Egoist/egotist

My bathroom is equipped with a book of common errors of the English language. It reminds me that "embarrassment" has two r's and two s's and explains the difference between eatable and edible, among other things.

I was surprised but pleased to see that they distinguish between "egoist" and "egotist" as follows:

Both these words are used to mean 'a self-centred person', though strictly speaking there is a useful distinction between them that is worth maintaining.

•  An egoist is a person whose selfishness is based on the philosophical principle that the only certainty is one's own existence, and self-interest is thus a legitimate basis for morality.
• An egoist is a person who is self-important and vain, and talks about themselves a great deal.

This is far from perfect because Objectivists don't think an individual's existence is the only thing an individual can be certain of. Furthermore, I quibble that the definition of egoist uses "themselves" with a singular antecedent.

Nevertheless, I am happy that some random reference book feels that the distinction between egoist and egotist is "useful" and "worth maintaining." Hear, hear!

Stephen King's letter on taxation

If Stephen King is such a great writer, why are all the articles written in response to the letter easier to understand than the actual letter?

Well, for one thing, emotion clouds King's message. It also erodes credibility, as do the ad hominem attacks. Maybe persuasive writing is something a fiction writer doesn't understand? Or maybe King understands logical fallacies very well, and is hoping that others will fall for the "argument from authority", the authority being himself.

More on logical fallacies:
http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

Here's my summary of the letter: Famed writer Stephen King wants the government to force rich people, especially rich people richer than him, to pay a larger percentage in taxes, because the government can't solve our problems with the money it's currently getting, while the charities rich people choose to give to are not capable of solving our problems at all.

The fact that people would rather give to charities than the government (which they can also choose to do) to me clearly indicates that we should have more charities and fewer government institutions. I imagine that if the government were addressing society's problems effectively, more people would give to it freely. It's hard to imagine the government addressing society's problems effectively; as an institution outside the market, it's bound to misallocate resources.

Sadly, King, like many people, believes that we should turn to the government, not the market, to solve problems. Whether or not the government does a good job. "Because, hey," they think, "it's the government. What else is it for, right? Humans are rotten; humans need help; only government can make us humans help each other."

I'm tempted to agree that humans are rotten, at least in the case of Stephen King. It would be bad enough if he were saying "we rich people should give more money to the government voluntarily", but he's actually saying "let's all make the SUPER rich people give more money to the government, because obviously they're not giving enough." Yuck.

Stephen King's letter about taxation:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/30/stephen-king-tax-me-for-f-s-sake.html

Here's a response to the letter that I like:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/05/02/stephen-kings-tax-me-more-letter/

I like it in part because it disarmingly calls King's letter "amusing" for mocking rich people's tendency to invest money rather than give money, as if investing somehow hurts the economy. Of course, rich people have neither a duty to invest for others' sakes nor a duty to give money to charity for others' sakes.

Environmentalists fear for Burmese birds and trees

Burma's political situation is looking up. But what do the Google news hits show? How happy and optimistic people are about the future economic development of the country? Yes, but there are also more than one or two whiny articles showcasing fears about the effect of development on the environment. 

Here's an example: an article that begins by talking about some species of bird.
http://asiancorrespondent.com/82056/burma-environment-pays-price-of-development/

It says, "environmentalists view the country’s steps toward opening its doors with some fear."

I understand that major news events, such as the re-opening of Burma to the rest of the world, will get discussed from all angles. But I really can't understand why, in the scheme of things, people are worried about birds. That country is full of people. Not just trees that are being cut down by Chinese loggers or birds living in relatively untouched forests. Let's please focus on the effect of the changes on the Burmese people.

Yes, okay, human rights violations are mentioned too. After the mention of environmental destruction.

“The ‘development invasion’ will speed up environmental destruction and is also likely to lead to more human rights abuses,” says Pianporn Deetes of the U.S.-based International Rivers Network.

I am appalled at the use of the word "avoided" in this sentence: "Burma has avoided the rapid, often rampant development seen in Thailand and other parts of Asia because of decades of isolation brought on by harsh military rule." I would say, rather, that Burma has been shut off from opportunities to experience development. Shut off by sanctions originating in other countries.

Burma didn't so much turn its back on the world to "avoid" development as make do the best it could after the rest of the world turned their backs on it. The article even says as much: "years as an international pariah have left Burma poor and in need of foreign investment."

Foreign investors will be interested in Burma's natural resources. But environmentalists seem to want to keep them out: 

Robert J. Tizard, who heads the office of the New York-based Wildlife Conservation Society in Burma [said] “It could be a curse that they have so many resources.”

A curse? Really? Is it better for Burma if it has nothing of interest to offer the rest of the world?

Ignoring the probable misuse of "decimated" here, I object to the use of "unsullied".

Thai companies, particularly in the 1990s, decimated teak forests in eastern Burma and are poised to become major players at Dawei, a deep sea port and vast industrial estate being built by Thailand’s largest construction enterprise, Italian-Thai Development. It has recently drawn protests by locals fearing pollution of what is now an unsullied region.

Burma is polluted by cooking fires, animal dung, and human waste because of lack of development. Yes, machinery pollutes. But it isn't as if machinery is the only thing that does. On balance, having machinery gives people a better quality of life than not having machinery. Otherwise why would the country be so eager to have what it currently lacks? Leave it to the developed world to decide, on behalf of Burma, that a port is a bad thing. Maybe it is, but not because a port would sully an unsullied region.

Another major gripe about this article is that the headline, "Burma’s environment pays price of development", makes it sound as if only the new-and-improved government is a danger to the environment, even though, farther down, the article talks about the damage that the old government allowed to take place.

Environmentalists say Burma’s government, which remains dominated by the military, has an abysmal record of protecting its resources, which are often exploited by enterprises linked to generals and their cronies.

The article even says how the outlook for the new government is potentially very, very good.

“You are going back to Thailand in the 1950s with a conservation practices of the 21st century, so there is a lot of opportunity to do it right,” Tizard says. “If they follow some of the best practices they could do incredibly well.”

So the headline and beginning of the article is made to shock and induce fear, though the article backs off and tries to sound balanced and happy at the end. I would point out that Journalists are taught the inverted-pyramid: put the most important information in the beginning because people don't always read until the end. That means readers of this article are meant to feel shocked and fearful, not optimistic. That makes this unconscionable reporting, in my opinion.

As for the best practices for sustainable development, I'm a fan as long as those best practices put the long-term interest of the Burmese people ahead of any other considerations. My fear is not that some species of bird will disappear, but that supposedly well-intentioned environmentalists will protect it at the cost of human lives and human happiness.

Shame on Randall

Randall, author of the webcomic XKCD, takes another stab at making fun of Ayn Rand. Or rather, her fans.

Bookshelf: A secret room behind the library shelf tells a reader he has bad taste for trying to pick up Atlas Shrugged.
Comic: http://www.xkcd.com/1049/

Discussion: http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=83811

Here's the earlier attempt.

Sheeple: Five people on a subway train all think they're the only thinkers around.
Comic: http://xkcd.com/610/
Discussion: http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=42498

I was disappointed by both comics. I often like XKCD, so the anti-Objectivist attitude is jarring, if unsurprising.

I admit that the Sheeple comic contains a respectable joke, though I hate the word "sheeple". Kudos to the commenter who quoted Life of Brian: "we are all individuals". The rotating bookshelf gag is nice too; I just wish it had been poking fun at some other book. Ideally, something by L. Ron Hubbard, or some idiotic self-help book about how a positive attitude makes good stuff happen.

Twilight also seems like low-hanging fruit, though I don't think it deserves as much hate---or love---as people have for it. Any bestseller generates such opinions. The Da Vinci Code would have made an easy target a couple of years ago. Randall chose to mock something classic instead of something trendy, but that doesn't mean he's not taking a cheap shot.

The irony, of course, is that Randall is arrogantly mocking people he thinks are arrogant. Whoops. But wait, if I mock Randall, am I making the same error? Hm... Better not mock, then.

The message board discussions for those two XKCD comics are as chaotic and stupid as most message board discussions, so it's not like it even does any good for Randall to get people talking about Rand. Okay, maybe some good does come of it, who knows, but to me it just looks like a bunch of people saying "is not!" and "is too!" over and over.

Conclusion: Randall's just trolling. Or expressing sincere dislike of Rand fans because he's met some obnoxious ones or because he "just doesn't get it" or both.

The Zits comic from Sunday, December 3, 2006 is benign in comparison. Zits is less snarky and more playful and childlike in general. The comic in question merely says Atlas is really long, so long that it's intimidating to read. It says nothing about whether it would be worthwhile to do so.

To paraphrase the comic: Pierce takes Atlas Shrugged off the library shelf, and his friend Jeremy questions his choice because the book seems quite thick. Pierce says: "If I use anything thinner I get a neck ache." Then he takes a nap using the book for a pillow.

Sorry, you want the image? It's $5 (well-spent!) to register for a 1-year member account to access the Zits archive: http://www.zitscomics.com/user/register

The comic could almost as easily be making fun of people like Pierce who don't bother to read the book as mocking the author for having written the thing.

Everything is a business

People complain about money as a motive, especially in the context of artistic pursuits such as writing.

Well, news flash: writing is a business. In fact, everything is a business.

(Okay, not everything is a business. But everything that isn’t a business should be. Like roads and sex, for example. Healthcare in the US is going the wrong direction.)

Money may not be the only or even the primary reason someone writes a book, but the author still has to eat, and so do the people who design book covers, edit books, typeset books, print books, sell books, etc.

I'm not sure I'd even like art that was produced "for art's sake" without concern for its potential for commercial success. We trade money for stuff and experiences. If an artist creates a thing or an experience that no one wants to trade for, then... what value does it have? Personal value only, like the crayon drawings of one's own child.

Conclusion: children make art for art's sake; adults make art in the hopes of providing pleasure to other people in exchange for the means to better their own lives.

That is, authors write for money.

Weird choice

“Are you a Christian?” asked an 8-year-old of me. We were talking about Santa and elves.
“My parents are, but I’m not.”
“Why? That’s weird!”
“Yes. I know.”

I have read The God Delusion. In it, Dawkins goes on and on about evolution and science, history, ethics, holy books, holy people, holy wars, etc. However, the newest and most valuable idea I got from him came from the preface to the paperback edition. Thank goodness I didn't read his work in hardcover.

Dawkins says: "There is no such thing as a Christian child: only the child of Christian parents."

In other words, only an adult can be said to belong to a religion. Anyone not an adult should be thought of as undecided and thus as yet unclaimed.

I don't think I'd ever been confronted with exactly this idea before. It felt very liberating. The implication was: I did not leave the faith; I simply was never part of it. I betrayed nothing; I simply took the proverbial path less traveled.

My choice to part ways with my religious upbringing was both difficult and inevitable. For some, it is difficult and not inevitable at all. For some, it is impossible.

I hope people listen to Dawkins. I hope people repeat the message. I want more children to believe that they have a choice (and that they should try and consciously make one). I want more adults to respect the choices they make, no matter what those choices are.

And then maybe, someday, my choice will not seem weird.

Planting seeds

One day at lunch I accidentally got into a discussion with a colleague about vegetarianism, PETA, and ethics.

He ordered vegetarian food at lunch. When I asked him whether he believed people should eat less meat, he stated an ideal (yes, we should eat less meat) and then right away claimed he was unable to act on his ideal because most of the time he doesn't care enough. In response, I said, why not select achievable ideals and then actually achieve them?

Religions give practitioners unachievable rules that set them up for failure. If you give up religion, you are free to give up the idea that ethics are inherently impractical.

I tried to encourage him to be skeptical about people (and organizations like PETA) who pull offensive stunts and manipulate emotions seemingly for the sheer hell of it. I told him I'd read that PETA members once staged a demonstration in which they threw paint at women who were walking down the street in fur coats. No motive justifies destruction of another person's property.

I also said I respect companies more than non-profits because companies are ultimately responsible to customers and industry standards. He seemed to think that because companies sell things for that abominable stuff called money, they obviously have an incentive to cut corners and cheat people, whereas because non-profits like PETA are just trying look out for the underdog, their motives are always pure.

However, it's really the money that motivates companies to behave. If I give a company my money, they give me something in return. They have to give me something that meets my expectations, or they don't get my money and they don't survive. The proof is in the pudding.

If I give PETA my money... well, why would I do that? Only if I felt I should. To ease my conscience or impress others. To survive, PETA's got to make me feel horrified about, say, how cows are slaughtered, even if they have to lie. PETA doesn't care about proof; people who feel sufficiently horrified don't care much about proof either.

Industry associations (none of which has ever tried to trick me out of my money, the Copeland beef commercial notwithstanding) have an incentive to uphold quality and ethical standards in their industries and hold members to account. If people don't trust the meat industry, there will be bad financial implications. Money is an incentive not to cut corners.

I don't claim that businesses never cut corners; people obviously do chase short-term gains by cutting corners sometimes. They're shooting themselves in the foot. I'm claiming that the long-term self-interest of a business is aligned to the interest of the consumer even if the short-term interest of a business seems not to be. People should and often do care about the long term. People who shoot themselves in the foot too many times wind up crippled.

He seemed to listen. At any rate, he didn't do what some people would do, which is get up on a high horse and spew regurgitated ideas. (Whether or not they know it, those people are relying on the dopeler effect: the tendency of stupid ideas to seem smarter when they come at you rapidly.)

He seemed to say that he went to Canada for school because the contrarian thrill of being a liberal in conservative Texas wears off after a while. On the theory that this colleague is a victim, rather than a perpetrator, of the dopeler effect, I pointed out that being different for the sake of being different is just as bad as being the same for the sake of being the same. Those are two sides of the same coin, and you don't want your opinions to be determined by the flip of a coin. The goal is not to be contrarian or conformist, but to be independent. If being a liberal is the result of rebellion rather than careful consideration, maybe he'll ditch the group identity, or give up (or at least re-examine) some of the sillier ideas of the liberal crowd.

The kind people at a coffee stall we visited were baffled by his request that they reuse the disposable styrofoam coffee cup he'd gotten from them earlier for his second coffee of the day. He actually started exclaiming, explaining to them how many years the stuff takes to degrade.

Maybe he does know a little about how not to back down from things he believes.