

Trump lashes back after violent protests at UC-Berkeley

When your next college speech controversy erupts, dont blame liberals

Read the original post:

The real issue in the campus speech debate: The university is under assault - Washington Post

India March for Science: Thousands throng the streets seeking better fund for research infrastructure – Firstpost

Posted on August 10, 2017 by Danzig

Thousands of scientists, students, educational NGOs and science enthusiasts across the country are coming out on the streets on Wednesdaydemanding robust funding for scientific research and policies to encourage a scientific temper among the population.

Following in the footsteps of the 'March for Science' movement which was held on 22 April across 600 cities globally, the 'India March for Science' event is being organised at 25 cities in India with the following demands:

"Rational thinking and scientific temper as enshrined in the Constitution are necessary for everyday life in general. And this is all we are trying to raise awareness for," Aurnab Ghose from theIndian Institute of Science Education and Research, Pune, said.

"There is an element of sub-optimal funding in science education and research that has been fat-lining since quite some time. We need to get rational, scientific thinking percolating into society that counters these trends. Anti-scientific elements have always existed and will do so in the future. The effort is to have enough verifiable information flowing around so that these trends can be countered, he said. This movement is not against the government. Were talking to the populace as much as to our local governments.

Representational image. Reuters

But Mayank Vahia from the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai, says that the situation was not so dire even ten years ago. "The line between reality and fiction wasnt so blur. Now people who make such obnoxious statements easily get away with them.With the way things are going, one would have no problem believing that we can protect the prime minister in an event of a nuclear attack by surrounding his house with cow dung."

"The problemarises when the government or its agencies do not come out and condemn statements made by public officials which are far removed from fact," Deepak Modi from the National Institute For Research In Reproductive Health, Mumbai, said. "Most of these statements are based on blind religious beliefs. This contributes much faster to policy making than we wouldimagine. Ten people start believinga myth and it comes into policy in no time," he said.

Both Vahiya and Modi argue that the situation is being made far worse by the government by cutting back on funding to science research institutions.Organisers of Wednesday's eventclaim only0.8-0.9 percent of the GDP is allocated towards scientific research in India, while South Korea spends 4.15 percent of its GDP, Japan 3.47 percent, Sweden 3.16 percent, and Denmark 3.08 percent when calculated on the basis of purchasing power parity.

"You lose the independence of science research when the government cuts back on funding to the IITs and IISERs of the country. Sometimes this means involving industry partners, but the moment that happens the industry'svested interests bias the science that is coming out and you lose out on the whole point of fundamental research," Modi said, adding, "Also you need to fund government institutions to sustain scientific research for the next generation.We are today reaping the benefits of scientific research and education that was subsidised two decades ago."

The written appeal released by the organisers of Wednesday's march also says, "While we can justly be inspired by the great achievements in science and technology in ancient India, we see that non-scientific ideas lacking in evidence are being propagated as science by persons in high positions, fueling a confrontational chauvinism in lieu of true patriotism that we cherish."

"There is a lot of emphasis on indigenous research that is not based on scientific principles, like Ayurveda, yoga and homoeopathy. Push funding there by all means, but not at the cost of cutting funding for formal scientific research," Modi said.

About theachievements in science and technology in ancient India, Vahia says instead of highlighting the documented achievements of Indianscientists from previous centuries,the focus has shifted to irrelevant subjects. "We do not give importance to scientifically backed teachings and findings. The day is not far when stories about rishi munis flying across the sky would find their way into textbooks. This confuses society and achieves nothing."

India is perhaps the only country in the world whose Constitution speaks of developing a scientific temperament among the population: Article 51A, Sub-clause (h), on Fundamental Duties says, "It shall be the duty of every citizen of India to develop scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform." And it is to that end that the marches across the country are being held, the organisers say.

Heavy Rotation: Golden Retriever’s Spellbinding New LP – The Portland Mercury

Posted on August 10, 2017 by Danzig

GOLDEN RETRIEVER Not pictured: a goddamn golden retriever. GOLDEN RETRIEVER

The radiant summer sidewalk outside Southeast Stark juice caf Canteen seems too exposed an environment to be talking with Portland experimental duo Golden Retriever. The contents of the music created by Jonathan Sielaff and Matt Carlson are dark, cerebral, and brooding. One imagines they make the kind of sounds that must be conjured from deep, contemplative wellsprings, originating from somewhere buried or hidden. A listen to RotationsGolden Retrievers ninth release, and the third for Thrill Jockey Recordsdoes little to assuage this notion.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Sielaff and Carlsons sunny dispositions belie, but also mimic, the dramatic arcs of their music, and the bright weather, cold drinks, and steady procession of street traffic morphs into an ambiance more fitting than first suspected.

We play weird music, in one sense, offers Sielaff. But were never trying to alienate people. Its very much about engaging anyone whos listening in any way we can.

We both like art that has extreme contrasts in it, adds Carlson. A simple, beautiful melody is more profound when juxtaposed with something thats harsh and dissonant, where you can really feel the tension and resolution happening.

Rotations acts as an end product for a project Sielaff and Carlson began in 2015. Enabled by a grant from Portlands Regional Arts and Culture Council, Golden Retriever found themselves able to fund a more expansive vision of their experimental ideas by incorporating a full chamber ensemble for a live performance at the Old Church. Prior to the performance, the two improvised and built musical structures from acoustic piano and bass clarinet, and then transcribed notations of string and percussion arrangements for the larger ensemble to perform live. They then took the recordings of their pre-performance sketches, and added post-production improvisation and collage layering to create something entirely new.

The musical language and the chemistry generated between Sielaff and Carlson over the years reveal themselves in myriad ways on Rotations. There is a jarring, challenging nature to compositions like Thirty-Six Stratagemsa nightmarish, haunting piece that tests the depths of your sanity in intriguing ways. Conversely, the meditative finale Sunsight meanders in bleary piano plunks, weeping violins, and twinkling vibraphone in what amounts to a soft farewell.

For Sielaff and Carlson, the methods they use to conjure their expansive soundscapes, however inventive, are less important for their artistic satisfaction than the lassoing of the emotional, spiritual, and cathartic currents that gurgle in every corner of their music. As human beings, we have all those things going on inside of us at all times anyway, says Sielaff. Were making human music.

Its an interesting critical challenge with instrumental music: What is it talking about? says Carlson. How is it saying what its saying? I dont have answers. Thats why I like to work in the area I do. Were at a stage where, to us, its out in the world landing in peoples brains, and thats whats interesting to me.

Even when people dont like it, its really interesting to hear why, says Sielaff. Usually those people volunteer those opinions.

A story is both told and heard, with equal parts given and received. The humanism of any art exposes the recipient as the final ingredient to its magic. With Rotations, Golden Retriever has once again made you an equal partner in their craft.

Link:

Heavy Rotation: Golden Retriever's Spellbinding New LP - The Portland Mercury

Anti-environment right shifts tactics: From climate-change denial to censorship and intimidation – Salon

Posted on August 10, 2017 by Danzig

While much of the media obsesses over a pointless debateabout whether free speech should protect an employee who abuses his co-workers with outrageous claims masquerading as science (the answer is no), theres a serious assault on real science underway. Conservatives, including those in the Trump administration, are now trying to undermine the ability of scientists and activists to communicate ideas to the public. Climate change, unlike the supposed intellectual inferiority of women, is a genuine scientific finding with a strong consensus behind it. Thats likely why the right is increasingly looking to McCarthyite tactics to demonize and suppress information about it.

On Tuesday, Jane Mayer of The New Yorker reported that James OKeefe, the notorious right-wing hoaxer who tries to pass off his disinformation campaigns as investigative journalism, may have been caught trying to run one of his scams on the League of Conservation Voters. League officials have filed a complaint alleging that OKeefes team at the Veritas Project created an elaborate scheme to ingratiate themselves with the organization, in hopes of baiting someone who works there into saying something that could be taken out of context and used to demonize the group.

That has been the principal and indeed only tactic employed byOKeefe and his comrades since his glory days of 2009, when he successfully hoodwinked both media and elected officials with a hoax video falsely alleging that workersat ACORN were aiding and abetting sex traffickers.OKeefe and his colleagues, includingDavid Daleiden or Lila Rose, have a standard M.O.: Put out a video, using undercover footage taken out of context, to make false claims against progressive organizations or activists, with the hope that the lie spreads faster and farther than the inevitable debunking ever could.

OKeefe and his cronies usually go for targets that play off the Breitbart bases racist and sexist anxieties, so its a bit surprising to see them target a group that does the unsexy work of using electoral politics to advocate for reducing pollution and protecting public lands. But this all fits into what appears to be a growing strategy, empowered by Trumps election, of right-wingers seeking to intimidate and silence those who want to educate the public about the reality of climate change.

Also on Tuesday, Breitbart News published a straight-up bonkers piece by Matthew Boylebased on the premise that there is something deeply sinister or even illegal about reporters contacting EPAemployees to ask them how Trump appointee Scott Pruitt a noted climate-change skeptic is handling his job as head of the agency.Boyle was roundly mocked on social media for trying to put an alarmist spin on standard journalistic practice: Trying to inform the public about what their presidents appointees are doing with taxpayer money. But as Matt Gertz at Media Matters has pointed out, there may be something more disturbing here than the usual Breitbart nonsense.

Boyle apparently got his hands on an email exchange between EPA union representativeJohn OGrady and New York Times reporter Coral Davenport, who asked whom she could speak to in order to verify rumors about Pruitts behavior at the EPA. At the end of the article, Boyle published a list of the 34 employees to whom OGrady forwarded the request.

In so doing, Breitbart is serving as the Trump administrations pawn, giving it a roadmap it can use to ferret out potential leakers, Gertz writes, noting that those employees could face recriminations from the Trump administration simply for being perceived as someone who might suggest Pruitt is bad at his job.

Trumps administration loves throwing the word leaker around, equating every bad story shared by a government employee with the release of classified information that threatens national security. In reality, however, EPA employees exposing malfeasance at their agency are protecting national security, which most experts believe is in imperiled by climate change and endangered by Trump and Pruitts efforts to hide the scientific realities.

Despite all the squawking from the right about free speech whenever someone faces social (but not legal) consequences for saying bigotedthings in public, this is what a real attack on free speech looks like. Journalists, activists and government employees are being intimidated, harassed and subtly threatened for trying to get out the truth about climate change and expose the way taxpayer money is being misused by people who want to deny its reality.

There were reasons to worry that the effects are being felt in federal agencies, even before Boyle published his blacklist. On Monday,the Guardian published a report showing that officials at the U.S. Department of Agriculture had sent emails to staffers telling them to stop using terms like climate change, greenhouse gases and even sequester carbon. This follows a similar story published by Politico in Marchthatexposed how officials at the Department of Energy were also instructed not to use the termsclimate change, emissions reduction or Paris Agreement.

Under the circumstances, its no surprisethat someone sharedwith The New York Times a draft reportwritten by scientists at 13 federal agencies that chronicles the current not future, but current problems faced by Americans due to rising global temperatures. The leakers, the Times reported, were afraid their higher-ups in the Trump administration would take measures to censor, alter or suppress the findings.

As David Roberts at Vox points out, theres no evidence so far that Trump intended to suppress the report. He may have been planning on doing what he usually does, which is to ignore and/or lie about information that he finds displeasing. But in this environment, there is clearly reason to believe that conservatives have escalated past trying to deny the facts and are moving toward actively suppressing information.

Simply by becoming president, Trump has empowered and energized the most authoritarian tendencies, including bullying and a desire for censorship, found among many on the right. This new report from the government scientists, however, points to another reason: Climate change is no longer some abstractproblem that conservatives can dismiss as hypothetical. People, particularly in rural areas that tend to vote Republican, are starting to see and feel evidence of rising temperatures and the effects they have on weather and agriculture. That might make them more open to hearing a truth that was easier to deny in the past. Under those circumstances, theres good reason to suspect were seeing the beginning of a shift away from straightforward denial of climate change to more aggressive efforts to suppress the truth.

View post:

Anti-environment right shifts tactics: From climate-change denial to censorship and intimidation - Salon

Lyft Sparks Censorship Fears With Email Asking Drivers to Speak to Company Before Media – NBC Bay Area

Posted on August 10, 2017 by Danzig

WATCH LIVE

A Lyft car in San Francisco is seen in this file image.

Lyft apparently doesn't agree with the adage, "Any publicity is good publicity."

In an email, the San Francisco-based ride-sharing giant asked its drivers to pump the brakes before speaking with the press, and instead check in with Lyft officials first, according to the San Francisco Examiner.

The July note states: Email press@lyft.com if youre ever contacted by a reporter. Speaking of Lyft in the news: Were here to help if you get approached for an interview. Shoot a note to our communications team and theyll make sure youre prepared for any questions.

The message has created a stir, raising concerns about censorship.

Some drivers have taken to online message boards, calling it a scare tactic. Others say this is Lyfts way of trying to get in front of bad publicity, which has plagued its biggest competitor, Uber, according to the SF Examiner.

Drivers also wrote that they are independent contractors, not employees, so Lyft cannot restrict their actions.

Scott Coriell, a Lyft spokesperson, provided a comment to the SF Examiner, which read in part that censoring its drivers wasnt the intent, and thats not something we would ever do. Its not a requirement simply a reminder that were here as a resource, Coriell told the publication.

Published 31 minutes ago

See original here:

Lyft Sparks Censorship Fears With Email Asking Drivers to Speak to Company Before Media - NBC Bay Area

‘Censorship is for losers’: Assange offers fired Google engineer job at WikiLeaks – RT

Posted on August 10, 2017 by Danzig

Published time: 9 Aug, 2017 22:53 Edited time: 10 Aug, 2017 08:55

Julian Assange is offering the Google engineer fired over a controversial memo, deemed to be in breach of the companys diversity code, a job at WikiLeaks.

The WikiLeaks founder and chief tweeted, Censorship is for losers, before adding that there was a job for fired Google software engineer James Damore at his whistleblowing organization.

Damore came under fire after an internal memo he wrote, arguing that women are underrepresented in tech not due to bias, but because of inherent psychological differences from men, was published online.

EntitledGoogles Ideological Echo Chamber,it suggests that the companys political bias has created the effect of shaming into silence.

This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed, and the lack of discussion brings about the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology, the memo says.

We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism, Damore adds, suggesting that men have a higher drive for status and women have a higher agreeableness, leading to difficulties in salary negotiation.

READ MORE: Gender gap is natural, Google employee says in 10-page internally viral memo

The memo caused a media storm over the weekend with many branding it sexist.

On Tuesday, Damore confirmedhe had been let go by the company in an email which stated the reason for dismissal was perpetuating gender stereotypes.

Google CEO Sundar Pichai told employees Monday that parts of Damore's memo "violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace."

Assange posted a series of tweets criticizing Google for firing someone for politely expressing their ideas.

He included a link to an extract from his 2014 book, When Google met WikiLeaks, in the tweets.

The excerpt, entitled, Google is not what it seems, outlines Assanges understanding of the relationship between Google and the US State Department.

READ MORE: Putting people at risk': Assanges lawyer criticizes new documentary on WikiLeaks founder

Lyft drivers fear censorship after internal email about speaking to press – San Francisco Examiner

Posted on August 10, 2017 by Danzig

San Francisco Examiner

Lyft drivers fear censorship after internal email about speaking to press
San Francisco Examiner
Scott Coriell, a Lyft spokesperson, wrote that censorship wasn't the intent, and that's not something we would ever do. In a statement Coriell forwarded from Lyft, the company said drivers are free to speak to the press, and there are no ...

and more »

Free-speech debate swirls as officials block on social media – ABC News

Posted on August 10, 2017 by Danzig

An emerging debate about whether elected officials violate people's free speech rights by blocking them on social media is spreading across the U.S. as groups sue or warn politicians to stop the practice.

The American Civil Liberties Union this week sued Maine Gov. Paul LePage and sent warning letters to Utah's congressional delegation. It followed recent lawsuits against the governors of Maryland and Kentucky and President Donald Trump.

Trump's frequent and often unorthodox use of Twitter and allegations he blocks people with dissenting views has raised questions about what elected officials can and cannot do on their official social media pages.

Politicians at all levels increasingly embrace social media to discuss government business, sometimes at the expense of traditional town halls or in-person meetings.

"People turn to social media because they see their elected officials as being available there and they're hungry for opportunities to express their opinions and share feedback," said Anna Thomas, spokeswoman for the ACLU of Utah. "That includes people who disagree with public officials."

Most of the officials targeted so far all Republicans say they are not violating free speech but policing social media pages to get rid of people who post hateful, violent, obscene or abusive messages.

A spokeswoman for Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan called the Aug. 1 lawsuit against him "frivolous" and said his office has a clear policy and will "remove all hateful and violent content" and "coordinated spam attacks."

The ACLU accused Kentucky Gov. Matt Bevin of blocking more than 600 people on Facebook and Twitter. His office said he blocks people who post "obscene and abusive language or images, or repeated off-topic comments and spam."

Spokesmen for Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch and Rep. Mia Love, who were singled out by the ACLU, said people are rarely blocked and only after they have violated rules posted on their Facebook pages to prevent profanity, vulgarity, personal insults or obscene comments.

"We are under no obligation to allow Senator Hatch's Facebook page to be used as a platform for offensive content or misinformation," spokesman Matt Whitlock said.

Katie Fallow, senior staff attorney at Columbia University's Knight First Amendment Institute, which sued Trump last month, said there's no coordinated national effort to target Republicans. The goal is to establish that all elected officials no matter the party must stop blocking people on social media.

"If it's mainly used to speak to and hear from constituents, that's a public forum and you can't pick and choose who you hear from," Fallow said.

Rob Anderson, chairman of Utah's Republican Party, scoffed at the notion that politicians are violating free-speech rights by weeding out people who post abusive content.

"You own your Facebook page and if you want to block somebody or hide somebody, that's up to you," Anderson said. "Why else is there a tab that says hide or block?"

Court decisions about how elected officials can and cannot use their accounts are still lacking in this new legal battleground, but rules for public forums side with free-speech advocates, said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California-Berkeley Law School.

For instance, lower court rulings say the government can't deny credentials to journalists because their reporting is critical, he said.

"These are government officials communicating about government business. They can't pick or choose based on who they like or who likes them," Chemerinsky said.

But public officials may be able to legally defend the way they police their social media pages if they prove their decisions are applied evenly.

"It's got to content-neutral," Chemerinsky said.

Trump's use of social media and the Supreme Court's decision in June striking down a North Carolina law that barred convicted sex offenders from social media is driving the increased attention to the issue, said Amanda Shanor, a fellow at the Information Society Project at Yale Law School.

"More and more of our political discussion is happening online," Shanor said. "It's more important that we know what these rules are."

Go here to read the rest:

Free-speech debate swirls as officials block on social media - ABC News

Free speech on the job, and what that means – CNNMoney

Posted on August 10, 2017 by Danzig

"As a general rule, the First Amendment doesn't apply to the private workplace," said Daniel Schwartz, employment law partner at Shipman & Goodwin. Instead, the First Amendment prevents government, but not companies or individuals, from limiting free speech.

You can say whatever you want in a private workplace, Schwartz said, but you should "assume your employer might have something to say about it."

But some forms of employee speech are protected by the nation's labor laws.

"Employees have the right to talk about their wages, hours and working conditions," said Heather Bussing, a California labor attorney.

The difference will likely be at the center of the controversy swirling around a diversity memo written by a now ex-Google employee.

Software engineer James Damore posted a 3,300-word criticism of Google's diversity policies on the company's internal website. In it, he said he valued diversity and inclusion, but argued that the biological differences between men and women "may explain why we don't see equal representation of women in tech and leadership."

Related: Google's open culture tested by engineer's anti-diversity memo

Damore confirmed to some other news outlets on Monday that he had been fired as a result of the memo.

Google (GOOG) has yet to confirm his firing, although a source confirms he is no longer an employee. But CEO Sundar Pichai said in a response sent to Google employees, that while "we strongly support the right of Googlers to express themselves ... to suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK."

Pichai said that sections of the memo violate the company's Code of Conduct, which requires "each Googler to do their utmost to create a workplace culture that is free of harassment, intimidation, bias and unlawful discrimination."

Related: Silicon Valley spars over Googler's essay

Bussing said that parts of the memo, like his criticism of the company's diversity program, could be considered a discussion about working conditions that is protected by law. But other parts could be considered offensive by Damore's co-workers, and Google had a right to take action.

"Google says it has a line, and that this [memo] crossed it," she said.

Damore told the New York Times that "I have a legal right to express my concerns about the terms and conditions of my working environment and to bring up potentially illegal behavior, which is what my document does."

The memo could also be a different form of protected employee speech that labor law calls "concerted activities." Typically that's speech by employees who are seeking to form a union. But any kind of "call to action" directed at other employees could also fall into this category, said Eric Meyer, a labor law partner Dilworth Paxson who runs the blog The Employer Handbook.

"It's possible he may have a claim," said Meyer.

But a company can fire an employee for violating policy even if his or her speech is protected, Meyer said.

Employers can have a policy to create whatever culture they want inside the business, and to get rid of employees who do not fit in that environment, as long as that policy does not discriminate against a class of people based on characteristics such as gender, age or race, according experts.

"Companies have a right to manage their workplaces as they want," said Schwartz. "they can prefer one point of view over another If they want."

CNNMoney (New York) First published August 8, 2017: 4:43 PM ET

Read the original:

Free speech on the job, and what that means - CNNMoney

The Google Glitch: Free Speech, Stereotypes, and Sacred Myths – HuffPost

Posted on August 10, 2017 by Danzig

Imagine for a moment that you are the boss of Google. Youre on vacation when you get a call that the place is going up on flames over an internal memo that one of your white, male engineers has written condemning the companys approach to diversity. Some women are threatening to quit unless the memos author is fired. What would you do?

If you find that question easy to answer, I humbly suggest you havent thought hard enough. Its understandable that many Americans leap to one position or another. We live in a moment when tweets pass for discourse, and breaking news continually short-circuits deep thought. But the firing of software engineer James Damore for writing, among other things, On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. Women on average are more prone to anxiety deserves more than reflexive outrage. After all, were talking about the clash of two pillars of our society -- free speech and the presumptive equality of all persons. When pillars clash, we should all worry about the roof caving in.

Googles CEO, Sundar Pichai, fired Damore for his memos harmful gender stereotypes. Ill share my views on this below, but first, put on your miners helmet. We need to delve beneath the surface of these social fault lines to understand the subterranean geography of our society.

The First Amendment establishes our free speech rights. Damore claims he was wrongly fired because he had a right to bring up working conditions with his colleagues. Courts may decide the merits of that claim, but for now its important to recognize that free speech rights have never been absolute. You cannot hide behind the First Amendment to harass someone, to disrupt religious services, or to incite a lynching. The government may be constrained from censoring our speech, but employers can impose all kinds of limitations and penalties, especially within the workplace.

Thats the easy part. The fault line runs under a fogbound trench called hate speech. Theres no doubting that hate speech exists, but like art its hard to define. Is God hates fags, hate speech or a theological position? To me, its clearly both, but that does nothing to resolve the dilemma over how society should respond. Courts have largely relied on time, place, and manner restrictions to define the limits of free speech, but on the campuses of universities and now of tech companies, the controversy burns.

The Westboro Baptists crude sloganeering is loathsome yet rightfully protected within time, place, and manner bounds. At a certain distance, they can picket a funeral, disgusting as that practice may be, provided they do not disrupt it. But if that is indeed protected speech, why should James Damore lose his job? After all, he expressed no hatred in his memo. On the contrary, he explicitly states, I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more.

The answer, I think, lies in time, place and manner. This is a time when tech giants are under fire for perceived gender and racial bias. Damore chose to express his views within his company, which means that Google had every right to weigh the consequences of his speech, hateful or not, against the value of his continued employment. Finally and most crucially, the manner of Damores expression was clearly provocative. His patchy empiricism and disclaimers notwithstanding, from the title down the essay is no invitation to dialogue; it is a poke in the eye. Oh, did I mention? Its called Googles Ideological Echo Chamber.

But theres more. In citing stereotypes, CEO Pichai said, Our co-workers shouldnt have to worry that each time they open their mouths to speak in a meeting, they have to prove that they are not like the memo states.

Thats admirable. Unfortunately, it embodies a categorical error about stereotypes. As Steven Pinker has pointed out, many (though certainly not all) stereotypes center on some true generalities. It is a true generality, for example, that men are taller than women. This has no bearing on whether any particular man is taller or shorter than any particular woman.

Whether we voice them or not, we all generate stereotypes. This is no surprise, since stereotyping about people grows out of the key human instincts for categorizing and abstracting. Thats not an excuse for prejudice. Its what you do with your stereotypes that counts.

We all carry around a stereotype about what constitutes a chair, for example. Its useful in preventing us from sitting on a spike rather than a cushion. Most of us would say a chair has four legs, a seat, and a back. Within that stereotype we can easily fit a wooden chair and a lazy boy recliner. But if confronted with a rubber ball as chair, we may have to recontour the stereotype.

So too with people. The categorical error is to claim that stereotyping itself is a harm. Its not. Rather, the harm lies in filling a stereotype with false, demeaning, and/or spiteful content and then applying the model presumptively and indiscriminately to all instances of that category. The sin is not stereotyping itself, but failing to consciously push back against our presumptions to take each person on their own terms.

Let me turn this on myself. Roughly speaking, Im an Arab-American. Doubtless, this floods your mind with notions about me. Burnoose, anyone? When I went off to college, many years ago, I learned that my roommate would be David Rosenbaum. People who knew him told me, Hes like Mr. Young Zionist! You guys are going to kill each other! The same people told Dave that he was being roomed with a terrorist. When we met, I seem to recall, both our knees were knocking. But we soon became really good friends, as did our families, and the friendship has lasted a lifetime.

The point is not just that we were both exceptions to whatever stereotypes people had of us; its that people are vastly more complex than any stereotype of any of them. We are not chairs. Yet its worth remembering that, depending on the circumstances, even a chair may become a flotation device or firewood.

Still we not done. Throughout history, societies have organized around sacred myths. These clearly had some utility in the past, but they easily turn toxic in advanced mass societies. For one thing, a liberal democracy cannot function if its citizens prefer truthiness over truth.

Among the points Damore tried to make, in his self-sabotaging way, was this: we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that dont fit a certain ideology. That is certainly true of the nation, of New England Patriots fans and foes, and likely of Google as well. Social cohesion tugs us in that direction. But if we truly aspire to be a more just society, we have to tear down at least some of our sacred myths.

None is holier than the myth of equality. Clearly, legal equality is a social good to be cherished. Clearly, we are not individually equal in traits, skills, or character. I am not as good at physics as Lisa Randall, at investing as Warren Buffett, or at singing as Bobby McFerrin. I am better at ethics than Donald Trump. But what of groups? Are all groups equal? In what sense? And if so, should we expect, in a just society, to see a random distribution of people from those groups in all occupations?

Those are worthy questions. They should not be taboo because of our sacred myth. The underlying fear seems to be that asking such questions will validate noxious claims such as women are not ambitious or women are more neurotic than men. Those are horrible, hurtful claims, but more important they can never be validated at the level that counts: a person.

Even an essay as long as this doesnt give room to fully explore this fraught subject. To be clear, though, Im not attempting to smuggle in a white, male supremacist ideology. My life history is a testament against that. However, I am stating, unequivocally, that it is wrong to put the scientific investigation of human nature, including average male-female differences, out of bounds, and it may be wrong to expect that a just society would result in an even distribution of men and women in all occupations.

Theres no cause for alarm in this. At the moment, it appears that even in a flawed society women may make up a majority of lawyers. Since men still have a higher admission rate to law school, this is evidently not the result of social policy or legal tactics, but of female choice and ability.

So, would I conclude that Pichai was wrong to fire Damore? No. In his place, I might have suspended Damore and worked with him and others to create a plan for his rehabilitation, but hey, thats why I run a small nonprofit, not a tech giant.

Damore took an aggressive, condescending approach in his memo, one that he should have known would ignite angry rebukes rather than thoughtful dialogue. Worse, in my view, he mixed sprinklings of science with unfounded and hurtful generalities. Do women exhibit more neuroticism, as Damore states? His anchor that claim is a link to a Wikipedia article on the general topic of neurosis.

Its a shame, in every sense. It sets back the hope of reconciling differing views on the common ground of science, of harmonizing principles in the optimum of justice, and of healing grievances through mutual respect and authentic conversation.

Yet, pursue that hope we must. We cannot be innocent of history. We cannot ignore present-day bias. Above all we cannot hide from the truth. The most important truth in this painful situation may be this: Everyone deserves to be fairly considered on their own merits.

Any views expressed in the essay above are those of the author alone.

The Morning Email

Wake up to the day's most important news.

See the rest here:

The Google Glitch: Free Speech, Stereotypes, and Sacred Myths - HuffPost

Google memos and pro-Trump cakes: When free speech values collide – The Hill (blog)

Posted on August 10, 2017 by Danzig

From work memorandums to wedding cakes, our values and consistency are tested in some strange places.

Not too long ago, most people agreed on certain values when it came to free speech: I disagree with your message but tolerate your right to say it. To be sure, that value created costs, but it seemed worthwhile to most. That consensus is now gone, at least in the corporate context. How this change affects culture more generally remains to be seen, but we may get an answer sooner than many expect.

So in terms of the First Amendment, Google can set and promote whatever values it wants. It can criticize harmful gender stereotypes or wax eloquent about affirming the right of Googlers to express themselves or boldly proclaim that free society depends on free expression. Whether this is consistent, correct, coherent, or commendable doesnt matter as a purely legal matter. No one can force Google to change its mind or its message. As Apples CEO Tim Cook noted, a company is not some faceless, shapeless thing that exists apart from society. A company like ours has a culture, it has values, and it has a voice. The First Amendment agrees.

The same holds for artistic businesses. Among those, there is a strong push for businesses to promote certain values and to avoid certain values.

For example, everyone seems fine with cake designers not being compelled to design pro-Trump cakes. Indeed, the mom of a 9-year-old Trump supporter could not find a single cake designer to create a Donald TrumpDonald TrumpDemocrats introduce another 'false hope' act to immigrants Caitlyn Jenner apologizes for wearing Make America Great Again hat Conway, ABC host tangle over Trump's involvement in son's statement MORE cake, and no one cried foul. Or consider Sophie Theallets independent fashion brand that refused to create dresses for Melania Trump. That seemed fine, too. After all, as Theallet noted, we value our artistic freedom and shouldnt have to participate in dressing or associating in any way with projects we dont want to support.

But when a Colorado cake designer named Jack Phillips decided that he and his cake shop could not create a cake celebrating a same-sex marriage in 2012, the hammer came down hard culturally and legally. The state sued him for violating its anti-discrimination law and wants to compel him to design that cake.

#BREAKING: Supreme Court agrees to hear same-sex wedding cake case https://t.co/YTQgtn6ci4 pic.twitter.com/KxsaRznV1V

For Phillips, the issue is one of corporate values and culture. While Phillips is happy to serve and does serve people of all sexual orientations, he cannot promote messages and values with which he disagrees, just like those other designers and businesses insist they cant do. In other words, Phillips doesnt discriminate based on status; he makes distinctions based on content. He sells brownies to all. He just doesnt celebrate every message requested of him, no matter who requests it.

That principle has now led Phillips to the U.S. Supreme Court, which will hear his case this upcoming term. And this moment will offer great insight into the current state of our free speech culture, both corporately and generally. Businesses and elite institutions often file briefs supporting one side or the other at the Supreme Court. Which side will these corporations support in Phillips case?

One would think, based on their free speech rhetoric and prior positions, that companies like Google would support Phillips. After all, in 2007, Google and Microsoft defended their First Amendment right to not show paid advertisements for websites criticizing North Carolina politician Roy Cooper in their search results. And in 2016, Apple defended its First Amendment right to not create computer code helping the federal government unlock a criminals iPhone. Businesses should stay true to their core values, or at least thats what we would assume. And the government surely should not compel these businesses to betray those values.

"The Google diversity memo should start the conversation not end it" https://t.co/fZokKygXhG pic.twitter.com/xgLlCDIDsI

Companies have even gone so far as to argue that their First Amendment rights trump anti-discrimination laws. Right now, Comcast is defending against an anti-discrimination lawsuit by asserting its First Amendment right to reject programs that African Americanowned media companies created. And in 2012, ABC defended its First Amendment right to exclude African Americans from The Bachelorette when it was sued for violating an anti-discrimination law. As ABC argued in that suit, Even laws which advance important and worthwhile social policy objectives, like anti-discrimination laws, may not, consistent with the First Amendment, be used to regulate the content of protected speech.

Since these companies so staunchly defend their own right to promote values of their choosing and have taken more extreme positions than Phillips, supporting this cake designer in his First Amendment quest should be easy. I disagree with your message but tolerate your right to say it, right?

In this respect, that anti-Trump fashion designer provided the best reason for businesses to support their own expressive freedom and for them to support Phillips, too: Integrity is our only true currency. Lets just see if she, Google, other corporations get the memo.

Jonathan Scruggs is senior counsel and director of the Center for Conscience Initiatives at Alliance Defending Freedom, which represents Jack Phillips.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the views of The Hill.

Here is the original post:

Google memos and pro-Trump cakes: When free speech values collide - The Hill (blog)

Techdirt gets more than $250000 to better cover free-speech issues – Washington Post

Posted on August 10, 2017 by Danzig

Ive long much liked the free-speech coverage of Techdirt and Mike Masnick, and I was delighted to hear that they have received more than $250,000 to cover free-speech issues. Heres Masnicks post on the subject:

For nearly two decades, Techdirt has reported extensively on issues related to free speech on the internet. Much of this coverage has been about laws that help to protect free speech, such as anti-SLAPP laws, intermediary liability protections, and fair use, among others. Over time, weve seen countless attempts to silence speech and undermine important protections for free speech, even as new technologies and services have risen up to provide more arenas for free speech to thrive. These attacks on free speech including lawsuits, threats, bullying, and legislative proposals raise serious concerns about protecting free speech online.

In January of this year, the company behind Techdirt, and two of its employees, were sued for $15 million in a lawsuit that seems specifically designed to either shut down the company or to silence reporting on matters of public interest.

The lawsuit, along with our reporting on many similar stories, motivated the Techdirt team to double down on our coverage of issues related to free speech on the internet, and the ways that it is being attacked. Going through the process ourselves has given us an even deeper appreciation for the First Amendment and the legal protections provided in states with strong anti-SLAPP laws. Similarly, we are more aware than ever before of the myriad ways in which free speech is under attack not just directly, but indirectly as well, such as via threats against third parties and platforms to stifle speech.

It has also given us greater recognition that many people even journalists, lawyers and politicians may not fully understand these issues, what legal protections there are, where those protections are under attack, and where they could be strengthened. Many are also not aware of the massive cost attacks on free speech have, and just how many people they are impacting.

This has inspired us to work with the Freedom of the Press Foundation to put this project together, which will enable us to focus even more reporting resources on covering threats to free speech in the US and around the globe, and to tell the stories of the chilling effects created when free speech is attacked. We are thankful that a number of prominent organizations and foundations have also stepped up to sponsor this effort, including Automattic, the Charles Koch Foundation, Craig Newmarks CraigConnects and Union Square Ventures. [Techdirt maintains full editorial control over all content.] Between all supporting organizations, more than $250,000 has been committed so far to further reporting on free speech. We hope youll look forward to much more reporting on issues related to free speech online.

View post:

Techdirt gets more than $250000 to better cover free-speech issues - Washington Post

Freedom Of Speech: Poland Plots Restrictions On Foreign Media And US Companies Could Be Hit – Newsweek

Posted on August 10, 2017 by Danzig

The Polish government, with whom Donald Trumpenjoysclose relations, is planning new laws restricting foreign ownership of media that would disproportionately harm U.S. companies.

The ruling Law and Justice (PiS) [party] will likely submit a bill setting limits to foreign ownership of media outlets in Poland at the autumn session of parliament, a research note from political analysts Teneo Intelligence said.

Ownership limitations would adversely impact German and U.S. media groups that currently dominate Polish media market, thus increasing the risk of a sharply negative international response, it continued. Otilia Dhand, senior vice president at Teneo, says Viacom and E.W. Scripps are both particularly active in Poland.

Daily Emails and Alerts - Get the best of Newsweek delivered to your inbox

Dhandtells Newsweek that the type and level of restrictions the government imposes will likely depend on the amount of outcry generated over its proposals.

According to Teneos note, the bill could set a limit as low as 15 percent on foreign ownership of media corporations. But other recent proposals have been scuppered or rowed back after international criticism.

For example, a recent attempt to pass three laws that would have cemented government control over the judiciary ended with the countrys presidenta usually submissive former member of PiSvetoing two of them. Dhand says U.S. pressure may have been partly behind the move.

Dhand says the push to take more control over the private media sector follows the governments early move to consolidate control over public media. At the start of 2016, the government passed legislation that allowed it to appoint the heads of state TV and radio outlets.

They do want to gain control, leverage, over the private media to avoid criticisms. So thats the sort of basic aim. It is a big question ofwhat form does this leverage [take], Dhand said.

Dhand cited the example of the Polish banking sector, where the state insurance company has been instructed to buy up stakes in banks as they come onto the market, as a model the government could follow in the media sector.

Polands government took office in late 2015 and has proved controversial on the world stage ever since. It is engaged in two rows with the European Commission in Brussels:one over its plans for the judiciaryand another over logging rights in a primeval forest.

Donald Trump visited Poland in July, and at a press conference where he faced difficult questions from U.S. reporters he jokingly asked President Andrzej Duda whether he struggled with a hostile media too.

The rest is here:

Freedom Of Speech: Poland Plots Restrictions On Foreign Media And US Companies Could Be Hit - Newsweek

Staying power: a poet’s place in God’s agenda – National Catholic Reporter

Posted on August 10, 2017 by Danzig

Milosz's poems suggest that he leaned towards Lithuania's mix of magic, pantheism and Christian mysticism. He was especially close to his maternal grandmother,Jozefa, who spent hours in prayer. Milosz later learned that her piety was blended with superstition.

Writing his first poem at 13, he published approximately 25 books, ending withAbout Journeys Through Time, a book of essays. Three other books were issued posthumously, includingNew and Collected Poems: 1931-2001, which was reprinted in April 2017.

Milosz was highly regarded for his many prose works, such as his autobiographical novel,TheIssaValley, his spiritual biography,The Land ofUlro, his reflections on literature,The Witness of Poetry, and his collection of essays refuting totalitarianism, The Captive Mind, which, he said, originated in a prayer.

Milosz wrote prose and poems about the devastation he experienced during invasions by Czarist and Soviet Russia as well as by Poland and Germany. He lived through both world wars, and afterward, his homeland was carved up and given over to the Soviets. Then, in the1990s, he witnessed the rise of the Solidarity Movement and the fall of the Soviet Union.

Through it all, he was sustained by his wife, brother, friends and faith. AsFranaszekquotes from one of Milosz's essays: "Had it not been for the Catholic faith and [being] able to pray in adulthood, I would have perished. I believed that I have a place in God's agenda, and I asked for the ability to fulfill the tasks awaiting me."

Milosz was friends with luminaries like Thomas Merton and Pope John Paul II, the latter of whom corresponded with him. Another friend, Lech Walesa, said that Milosz's poems inspired the Solidarity Movement. Ultimately, Milosz won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1980 for clearly expressing "man's exposed condition in a world of severe conflicts."

See the article here:

Staying power: a poet's place in God's agenda - National Catholic Reporter

This World as Philosophically Necessary – Patheos (blog)

Posted on August 10, 2017 by Danzig

In this post, I am going to consider the necessary property of God. God is often claimed to be philosophically necessary, with all other created things deemed to be contingent. I am going to challenge this prevailing idea.

First, let us consider what both terms (necessary and contingent) mean.

As mentioned, God is deemed to be necessary the fundamental foundation to reality. What might we understand by a logically necessary entity? As wiki explains:

The concept of a metaphysically necessary being plays an important role in certain arguments for the existence of God, especially theontological argument, but metaphysical necessity is also one of the central concepts in late 20th centuryanalytic philosophy. Metaphysical necessity has proved a controversial concept, and criticized byDavid Hume,Immanuel Kant,J. L. Mackie, andRichard Swinburne, among others.

Metaphysical necessity is contrasted with other types of necessity. For example, the philosophers of religionJohn Hick[2]andWilliam L. Rowe[3]distinguished the following three:

While many theologians (e.g.Anselm of Canterbury,Ren Descartes, andGottfried Leibniz) considered God as logically or metaphysically necessary being, Richard Swinburne argued for factual necessity, andAlvin Plantingaargues that God is a causally necessary being. Because a factually or causally necessary being does not exist by logical necessity, it does not exist in all logically possible worlds.[4]Therefore, Swinburne used the term ultimate brute fact for the existence of God.[5]

To me, there is a distinct potential, here, of confusingthe map with the terrain. We love to use logic and words as means to describe reality, but this does not mean they necessarily (no pun intended)arereality. After all, Christian philosophers have tried to use this technique to logic God into reality and existence, to much controversy.

Lets grant God as necessary, for the sake of argument. He is a necessary entity, existent in all possible worlds (itself a controversial idea).

Okay, so we have a necessary God with necessary properties. One must really assume that his properties are also necessary otherwise the term God as being necessary is really meaningless. We then get to some form of classical theism (the properties of which I roundly criticise in my ebookThe Problem with God: Classical Theism under the Spotlight) whereby God has the necessary ideals of perfect, or maximal, power, knowledge and love.

If God, then, as a necessary being, has necessary properties, and these properties necessarily cause a decision to create in a particular way the most perfect (since all of Gods decisions must be perfect) way then Gods decision to produce this world must also be necessary. It was the perfect choice (I cant, given the constraints on God in this way, see him being able to produce all or multiple versions of creation unless these be seen as perfect in some way) to create this world.

God, in his necessary perfection, chose to create this world. And remember, without time (before the creation of spacetime) any decision to create would not be temporal or deliberative (since deliberation takes time) and would thus be instantaneous (for want of a non-temporal term). Therefore, it really does look like creation springs necessarily from a necessary god.

Ergo, this universe is also necessary.

I cannot think of a way that the universe is contingent upon God since it would exist simultaneously with God. There would be no spacetime, so God would exist in not even a temporal sense, and the universe would coexist as a necessary extension of Gods properties.

This universeisevery possible world. Or, if there are multiple worlds within the perfect creation scenario, thentheyexist in every possible world.

In a sense, arguably, if you have a necessary God, you have some form of pantheism or panentheism where the created is merely a sort of necessary extension of God.

I will formalise this into a syllogism in my next post.

Originally posted here:

This World as Philosophically Necessary - Patheos (blog)

I’m an Atheist and No, I’m Not More Likely to Be a Serial Killer Than Anyone Else – POPSUGAR

Posted on August 10, 2017 by Danzig

Like 40 percent of Americans, I found myself on a Sunday morning in a place of worship; specifically, I was sitting in the pew of a church. Not just any church, but Maranatha Baptist Church in Plains, GA, which former President Jimmy Carter attends and where he was scheduled to teach Sunday school that morning. After "checking in" on Facebook, I received notifications and text messages with the same question, "You're in a CHURCH?" Yes, this atheist was in church. Yes, this atheist was going to listen to a Sunday school class and participate in a full church service. But just because I don't believe in any higher power, did that mean that I couldn't reap any judicious lessons about humanity that might be taught?

There's a common misconception that atheists are untrustworthy and immoral and will burst into flames upon entrance of any religious facility. Now, there are people of all faiths or nonfaith who are untrustworthy or immoral, but I am here to tell you that none us will spontaneously combust. All jokes aside, this is a harmful and hurtful stereotype that those of nonfaith face. The New York Times recently published an article highlighting a new study by the journal Nature: Human Behaviour that showed a strong bias against atheists among those questioned in more than 13 countries, including the United States. The shared suspicion of nonbelievers as dangerous is still alive and well worldwide. The survey showed an "extreme moral prejudice against atheists," and respondents even said they believed serial killers were more likely to be atheists. (Which begs the question: what about terrorist attacks conducted by faith-based persons vs. atheists/agnostics?)

Teachings from the books of various religions including Christianity, Judaism, and Islam reinforce punitive measures for those who don't obey the religious teachings as lessons to be learned often brutal lessons. This is to, literally, put the fear of God in you. One would think that this would lead to better behavior among adults and children, a kinder mentality toward fellow humans. And yet, another study conducted by a team of developmental psychologists found that "children from religious families are less kind and more punitive than those from non-religious households." This is not to say that there aren't some good lessons to be learned from these religious books; on the contrary, commandments such as "Love thy neighbor as thyself" and not to gossip about others are exercises from which we could all do a little better in practicing. But when these teachings cease to be about genuine kindness and more about who can be the better worshiper, this is when religion starts to lose its credibility in regards to morality.

The author, right, with former president Jimmy Carter, center, and his wife, Rosalynn Carter, left, at Maranatha Baptist Church. Photo courtesy the author.

Here's the thing about atheists: when we show altruism, it's not to assuage some higher power or in the hopes that we are going to get a front-row seat in some kind of heaven or afterlife. We also don't have the fear or guilt that often comes with religious pledging. We practice acts of decency toward our fellow humans on this earth because that's just what you do. So why are atheists still judged and treated as if we're dangerous? My take on this is what plagues all of us at some point in our lives: fear of the unknown. In my experience, many who have not found their own comfort and confidence in their religious lives project their unease onto "the other." Atheists are routinely seen as "the other." The nonbeliever portrays an unwelcome threat to the religious, when, really, we are just trying to live our lives.

What the study published in The New York Times failed to explore or answer was why atheists are seen as immoral and less trustworthy. What we should now ask is why atheists and agnostics are seen as more likely to be "psychopathic serial killer(s)," when there's not any evidence proving this belief as accurate? Who gets to define "morality"? Why is the idea of morality synonymous with religion, when no one should have to be driven by gods, faith leaders, or fear to simply be charitable, decent people?

I sat in the sanctuary that Sunday with a wide array of people from various states, countries, faiths, and nonfaiths, all of our differences acknowledged and welcomed. The person to my left, who was raised Baptist but turned Episcopalian, guided me through the service, as I stood unfamiliar and unsure. President Carter's lesson that morning focused on Ezekiel 37 and The Valley of the Dry Bones. While this lesson serves as a reminder to those of the Christian faith that God can make bad things in their lives better, President Carter's words and actions transcended the scripture. He himself presents as an example, as he takes the dry bones of wood and turns them into homes through his volunteerism for Habitat For Humanity. Regardless of how big or small, our gestures to humanity as a whole are how we make a difference, rather than where or who we choose to worship or not.

Atheists are your neighbors, your coworkers, your classmates. As an atheist, I awaken each day with the same hopes and fears as those who believe in a higher power. I just go about tackling those challenges a little bit differently. Rather than continuing to further the idea of atheists as "immoral" and reinforcing a falsely based fear, we need to redirect the dialogue and have the conversation. As people navigating this planet for a fairly short amount of time, we're all just trying to do the best we can, while leaving this place a little more compassionate than before, whether we believe in a god or not.

Curves on the Move: How I Feel Traveling While Fat

by Samantha O'Brochta 22 hours ago

Why Millennial Women Are Embracing Atheism

by Kyle Fitzpatrick 2 weeks ago

11 Cuban Appetizers to Serve at Your Next Party

by Emilia Benton 1 hour ago

Orlys New Collection Finally Makes It Possible For Muslims to Wear Nail Polish

by Perri Konecky 2 days ago

Gordon Ramsay's Badass Tip For Making the Very Best Burgers

by Anna Monette Roberts 51 minutes ago

See the original post:

I'm an Atheist and No, I'm Not More Likely to Be a Serial Killer Than Anyone Else - POPSUGAR

Survey Finds Most People Are Biased Against Atheists, Including … – Smithsonian

Posted on August 10, 2017 by Danzig

SmartNews Keeping you current Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel (Public Domain)

smithsonian.com August 9, 2017

In many parts of the world, secularism is on the rise, even in the United States where there has been a slow but steady drop in the number of people who affiliate themselves with a religion. Despite those changes, Benedict Carey at The New York Times reports that a new study reveals that an implicit bias against atheists, or those who dont believe in any supernatural deity, remains, with most peoplejudging atheists as less moral than religious people.

For the study, researchers surveyed 3,256 people in 13 countries from North America, Europe, Asia and the Middle East, collecting data on their age, religious affiliation and belief in god. Among brain teasers and random questions on a questionnaire, they included aquery describing a man who tortured animals as a child and as an adult went on to abduct and kill five homeless peoplewho are buried in his basement. One half of the subjects were asked: Which is more probable? 1) The man is a teacher; or 2) The man is a teacher and does not believe in any gods.

The other half were asked: Which is more probable? 1) The man is a teacher; or 2) The man is a teacher and a religious believer.

Carey reports that 60 percent of people given the option selected the man as an atheist. Only 30 percent of people given the option selectedhim as a religious believer.

Agence France-Presse reports that the bias was strongest in more religious countries including the United States, United Arab Emirates and India. New Zealand and Finland, both very secular nations, were the only countries in the study that did not show a bias against non-believers. The study appears in the journal Nature Human Behaviour.

It is striking that even atheists appear to hold the same intuitive anti-atheist bias, study co-author Will Gervais, psychology professor at the University of Kentucky,tells AFP. I suspect that this stems from the prevalence of deeply entrenched pro-religious norms. Even in places that are currently quite overtly secular, people still seem to intuitively hold on to the belief that religion is a moral safeguard.

ButRyan F. Mandelbaum at Gizmodo reports that atheists dont exactly need to worry about villagers armed with implicit biases and pitchforks. In a commentary in Naturepublished along with the recent study, Arizona State University psychologists note that most relationships are not as cut and dryas the survey question presents. Atheism is rarely the only piece of information known about interaction partners, they write, and it is possible that, when included with the social information that individuals collect naturally, atheism will be perceived as less indicative of immoral behavior.

In the United States, at least, the social stigma around atheism may have caused people tochoose to hide their non-belief, however.Daniel Cox at FiveThirtyEight reports that Gervais was also the lead author on astudy published earlier this year which found that one in three people in the U.S. surveyed in the sample did not disclose their lack of belief. Using that data, theresearchers suggest thatnumber of people who identify as atheist in the U.S. might actually be as high as 20 percent to even35 percenta significant jump fromthe 3 percent to 11 percent who have self-identified as atheists on recent Pew and Gallup polls.

Like this article? SIGN UP for our newsletter

Jason Daley is a Madison, Wisconsin-based writer specializing in natural history, science, travel, and the environment. His work has appeared in Discover, Popular Science, Outside, Mens Journal, and other magazines.

See the original post:

Survey Finds Most People Are Biased Against Atheists, Including ... - Smithsonian

What if Trump Was an Atheist? – Patheos (blog)

Posted on August 10, 2017 by Danzig

This is merely a thought experiment, though it is almost undoubtedly the case anyway, but what if he was outed as an atheist or openly admitted it? There is no way he is genuinely religious. He is unbelievablynarcissistic and the only god in his life is the one he sees in the mirror; the one who lives underneath the cat-fur rug.

The thought experiment has merit, perhaps. I wonder what would happen with the cognitive dissonance that those Republican voters would experience. Maybe it would allow them to reject him, finally, with warrant, giving them good rationalisation as to why we did end up being a completely lost cause.

On the other hand, it could really act as a moment of normalisation for atheism amongst those of the rabid right. They would have to admit, if they were (in their dissonance) to maintain that Trump was the awesomest of the most awesome, that atheists are okay, and that atheism doesnt turn you into the antichrist (Obama got there first, anyways).

There is evidence to suggest that atheists are the bottom of the pile for candidates US voters would opt for. In 2011, this research by Gervais, Norenzayan and Sharifffound the following:

METHODOLOGY: With the help of fellow UBC researcherAra Norenzayanand University of OregonsAzim Shariff, Gervais posed several hypothetical questions and scenarios to 350 American adults and nearly 420 university students in Canada.

CONCLUSION: Lack of trust is the reason why some people of faith are prejudiced against atheists.

IMPLICATION: Political aspirants who dont believe in God or are members of religious minorities may need to convince voters that they are trustworthy. A 2007 Gallup poll found that only 45 percent of Americans would vote for a qualified atheist president, the lowest figure among several hypothetical minority candidates.

SOURCE: The full study, Do You Believe in Atheists? Distrust Is Central to Anti-Atheist Prejudice (PDF), is published in theJournal of Personality and Social Psychology.

How do we go about breaking this prejudice down? Would Trump admitting he was an atheist help us?

I dont like being categorised with rapists

See the original post here:

What if Trump Was an Atheist? - Patheos (blog)

Immortality: Silicon Valley’s latest obsession ushers in the transhumanist era – South China Morning Post

Posted on August 10, 2017 by Danzig

Zoltan Istvan is launching his campaign to become Libertarian governor of the American state of California with two signature policies. First, hell eliminate poverty with a universal basic income that will guarantee US$5,000 per month for every Californian household for ever. (Hell do this without raising taxes, he promises.)

The next item in his in-tray is eliminating death. He intends to divert trillions of dollars into life-extending technologies robotic hearts, artificial exoskeletons, genetic editing, bionic limbs and so on in the hope that each Californian man, woman and AI (artificial intelligence) will eventually be able to upload their consciousness to the Cloud and experience digital eternity.

What we can experience as a human being is going to be dramatically different within two decades, Istvan says, when we meet at his home in Mill Valley, California. We have five senses now. We might have thousands in 30 or 40 years. We might have very different bodies, too.

I have friends who are about a year away from cutting off their arm and replacing it with a prosthetic version. And sure, pretty soon the robotic arm really will be better than a biological one. Lets say you work in construction and your buddy can lift a thousand times what you can. The question is: do you get it?

For most people, the answer to this question is likely to be, Erm, maybe Ill pass for the moment. But to a transhumanist such as Istvan, 44, the answer is, Hell, yes! A former National Geographic reporter and property speculator, Istvan combines the enthusiasm of a child whos read a lot of Marvel comics with a parodically presidential demeanour. Hes a blond-haired, blue-eyed father of two with an athletic build, a firm handshake and the sort of charisma that goes down well in TED talks.

Like most transhumanists (there are a lot of them in California), Istvan believes our species can, and indeed should, strive to transcend our biological limitations. And he has taken it upon himself to push this idea out of the Google Docs of a few Silicon Valley dreamers and into the American political mainstream.

Twenty-five years ago, hardly anybody was recycling, he explains. Now, environmentalism has conditioned an entire generation. Im trying to put transhumanism on a similar trajectory, so that in 10, 15 years, everybody is going to know what it means and think about it in a very positive way.

What were saying is that over the next 30 years, the complexity of human experience is going to become so amazing, you ought to at least see it

Zoltan Istvan

I meet Istvan at the home he shares with his wife, Lisa an obstetrician and gynaecologist with Planned Parenthood and their two daughters, six-year-old Eva, and Isla, who is three. I had been expecting a gadget-laden cyber-home; in fact, he resides in a 100-year-old loggers house built from Californian redwood, with a converted stable on the ground floor and plastic childrens toys in the yard. If it werent for the hyper-inflated prices in the Bay Area (Its sort of Facebook yuppie-ville around here, says Istvan) youd say it was a humble Californian homestead.

Still, there are a few details that give him away, such as the forbidding security warnings on his picket fence. During his unsuccessful bid for the presidency last year he stood as the Transhumanist Party candidate and scored zero per cent a section of the religious right identified him as the Antichrist. This, combined with Lisas work providing abortions, means they get a couple of death threats a week and have had to report to the FBI.

Christians in America have made transhumanism as popular as its become, says Istvan. They really need something that they can point their finger at that fulfils Revelations.

Istvan also has a West Wing box set on his mantelpiece and a small Meccano cyborg by the fireplace. Its named Jethro, after the protagonist of his self-published novel, The Transhumanist Wager (2013). And there is an old Samsung phone attached to the front door, which enables him to unlock the house using the microchip in his finger.

A lot of the Christians consider my chip a mark of the beast, he says. Im like, No! Its so I dont have to carry my keys when I go out jogging.

Istvan hopes to chip his daughters before long for security purposes and recently argued with his wife about whether it was even worth saving for a university fund for them, since by the time they reach university age, advances in artificial intelligence will mean they can just upload all the learning they need. Lisa won that argument. But hes inclined not to freeze his sperm and Lisas eggs, since if they decide to have a third child, 10 or 20 or 30 years hence, theyll be able to combine their DNA.

Even if theres a mischievous, fake-it-till-you-make-it quality to Istvan, theres also a core of seriousness. He is genuinely troubled that we are on the verge of a technological dystopia that the mass inequalities that helped fuel US President Donald Trumps rise will only worsen when the digital revolution really gets under way. And he despairs of the retrogressive bent of the current administration: Trump talks all the time about immigrants taking jobs. Bulls**t. Its technology thats taking jobs. We have about four million truck drivers who are about to lose their jobs to automation. This is why capitalism needs a basic income to survive.

And hes not wrong in identifying that emerging technologies such as AI and bio-enhancement will bring with them policy implications, and its probably a good idea to start talking about them now.

Stephen Hawkings question to China: will AI help or destroy the human race?

Certainly, life extension is a hot investment in Silicon Valley, whose elites have a hard time with the idea that their billions will not protect them from an earthly death. Google was an early investor in the secretive biotech start-up Calico, the California Life Company, which aims to devise interventions that slow ageing and counteract age-related diseases. Billionaire venture capitalist Peter Thiel has invested millions in parabiosis: the process of curing ageing with transfusions of young peoples blood.

Another biotech firm, United Therapeutics, has unveiled plans to grow fresh organs from DNA. Clearly, it is possible, through technology, to make death optional, the firms founder, Martine Rothblatt, told a recent gathering of the National Academy of Medicine in Los Angeles.

In attendance were Google co-founder Sergey Brin, vegan pop star Moby and numerous venture capitalists. Istvan fears that unless we develop policies to regulate this transition, the Thiels of this world will soon be hoarding all the young blood for themselves.

Clearly, it is possible, through technology, to make death optional

Martine Rothblatt

Istvan was born in Oregon in 1973, the son of Hungarian immigrants who fled Stalins tanks in 1968. He had a comfortable middle-class upbringing his mother was a devout Catholic and sent him to Catholic school and an eye for a story. After graduating from Columbia University, he embarked on a solo round-the-world yachting expedition, during which, he says, he read 500 works of classic literature. He spent his early career reporting for the National Geographic channel from more than 100 countries, many of them conflict zones, claiming to have invented the extreme sport of volcano boarding along the way.

One of the things he shares in common with Americas current president is a fortune accrued from real estate. While he was making films overseas in the noughties, his expenses were minimal, so he was able to invest all of his pay cheques in property.

AlphaGos China showdown: Why its time to embrace artificial intelligence

So many people in America were doing this flipping thing at the time, explains Istvan. I realised very quickly, Wow! I could make enough money to retire. It was just quite easy and lucrative to do that.

At his peak, he had a portfolio of 19 fixer-upper houses, most of which he managed to sell before the crash of 2008. He now retains nine as holiday rentals and uses the proceeds to fund his political campaigns (he is reluctant to name his other backers). Still, he insists hes not part of the 1 per cent; the most extravagant item of furniture is a piano, and his groceries are much the same as you find in many liberal, middle-class Californian households.

Istvan cant think of any particular incident that prompted his interest in eternal life, other than perhaps a rejection of Catholicism.

Fifty per cent of me thinks after we die we get eaten by worms, and our body matter and brain return unconsciously to the cosmos [] The other half subscribes to the idea that we live in a holographic universe where other alien artificial intelligences have reached the singularity, he says, referring to the idea, advanced by Google engineer Ray Kurzweil, that pretty soon we will all merge with AI in one transcendental consciousness.

However, when Istvan first encountered transhumanism, at university via an article on cryonics (the practice of deep-freezing the recently dead in the hope that they can be revived at some point), he was sold. Within 90 seconds, I realised thats what I wanted to do in my life.

After a near-death experience in Vietnam he came close to stepping on a landmine Istvan decided to return to America and make good on this vow. I was nearing 30 and Id done some great work, but after all that time Id spent in conflict zones, seeing dead bodies, stuff like that, I thought it would be a good time to dedicate myself to conquering death.

He spent four years writing his novel, which he proudly claims was rejected by more than 600 agents and publishers. Its a dystopian story that imagines a Christian nation outlawing transhumanism, prompting all the billionaires to retreat to an offshore sea-stead where they can work on their advances undisturbed (Thiel has often threatened to do something similar).

Istvan continued to promote transhumanism by writing free columns for Huffington Post and Vice, chosen because they have strong Alexa rankings (ie, they show up high in Google search results).

I wrote something like 200 articles, putting transhumanism through the Google algorithm again and again, he says. I found it a very effective way to spread the message. I covered every angle that I could think of: disability and transhumanism; LGBT issues and transhumanism; transhumanist parenting.

Hes proud to say hes the only mainstream journalist who is so devoted to the cause. A lot of people write about transhumanism, but I think Im the only one who says, This is the best thing thats ever happened!

Why your biological age may hold the key to reversing the ageing process

Istvans presidential campaign was an attempt to take all of this up a level. It sounds as if he had a lot of fun. He toured Rust Belt car parks and Deep South mega-churches in a coffin-shaped immortality bus inspired by the one driven by Ken Kesey and his Merry Pranksters to promote LSD in the 1960s.

His platform Make America Immortal Again earned a fair amount of publicity, but Americans seemed ill-prepared for such concepts as the AI imperative (the idea that the first nation to create a true AI will basically win everything, so America had better be the first) and the singularity. At one point, he and his supporters were held at gunpoint by some Christians in Alabama.

The experience taught him a salutary lesson: unless you are a billionaire, it is simply impossible to make any kind of dent in the system. Hence his defection to the Libertarian Party, which vies with the Greens as the third party in American politics. Every town I go to, theres a Libertarian meet-up. With the Transhumanists, Id have to create the meet-up. So theres more to work with.

The Libertarian presidential candidate, Gary Johnson, received 3.27 per cent of the votes last year, including half a million votes in California. About seven or eight million are likely to vote in the California governor race, in which context, half a million starts to become a lot of votes, Istvan explains.

His own politics are somewhere between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, he admits, and he has a hard time converting the right wing of his new party to causes such as basic income. (The general spirit of libertarian America is, Hands off!) But he believes transhumanism shares enough in common with libertarianism for the alliance to be viable; the core precepts of being able to do what you like as long as you dont harm anyone else are the same. And the gubernatorial campaign serves as a primary for the 2020 presidential election, when he believes the Libertarian candidate will have a feasible chance of participating in the television debates.

But whats wrong with death? Dont we need old people to die to make space for new people? And by extension, we need old ideas and old regimes to die, too. Imagine if William Randolph Hearst or Genghis Khan were still calling the shots now. And imagine if Mark Zuckerberg and Vladimir Putin were doing so in 200 years. Innovation would cease, the species would atrophy, everyone would get terribly bored. Isnt it the ultimate narcissism to want to live forever?

Istvan does concede that transhumanism is a very selfish philosophy. However, he has an answer for most of the other stuff.

Im a believer in overpopulation Ive been to Delhi and its overcrowded, he says. But if we did a better job of governing, the planet could hold 15 billion people comfortably. Its really a question of better rules and regulations.

And when discussing the desirability of eternal life, he turns into a sort of holiday rep for the future.

What were saying is that over the next 30 years, the complexity of human experience is going to become so amazing, you ought to at least see it, Istvan says. A lot of people find that a lot more compelling than, say, dying of leukaemia.

Still, it comes as little surprise that hes finding live for ever an easier sell than give money to poor people in 21st-century America.

I cant imagine basic income not becoming a platform in the 2020 election, he insists. And if not then, at some point, someone is going to run and win on it. The Republicans should like it because it streamlines government. The Democrats should like it because it helps poor people. Right now, Americans dont like it because it sounds like socialism. But it just needs a little reframing.

Basic-income experiments are already under way in parts of Canada, Finland and the Netherlands, but how would he fund such an idea in the US? He cant raise taxes libertarians hate that. And he doesnt want to alienate Silicon Valley.

If we did a better job of governing, the planet could hold 15 billion people comfortably

Zoltan Istvan

How do you tell the 1 per cent youre going to take all this money from them? It wouldnt work, he says. They control too many things. But Istvan has calculated that 45 per cent of California is government-controlled land that the state could monetise.

A lot of environmentalists are upset at me for that, saying, Woah, Zolt, you want to put a shopping mall in Yosemite? Well, the reality is that the poor people in America will never be able to afford to go to Yosemite. Im trying to be a diplomat here.

And he insists that if Americans miss those national parks when theyve been turned into luxury condos and Taco Bells, theyll be able to replenish them some day if they want.

Theres nanotechnology coming through that would enable us to do that, Istvan argues. We have GMOs [genetically modified organisms] that can regrow plants twice as quick. In 50 or 100 years, were not even going to be worried about natural resources.

Such is his wager that exponential technological growth is around the corner and we may as well hurry it along, because its our best chance of clearing up the mess weve made of things thus far.

The safety of genetically-modified crops is backed by science

Didnt the political developments of 2016 persuade him that progress can be slow and sometimes go backwards? Actually, Istvan argues that what were witnessing are the death throes of conservatism, Christianity, even capitalism.

Everyone says the current pope is the best one weve had for ages, that hes so progressive and whatever. Actually, Catholicism is dying, says Istvan. Nobodys giving it any money any more, so the pope had better moderate its message. As for capitalism, all of this nationalism and populism are just the dying moments.

Its a system that goes against the very core of humanitarian urges. And while its brought us many wonderful material gains, at some point we can say, Thats enough. In the transhumanist age, we will reach utopia. Crime drops to zero. Poverty will end. Violence will drop. At some point, we become a race of individuals who are pretty nice to each other.

But now weve talked for so long that Istvan needs to go and pick up his daughters from childcare. He insists that I join him. What do his family make of all of this?

My wife is a bit sceptical of a lot of my timelines, he says. Lisa comes from practical Wisconsin farming stock, and its a fair bet that her work with Planned Parenthood keeps her pretty grounded. They met on dating website match.com. Does she believe in all this stuff?

I dont want to say shes not a transhumanist, he says, but I dont think shed cryogenically freeze herself tomorrow. I would. Im like, If you see me dying of a heart attack, please put me in a refrigerator. She thinks thats weird.

We arrive at the community centre where Istvans daughters are being looked after. They come running out in summer dresses, sweet and sunny and happy to be alive. Both of them want to be doctors when they grow up, like their mum.

The Times/The Interview People

Immortality: Silicon Valley's latest obsession ushers in the transhumanist era - South China Morning Post

Select Page ::