Now, first off, let me just be clear: the kind of materialism I'm talking about doesn't have anything to do with money. Rather, the materialism I adhere to is in contrast to dualism, and is a claim about what kinds of stuff there are in the world. Dualism is the stand that there are two kinds of stuff: usually physical stuff on the one hand, and spiritual or mental stuff on the other. I reject this position, and think that there is only one kind of stuff: material or physical stuff ("materialism" is also known as "physicalism," with maybe some slight differences in connotation, depending on who you talk to). One of the important reasons I reject any kind of dualism is because of an argument based on the unintelligibility of interaction between two fundamentally distinct substances.
Basically, the argument is that if there is some kind of spirit-stuff that is fundamentally distinct from physical stuff, then there doesn't seem to be any way for the two substances to interact. It's not just that we haven't yet found the right theory, but that it doesn't seem possible for there to be a right theory. The reason is that there doesn't seem to be any way for the two kinds of stuff to causally interact. Just think about it: spirit-stuff is claimed to be fundamentally non-physical. So, it must not have physical properties, like mass or size or color, and cannot be acted upon by any of the physical forces. If the spirit (or mind) cannot causally interact with the brain, then the mind is left as an impotent rider on the brain: willing your hand to raise cannot cause your hand to raise.
This, of course, seems crazy. I mean, we raise our hands all the damn time. One way to go with this is to bring in God. For instance, we could posit that God (or whatever all-powerful supernatural force you prefer) set up the world such that, though there isn't any causal interaction between the mental and physical, things were arranged at the beginning so they would always correspond. There is a problem with this: it destroys any possibility of free will and responsibility for one's actions. In other words, this "solution" undermines the foundation of moral theory. If what you think and, more importantly, what you choose, doesn't actually cause your body to act, then "you" (your mind/spirit) cannot be held responsible for actions your body takes: it quite literally wasn't you that did it!
Another possiblity is to say that every time you make a choice, it is God that steps in and makes it happen in the physical world. That is, there isn't any causal interaction directly between the mental and physical, but each interaction is really a kind of little miracle. First off, I'm hesitant to just go with "it's a miracle!" before we've even tried to give an account. But second, and I think perhaps even more importantly, this kind of answer seems to shackle God to the whims of each and every human being on this planet. In order for us to have free will, God MUST step in each time we will anything at all. S(he) has no choice! This also has the unpleasant corollary that God is in a real sense directly responsible for each and every terrible thing any human being has ever done.
So, I'm very hesitant to attempt to "fix" dualism by bringing in God. Without God, there doesn't seem to be any possibility of interaction between spirit-stuff and physical stuff. Therefore, I'm left with materialism. Though I am the first to admit we do not yet have a physical account that explains mind, there has been progress. If we can give a physical account of mind, then we can have a mind that really causes our actions, and so we have a shot at retaining free will and personal responsibility (not to mention just having a coherent theory!).
And that's why I'm a materialist.
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
Monday, August 22, 2005
Corporate (and Personal) Social Responsibility
Milton Friedman's Initial Article from the NYTimes
Becker's Post
Posner's Post
Posner's Response
The above are just a few links on what those much smarter than me think about the subject. A note: all of them are generally conservative and most take a very practical efficiency-theory approach to the subject (at least those linked to, others who hold similar opinions hold them for other reasons, but the efficiency-theory is, in my experience, the most logical reason for the opinion these folks hold). All of them conclude that it is not appropriate for corporations to intentionally engage in un-profitable charitable activity (is it possible for charitable activity to be profitable? I guess that's kind of the point of this post though, eh?).
Anyway. I don't know what the answer is. But I think those who espouse what is generally labeled "corporate social responsibility" have a personal belief that charitable activity (beyond mere donation) is a generally good thing. Handing money over to a charity is fine, but personally, I think it's a waste of money. Even the best charities use over half of the donation for purposes other than funding the activity of the charitable organization (paying salaries, etc.) I believe that donation of time (or tangible things more useful than money, like computers) is much more useful. Having that as a background, now on to the discussion.
If I donate my time to a charity, my firm doesn't really see any benefit out of that directly. And, to the extent I do anything for the charity during work hours, it takes away from the profitability of my firm. However, if I work for the charity long enough, or put in good enough work, or have some interesting, or particularly novel idea there may be a position on the board of directors for the charity. This ultimately is a useful networking opportunity with all of the attendant benefits that are typically associated with networking. Moreover, to the extent that my services for the organization are concomitant with the activities of my firm (or corporation), my work acts as an advertisement for the company - showing others that my firm is good at x service that I am providing. To the extent that this gets advertised (I use the word "advertised" in a very loose sense, beyond the strict "newspaper"-type advertising) me and/or my firm/company see benefits. So, for this reason alone, it would be incumbent on corporations to encourage their workers to perform charitable activity outside of the workplace and in their free time - it's free advertising.
As for proper corporate donation, I think it can be useful. Look, for instance, at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (okay, not donations by Microsoft proper, but close enough). Most of the donations from the foundation to charitable organizations are not just money, but also computers. This provides enormous benefit to the organizations that they are given to (especially the children's organizations who can never get enough computers). It has the side-benefit that all of the computers are loaded with Microsoft Windows and other Microsoft products. The users get accustomed to using the Microsoft (and have the goodwill of having been a beneficiary of the charitable donation) and they buy and use Microsoft products at home and tell their friends and family how great Microsoft is. In this respect, there is direct and indirect benefit to the charitable giving.
I'll concede that straight charitable cash donation is generally a money-losing investment (especially if you give it to United Way). However, there are many ways to make charitable donations, such as giving of time and services and tangible goods, that are can be profitable, or at least not as much of a sink.
The reason I wrote this post is because most firms like mine "strongly encourage" community participation and charitable work because of the massive goodwill and attendant network opportunities presented by that activity. In light of the strong disfavor by those whom I typically regard as extraordinarily intelligent and well-reasoned folks, I felt that I needed some sort of justification for this demand by my firm. This is what I've come up with.
Becker's Post
Posner's Post
Posner's Response
The above are just a few links on what those much smarter than me think about the subject. A note: all of them are generally conservative and most take a very practical efficiency-theory approach to the subject (at least those linked to, others who hold similar opinions hold them for other reasons, but the efficiency-theory is, in my experience, the most logical reason for the opinion these folks hold). All of them conclude that it is not appropriate for corporations to intentionally engage in un-profitable charitable activity (is it possible for charitable activity to be profitable? I guess that's kind of the point of this post though, eh?).
Anyway. I don't know what the answer is. But I think those who espouse what is generally labeled "corporate social responsibility" have a personal belief that charitable activity (beyond mere donation) is a generally good thing. Handing money over to a charity is fine, but personally, I think it's a waste of money. Even the best charities use over half of the donation for purposes other than funding the activity of the charitable organization (paying salaries, etc.) I believe that donation of time (or tangible things more useful than money, like computers) is much more useful. Having that as a background, now on to the discussion.
If I donate my time to a charity, my firm doesn't really see any benefit out of that directly. And, to the extent I do anything for the charity during work hours, it takes away from the profitability of my firm. However, if I work for the charity long enough, or put in good enough work, or have some interesting, or particularly novel idea there may be a position on the board of directors for the charity. This ultimately is a useful networking opportunity with all of the attendant benefits that are typically associated with networking. Moreover, to the extent that my services for the organization are concomitant with the activities of my firm (or corporation), my work acts as an advertisement for the company - showing others that my firm is good at x service that I am providing. To the extent that this gets advertised (I use the word "advertised" in a very loose sense, beyond the strict "newspaper"-type advertising) me and/or my firm/company see benefits. So, for this reason alone, it would be incumbent on corporations to encourage their workers to perform charitable activity outside of the workplace and in their free time - it's free advertising.
As for proper corporate donation, I think it can be useful. Look, for instance, at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (okay, not donations by Microsoft proper, but close enough). Most of the donations from the foundation to charitable organizations are not just money, but also computers. This provides enormous benefit to the organizations that they are given to (especially the children's organizations who can never get enough computers). It has the side-benefit that all of the computers are loaded with Microsoft Windows and other Microsoft products. The users get accustomed to using the Microsoft (and have the goodwill of having been a beneficiary of the charitable donation) and they buy and use Microsoft products at home and tell their friends and family how great Microsoft is. In this respect, there is direct and indirect benefit to the charitable giving.
I'll concede that straight charitable cash donation is generally a money-losing investment (especially if you give it to United Way). However, there are many ways to make charitable donations, such as giving of time and services and tangible goods, that are can be profitable, or at least not as much of a sink.
The reason I wrote this post is because most firms like mine "strongly encourage" community participation and charitable work because of the massive goodwill and attendant network opportunities presented by that activity. In light of the strong disfavor by those whom I typically regard as extraordinarily intelligent and well-reasoned folks, I felt that I needed some sort of justification for this demand by my firm. This is what I've come up with.
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
The Aristocrats
Seriously, one of the funniest things I have ever witnessed.
The Aristocrats (IMDB)
South Park's telling of "the joke"
That's it for today.
The Aristocrats (IMDB)
South Park's telling of "the joke"
That's it for today.
Friday, August 12, 2005
Music
Arcade Fire: Funeral
I can't stop listening to it. Really. Every time I finish listening to it, I'm like "I'll put on something else now" (see below) and I'll get 75% through that disc and put the Arcade Fire back on. The disc, front to back, is unbelievable. I've described it to others as "Interpol" doing "Talking Heads" covers. But I'm not sure that's entirely accurate, but it gets you sort of close (assuming you know who Interpol and the Talking Heads are). Anyway. They really only sound like the Talking Heads (a popular, though not entirely accurate, point of comparison) because of the lead-singer's lyrical phrasing which can be similar to David Byrne. But man, these guys heap on the instruments, something like 10 or 11 different instruments were used in the recording of this album, and on some songs it sounds like every one made the cut. Anyway, phenomenal album.
Th' Legendary Shack Shakers: Cockadoodledon't
Scott H. Biram: Dirty Ol' One Man Band
Both of these albums sound like hellfire and brimstone brought to you from a rusted-out Ford pick-up careening down a back-country dirt road spewing beer cans and buckshot. I've actually had the pleasure of witnessing the Shack Shakers in concert twice and these dudes just don't stop. The lead singer is a hella fine harmonica player and the guitarist can just flat-out rip. To call these preachers "country" though would be to give modern country too much credit. Likewise, Biram's songs take on a life of their own. Give the guy credit, for not really being a strong lyricist or even a particularly deft songwriter the songs manage to compel you to listen to them and laugh and raise hell. Rooted in southern blues, his songs are foot stomping sendups to John Lee Hooker, Lynard Skynard and Gospel music all at once. Never have I heard such profane music so soul-inspiring.
Le Tigre: This Island
Electrelane: Axes
I recently went to this concert in Chicago. As a bit of a disclaimer, I'll add that my cousin is in Le Tigre. But, nonetheless, I had picked up their album a few months ago and I have been amazed. There's no easy way to describe it other than electro-feminist-dance-punk. In a live setting they are a sight to behold; despite the band's complaints about the crowd in Chicago the night I saw them. Firstly, the fact that any of them actually play an instrument seems to be besides the point; in fact, many of the songs ran entirely from tape and the three girls just sang over top of it. But, while that may sound like a cheap way out, it leaves them free to use the music as a rally cry to inspire the multitudes. Throughout the night the band encouraged and challenged the audience (mostly female, mostly gay/lesbian) to stand up for their rights, to be proud of themselves, to resist oppression in all its forms, to speak out against George W. Bush, and to dance (almost in that order). This band has it figured out; by that I mean, they have managed to take very serious messages and convey them in a very serious way without sounding preachy or mean-spirited and without lyrical clumsiness of their contemporaries.
Electrelane, on the other hand, was there for one reason: to bring the rock. Holy cow, I have never heard four girls sound so huge. They came out and about knocked the audience out of their shoes from the first chord. The music is mostly instrumental, but when the keyboardist/part-time-second-guitartist sings, her voice is almost angelic. They have perfected the fast-faster-slow-fast-faster song structure and use it on almost every song. But, oddly, it never gets old. They use the song structure to create soundscapes and grooves that hit you in the gut (literally, if you were to see them live! the bass and drums are HUGE).
Oh, I'd remiss if I didn't mention these as well because they are damn cool:
Buddy Rich: Best of the Pacific Years - even if you don't like jazz Buddy will blow your socks off.
Jamie Cullum: Twentysomething - described as a male Norah Jones, I think this is true only in that he will be responsible for resurrecting the "male crooner" from the dead grip of Dean Martin and Frank Sinatra and will take the baton from Tony Bennett.
Anyway. Just a few bands that are pretty cool.
I can't stop listening to it. Really. Every time I finish listening to it, I'm like "I'll put on something else now" (see below) and I'll get 75% through that disc and put the Arcade Fire back on. The disc, front to back, is unbelievable. I've described it to others as "Interpol" doing "Talking Heads" covers. But I'm not sure that's entirely accurate, but it gets you sort of close (assuming you know who Interpol and the Talking Heads are). Anyway. They really only sound like the Talking Heads (a popular, though not entirely accurate, point of comparison) because of the lead-singer's lyrical phrasing which can be similar to David Byrne. But man, these guys heap on the instruments, something like 10 or 11 different instruments were used in the recording of this album, and on some songs it sounds like every one made the cut. Anyway, phenomenal album.
Th' Legendary Shack Shakers: Cockadoodledon't
Scott H. Biram: Dirty Ol' One Man Band
Both of these albums sound like hellfire and brimstone brought to you from a rusted-out Ford pick-up careening down a back-country dirt road spewing beer cans and buckshot. I've actually had the pleasure of witnessing the Shack Shakers in concert twice and these dudes just don't stop. The lead singer is a hella fine harmonica player and the guitarist can just flat-out rip. To call these preachers "country" though would be to give modern country too much credit. Likewise, Biram's songs take on a life of their own. Give the guy credit, for not really being a strong lyricist or even a particularly deft songwriter the songs manage to compel you to listen to them and laugh and raise hell. Rooted in southern blues, his songs are foot stomping sendups to John Lee Hooker, Lynard Skynard and Gospel music all at once. Never have I heard such profane music so soul-inspiring.
Le Tigre: This Island
Electrelane: Axes
I recently went to this concert in Chicago. As a bit of a disclaimer, I'll add that my cousin is in Le Tigre. But, nonetheless, I had picked up their album a few months ago and I have been amazed. There's no easy way to describe it other than electro-feminist-dance-punk. In a live setting they are a sight to behold; despite the band's complaints about the crowd in Chicago the night I saw them. Firstly, the fact that any of them actually play an instrument seems to be besides the point; in fact, many of the songs ran entirely from tape and the three girls just sang over top of it. But, while that may sound like a cheap way out, it leaves them free to use the music as a rally cry to inspire the multitudes. Throughout the night the band encouraged and challenged the audience (mostly female, mostly gay/lesbian) to stand up for their rights, to be proud of themselves, to resist oppression in all its forms, to speak out against George W. Bush, and to dance (almost in that order). This band has it figured out; by that I mean, they have managed to take very serious messages and convey them in a very serious way without sounding preachy or mean-spirited and without lyrical clumsiness of their contemporaries.
Electrelane, on the other hand, was there for one reason: to bring the rock. Holy cow, I have never heard four girls sound so huge. They came out and about knocked the audience out of their shoes from the first chord. The music is mostly instrumental, but when the keyboardist/part-time-second-guitartist sings, her voice is almost angelic. They have perfected the fast-faster-slow-fast-faster song structure and use it on almost every song. But, oddly, it never gets old. They use the song structure to create soundscapes and grooves that hit you in the gut (literally, if you were to see them live! the bass and drums are HUGE).
Oh, I'd remiss if I didn't mention these as well because they are damn cool:
Buddy Rich: Best of the Pacific Years - even if you don't like jazz Buddy will blow your socks off.
Jamie Cullum: Twentysomething - described as a male Norah Jones, I think this is true only in that he will be responsible for resurrecting the "male crooner" from the dead grip of Dean Martin and Frank Sinatra and will take the baton from Tony Bennett.
Anyway. Just a few bands that are pretty cool.
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
How Dumb Can They Be?
Palmeiro tests positive for Stanozolol.
What is Stanozolol? (pictures) Or, more precisely for athletes ("the third most abused substance among athletes") And "athletes" discuss "Stanozol" (warning high humor content - these dudes are apparently serious)
Basic rundown: Palmeiro testifies before Congress "I did not use steroid." Fast forward a few months. Palmeiro tests positive for a banned substance that turns out to be a hardcore anabolic steroid and then gives a lame excuse that "I didn't know that's what it was." First of all, from the descriptions of this drug (anabolic steroid, usually stacked with other testosterone products) that is simply not a feasible excuse. He had to have known. And moreover, there's no way he "just started" using this stuff since his testimony at Congress.
The whole steroid issue in baseball is a shame. And it puts in the forefront the reasons why steroids are ruining baseball, and indeed every sport (cycling, running, football, basketball, hockey, etc.). It's cheating. Plain and simple. The athlete went outside of the bounds of the game to give himself an edge over other participants. However you want to define it (cheat), it is cheating. It's the same as hiding an ace up your sleeve or stealing Monopoly money from the bank when no-one is looking. In fact it's worse because neither of those activities will shrink your testicles or make you more pre-disposed to aggression.
But what's the solution? Identifying substances is a wild goose chase. In fact it's more like chasing an invisible wild goose. The drug manufacturers are constantly tweaking the drugs to be less and less identifiable. And everyone's body is so different that it is impossible to set hard limits on bodily reference statistics (white-cell counts, hemoglobin counts, oxygen levels, etc.) It seems that every time sports catches one drug, another is developed to circumvent the testing mechanism. To me it seems the only logical place to end the problem is at the source (rather than with the users) - make the drugs Federally restricted drugs and the manufacture, sale, or importation of them illegal. First of all its easier to track the manufacturers because they need to be licensed and its harder to set up a manufacturing facility without someone noticing. Importing can be stopped at the borders. Treat anabolic steroids as illicit (prescription) drugs - much like cocaine derivatives used in medical practice. Unless you are a federally licensed doctor or facility you cannot be in possession or distribute said drug. Period.
Honestly, these drugs serve no purpose other than to cheat. Well, that's not entirely true, they do serve a purpose; but those practicing the proper purpose should have no problem obtaining said proposed licenses. But for most of the use these drugs get, they serve no proper purpose other than to cheat. They are a danger to the person consumming them and they are a danger to the integrity of sports. Of course, a mention of kids here would serve the rhetoric well, but I think it's horseshit to blame pro athletes for the problems of kids - except for the fact that these kids see the pros and know that if they want to compete with the pros they will have to take steroids, etc. as well.
Finally, there's an issue of "what is a steroid" or a "performance enhancing substance?" Protein is the basic building block of muscle, but steak is not a performance enhancing substance. In some respects "aspirin" is a performance-enhancing drug or "caffeine." So, where do you draw the line? What makes Stanozolol morally different from eating raw eggs before (or immediately after) working-out? I don't know the answer to that, by the way. But it's a question that has to be answered before these drugs can be put on any sort of federal banned-substance list.
What is Stanozolol? (pictures) Or, more precisely for athletes ("the third most abused substance among athletes") And "athletes" discuss "Stanozol" (warning high humor content - these dudes are apparently serious)
Basic rundown: Palmeiro testifies before Congress "I did not use steroid." Fast forward a few months. Palmeiro tests positive for a banned substance that turns out to be a hardcore anabolic steroid and then gives a lame excuse that "I didn't know that's what it was." First of all, from the descriptions of this drug (anabolic steroid, usually stacked with other testosterone products) that is simply not a feasible excuse. He had to have known. And moreover, there's no way he "just started" using this stuff since his testimony at Congress.
The whole steroid issue in baseball is a shame. And it puts in the forefront the reasons why steroids are ruining baseball, and indeed every sport (cycling, running, football, basketball, hockey, etc.). It's cheating. Plain and simple. The athlete went outside of the bounds of the game to give himself an edge over other participants. However you want to define it (cheat), it is cheating. It's the same as hiding an ace up your sleeve or stealing Monopoly money from the bank when no-one is looking. In fact it's worse because neither of those activities will shrink your testicles or make you more pre-disposed to aggression.
But what's the solution? Identifying substances is a wild goose chase. In fact it's more like chasing an invisible wild goose. The drug manufacturers are constantly tweaking the drugs to be less and less identifiable. And everyone's body is so different that it is impossible to set hard limits on bodily reference statistics (white-cell counts, hemoglobin counts, oxygen levels, etc.) It seems that every time sports catches one drug, another is developed to circumvent the testing mechanism. To me it seems the only logical place to end the problem is at the source (rather than with the users) - make the drugs Federally restricted drugs and the manufacture, sale, or importation of them illegal. First of all its easier to track the manufacturers because they need to be licensed and its harder to set up a manufacturing facility without someone noticing. Importing can be stopped at the borders. Treat anabolic steroids as illicit (prescription) drugs - much like cocaine derivatives used in medical practice. Unless you are a federally licensed doctor or facility you cannot be in possession or distribute said drug. Period.
Honestly, these drugs serve no purpose other than to cheat. Well, that's not entirely true, they do serve a purpose; but those practicing the proper purpose should have no problem obtaining said proposed licenses. But for most of the use these drugs get, they serve no proper purpose other than to cheat. They are a danger to the person consumming them and they are a danger to the integrity of sports. Of course, a mention of kids here would serve the rhetoric well, but I think it's horseshit to blame pro athletes for the problems of kids - except for the fact that these kids see the pros and know that if they want to compete with the pros they will have to take steroids, etc. as well.
Finally, there's an issue of "what is a steroid" or a "performance enhancing substance?" Protein is the basic building block of muscle, but steak is not a performance enhancing substance. In some respects "aspirin" is a performance-enhancing drug or "caffeine." So, where do you draw the line? What makes Stanozolol morally different from eating raw eggs before (or immediately after) working-out? I don't know the answer to that, by the way. But it's a question that has to be answered before these drugs can be put on any sort of federal banned-substance list.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)