Robot Has No Heart

A revolutionary new study reveals being obese increases your chance of cancer. Random fat member of public responds with “Pfft science. Everything gives you cancer these days.” The head of the meat industry claims we are eating nowhere near enough red meat and it absolutely essential that we get more steak in us.

This is why I don’t watch TV. The problem is everyone else does.

You gotta laugh else you get really fucking depressed.

It is the middle of the night, we find our hero, Link, stalking a woman through the streets. He is playing vigilante – she has been accused of stealing and Link plans to catch her in the act. The woman employs a host of devious tactics, but is unable to throw her tail. Eventually, we confront the woman as she attempts to steal from the open air market safe.

The woman tells her story of poverty – how her family riches were lost, how she is trying to “make it” by working during the day – But, oh! It is so good to talk to someone, I am so glad I ran into you! You have saved my soul, I will not steal any more!

Here, take this gift for listening to me

Xavier (Me): That, my friend, is the very definition of a bribe
Jared (Brother): Never! Nothing more than a genuine expression of gratitude!
X: You believe that cock and bull story?
J: All she needed was a sympathetic ear
X: You caught her committing a criminal offence. She clearly just bought you.
J: She won’t steal again. I reformed her. That’s true justice!
X: Civilians can’t take justice into their own hands! She was a case for the courts.
J: I don’t think Hyrule has much of a justice system…
X: I guess Link does do a lot of killin’...

Not IT related, but I recall a few byteclubbers are interested in this.

I have recently read two quite different views on global warming. The first is Peter Singer’s analysis in “One World: The Ethics of Globalization” (highly recommended, although I haven’t actually finished it yet…), which argues in support of the Kyoto protocol (in particular, why developing countries should be exempt). The second was linked to today by bbspot: http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/index.html. I like extreme contrasts like this since they get you thinking. Ultimately, I find Peter Singer much more convincing. He presents a much more robust coverage of the issue (in particular considering the entire world rather than just the US), and tends to avoid loaded language (loaded language rings alarm bells for me – if it’s a convincing argument you should be able to present it without hyperbole). In addition, he makes it much easier to follow his sources – both authors claim scientific studies to support their claims.

In the end, it for me it comes down to acceptable risk. Yes, there may not be a robust scientific proof that global warming is caused by man, but there is sufficient correlation, and the risks too great (for non-developed countries, not so much the developed ones that Johnston focuses on) that we cannot afford to take a chance and do nothing.

I am a vegetarian. Inevitably, people ask me “why?”. I think it would be more productive for them to ask themselves why they are not, but that is by the by. For me the interesting question is “why am I not vegan?”, which I will get to after I briefly cover the first.

There were two distinct ideas that led to my change of diet (I was an omnivore until mid way through last year). The first was a realisation that living the “examined” life (as Socrates put it) actually led to a dramatic increase in my quality of life, and in a similar vein that I was responsible for everything in my life (Satre’s idea of freedom). This will be the subject of future writings, but it culminated in me trying to rid my life of “contradictions”, of which my food choices presented many.

For vegetarianism, the deciding scenario was first introduced to me by Peter Singer in a public lecture he delivered at Melbourne Uni. It appeals to me because it avoids the need to take a non-mainstream stance on animal rights, but rather draws logical conclusions from common attitudes towards animals. Activities that harm animals for entertainment – bull/cock/dog fighting, for instance – are frowned upon by our culture, evidenced by the fact that they are banned by law. However, the more widespread harm of animals for non-essential food – in the form of battery farming – is condoned. This is a contradiction that I could not allow to stand, and so vowed to avoid battery farmed produce. Theoretically it is possible to continue an omnivorous diet within this constraint, but in practice finding (and affording!) organic meat is non-trivial, so I chose to abstain from meat all together. In addition, on non-ethical grounds I wanted to try the purported health benefits of vegetarianism, and also wanted to expand my cooking repertoire, which was depressingly confined to omnivorous cuisine.

After getting comfortable with vegetarianism, I decided to try veganism. The only ethical justification for this was that livestock are an order of magnitude more expensive (in near all measures of the term) than grain and vegetable sources, and as such are a burden that our growing society simply cannot sustain. Contrary to many vegans, I do not believe that animals deserve the same rights as humans, drawing the (admittedly grey) line at self-reflection and higher order thought. To illustrate, the jury is still out on chimpanzees, but farmyard animals have not demonstrated to my satisfaction that they possess the necessary reasoning, desires or aspirations to be apportioned rights akin to our own.

To allow my body and habits to adjust I mandated a one month trial period. I discovered a number of new ways to cut animal products out of my diet, for example my sandwiches do not benefit for cheese or margarine, and soy milk is a much better alternative over cereal – adjustments I still hold to today. However my social life suffered. Not having any vegan friends, and knowing only one or two vegetarians, I found it difficult to eat out anywhere (since vegan meals are generally lacking if it is not the restaurant’s main trade), and while people will usually be all too happy to cook a vegetarian meal for you, they generally blanch at the prospect of not using cheese. Not to mention that it eliminates virtually all desserts(!), and many types of beer(!!). In addition, I felt my alertness waning, and could not find ways to affordably maintain an athlete’s diet (most notably protein sources – one can only eat so much peanut butter, and it is quite high in fat).

My quality of life diminished, both socially and in health, and I could not justify this by the one ethical tenet by which I had made my decision. I feel I can contribute more to activist and economical causes to offset such a choice if the rest of life is in order, so after a month of a vegan diet I returned to eggs and dairy (and choice beer).

After more than 6 months of vegetarianism, I look and feel healthier than I have ever been. (For balance, I have also been exercising regularly, but do not feel constrained by the lack of meat in my diet). I will potentially try veganism again in the future – I feel support from my social group would help in this regard (which I can’t see happening any time soon!) – and have no desire whatsoever to return to being an omnivore. I no longer crave steak, and the only time I feel my diet is restricted is in certain restaurants that do not pay enough attention to their menu.

To end with a quick rant, the “Real Men Eat Meat” mantra I so often encounter is, if you’ll excuse the term, bullshit, and used as a facade by those too lazy to take control of their lives. I can accept you eating meat, just show me you have actually made an informed choice rather than blindly digesting the empty catchphrases employed by your ignorant peers.

UPDATE: As of easter 2008 I am vegan again

Is it unethical to participate in a debate opposing a belief you feel strongly about?

A debate is judged by an adjudicator, with the team that presents their case most effectively declared the victor. Participants are evaluated against many criteria, including presentation, structure of argument and use of language. Overall, it can be said that the winner of a debate is the most persuasive team.

It follows from this that when participating in a debate, one should aim to be as persuasive as possible to maximise their contribution to the team. In other words, your goal in a debate is to convince the audience (be that an auditorium or a single adjudicator) of the validity of your argument. We can see here a quandary emerging – if the topic you are assigned to argue is contrary to your beliefs (and to be thorough, a belief you believe others should hold), surely it is ethically irresponsible to attempt to persuade an audience otherwise?

While a debate may be understood by the audience to be an academic exercise, by very definition a competent debater should be able to persuade her audience outside of this context. The formal setting of a debate does not preclude any such persuasion taking place. Whether or not the debater is actually capable of persuading her audience is irrelevant – the potential for persuasion to take place is what matters.

However, if a belief that is held is well founded, then arguing for the negation of that belief, even to the best of your ability, would not be persuasive enough to convert a rational audience. This tenet assumes the opposing team to be of equal competence and possessing the ability to sufficiently rebut the opinions you present, since in order to be most persuasive, you will have to omit facts and arguments you feel to be supportive of your actual belief. Even with familiar knowledge of the opposing team, this is a high risk justification.

Deliberately not performing to the best of your ability is another possibility to be considered. The problems with this approach are two-fold. First, you are misrepresenting your own capability which may have greater repercussions in future interactions with your audience or team members. Secondly, by not presenting a robust case in the opposition of your primary belief, it may reduce the effectiveness of your oppositions argument since a position that can triumph over a strong attack is strengthened by this demonstrated resilience [citation?].

What remains is the recommended course of action: abstinence. Not participating in activities contrary to our ethical beliefs is of paramount importance – not only does it demonstrate the integrity required for ethical principles to be of maximal importance, in many cases it clearly signals to others our belief.

In this discussion we assume no extraordinary consequence resting on the outcome of the debate. Of course, in any real situation the consequence of not participating in the debate should be taken into consideration.

1. Vegetarian – battery farms lose!
2. Buy organic, fairtrade and/or local where possible
3. No car, use public transport and feet, except where not possible (Geelong)
4. Refuse plastic bags, although I think perversely our excessive number of green bags at home is soon to become an environmental risk
5. I plan to vote, haven’t had the opportunity yet
6. Spread the love. Bring politics into conversations. Getting people talking and thinking is the first step.

The last one is important. Preaching at people will never work – global awareness must come from within. We must provide the support and encouragement. Lead by example. It can be tough sometimes. I almost hit intolerable despair last night. Startling, raw, realisations: The pope – the most important man in Christianity – is a political retard, the most powerful man in the world is widely regarded an idiot, and you couldn’t have pulled the recent Naomi Robson story from Frontline… Politics, Religion, Media, the triple crown. The world is loco.

In other news, I’ve just commited some C Sharp tools to Ruby Rant , if you’re interested in a sweet build tool that lets you use ruby (XML loses!). I’m using it for a fairly decent project at work (multiple projects, resources, unit tests, etc) and find it a pleasure to work with. Note I’m talking about a replacement for the deprecated method described in the current documentation. I’m going to get that updated, but for now check the mailing list for info.