to do list
Submitted by lukeprog on Sun, 08/10/2008 - 12:40
Tags:
- Stop mentioning that I don't watch TV.
- Consume less, produce more.
- Spin on an escalator.
- Travel the world and dance badly.
- Play with some dancing liquid.
- Say "I don't know" way more often.
- Recontextualize some comic strip panels.
- Send someone a note-envelope.
- Thank Matt Dillahunty in person for changing my life.
- Get launched.
- Make a creepy bag monster.
- Question more, assert less.
- Eat penis.
- Ask, "What do you think?"
- Just be fun.
- Learn how to get things done.
- Play with fireballs.
- Cover a famous song in a way that totally changes its emotional character, like Prince's cover of "Creep."
I think everyone should get launched.
Two discoveries ruined my day: TruthMapping and Debatepedia.
Just a quick glance over debatepedia and I am not too excited over it.
Probable addition to the list : extend the 'every page is easy to read' philosophy to 'every post is easy to read'.
That would be too costly. I may abandon that strategy for my "new" website, too. The math equation is pretty blunt. I might be better off deciding for myself whether a post is readable enough or not.
What I really want are some of Paul Graham's editors to read my essays and underline everything that is (1) slightly boring, or (2) not convincing.
Why costly?
Ok, no maths equations, but still reading something simple saves a lot of time to cut through the layers of unnecessary verbosity that tends to seep in while making a passionate defense.
It takes me a long time to pare my writing down to something as readable as the better articles on my website. If I did that for all my posts here, I'd have to post very little, or quit my day job to make time for editing.
Sometimes I try, though.
The second ammendment. Is this a movie, or is it real? I guess it's real, but her presentation is absurdly flawless. She must have practiced it many times.
Be sure to wait for the final line. I wanted to kiss her.
She went around the country delivering that presentation many times over.
How is a well-regulated Militia armed with guns any defense against today's form of government? This may be considered rhetorical and left alone.
Yes, her argument was entirely anecdotal and rhetorical. I was just surprised about how "perfect" it was.
Though I suspect an armed citizenry could still protect itself from the government. The government is unlikely to use WMDs or biological attacks on its own soil. They'd probably use tanks and troops (or, depending on the scale of who they want to rough up, just troops), in which case guns would be quite useful to the citizens wanting to protect themselves.
And of course, an armed citizenry can protect itself from itself, as in this story.
It is an empirical question whether guns do more prevention than harm, and there are strong arguments on either side of that question. Like the minimum wage.
I want to respond to this post on Linux vs. Windows:
1. Full access vs. no access
Yes, Linux is open source but no common user is going to modify source code. Irrelevant.
2. Licensing freedom vs. licensing restrictions
Yup. Linux is free (as in free beer).
3. Online peer support vs. paid help-desk support
False. Both Linux and Windows have free and paid support. Windows' free support is better because (1) more people use Windows, (2) there are hundreds of versions of Linux, so it's more likely with Linux to run into a specific problem with a specific version that nobody has posted about before, and (3) there are more Windows experts available no matter where you live than there are Linux experts.
4. Full vs. partial hardware support
Yup, Windows has better hardware support.
5. Command line vs. no command line
Again, most common users will never use the command line in either Windows or Linux.
6. Centralized vs. noncentralized application installation
It is easier to find software in Linux, IF it's in the applications database. If it's not, then Windows software is easier to install by comparison. And there's WAY more software available for Windows.
7. Flexibility vs. rigidity
False. There are free Windows programs that will let you customize practically anything, and they are usually easier to use than Linux alternatives.
8. Fanboys vs. corporate types
Mischaracterization, but who cares...
9. Automated vs. nonautomated removable media
Yeah, Windows handles removable media better.
10. Multilayered run levels vs. a single-layered run level
Again, no common user is going to get this, and there are similar tools for Windows.
I was surprised that this article did not include these differences between Linux and Windows:
No viruses (Linux) vs. tons of viruses (Windows)
Very little software (Linux) vs. tons of software (Windows)
Again, no viruses for Linux is probably due to the smaller user group maybe? I think what is interesting is that one web servers use Linux than windows. Maybe due to less crashes and less viruses?
This is a fantastic rebuttal to the post, btw. Most of it can be applied to the whole open source vs. non open source debate. I personally am yet to understand why open source is pushed so hard into our faces. This post succintly puts down what I randomly thought of. Thanks!
No viruses on Linux is mostly due to its smaller user base, but also to its security architecture. Linux users do not work with administrator privileges. Microsoft tried to do that with Vista, but instead just trained users to click "Continue" without thinking.
It amuses me that open source fanatics seem to think open source is morally superior to commercial software.
Mind you, I'm a big fan of open source.
Actually Linux is free as in "free speech" not "free beer".
Most distros of Linux are free in both ways. The "free speech" part is the open source code part. The "free beer" part is that I can download Ubuntu (and a hundred other distros) for free, legally, and never pay anything for using it.
Another bad Linux article, from supposedly knowledgeable people:
13 Reasons why Linux won’t make it to a desktop near you (pdf)
Reasons 1-5 are variations on the theme "people don't know it exists; it's not marketed or on store shelves."
This ignores the fact that people don't buy operating systems like they buy other software. They just use whatever is on their PC when they buy it.
So, it's up to computer manufacturers. They have some incentives to sell Linux on their machines:
1. It's free to the computer maker, so they can sell their machines at lower prices.
2. It's more secure and more reliable than Windows.
And that's what we're seeing. Linux is invading the desktop market.
Reason #6: Too many versions. True.
Reason #7: When you install the product and try to use it, you strike unexpected problems.
Yes, but these are becoming less frequent at a rapid rate. Compare the leading Linux desktop distro of 2005 to Ubuntu in 2008.
Reasons 8-13 reflect emotional frustration of using computers in general; nothing specific to Linux.
And of course, the list ignores the main advantage of Linux (and, in fact, the main advantage of having 500 different distros): No viruses.
Mind you, I don't think Linux will dominate the desktop market in the next decade. Maybe it never will. But it will continue to increase its market share, and it will come to a desktop near you.
BTW, I use Windows XP as my main OS.
Here's my response to Annie Leonard's fun animation Story of Stuff. As always, I love criticism.
I agreed with a few obvious things she said. Here's a partial list of my disagreements:
"planned obsolescence..."
Yes, many products go obsolete quickly because (1) it is easier and cheaper to make a a new plastic cup than to carry it around with you all the time, and (2) technology improves. Does Annie want to produce her video on an Apple II computer instead of ditching it for a modern one?
"The piece that changes each year [inside a computer] is just a tiny little piece in the corner. But [they don't let you replace just that], so you gotta chuck the whole thing."
Holy crap that is so false my jaw is on the floor.
"Protecting [consumption] has become the top priority for [government and business]. That's why, [after 9/11], President Bush could have suggested any number of appropriate things - to grieve, to pray, to hope. No, he said to shop!"
Yes, because grieving, praying, and hoping do not accomplish anything good. Shopping does. (Of course, it would be better if Bush had said, "Produce and innovate!")
"We have become a nation of consumers. Our primary identity has become that of being consumers - not mothers, teachers, farmers - but consumers."
We were always consumers. And we were always - and still are - mothers, teachers, and farmers. Ask people "Who are you?" and they will say things like "I'm a mother" and "I'm a farmer," not "I'm a consumer." If we're talking about economics, we're "consumers" because that's part of what economics studies. That doesn't mean we aren't mothers and teachers anymore. If we're talking about biology, we are all "mammals." Does that mean we are no longer mothers and teachers?
"We are running out of resources."
Really? Can she give an example of a resource we've ever run out of? Did running out of that resource make our lives worse?
A dictator can exhaust a resource if he is stupid enough. A market economy cannot. In a market economy, any resource becomes more expensive as its becomes more scarce. By the time we get close to exhausting a resource, it is so expensive that we must develop ways to do things with a different resource.
"In the past two decades alone, 1/3 of the planet's natural resource space has been consumed. Gone."
What does that even mean? If it means anything, I'll bet it's false or irrelevant. In her footnotes (pdf) Annie cites this book, which - like Annie - makes the statement without any argument or data to back it up. The book doesn't explain what that statement means, either.
"You cannot run a linear system on a finite planet indefinitely."
No, but you can run it for, say, 500 years. By then the system will have changed. Prices will force it to change, as I explained above.
"We're undermining the planet's [ability to support us]."
How? If anything, even she is only arguing that we are undermining the planet's ability to support our current lifestyle. We're not endangering our own species or anything.
"We have less than 4% of our original forests left.
Her source says "98% of forests in the continental United States have been logged at least once since settlement by Europeans." Maybe, but that ignores the fact that many forests have been replanted (mostly by industry, which plants trees constantly because wood is valuable).
Even if her statistics are true, they are meaningless. What is the best amount of forestation? 110% of the "original"? 60%? 0.001%?
"40% of the waterways have become undrinkable."
A blatant lie. Her source says: "Today, 40 percent of our nation’s rivers are unfishable, unswimmable, or undrinkable." Her source doesn't even say how many rivers are undrinkable.
Anyway, it's mostly irrelevant. Most USA drinking water doesn't come from rivers.
"We have 5% of the world's population, but we're using 30% of the world's resources."
The USA consumes more because it can better utilize those resources (i.e. because the USA produces more). Our consumption does not stop Africa from using those resources. Malaria, AIDS, corrupt governments, unstable economies, and obsolete technology stop Africa from using those resources.
Another thing: this video talks about the costs of production but ignores the incredible benefits. The standard of living in the United States today is higher than it has ever been at any time in history anywhere in the world; infant mortality is tremendously low; disease doesn't claim people until old age. You can't just ignore all that - it would be like saying hospitals are bad because hospital errors kill people while ignoring that hospitals save lives!
"There are over 100,000 synthetic chemicals in use in commerce today."
Nothing dangerous about that. Lots of natural chemicals are dangerous. Lots of synthetic chemicals are not. (Cobra venom and mercury are deadly. Plastic and nylon are safe.)
"Only a handful of [these synthetic chemicals] have even been tested for health impacts, and none have been tested for synergistic impacts (that means when they're exposed to all the other chemicals we interact with every day)."
I'm pretty sure this is false. Her source is an unpopular web page that doesn't make this claim now, nor in its archived version from just before the quote was retrieved by Annie herself.
New chemicals and materials are almost always tested for safety before release. Companies have a huge reason to do this. If their product kills people they will get sued for millions of dollars.
"200,000 people a day are moving from environments that have sustained them for generations into cities."
Nobody's forcing them. They moved to the cities because they think the cities are better.
"These people even had to pay by covering their own health insurance."
Um, yes. I am responsible for my health and my health bills. If I break my leg that sucks but I ask my neighbors to pay the bill.
"99% of the stuff we run through this system is trashed within 6 months."
Her source says: "only one percent of the total North American materials flow ends up in, and is still being used within, products six months after their sale." This is not backed up with argument or data.
Also, how much of this is food and other products that must become, er, "waste" right away?
"The American Economy's ultimate purpose is to produce more consumer goods, [not health care, transportation, justice, sustainability...]"
Duh. That's what economies are for. They produce goods and services that people value - vacations, music, food, health care, education, transportation. Sorry, an economy cannot produce "justice" or "sustainability."
"In this [economic] system, if you don't buy or own a lot of stuff, you don't have value."
...to the economy? Of course not! The economy is about products, spending, etc. If you don't spend anything on any products, you aren't part of the economy. That doesn't mean you don't have "value" in some global sense. This is like saying that in the NBA system, if you don't score points and win games you don't have value. Well, not to the NBA system, of course not! Just because I don't participate in the NBA doesn't mean I don't have value.
"We use energy to mix toxins in the products to make toxic, contaminated products."
This is true but meaningless. Sodium is toxic and chlorine is toxic and we put them together with almost nothing else into a product called "table salt." It doesn't matter if there are toxins in our products. It matters how they affect us. We test products for safety before they are released. If they are later found to be dangerous, they are immediately pulled out of circulation.
"What are we even doing using [BFRs]?"
BFRs are a class of frame-retardant chemicals containing bromine, a toxin. Again, salt is made of two toxins. That doesn't mean it's dangerous.
Not a single death has been linked to BFRs, yet they are everywhere.
How many lives have BFRs saved by preventing fires?
"We take our pillows, douse them in a neurotoxin, then put our heads on them [to sleep]. [Maybe] we could think up a better way to stop our heads from catching on fire..."
Did Annie notice that no heads are catching on fire?
"...our babies are getting their highest lifetime dose of toxic chemicals from breastfeeding from their mothers."
What does she mean "highest"? Highest of what? Compared to what?
I checked her "source." It says nothing about "highest lifetime does of toxic chemicals."
"[USA companies emit] 4 billion pounds of toxic chemicals a year."
Again, salt has toxic chemicals. The brute measurement of toxic chemicals is meaningless. And, how much is 4 billions pounds out of all the air, water, and ground in the USA? How do these toxic chemicals affect us? Those are questions that matter.
The analysis of the 'true costs of a radio' is utterly wrong. Materials are cheap. Assembly is also cheap, especially if it's mechanical. Pennies. And transport isn't generally very expensive if you do it on a large enough scale. The radio probably cost something like two dollars, honestly. As for the 'rent space on the shelf' and 'pay the employee" arguments, well, with enough volume, I probably could do both of those things - but more likely, the store pays those guys off of much higher-margin items like TVs.
Here is Annie's footnoted script for the video. Read it through to find lots of other errors in her work.
Thing is, Annie and I probably agree on alot. But she is spreading lies and misleading statements. That is not a good way to fight the problem, or to find the right solution.
oh. em. gee.
"As always, I love criticism."
Would you like it alphabetically, chronologically or by order of importance?
You'll do it best your own way, my friend. :)
Oops. It should be "If I break my leg that sucks but I don't ask my neighbors to pay the bill."
Thank you all for such kind words, the misplaced esteem and gender-specific pronoun.
My response thus far:
Planned obsolescence...
Built-in obsolescence isn't a decision made by consumers (although consumer decisions play a part.) It is a decision made by producers to increase the value of a product to the producer, not the consumer. It might be easier for you to buy and pay for new plastic cups bags rather than carry them around. That is your decision to make although your grandchildren might wish you had made a different choice, a different choice, a different choice, a different choice than the one you make every time you go shopping.
What if every time you bought another cup you had to buy another straw and/or spoon to fit that shiny new cup? That's a lot more money for the straw and/or spoon industry. What if your shiny new cup no longer fit the cup-holders in your car? That's a lot more money for the auto industry. Actually, it usually works in the reverse. You buy a new car (or computer or printer...) and you have to buy new cups (or software or ink cartridges...) which are small/cheap purchases but there are many, many, many, many, many, many of them. That adds up over time. So far it is six "manys." Arterial spray gets noticed quickly while the drip-drip-drip of being bled dry is both harder to notice and it leaves the subject alive for more drip-drip-drip.
The piece that changes each year...
?"The piece that changes each year... is just a tiny little piece in the corner. But... you gotta chuck the whole thing." If that crap puts your jaw on the floor then how do you explain all of the abandoned monitors and keyboards that you have in the crawl space? I have bought mgmffwmp laptops in my life. Never was I given the option to keep the shell and just pay for the CPU and hard drive. I admit that I like my screen and I'm glad that I can burn DVDs but I didn't need mgmffwmp screens and mgmffwmp CD drives and I really miss the keyboard from my third (4th?) laptop. Great action, nice soft clickety-clickety, jet black keys with slightly offset letters and the cutest little laugh.
If you think of your PC as a lil' entertainment centre in a plastic box then, when you buy a new VCR, you might not want to buy a new television, TV cart, videotapes and cable subscription. The same principle holds when you get your DVD player; you wouldn't if you had to buy all of those other pieces. They still screw you on the remote. I probably have mgmffwmp dead remotes in my crawl space.
Protecting [consumption]...
As for the reaction to 9/11 (and virtually every other crisis in the United States) I think the priorities of government, especially this government, are crystal clear. Just because you feel that "grieving, praying, and hoping do not accomplish anything good" doesn't mean that the proper response is to tell people to keep finding fulfillment in purchases. President Bush could have told the country, could have told the world, to do anything. And the world would have done it. It is a horrifying indictment of the priorities and vision of the President, the government he heads and the people he serves that "shopping" was the civic response.
Remember that the Republican government has, in seven years, robbed the phrase "9/11" of any true meaning. After sixty years "Holocaust" retains its import. "Crucifixion" has been with us for thousands of years. Let's remember what "9/11" was. Nineteen hijackers and four airliners. The second and third tallest buildings in America, the headquarters of the United States Department of Defense and a field in Pennsylvania. Ground zero. 2,974 dead.
If those separate elements elicit any emotional response in you then you might remember what the totality, what the phrase "9/11", used to mean. And the response was "shopping."
0dysseus. I don't think I've misplaced my esteem on hir because I haven't placed my esteem on thon, only on that's contributions here at Listology, which have been uniformly excellent.
Planned obsolescence. Xe is correct, things don't have to be this way. Both producers and consumers can change their behavior and stop externalizing the costs of convenience onto the fish of Garbage Island.
Yet, Annie's examples are not great. Like that piece that changes each year in a computer. I agree it would be nice to take the keyboard from my old laptop and drop it in my new laptop. But there is nothing else from my old laptop I want to preserve, because it would slow down my work, and especially my procrastination.
Protecting consumption. The response to 9/11 was not just shopping. It was preemptive war, torture, a police state, Orwellian surveillance, and the Giuliani record player.
And I don't think Bush told us to find fulfillment in shopping. He apparently said our "continued participation and confidence in the American economy would be greatly appreciated."
Maybe too much confidence in risky loans led to the present economic downturn. But does shey suggest that discontinued participation and confidence in the American economy would have been better advice?
September 17, 2001
I've been told that some fear to leave; some don't want to go shopping for their families; some don't want to go about their ordinary daily routines because, by wearing cover, they're afraid they'll be intimidated. That should not and that will not stand in America.
Those who feel like they can intimidate our fellow citizens to take out their anger don't represent the best of America.
[Emphasis mine.]
September 27, 2001
When they struck, they wanted to create an atmosphere of fear. And one of the great goals of this nation's war is to restore public confidence in the airline industry. It's to tell the traveling public: Get on board. Do your business around the country. Fly and enjoy America's great destination spots. Get down to Disney World in Florida. Take your families and enjoy life, the way we want it to be enjoyed.
[Emphasis mine.]
Evidently terrorizing the American public out of going shopping for their families will not stand. For the second quote President Bush was in O'Hare Airport but it shows that the goal of restoring public confidence is not for the purpose of national unity. It's to bail out the airlines. I'm going to Disney World!
Consumers can change their behaviour(s). Reduce ~ Reuse ~ Recycle. For Producers to change their behaviour they would have to change their strategy. They are doing this on purpose, not out of ignorance, complacency or laziness.
Being against risky loans doesn't mean that you are advocating a withdrawal from the American economy. In fact, it could mean the opposite. If it is the "risk" part of the risky loans that is the problem then that implies a faith in the "loan" part of risky loans.
Glad you found those quotes. I still don't think Bush said anything like "keep finding fulfillment in purchase."
He basically said, "Let's not live in fear, but go on with our normal lives." That includes travel and shopping, but also "daily routines" and "do your business" and even "wearing cover," if that's what you like to do.
And I think that's good advice. Terrorism shouldn't make us stop shopping, stop traveling, stop doing our daily routines, stop doing our business, or stop expressing our personal beliefs and values.
There are many other things I wish Bush would have said. But what he did say, in these few cases, was pretty good.
. I disagree. I think that when you cast "the fight" in moral terms, to the point of calling it a crusade, you must call people to a higher purpose. To concern yourself with bailing out the airline industry and protecting the WTC landlord is an abdication of staggering proportion. To return to "normal lives" while entering a struggle for (and between) civilizations makes no sense.
It makes no sense... unless you have a Platonian view of the world where the wise, informed few rule the decisions of the common populace. For seven years to pass without a design for the site around Ground Zero, without even breaking ground on the National September 11 Memorial & Museum is a tragedy of its own. When the American Civil War became a crusade to "make men free" as opposed to a military mission to preserve the Union it would have been immoral for Abraham Lincoln to call the nation to economic stability. If men were being asked to die for an idea then that idea must be laid before the nation.
"We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live." Even without either war or both it was incumbent on President Bush too do more than maintain an economy, promise revenge and bludgeon a country into a war. People marvel over 271 words but Lincoln needed only 81 of those 271 to change the character of America and explain the sacrifice of its people.
President Bush explained the sacrifice of its people in order to continue his war.That is a fundamental part of why Lincoln is our greatest American president and President George W. Bush is the worst.
On the subject of the American Civil War I think the Ken Burns documentary lays out a leader's, a President's responsibilities in a war, a war that is a cause. It is long before Lincoln came to his moral transformation but already the geniuses of the war know what is required. Grant possesses the tactics, Sherman the strategy and Sullivan Ballou the purpose and the cost.
It is the purpose and the cost that are paramount.
It seems so recently we were talking about Annie Leonard... but I generally like where our conversations lead.
We're now debating moral opinions, so I'll just lay down my opinion with the caveat that I have not settled on a moral philosophy. I keep trying but the issues are too complex, arbitrary, and unknown.
Bush wants to continue the war, he says, for the purpose of freedom - same as Lincoln. His first long speech after 9/11 cited "freedom" 13 times. For example: "This is not, however, just America's fight. And what is at stake is not just America's freedom. This is the world's fight. This is civilization's fight. This is the fight of all who believe in progress and pluralism, tolerance and freedom."
(I have serious doubts about the motivations of both Bush and Lincoln, but they both said they were going to war for the cause of freedom.)
There are lots of problems with our "normal lives" and I wish presidents would not defend our normal lives so vigorously, but challenge us to transcend them.
But in asking us to live our normal lives, Bush was trying to prevent reactions of prejudice and fear. The first Bush quote in your post above was a call to not persecute moderate Muslims in the USA. The second was a call to not be afraid of air travel - quite reasonable, I think, since flying is pretty safe.
Our current struggle between peace and terror is one that will not be won by throwing more bodies before the bombs and bullets, as was the case with the American Civil War. Or at least, I do not want it to be won that way.
You keep saying that Bush's response - of calling people to engage in their normal business and keep flying - was wrong. I haven't heard why those are bad things to recommend, and what he should have called for. Troops? Vigilance? Tolerance? Endurance? Actually, he called for those things, too.
I agree that Bush may be the worst US president ever.
I didn't intend to debate moral positions... or morality. I find it difficult to discuss President Bush, the Republican politicians and their response, both before and after, to September 11 without expressing my moral horror at what they have done are doing.
I meant to demonstrate President Bush's primary concern with the economic oligarchs by noting the absence of a moral purpose. Saying you have a moral purpose, citing moral purpose as a justification for continuing a war and using it to advance an amoral agenda does not mean that this moral purpose is the motivation. There may be no moral purpose whatsoever and those actions are evidence of it. A speech about "Freedom Fries" has little to do with freedom itself, quite the opposite.
I'm glad that you pointed to that speech as I think it is instructive. George W. Bush calls on the American people to perform two affirmative acts in their role as citizens. In doing so he defines what makes America successful. [emphasis mine]
[snip]
I ask your continued participation and confidence in the American economy. Terrorists attacked a symbol of American prosperity. They did not touch its source. America is successful because of the hard work, and creativity, and enterprise of our people. These were the true strengths of our economy before September 11th, and they are our strengths today.
[snip]
We will come together to take active steps that strengthen America's economy, and put our people back to work." ...and he actually did ask people to pray.
Neither Lincoln nor Bush went to war for "freedom." Lincoln went to war to keep the Union intact. Bush went to war to defend the United States against weapons of mass destruction. It's a very interesting insight that both presidents moved to a freedom rationale after a lack of military success. I hope no one misconstrues what I've said to mean that I want the American economy to collapse, that normal business and flying are wrong. I think it's obvious that this would be disastrous for Americans, for all of us. One can call for troops, vigilance, tolerance, endurance, shopping and unity. But to what end? "American success" was symbolized by the World Trade Center. What kind of success is that if not economic?
Pushing aside all of the rhetoric and emotion surrounding Ms. Leonard's citation of September 11, the priorities of the American government should be clear from today's events. The rapid and overwhelming response to the travails of Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should be all of the evidence you require. "Too big to fail" is a euphemism for "too small to care about."
I'm still confused. What are the priorities of the American government (as you see them), and what should they be?
And, are you still saying that Bush should not have asked people to continue with their normal business and keep flying?
And, what should he have asked of the American people immediately after 9/11?
It sounds like you're stepping onto your soap box, and I'd like for you to really have your say.
I'm conflicted about asymmetric soap box stepping.
Until I come to a resolution: Amen, brother Keith.
Yeah! What he said.
"We have become a nation of consumers...."
When you use the example of people asking one another "Who are you?" I think you're exactly right. We define ourselves by our relationships to others, other people, other organizations, other philosophies. Unfortunately I think that the first answer you'd get from someone you didn't know would be a name followed by their job. That puts people into an economic context from the very beginning.
Even the reply, "I'm just a housewife," apologizes for not participating in the production/consumption economy. I think you've overlooked the use of the word "primary" in the phrase, "Our primary identity has become...." She might not be fulminating against our roles as consumers at all (but I believe that she is.) What she is arguing against is that we are now identified, self- and otherwise, as consumers first and foremost. I think it is instructive that the roles she lists as being subsumed by capitalism are all nurturing ones. Mother, teacher, farmer.
You're correct in the fact that all of us can be mammals and something(s) else. I'd be surprised if she's making the case against that. I really think that issue should be left in the webbed hands of the Platypus Union of Psychiatrists (PUP).
But I would like to point out that the way that society identifies me as being me is by a driver's license and/or a credit card. One implies a tacit involvement in the economy while the other is an economic membership card. When my credit cards, internet browsers and the like track me wherever I am, whatever I'm doing, for the sole purpose of selling me more stuff it makes me think that the world considers me a consumer.
"We are running out of resources..."
Right whales, buffalo, passenger pigeons... Coal. I admit that mineral resources are tougher to declare extinct. But how many cave-ins, slag heaps and mountain extractions can we bear before we admit that we are "out of resources." Developing a way to use another resource is not a sign that the previous resource remains. It is a sign that it is gone.
"In the past two decades alone,..."
That link doesn't work for me so I don't know how Hawken sources that assertion (if at all.) One third does seem large to me but who is to say where either of them started counting. The Sahara and Namibia contained a lot of stuff. The Tigris and the Euphrates might have contained an Eden's worth of stuff.. and I think that would be a lot a lot. There certainly has been a lot of oil taken out of there.
I've read a Paul Hawken book, The Next Economy. Its thesis is that the economic chaos we feel is the turmoil of transition from a mass economy of consumption to an information economy. The book came out in 1983. In the absence of evidence, Hawken gets a lot of slack from me for being right a quarter of a century ago.
?"You cannot run a linear system..."
I don't understand your explanation. Even if we could ride a unicycle for half a millennia when the change comes in the form of a helicopter it's difficult to claim that the unicycle could and would have gone on forever.
Speaking of going on forever...
"A nation of consumers..."
Seems to me the main way anybody identifies me is by my name. After that, it depends what you're asking about.
If you're asking about my driving, I have a class C license from California. If you're asking about my production (income), I have a social security number. My race? I'm Caucasian. My biology? I'm a humanoid. My consumption? I signed up for credit cards from Visa and Mastercard. My sexuality? Male, straight. My politics? Independent. My worldview? Some kind of secular humanism. My relations? Son, grandson, brother, friend, acquaintance, supporter, adversary. My interests? My skills? My medical identity? My experiences? My social circle? My psychology? My Facebook?
All these and more make up my identity. I do not see how consumption is my "primary" role. Unless you ask an economic question. Then of course you are going to get an economic answer. If you ask a sexual question you will get a sexual answer. If you ask a medical question you will get a medical answer. If you ask a racial question you will get a racial answer.
"Running out of resources..."
I love your examples. It does seem that resources of economic value can be exhausted by a market economy after all! Passenger pigeons were hunted as a cheap food source, and remained cheap right up until their end. They probably didn't appreciate being excommunicated, either.
"In the past two decades alone..."
Huh, the link doesn't work for me today, either. Here is what I tried to link to. No citation. I still don't even know what it means.
"You cannot run a finite system..."
This point depends on my "Running out of resources..." point, which I've abdicated.
Going on forever? Come now, this is nothing compared to our radiometric dating discussion! But let's not hold that as a standard...
Your name is what you are called. A rose by any other social security number is a crime. Unless the Soro and the Tandu come calling I doubt that anyone would care to identify you as "humanoid." I am willing to bet a large Visa payment that a vast majority of the time that you are asked to identify yourself it is in an economic context. Or you are trying to get a drink or into a country. Even without getting pulled over you are implictly identified by your license... just try driving without it. While you're at it you can try to rent a car without a license, without a credit card.
How many times a day is your father asked to vouch for you? And how many times do you use your mobile or go online? Which reminds me: Call your father or drop him an email. Tell him you are still forming your own identity. It'll do his heart good... then ask him to pay your Visa bill.
I'm quite surprised you're sticking to this point. Maybe my experience with my identity is quite different than your experience with yours.
I do not feel slighted that I am known as an economic entity to those with whom my only interaction is economic. Besides, those interactions are brief and not usually memorable.
The relationships and interactions that occupy my time and my mind very rarely bring up my economic identity. They often dwell on my masculinity, politics, worldview, experiences, skills, interests, humanity, and relations (maybe in that order).
You might be surprised how much my identity as a humanoid comes up. I love dogs and they give me a daily opportunity to enjoy the similarities and differences between myself and another mammal. Also, I tend to philosophize about humanity a lot in daily conversation.
I'm not sure what point you think I'm sticking to. Your experience with identity, self- and otherwise, is the experience of an individual. I am concerned with how the society-at-large frames the identity of individuals because I believe that is what Ms. Leonard is objecting to. I am fairly sure that Ms. Leonard would not be outraged at how you view yourself.
I'm also convinced that Ms. Leonard is outraged over how society views you. I'm caught between incendiary and hackneyed. I would also hazard to guess that slaves would not (did not, do not) identify themselves as people in bondage. They would share your concerns about identity and minimize the identity that society imposed upon them. Being a slave is/was not the most important component of their sense of self.
Still, being a slave is/was the most important frame through which society views the economic units/producers known as... them. When the broader society is concerned about a particular aspect of your identity it shapes you and treats you according to that aspect. If society truly valued motherhood over all else why wouldn't it pay medical bills, provide maternity leave, offer daycare and education... There is an answer to that question: It doesn't so it don't.
You may feel that being in bondage doesn't define you as an individual. I'd agree with that on the most personal level. Again, I feel Ms. Leonard is concerned with how a capitalist society values you. And it does not... unless it can sell you something. The hackneyed comes from The Matrix metaphor of an individual's inner reality as opposed to their true condition. I don't mean to suggest that you are unaware of your condition. I mean to suggest that you are more sanguine about the broader effects of your condition.
Philosophize all you'd like about "humanity" and your own identity. Your culture has no interest in your personal reflections.
Haha! I like you.
Though I think you'll find it hard to get through to lukeprog, as I'm sure he leans towards a more central, economic rationalist worldview (correct me if I'm wrong Luke).
Thank you. That's very nice to hear.
I think you might be misinterpreting my communication style here (regardless of lukeprog's leanings.) I'm not trying to "get through to lukeprog" if by that you mean I am trying to convince him of something. In this case the "criticism" lukeprog has invited is analysis and, should he choose to respond, debate. At least that is how I approach it.
My interactions with lukeprog have been quite instructive (to me.) He was instrumental in helping me to form and then flesh out my "The Dread Spielberg" presentation. He was also the catalyst for what is, if I do say so myself, a kick-ass brilliant explanation of radiocarbon dating. And it took me over two dozen posts to even get to that explanation (which lukeprog references above.) In both cases it might have appeared that I was trying to "get through" to him about something.
If anything, I am trying to get lukeprog's worldview "through" to me. If we.. and by "we" I mean he and I and you (and others.) If we can understand where and why we think differently then we can learn something new. Perhaps I should say, "I can learn something new." It's not very interesting to try to change minds and attitudes through the series of tubes. Too many trolls, not enough time. But it is thrilling, tremendously thrilling, to learn something new. The mind you change might be your own.
Lastly, two things. (I probably should've said, "Penultimately, two things.")
I find it problematic to use labels even in this kind of debate. It's tough enough to explain one's own position without having to operate through someone else's framing definition(s.)
and
Labels combined with a need to "get through" to the other person leads to angry argument by proxy and citation (see the many bruising Piero v. Mop Tops et. al. folderols.) But I would label lukeprog a great humanoiditerian.
That may also apply to you.
Brilliant!
How exciting…
Don't mind me,
Though I might chip in when I can contribute to the flavour of the discussion…
(If it's not too intrusive)
I'd welcome it!
I'd also be excited to receive more than mere flavourful chip-ins. So many mustn't say "three-way" mustn't say "three-way" tripartite conversations devolve into serial explanations of what the other guy said... or voting someone else off the island. The intellectual rigour required for such mustn't say "intercourse" mustn't say "intercourse" intercourse dammit! would be impressive and instructive.
Chip in, lay your cards on the table, and make off with crazy metaphors like a fox bandit. Avoid ugly attacks if you can.
My interactions with 0dysseus have always been instructive (to me), though I have yet to learn his/her sex, job, age, location, worldview, or favorite flavor of Baskin Robbins.
Ahhhhh, I've learned so much! Some of the credit goes to my youth and ignorance (almost anything anyone says teaches me something). Some of the credit goes to 0dysseus' patience and his/her non-combative approach. Some of the credit goes to our similar tastes in language; I seek out conversations with 0dysseus because they are fun for me.
Speaking to understand rather than convince is a good idea. Too often I try to persuade with intertubes. I try because they are so persuasive to me. I couldn't count on a thousand hands how many times the intertubes persuaded me.
0dysseus and I debate often. Alas, I am a poor debater because I too happily concede points when I lose them. 0dysseus puts up with it.
0dysseus will never get my worldview "through" to him/her because it barely exists. It changes too fast. A month ago I was a strong libertarian. Now I suspect that rule by corporations would be a worse fascism than the republic.
Sorry, I don't know what my political or economic positions are, or if they've ever been labeled. I like transcendental world-traveling pastoralism but I also like the internet, comparative advantages, and Zicam. I do not like patriotism but I love the USA.*
P.S. Dread Spielberg. Rachel Maddow. The Boss.
P.P.S. You're not the first to suggest I delete one of my lists.
* except for everything terrible about it.
Don't know if we're actually disagreeing anymore, but...
I'm not sure to whom Annie thinks "our primary identity has become that of consumer." Society at large? Could be.
If society at large means "the economy" then I have no complaint. Yes, we are all producers and consumers to the economy because that's what the economy is.
Maybe Annie means that "consumer" has become our primary identity... to us. Her Victor LeBow quote suggests so.
I've heard of a few people who do little else but shop. But that ain't me. I lack the skills and courage to make enough money for that kind of lifestyle. And I don't know many people who live from one Louis Vuitton bag to the next.
Maybe she means that "consumer" has become our primary identity... to each other. Despite her animated pentagon of shame, I'm not sure that's how people see each other most of the time. Most people have their Joneses but also their rugrats, their pub buddies, their Skeletors, their Pennyworths, their co-workers, co-players, co-philosophizers, co-llaboraters, co-conspirators, co-worshippers, and co-spacers.
Not that I deny consumerism. I suspect we humans are more consumerist than before because now we're rich. We consume shelter, food, health care, and education like never before. Oh, what is the world coming to?
We also consume hyperthreaded googolbit AvogadroHertz pornboxes that need to be dumped in landfills each year because last year's didn't do gonzo in streaming HD. We also consume lots of Lindsay Lohan; an undeniable waste.
But does Society At Large see me only that way? Who is Ms. Large? When I meet her I will have to ask her to explain herself but avoid sending her the wrong message.
We're undermining the planet...
I believe our "current lifestyle" is exactly the problem Ms. Leonard is addressing. I'm assuming that you would have no problem with her if she said, "We're undermining the planet's ability to support us in the lifestyle to which we have become accustomed." I think you've hit the nail on the head and it is the same nail that Ms. Leonard is hammering.
It's not within the scope of the presentation but I think I could make the case for mankind endangering itself as a species. Rising sea levels, strengthening storms, droughts, mercury in the water, hormones in the water, PCBs in the water, lead in the water... Billions of people in the Third World living in crowded poverty combined with the trans-global reach of the First World is the perfect combination designed to develop new diseases and then spread them across the globe almost instantaneously. It's not extinction but a modern-day outbreak of the Spanish flu could kill over 300 million people. Throw in contamination/exhaustion of the water table, widespread toxins affecting infants, deforestation leading to flooding leading to continent-wide dust bowls leading to famines, numerous banana-like extinctions of monoculture products along with no more curbside pick up and you've got 'Trouble' with a capital 'T.'
We have less than 4%...
I hope that I'm not missing the thrust of her argument but the amount of forest may be less important than the quality. Whatever "original forest" means the character of woods on a snowy evening has been fundamentally transformed. Trees (and bushes and birds and bees and...) that have grown up together for thousands of years have been replaced by row upon row of trash trees. If you restock 96% of the shelves selling Coca-Cola with Coke II, Diet Coke, C2, Coca-Cola Vanilla Zero and... Tab you can't tell me that the shelves look just as they used to 500 years ago.
I don't feel that Ms. Leonard is concerned with determining the "best" amount of forestation. Hers is an argument about the transformation and exploitation of forests.
40% of the waterways...
I'm not sure whether the lie is "blatant"... or even a "lie." I assume that "drinkable" is the highest quality of water... followed by "swimmable" and then "fishable." So while I can imagine fishing in waters that aren't swimmable and swimming in waters that aren't drinkable I cannot imagine drinking water that was unswimmable or unfishable. Feel free to drink up but I'm going to avoid drinking from any of those waters... 40% of them.
Could the relevance be the quality of the water (and its decline) not the amount of it that the USA drinks?
Speaking of getting a drink, I need a TAB... it's a mindsticker!
If I zoom out I think my two main complaints with Annie's presentation are these:
1. Annie cites many conditions and trends - some accurate, some not - but she does not persuade me that she knows what their effects will be.
A blatant example is her fear of BFRs, which have saved lots of lives and not - to my knowledge - cost even one. On the other end of the spectrum is her fear that losing our forests is worse than all the good that logging does - that may or may not be true but I don't think there's much evidence to help us decide either way.
Sometimes we must act on almost no information. Maybe global warming is one of those cases (you probably disagree that there is "almost no information", but that is another debate). But it can also be dangerous to act on bad - or weak - science, as the failed experiment with biofuels can show.
2. Annie seems to think the environment is everything, and obscurantist alarmism is the path to moral choices.
I agree with her on many points - especially after you have made some of her arguments more fairly and clearly than she did - but I think we need a broader perspective. As others have asked, should we spend a billion dollars to save a 10 million lives from malaria, or should we spend a TRILLION dollars to keep the sea level 12 inches lower? Also, she repeatedly ignores all the good that is done by everything she opposes.
In this way, her alarmism hides many relevant issues from the debate, and that may lead to bad choices. Environmentalists like to point out that their alarmism - even if it used exaggerations and lies - led to good results, for example the rapid victory regarding CFCs. But in many other cases it has lead to bad decisions - for example setting back the development of clean nuclear energy by about 30 years (and counting).
I should say again how much I agree with you and Annie. I wish we had heavy pollution taxes. I wish government would provide unsubsidized incentives for the consumerist process to be less wasteful. I wish people (me included) would try other lifestyles not so dependent on stuff and consumerist engagement.
As for your most recent specific points...
...I'm just not worried about human extinction, except by way of human malice. But nobody knows what will happen.
...Yes, the forests are different, just as everything is always different. Every part of the planet has been changing throughout its history; it is bizarre to me that we should try to keep it as it is now, forever. But I don't think we should dump mercury in the water just for the sake of change.
...Great point about the waterways.
We have 5% of the world's population...
I'm not sure I understand your objection. Perhaps it's confusion over Ms. Leonard's thesis. I'm not sure if the United States consumes and/or produces more than China or the European Union or the continent of Africa. I'm fairly sure it's got a lead over Antarctica. Whatever you mean by "better" utilization of resources Ms. Leonard might say that, because the earth's resources are finite, it is unfair for 1/20th of the world's population to consume almost 1/3 of the resources. If you haven't already read it you might like the debunkering of Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs & Steel
If the extractable value of nature is finite then this would be equivalent to drawing a much larger salary than those who live in Africa... when you know the company will go belly up. This is done even though it leaves Africans and others in grinding poverty. I admit that I'm extrapolating the social justice aspect of her views but, based upon the argument she has built, I think Ms. Leonard's reasoning is sound.
(Without getting into issues of the infant mortality rate in a developed country with private-for-profit healthcare...) Again, based upon her argument(s) one would assume that United States consumption is polluting the environment at a greater rate than Africa et. al. This results in an even greater proportion of the world's pollution. Personally, I would say that our consumption does stop Africa from using those resources. Setting aside colonialism and up-to-the-19th-century classical slavery the preeminence of the U.S. consumer culture demands resources from the Third World.
The Middle East is not using the majority of its extracted oil. Wal-Mart and others, Nike included, demand products so cheap that it requires 21st century new-style slavery. This form of resource use (theft) comes in the form of human capital. The reason she can buy a radio for something.99 is that people in China are working for us, for the radio, for Wal-Mart without being compensated properly. And we get the petroleum for the plastic at below its true cost, whatever metal it is inside is mined for pennies on the dollar, mined in Africa.
Ms. Leonard doesn't strike me as a Luddite. She might even be anti-capitalist. Rather than take a step back in the technological sense I think she is advocating a transformative technological advance. The benefits of modern production have to be viewed in the context of their true cost. That cost includes, but is not limited to, pollution. John D. Rockefeller may have endowed many hospitals, he still created the petroleum economy. And got stinking rich. And it was that stench that spurred his philanthropy. And even he might be horrified at pollution's effect upon oysters.
There are over 100,000 synthetic chemicals...
"Nothing dangerous about that." What is wrong with you?
Have you been brushing your teeth again?
I know that you can cite many other synthetic chemicals that could be harmless or at least benign. The thread of your logic is... I dunno, frayed?. Plastics will clog our landfills for... I dunno, a long time. And I don't care if every other chemical is sweet as mother's milk, I still don't want mercury in my fish, toxic byproducts of "safe" chemicals and acid rain. Those worry me much more than cobras but not everyone has a wicker basket and their own horn. Debunking old school.
Only a handful of [these synthetic chemicals] have even been tested...
I confess that I haven't gone back to check her sources. I don't think it matters here. Mathematically there is no possible way that any individual chemical has been tested in combination with every other chemical. No company could afford that. If you have confidence in China (to cite just one country) then I would suggest you avoid innocently playing with your toys,
sitting on the sofa, next to your baby . On second thought, don't breath at all. Just sit there and do nothing. These are just some of the hidden costs to the products that keeps us smiling about our economy's production/consumption. All of this can be deadly in many different ways.
I think I'll go brush my teeth with my all-natural toothpaste (whoopee!) and my cheap plastic toothbrush (darn it all!)
We have 5% of the world's population...
It may very well be "unfair" for the USA to consume so many resources. And yes, we would consume less if we had a less consumerist society.
What I was saying is that when I consumed my iPod, that didn't stop an African from consuming one. If African nations could build stable and honest governments, develop competitive industries, and raise standards of living, then Africans would start consuming their fare share.
Like I said, "malaria, AIDS, corrupt governments, unstable economies, and obsolete technology" keep Africa from doing this. But maybe consumerism has something to do with it, too. It does in Jamaica.
You say that cheap labor for multinationals is "new-style slavery." I dunno. Maybe.
Sweatshops are pretty horrible. But they're better than the alternatives - mostly prostitution and subsistence farming. That's why the poor willingly flock to these jobs. Nothing is forcing them except their need to pay for food and shelter - which is the same thing that "forces" me to perform undercompensated labor for an IT company. (Not that I want to compare my condition to that of the truly poor, except on that basic theoretical level.)
It would be nice to force multinationals to better compensate their out-of-state laborers. I'd be curious to know how well that works. I'm sure the GMU "nutjobs" would predict that product prices would rise, sales would fall, and they'd have to close the sweatshops and send people back to prostitution and subsistence farming. Or maybe generous American consumers would fit the bill and buy from companies that properly compensated their workers. A few people do that, but Wal-Mart is still kinda popular.
Nothing dangerous about ]100,000 synthetic chemicals]...
What I meant is that there is nothing inherently dangerous about synthetic chemicals, and nothing inherently safe about natural chemicals.
I think we need to consider chemicals on a case-by-case basis. Plenty of natural chemicals haven't been tested in interaction with other natural chemicals, either. Talking about the danger inherent to thousands of synthetic chemicals is as meaningless as talking about the danger inherent to thousands of natural chemicals.
And again, we need to consider the benefits of these products, not just the costs. Do you really want a world without plastics? It's possible life would be better, but I'm not sure.
A world without plastic is a world without movies, computers, cars, Pamela Anderson, IVs, containers to keep food fresh, appliances, and much more. Or at least, making these things without plastics is usually so expensive and impractical that they wouldn't succeed at market. Yet.
That said, I feel the urgent need for biodegradable plastic.
She seems completely ignorant as to how even basic economics work. 'How does 4.99 cover the cost of this radio?' Mass production. In fact, she seems ignorant full-stop, and she draws conclusions that are just wrong.
Economists seem completely ignorant as to how even basic economics work. The standards of evidence and theory in the social sciences are extremely low, because the further you get from physics, the more unknown and uncontrolled variables there are. Almost everything in the social sciences is open to legitimate debate, whatever the current majority opinion is.
I have many adjectives for 0dysseus. "Ignorant" is not one of them.
And geez, 0dysseus hasn't even posted her criticism of my criticism of Annie Leonard's criticism yet.
Let's see what happens. I'd be happy to see you jump into the debate, too. I'm certain you have perspectives and knowledge to contribute that neither myself nor 0dysseus have.
EDIT: Oh, you meant Annie Leonard is ignorant, not 0dysseus.
Instead of trying to cover up my embarrassing mistake, I'll just leave my post the way it is because despite the mistake, it says some things I wanted to say.
Economists seem completely ignorant as to how even basic economics work.
I don't doubt this can be true, but she doesn't even seem to realise that the more a country spends in a time of economic crisis, the better off it will be. On a large scale, the more everyone spends, the more the economy will be boosted. Because of so many people shying away from this (choosing to save (some not even in banks!)), the recession (or depression) worsens.
Let's see what happens. I'd be happy to see you jump into the debate, too. I'm certain you have perspectives and knowledge to contribute that neither myself nor 0dysseus have.
I hope I will do when I've had time to properly analyse everything I agree and disagree with from her video.
It's fine, I thought you thought I meant Annie, so that's why some of your post didn't make sense to me, but I understand it fine now. And of course I don't find 0dysseus ignorant, her posts are always valuable and interesting. :)
Today I realized that I say "Whatchamanow?" about 5 times a day. I love that word. For now.
Great list!
I never knew about that 'dancing liquid' and i would love to get launch haha!
Not Wikipedia's proudest moment.
Seriously! Not only are no sources cited, the article is also a stub!
Actually, it wasn't Wikipedia's finest minute...
05:08, 15 September 2008 to 05:09, 15 September 2008
for the record...
What I Believe Today
- "I" am but a collection of spacetime events localized near "my" brain.
- My beliefs are often wrong, change rapidly, and are usually mere word games.
- Humans tend to mistake words for reality. Words do not reflect reality; they are tools for drawing simple-enough cartoons of reality that we can get things done.
- Values (moral, aesthetic, etc.) are not part of reality; they are superimposed on reality by human minds.
- Free will does not exist.
- The future will surprise us all.
- The meaning of life is whatever you want it to be.
- None of us understand or meet our potential. (I could, tomorrow, fly to Singapore and start a risky business, fly to Nepal and become a Buddhist monk, start walking from L.A. to Boston, fly to Sweden and look for a soulmate, steal a sailboat and go to Figi, quit my job and practice guitar 12 hours a day, fly to Australia and drive a mining truck... and I have no idea how I - and my life - would change as a result. Probably, there are thousands of things I could do that would make me a more amazing person, and thousands more that would ruin me, but I have no idea which they are unless I try some.)
- All religions are false.
- Utopia cannot be achieved by evolved brains and bodies. We shall have to design better ones. It is time to leave homo sapiens behind.
- Consciousness is the product of any sufficiently advanced brain, but brings a different inner experience to different brains. What is it like to be a bat? A chimpanzee? A Neanderthal man? Artificial intelligences of the future will be conscious, but their inner experience will be different than ours.
I have never been a violent person, but I am beginning to understand why the poor take up a bloody revolution against the rich. The bailout is, as Kucinich said, the largest act of class warfare in our history. We will all feel this blow, for decades to come.
Our leaders have only become more brazen in their evil. They barely bother to hide it anymore. And we still don't see it.
At this point, I kind of hope the American empire dies, and quickly. Only then will Americans really pay for and understand their gullibility and stupidity. And only then will the history books be accurate (if USA survives as a winner, it will rewrite this episode as if it did nothing wrong).
Word.
Would any of my Listology buddies like to do me the favor of criticizing my new essay, The Moral Crisis, before I "publish" it?
I like it, I didn't find anything particularly wrong with it but then I'm not really in a position to comment. Will there be more of these?
I'd like to write an essay every month or so. Thanks for your comments.
Will they be mostly of a philisophical/moral nature, or span all different topics?
All different topics. The one I already put up is a Windows security tutorial.
I liked how you said that morality is subjective, as is comparing art; what I didn't like were the examples about animal rights & lying, which I thought were relatively obscure. When I think about morality, I think about the big, obvious 'wrongs' - murder, stealing, rape, suicide etc. While most everyone can agree these actions are 'bad', it's difficult to agree on which is worse than the other. For example, I believe suicide is the least 'bad' of the bunch, but many people feel that taking one's life is actually 'worse' than murder (which i cannot comprehend).
"Some things that were moral issues are now neutral lifestyle choices, like homosexuality or marijuana use."
Moral neutral issues? Pot is illegal in most countries & laws are based on morality. Anyone who is gay will tell you that it isn't easy - rarely do you feel safe walking down the street holding the hand of your gay lover. Pot and homosexuality are neutral moral issues for myself (and probably you), but these are actually red hot moral issues in society.
Dang, I tried to make glow in the dark mountain dew before reading this and this.