Cultural Commentary – Page 6

A Note on “Christianity: Good of Bad for Mankind” February 2013 Debate at The University of Texas

I recently attended a debate titled “Christianity: Good or Bad for Mankind?”. The participants were Andrew Bernstein and Dinesh D’Souza. Bernstein argued on the side of “Christianity is bad for mankind.” Dinesh D’Souza argued on the side of “Christianity is good for mankind.” The debate was advertised with the following description: “Is Christianity the source of important truths, moral law, and man’s rights and thus profoundly good for mankind—or is it antithetical to all such values and thus profoundly bad?” https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/events/dsouza-bernstein.asp

I was glad to see the debate, and hear the arguments, especially the arguments of Dinesh D’Souza, since he can be considered a “conservative intellectual”, so his arguments presumably represent the “conservative party line”, to the extent that there is a coherent line of thinking held by most conservatives. However, I think that an important topic was not directly addressed in the debate, which tended to center around the issue of: “Does god exist?” It’s possible that the debate devolved to this issue on the assumption that if god does not exist, then Christianity is bad for mankind, and if god does exist, then Christianity is good for mankind. I had mentioned this debate to some friends, and one of them saw the question of the debate not as “Does god exist?” but as: “Is Christianity good for mankind, regardless of god’s existence?” This was also my major complaint about the direction of the debate right after I saw it. After some thinking, I think this raises a more general question, which is: What is the relationship between “the true” and “the good”, if any? Even if some of us atheists know there is no evidence for the existence of god (that it is not true), can it still be argued that belief in a supreme being is still good for mankind (that the belief is good), even if it is a sort of collective delusion?

The dictionary provides several definitions of “good”:

a. 1 a : something that is good Merriam-Webster (2009-06-12). Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Edition (Kindle Locations 501629-501630). Merriam-Webster, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

b. 1 b (1) : something conforming to the moral order of the universe (2) : praiseworthy character : goodness Merriam-Webster (2009-06-12). Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Edition (Kindle Locations 501630-501633). Merriam-Webster, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

c. 2 a : advancement of prosperity or well-being Merriam-Webster (2009-06-12). Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Edition (Kindle Location 501634-501636). Merriam-Webster, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

d. 2 b : something useful or beneficial Merriam-Webster (2009-06-12). Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Edition (Kindle Locations 501636-501638). Merriam-Webster, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

Since the assumption here is that some sort of religion is “good for mankind” regardlessof its truth, then “the good” cannot mean anything mystical or supernatural. For instance, the person arguing this position cannot claim that religion is “good for mankind” because god exists, and the only way for people to go to heaven is to live in accordance with the Bible. Someone claiming that Christianity, or religion in general, is “good for humanity” in this context is implicitly claiming that regardlessof its truth, it is good for humanity. In other words, they are claiming that even if Christianity is false, it still has purely secular benefits for mankind that make it useful. For this reason, the last dictionary definition of “good” above makes the most sense. “Good” means something that is “useful” or “beneficial” for mankind not in some other life, but in this life.

What does it mean for something to be “useful” or “beneficial”? Tangible items of technology are considered “useful” because they serve some person’s purpose. For instance, an automobile is “useful” because under the right set of circumstances, people can use it to transport themselves quickly to a particular destination. A particular scientific discovery can be useful for mankind because it allows for the creation of new technologies. For instance, discovering the Law of Universal Gravitation allowed men to calculate the trajectories of planets and satellites, and eventually to fly to the moon. The discovery of germ theory allowed men to develop methods of sanitation that improved human health. If you consider enough examples of human technology and science, you quickly recognize that something is considered “useful” or “beneficial” because it serves some purpose that men have. This applies to other areas of human knowledge as well. We study history because “those who don’t study history are doomed to repeat it”. The subject of history is “useful” or “beneficial” because it enables us not to repeat the mistakes of the past. (I also think it is useful to learn what past generations got right.)

Some knowledge can be more immediately useful than other types of knowledge. Knowledge of abstract mathematics may not have any immediate benefit, but knowledge of Calculus is useful if we want to launch artificial satellites to predict when a hurricane is going to strike a major city. But what is important to understand here is that knowledge is useful because it ultimately benefits human life. This is true because men are beings of a certain type, with a specific identity, or nature. We have mental faculties that allow us to gain knowledge by means of a certain method and this benefits our lives. Our lives are not guaranteed to us, and if we want to live, then we must take certain actions. We must gain knowledge through a specific process, and use that knowledge, if we want to live. Objectivism says that “mans life” is the ultimate standard of the good, and that individual happiness is the purpose of holding man’s life as the ultimate standard of the good. This all boils down to: if you want to live, you must take action that conforms to man’s nature and the nature of reality in general. As Francis Bacon put it: nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.

In order to achieve one’s ultimate goal of living, one must adopt certain principles that serve as general procedures of action. For instance, if thinking is necessary in order for human beings to gain knowledge in order to enhance and maintain their lives, then that must be adopted as a habit. Furthermore, one must act on one’s thinking, since thinking alone is not sufficient to actually produce the things necessary for survival. It is not enough just to think about how you would build a shelter or find food. You must actually implement the knowledge you gain to build a house and grow crops. The facts of reality dictate what sorts of procedures are necessary. For instance, the fact that human beings are born with a certain type of mental faculty, that has a specific nature, means that they must gain knowledge in accordance with a certain method. This is called “rationality”. The fact that the material values necessary for our survival (such as food, clothing, and shelter) do not exist in nature means that we must use our minds to determine how best to create those values given the pre-existing materials found in nature, and our knowledge of how to organize those materials in a manner that is most beneficial to our needs. This is “productiveness”. The fact that human beings can choose to use physical force to deprive others of the material values that they have created means that we must determine whether individual men that we encounter are men who produce the values they need to live, or if they will try to gain values from us by force. Once this determination is made, one attempts to trade with men that produce, and one uses an appropriate amount of force to stop the men who insist on starting the use of physical force. This is called “justice”. These “habits” or “procedures of action”, such as “rationality”, “productiveness”, and “justice” are called “virtues”. “Virtue” is the act by which one gains and/or keeps the things necessary for living.

Now that “the good” is firmly established, we can turn to the question of “the true”. The dictionary defines “true” as:

Dictionary definition: 2 a (1) : being in accordance with the actual state of affairs < description> (2) : conformable to an essential reality (Merriam-Webster (2009-06-12). Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Edition (Kindle Locations 1230332-1230335). Merriam-Webster, Inc.. Kindle Edition.)

In other words, “the true” is: a proposition or statement that corresponds to reality. Here are two examples of true statements: “The moon is 238,857 miles away, give or take a few thousand miles.” and “Washington DC is the capitol of the United States of America.”

What is less apparent to most people is that “the good” can also be considered a form of “the true”. For instance, the virtue of justice can be defined as something like: “Judging men and treating them accordingly.” A person who uses force to gain the material values created by others is judged to be a criminal, and force is used against him to stop him. The virtue of justice embodies a number of truths about human nature and the nature of the universe. For instance, it embodies the truth that man’s survival is not guaranteed to him. It also embodies the truth that human beings have the ability to choose whether they want to live by means of reason or by means of force. All of these truths can be stated in the form of propositions, such as: “Man’s survival is not guaranteed to him.” and “Human beings have the power of choice when it comes to their actions.” The virtues of rationality and productiveness similarly embody certain truths, and I leave it to the reader to think these through. [1]

In addition to “the good” being a form of “the true”, it also appears to me now that if we want to live, then our knowledge of truth must affect our actions, vis-à-vis the aspects of reality that the truth recognizes. Several instances of true propositions should make this clear:

“If it is true that Washington DC is the capitol of the United States, then if I want to visit Congress, I must travel to Washington DC.”[2]

“If it is true that all men are mortal, then I cannot waste my life on things that aren’t important to me.”

“If it is true that someone is a financial genius, then I want him to manage my stock portfolio.”

“If it is true that human beings must take certain actions to live, and if it is true that the use of physical force will prevent them from taking those actions, then we must create means of stopping the use of physical force in that manner.”

It does appear that there can be true statements for individual human beings that do not affect their actions, but it is only because given their particular purposes and situation, they never deal with the aspects of reality that the true proposition recognizes. For instance, the statement: “The moon is 238,857 miles away (give or take a few thousand miles)” is a statement that is true, but knowledge of that fact for some people might not be used for anything because they don’t deal with those facts in their own lives. However, if it is a true statement, and I want to build a rocket to the moon, then I will take it into consideration when doing my math calculations. Saying ” vis-à-vis the aspects of reality that the truth recognizes” means I may know that it is true that the moon is approximately 238,857 miles away, but for my purposes, that knowledge never affects my actions because I am not in the space program and I am not an astronomer.

The fact that if we want to live, then our knowledge of truth must affect our actions, vis-à-vis the aspects of reality that the truth recognizes, can also be understood by considering what would happen if one were to act on what one knew to be a false proposition. The proposition: “I can fly merely by flapping my naked arms.” is false. If I were to act on that proposition, despite my knowledge of its falsity, I would fail to gain the values necessary for survival. If I tried to commute to work every day by such a method, my goal would be frustrated, and my life would be endangered.[3]

An implication of the fact that our knowledge of truth must affect our actions is that the expressed propositions of others, where those others have provided no evidence of their truth, should be disregarded, and should not affect one’s actions. The “onus of proof” says that the person making the assertion has the burden of proof. This makes sense because the assertion of a proposition by another person, if accepted as true by the listener, would affect that listener’s actions vis-à-vis the facts that it allegedly corresponds to. So before the listener changes his actions, he needs to have evidence presented that the assertion is true -that it does in fact correspond to reality. Otherwise, acting on such an assertion could be disastrous for the listener if it does not correspond to reality.[4]

Some might argue at this point that even if religion has no actual connection to reality, some of the moral principles it endorses are true because they can be tied to some purely naturalistic, and secular facts of reality. For instance, Christianity says that stealing is against the Ten Commandments. I agree that taking the property of others without their consent is generally wrong, absent some extraordinary emergency and assuming you can recompense them later. The problem is that these “commandments” do not give you any reasons for why you should follow them, other than a non-existent being who said that you should. (Additionally, some of the commandments are just plain wrong in almost any conceivable situation –such as “remembering the Sabbath day”.)

For this reason, there is no way to connect these principles to the facts of reality. Without such a connection to the facts of reality, you cannot know if a particular scenario might make the principle inapplicable because the factual situation is so unusual. For instance, if you are stranded outdoors during a freak blizzard, and you break into an abandoned cabin and eat the owners food, with the intent to recompense the owner later, then you have not actually committed an immoral act. This is because the purpose of morality is to provide you with a guide to how to live successfully here on Earth. A moral principle that would counsel your own destruction has no connection to the purpose of morality, to man’s nature as a living organism, or to the laws of nature. Morality is not a suicide pact.

A Christian might respond to my hypothetical blizzard scenario by saying that the commandment only says you cannot “steal” and this is not “stealing”. But, at that point, he is looking at the facts and attempting to tie the moral principle to man’s nature and the nature of reality, so this just proves my point. Respect for the private property of others is a principle that you follow -if you want to live. It has a basis in reality and man’s nature. You cannot even develop concepts like “theft” and “private property” without having some rudimentary understanding of human nature and the fact that human beings must produce the goods necessary for their survival, and be able to benefit from those goods. So, the Christian commandment “though shall not steal” cannot even be understood without some understanding of man’s nature and of the natural world. Some people think that morality is not possible without religion. Somewhat the opposite is actually true. Religious morality is unintelligible without some reference to reality, man’s nature, and the fact that people must choose to live by choosing to act in accordance with reality.

I suspect that Christian apologists like Dinesh D’Souza will claim that most people are too irrational or stupid to understand a reasoned argument for why they should follow naturalistic moral principles if they want to live. Others have made similar arguments before. For instance, Alexis de Tocqueville said:

“None but minds singularly free from the ordinary anxieties of life—minds at once penetrating, subtle, and trained by thinking—can even with the assistance of much time and care, sound the depth of these most necessary truths. And, indeed, we see that these philosophers are themselves almost always enshrouded in uncertainties; that at every step the natural light which illuminates their path grows dimmer and less secure; and that, in spite of all their efforts, they have as yet only discovered a small number of conflicting notions, on which the mind of man has been tossed about for thousands of years, without either laying a firmer grasp on truth, or finding novelty even in its errors. Studies of this nature are far above the average capacity of men; and even if the majority of mankind were capable of such pursuits, it is evident that leisure to cultivate them would still be wanting. Fixed ideas of God and human nature are indispensable to the daily practice of men’s lives; but the practice of their lives prevents them from acquiring such ideas…General ideas respecting God and human nature are therefore the ideas above all others which it is most suitable to withdraw from the habitual action of private judgment, and in which there is most to gain and least to lose by recognizing a principle of authority.”( Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Volume II, Chapter V: Of The Manner In Which Religion In The United States Avails Itself Of Democratic Tendencies, emphasis added, http://www.gutenberg.org/files/816/816-h/816-h.htm#link2HCH0005, last accessed on 2-22-2013.)

In other words, de Tocqueville thought that the majority of the human race was incapable of understanding morality on anything but religious grounds. In fact, de Tocqueville thought that human beings were inherently “dogmatic”. (Id.)[5] For religionists like de Tocqueville to make this (likely erroneous) condemnation of mankind exhibits stunning shamelessness. In the history of ideas religion has been the single greatest contributor to genuine dogmatism and irrationality. Anyone who claims that people are too stupid or irrational to understand morality without an appeal to superstition is responsible for helping to perpetuate that irrationality by supporting religion. Grasping the truth –by conforming your ideas to reality- is necessary for life. Evading it only leads to destruction.

[1] This same notion is expressed in “Fact and Value” by Leonard Peikoff: “Cognition apart from evaluation is purposeless; it becomes the arbitrary desire for ‘pure knowledge’ as an end in itself. Evaluation apart from cognition is non-objective; it becomes the whim of pursuing an ‘I wish’ not based on any ‘It is.’”

[2] Note that even “man-made facts”, such as the fact that Washington DC is the capitol of the United States, necessitate certain actions. Although DC might not always be the capital of the United States, it currently is, so you wouldn’t go to New York if you wanted to visit Congress. Man-made facts could be otherwise because they depend on human choices. If we want to deal with other men, which is useful for living, we have to recognize their capacity to make such choices, and act accordingly. However, it is even possible that the moon could someday be further away from or closer to the Earth than it currently is due to naturalistic forces or due to human technology, so this is really no different in terms of it being true that the moon is currently a certain distance away -allowing for slight variations due to its current orbital location.

[3] The only example I could think of where believing something to be true even though it is false might gain you something of value was a complicated scenario involving believing that a girl likes you, even though the facts seem to indicate otherwise. Then you keep trying to court her, and eventually she comes around to liking you. But, I don’t even think this is an example of this. I don’t think it is actually productive to pretend that she likes you in this situation. You would be better served by recognizing that she doesn’t currently like you, but you also must have some evidence that she doesn’t really know you, and if she got to know the “real you”, then she would like you. So, you are being persistent because you think that she will change her opinion of you once she comes to understand your true character. (It’s also possible that you think the girl is just a weak-willed fool that you can eventually cajole into liking you, but why would you want to be with such a woman long-term? Assuming you just want to sleep with her, then it would make more sense to just recognize that she is a fool and target your flattery to appeal to her neuroses. So it would still be better to recognize the truth in achieving your goal of seduction.)

[4]A note on “Agnosticism” is appropriate here: “Agnosticism” is not taking a position on the issue of the existence of god. This is the same as saying: Those who make claims without proof are the same as those who only make claims they can prove. Which is the same as saying: Truth doesn’t matter. Which is the same as saying: Living doesn’t require action in conformity with reality.

[5] He basically blurred the distinction between concepts like “dogmatism”, “trust”, and “credibility”. I also think he failed to see a distinction between accepting the word of a scientist who can give us proof of why atoms exist, despite the fact that we cannot perceive them, and a priest who claims god exists and that no such proof is necessary or even possible. The difference here is clear. The scientist can provide proof for any that want to understand, while the priest demands acceptance without proof. The scientist fears that he will not be understood, while the priest fears that he will be understood. (See Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Volume II, Chapter II: Of The Principal Source Of Belief Among Democratic Nations,http://www.gutenberg.org/files/816/816-h/816-h.htm#link2HCH0002)

Free Trade In Liquified Natural Gas Benefits the Creators

A recent news article illustrates the sort of unprincipled, short-range thinking that can occur in our society, especially when it comes to issues of free trade. (“US Gas Exports Clear Hurdle” by Keith Johnson and Tennille Tracy, The Wall Street Journal, December 6, 2012, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324001104578161461770971222.html) The article discusses a government study that endorsed allowing the free export of liquefied natural gas from the United States, which is currently restricted. While the study makes the right conclusion, it appears to do so without citing the best reason for doing so.

For those who haven’t been following this issue, North America is currently projected to become a net exporter of natural gas and oil as a result of the creation of new technologies that allow for obtaining these resources from areas that were outside the reach of conventional oil and gas drilling techniques. These new technologies involve directional drilling and hydraulic fracturing (i.e., “fracking”). (“The U.S. Natural-Gas Boom Will Transform the World”, by by John Deutch, The Wall Street Journal, August 14, 2012, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303343404577514622469426012.html)

The article describes the government study as concluding that the benefits to natural gas exporting companies, businesses, and workers would outweigh the losses from domestic companies, consumers and businesses that use natural gas. This later group of domestic natural gas consumers is viewed as “loosing” some from exporting natural gas, since the price of natural gas will rise due to increased demand from abroad.

However, the first article never mentions whether any consideration was given to the people who invented these new oil and gas drilling technologies. What will be the result if they are not allowed to gain maximum economic benefit from the invention of these new drilling techniques? It is true that the price of natural gas in the US market probably will rise slightly from its current record low levels if the export of liquefied natural gas occurs. But, this increased price will mean increased profits for the oil and gas companies that are implementing these new drilling technologies, which will mean that the people who created these new technologies will benefit. They will be given an increased economic incentive to create new technologies in the future, which will further increase the standard of living of everyone. Furthermore, other young scientists, engineers, and businesspeople will know that they will also materially benefit from any new technologies that they invent and bring to market, which will create the incentive for the development of new technologies in the future. Ultimately it is new technology that increases standards of living, and we must ensure that the people who create new methods of production have every incentive to invent. Considering the benefits to the people who created the new energy is a much more principled justification for free trade in natural gas, but it is overlooked by those who don’t seem to understand that the free human mind is the root of all production.

Teacher Convicted of Consensual Sex with 18-year-olds

Hopefully this case will now be appealed. I believe this statute violates the right to privacy of teachers who have consensual sexual intercourse with persons who are over the age of consent. Something that should be considered by her attorney is the fact that the statute makes it an affirmative defense if the teacher is married to the student. In other words, the State of Texas is saying it’s a crime only because the two people involved were unmarried.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/former-texas-high-school-teacher-sentenced-to-5-years-in-prison-for-sleeping-with-5-students/2012/08/17/0dc4035e-e8c9-11e1-9739-eef99c5fb285_story.html

Why I prefer a free society

A free society leaves the individual free to create the values necessary for his life. It respects private property rights, and thereby ensures that one can earn and keep the material means necessary for living. It respects freedom of speech in order to ensure that one can disseminate and gain the knowledge necessary for producing the values, both spiritual and material, necessary for living. History demonstrates that people who live under dictatorship and totalitarianism are less prosperous. Freedom includes the right to protect oneself from criminals, foreign and domestic, who would deprive us of our life or liberty. Freedom therefore entails the right to own the means of protecting oneself from criminals when the police are unavailable. That freedom typically takes the form of gun ownership. Can people misuse their freedom? Yes. Would restrictions on the freedom to own small arms stop some criminals? Possibly, although the statistics seem to suggest such restrictions just disarm the law-abiding. Press censorship might also prevent “copycat crimes”, and arbitrary searches and seizures by police might uncover some criminal activity. But, crime is always a small component of any free society, and the probabilities of becoming the victim of a felony are minimal. The certain result of restrictions on freedom is to prevent good people from being able to take the actions necessary for living –whether that action takes the form of starting a new business, writing a novel, or defending oneself from a murderer. Restrictions on freedom mean restrictions on life itself.

Does the Oil Spill Matter?

Imagine a hypothetical scenario: a valuable substance is discovered on the moon. This substance is so valuable that corporations are willing to spend billions of dollars traveling to the moon to extract it and bring it back to Earth. These corporations institute procedures and guidelines for the safe extraction of this substance from the moon, because it will affect their profits if any of it were accidentally spilled on the lunar surface. However, since human beings are neither omniscient, nor infallible, it is possible that accidents will occasionally happen despite everyone’s best effort to avoid them. When this happens, some of this valuable hypothetical substance would be lost. Since we are talking about the moon, and there is nobody living on the moon, there is no property damage, and there is no danger to human life. Would there be reason to complain when such a “lunar spill” occurs? If human life is your standard of what is important, then the answer is no. Human life and human property is not endangered. The only tragedy when such a hypothetical lunar spill occurs is the loss of this valuable hypothetical substance.

Now imagine a second hypothetical scenario, back here on Earth: If your neighbor negligently released a flammable, black viscous substance onto your property, and it substantially interfered with your use or enjoyment of your land, what would you do? Under the property laws of most American states you could likely file suit against your neighbor in court. The specific cause of action might vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but it would typically be called something like “private nuisance” or “trespass”. The right to private property includes the right to the reasonable use and enjoyment of that property, and the law can and should protect it.

Now consider a current, and very real, event: An oil well in the Gulf of Mexico recently suffered a catastrophic explosion, and is releasing oil into the water. The primary tragedy here is the loss of human life from the explosion. This obviously was not an intentional act on the part of the owners or management of the oil company, but it did happen, either because people were negligent, or just because of a bad set of random circumstances beyond anybody’s control. This is not the first time an industrial accident has occurred, and it will not be the last. As long as human beings continue to be human beings, such events will occur –although I contend that such events are rare in a free society, made up of mostly reasonable people. To the extent that there is a causal connection between the negligent acts of any person or persons, and the loss of human life resulting from this industrial accident, and to the extent that that causal connection can be proven in a court of law, then there is, and there should be, legal liability for the person or persons responsible. In other words, to the extent that the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is like the second hypothetical scenario that I set forth above, then the law can and should be brought into play.

However, the oil being spilled into the water, as opposed to the preceding explosion that resulted in a direct loss of human life, seems to have a lesser impact on the lives or property of human beings. The only two industries that are obviously affected by the spill are the fishing and recreational tourism industries in the Gulf region. “Recreational tourism” would primarily mean the beaches in the states of Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. The legal solution to this problem is easy. Since the beaches are presumably owned by someone, they should have a legal right to go to court, and file suit against any person(s) who were negligent in causing the oil spill. This is exactly like the second hypothetical scenario I outlined above. With regard to the fishing industry, the legal solution seems a little bit more complicated for the simple reason that nobody owns the ocean. While fishermen should have a right to extract whatever aquatic life they want from the ocean, they have no property rights to the ocean itself. Perhaps it is time for property rights in the ocean to be defined and protected by government, but they appear not to be at present. Nobody can currently claim a right to an oil-free ocean, anymore than people could claim a right to the surface of the moon in my first hypothetical example.

Excepting the recreational tourism and the fishing industries, no other persons are damaged by the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, because no other person’s property rights have been infringed. The oil spill matters no more than if someone were to spill a hypothetical substance on the surface of the moon.

There is a common sentiment that would take exception with me when I claim that, aside from the recreational tourism and fishing industries, nobody should care about oil spilled into the Gulf of Mexico. In fact this is more than just a “sentiment”, it is an ideology. That ideology is typically referred to as “environmentalism”. This ideology asserts that the oceans, non-human organisms, rivers, the land, and the air have a value apart from their service to human life and needs: “It is a belief in biocentrism, that life of the Earth comes first…” Earth First!. Web. 6-7-2010. http://www.earthfirst.org/about.htm This ideology asserts that human beings should, at the very least, return to pre-industrial technology levels. The fact that current human population levels could not be sustained by living at this level of technology means that this ideology, put into practice, would cause large numbers of human beings to die of starvation and disease. Indeed, wiping out humanity is the true goal of this ideology. Environmentalists with more of a conscience talk about government-forced birth control: “…cut the birth rate to one child per couple, for a few generations at least. The population would dwindle by about 5 billion people over the next century…” Engber, Daniel. Global Swarming Is it time for Americans to start cutting our baby emissions?. Slate.com. 9-10-2007. Web. 6-7-2010. http://www.slate.com/id/2173458 The more consistent adherents of this ideology talk about human extinction. The goal of human extinction is consistent with environmentalism because it holds that the Earth comes first. This ideology is far more dangerous than any industrial accident because it attacks the very root of human survival –technological progress, and the fact that humans should come first.

It doesn’t matter if most people who call themselves “environmentalists” don’t know that this ideology is opposed to human life. The majority of people who called themselves socialists during the cold war didn’t know that the logic of their ideology led to the gulags of Soviet Russia, and still probably don’t know it today, but that was the logical result of an ideology that holds that individuals must sacrifice their lives to the collective. Legitimate pollution problems can be solved with technological progress and the application of the laws of private property, such as the common law cause of action for private nuisance. Such problems cannot be solved by means of an ideology that opposes human happiness and progress.

Judge John E. Jones III for US Supreme Court

In between stories about the latest celebrity sex scandal, the news is occasionally noting that Justice John Paul Stevens of the US Supreme Court is going to retire, allowing President Obama to make another appointment. I would like to propose that Judge John E. Jones III, of the Middle District of Pennsylvania be considered for the job. Judge Jones was appointed by President George W. Bush for his present position, and is a Republican. But, Judge Jones was the presiding judge in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Judge Jones ruled that the School Board’s policy on “Intelligent Design”, which is another word for creationism, violated the Establishment Clause. In an interview about his decision, Judge Jones responded this way: “A significant number of Americans, if you poll, believe that creationism ought to be taught, either supplanting evolution or alongside of evolution. And, again, you ask how the judiciary works. We protect against the tyranny of the majority.” Amen.

What is tribalism?

Sometimes when I speak in casual conversation (whether in person or over the Internet), I will use terms that I don’t even realize other people may not understand –or may not understand in the same sense that I use them. I’m typically fairly careful about this, but it does occasionally occur. This recently occurred when I was commenting on an article by Christopher Hitchens called: “Fool’s Gold: How the Olympics and other international competitions breed conflict and bring out the worst in human nature”, which was found in the magazine “Newsweek”, dated Feb 15, 2010. I essentially said that I thought that the article was important because it discusses the ugliness that is often associated with sports, but I stated that I didn’t think this was an inherent feature of sports, but rather a reflection of the “tribal mentality” that sports tends to attract (or, perhaps, that it brings out of otherwise rational people). Someone asked me what I meant by “tribal mentality”, and I told them I’d have to get back to them on it. This is my attempt to explain what I meant.

I knew that I probably picked up the term from an essay by Ayn Rand called: “The Missing Link”. (All references to this essay are from “The Missing Link” in Philosophy: Who Needs It, Ayn Rand (Signet Paperback Ed. ISBN 0-451-13893-7).) “Tribalism” is the term used to describe certain mentalities that choose group-conformity over their commitment to abstract ideals like “justice” and “individual rights”. “Tribalism (which is the best name to give to all the group manifestations of the anti-conceptual mentality)…” (Pg. 42, “The Missing Link”, Rand) My explanation here is meant to provide my (hopefully accurate) understanding of what Rand meant. Proving that she was right is not my primary goal here. I leave it up to the reader to think about what I am saying, and what she said, and decide whether the ideas expressed there are in accordance with reality, which is the ultimate criterion of what ideas are true and which are false.

I first read “The Missing Link” back in college. Since then, I have come to understand Rand’s views on concept formation – the mental steps associated with how we acquire knowledge- much better. (Her views on concept formation are found in _Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology_, for those wanting to study them in depth.) An essential feature to grasp about concept formation is the fact that some concepts are more abstract than others –by which I mean they require greater mental effort to grasp, and they depend on first grasping subsidiary concepts. For instance, the concept “organism” is more abstract than the concepts “dog”, “tree”, “human”, and “bird” –which are all concepts that the concept of “organism” subsumes and includes. The concept “furniture” is more abstract than the concepts “table”, “chair”, “desk”, and “stool” –which the concept of “furniture” subsumes and includes. A concept like “justice” is far more abstract than concepts that represent “perceptual concretes”, such as “human”, “dog”, “tree”, “table” and “chair”. A “perceptual concrete” is something that one can perceive with one’s unaided senses. You can perceive a table, you cannot perceive the atoms that make it up –although the use of scientific experiments and reasoning demonstrate that atoms are real. (I think scientific experiments typically work because the results of the experiment, which you can perceive, allow you to infer that those results must be caused by something you cannot perceive with your senses, and to know something about what that imperceptible thing is.) You can perceive individual men, but you cannot perceive “justice” –although a process of reasoning can relate that highly abstract concept back to things you do perceive in reality. The important thing to keep in mind here is that there are different “levels of abstraction” according to Ayn Rand. Concepts that denote things like “table”, “dog”, and “car” are generally regarded as “first level abstractions”. (As opposed to “higher-level abstractions”, like “justice” and “rights”.)

The “anti-conceptual mentality” “…stops on this level of development –on the first levels of abstractions, which identify perceptual material consisting predominately of physical objects –and does not choose to take the next, crucial, fully volitional step: the higher levels of abstraction from abstractions, which cannot be learned by imitation. (See my book _Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology_.)…In the brain of an anti-conceptual person, the process of integration is largely replaced by a process of association. What his subconscious stores and automatizes is not ideas, but an indiscriminate accumulation of sundry concretes, random facts, and unidentified feelings, piled into unlabeled mental file folders. This works up to a point –i.e., so long as such a person deals with other persons whose folders are stuffed similarly, and thus no search through the entire filing system is ever required.” (Pg. 39, “The Missing Link”, Rand)

In other words, an “anti-conceptual mentality” operates at the level of the first levels of abstractions, but operation at this level of concept formation will not allow him to live and function, so one possible way to deal with this is to adopt the rules, traditions, and ways of other people around him. In other words, an anti-conceptual mentality can deal with his inability to live successfully on the first level of abstractions by simply adopting the customs of his “tribe”. His success at living is then tied to the extent to which his tribe’s rules and customs conform to reality. If his tribal rules conform to reality, then he will be able to use those rules to live. However, since most principles of action tend to operate within certain contexts, the tribal mentality will tend to use rules outside of their proper context. For instance, some tribal groups have certain dietary rules that their members are supposed to obey. Keeping “kosher” might make sense if you don’t understand the germ-theory of disease, but if you use reason and science to understand the underlying causes of food poisoning, the underlying principles of action, then keeping kosher, as a rule, is unnecessary, and is being applied in a modern context where it makes no sense.

Such a tribal mentality will also likely face a certain amount of “mental distress”, “anxiety”, or “emotional uneasiness” when he encounters someone from another “tribe”, who acts in accordance with different customs and rules. To understand why, you must understand that in dealing with the world around us in a manner that allows us to live successfully, there is a certain amount of variation that is possible. For instance, it is necessary to dispose of corpses because they can be a source of disease, and the smell of rotting flesh is one of the worst things you can smell -we’ve probably evolved that way to prevent us from consuming something that could make us very ill. Even though it makes sense to dispose of a corpse, the method of disposal can vary, based on such random factors as geography. So, for instance, members of “Culture A” may dispose of their dead by burying them because there is very little burnable wood around for cremation, while members of “Culture B” may cremate their dead because their soil is very rocky, which makes digging holes very labor-intensive. What happens when a tribal mentality from Culture A encounters members of Culture B, and sees them cremating their dead? A rational person would simply regard this as one possible way to achieve the ultimate goal –corpse disposal. An anti-conceptual tribalist will likely feel a sense of anxiety or unease because he is not very good at mentally abstracting out what is essential and what is not essential. All that is essential in this scenario is that corpses are removed from where people could encounter them, so that they won’t get sick from them –it is not essential that it be achieved in any particular way. But, since the tribal mentality cannot, at least to the extent he is a tribal mentality, determine what is essential, he will respond with “…fear to resentment to stubborn evasion to hostility to panic to malice to hatred.” (Pg. 40, “The Missing Link”, Rand) “If his professed beliefs –i.e., the rules and slogans of his group –are challenged, he feels his consciousness dissolving in fog. Hence, his fear of outsiders…The threat is not existential, but psycho-epistemological: to deal with them [outsiders] requires that he rise above his ‘rules’ to the level of abstract principles. He would die rather than attempt it.” (Pg. 40-41, “The Missing Link”, Rand)

What are some examples of the manifestation of the tribal mentality? “Racism is an obvious manifestation of the anti-conceptual mentality. So is xenophobia –the fear or hatred of foreigners…So is any caste system…So is any kind of ancestor worship or of family ‘solidarity’…So is any criminal gang.” (Pg. 40-41, “The Missing Link”, Rand) This last example would include various ethnic street gangs such as the “Crips” and the “Bloods”. In that case, the anti-conceptual mentalities associated with those criminal groups don’t even use race as a criterion of who is part of their group, since they are made up of members of the same racial group. Instead, their leaders have adopted certain arbitrary manners of dress, especially in certain colors, to differentiate their “tribes”, and then they manifest their hostility towards those that are not part of their tribe by engaging in assault and murder. (Remember the “drive by shooting” phenomena of the 1980’s?) This phenomena isn’t limited to any particular racial group either. The Mafia, associated with a white ethnic group, has “…a rigid set of rules rigidly, efficiently and bloodily enforced, a ‘government’ that undertakes to protect you from ‘outsiders’…” (Pg. 44, “The Missing Link”, Rand)

How do rational people associate according to Rand? On the basis of ideas: “There is a crucial difference between an association and a tribe. Just as a proper society is ruled by laws, not by men, so a proper association is united by ideas, not by men, and its members are loyal to the ideas, not to the group. It is eminently reasonable that men should seek to associate with those who share their convictions and values…All proper associations are formed or joined by individual choice and on conscious, intellectual grounds (philosophical, political, professional, etc.) –not by the physiological or geographical accident of birth, and not on the ground of tradition.” (Pg. 44, “The Missing Link”, Rand)

Now, bringing it back to where I initially started. Why do I think that sports attract a tribal mentality? I believe that sports, specifically team sports, like football, soccer, and basketball attract a tribal mentality because they are typically organized along group lines. One roots for the team of one’s city, one’s school, or one’s nation. To a tribal mentality, who views members of other cities, schools, or nations as “outsiders”, and who is incapable of recognizing his essential similarities and differences from members of other groups, a form of physical confrontation or contest –which sports embody- with members of that other group, is one step from what all tribal mentalities truly want to manifest –physical violence. This is why you get soccer riots in some countries, and this is why you will sometimes see students engage in brawls with members of another school over a football game. All such violence is a physical manifestation of the tribal mentality.

Why I Don’t Recite Any Pledge of Allegiance

I have recently started attending the meetings of a local, Dallas-area political club affiliated with one of the two major parties in the United States. At the beginning of all meetings, this group starts with a recitation of the “U.S. Pledge of Allegiance”. During this period, I stand in order to be polite to the other people there, but I markedly put my hands behind my back, and I do not state the Pledge. Since this would be seen by many as a “subversive” or “unpatriotic” action on my part, and in order to mentally “crystallize” my own thinking on the subject, I thought I would take a moment to explain why I do this.

The first reason I refuse to recite the pledge is because of the use of religious language (“under god”) in its text. Historically speaking, America is not “one nation under god”, which I take to mean a nation founded on Christianity or religion. America is a product of the Enlightenment. In order to understand this, some historical context is necessary. The Dark Ages represented a period of religious domination, and therefore social, economic, scientific, and political stagnation (and human misery). During that period, religious authorities controlled the moral and intellectual realm. The socio-political ream was controlled by the feudal aristocracy, supposedly ordained to rule by god, but in practice, sanctioned to practice tyranny over the minds and bodies of other men by the Church. The Dark Ages ended with the re-discovery of Classical Greek and Roman thought and philosophies, which had emphasized the value of human life in the here-and-now, reality over the supernatural, and the efficacy of the human mind to know reality.

The Enlightenment period of history, which started some time in the 1600’s, represents a naturalistic explanation for the origins of life, via the works of Charles Darwin, a rational explanation for the physical motions of the universe, via the works of Newton, and the beginnings of a secular basis for the political and social order, via the works of John Locke, and others. The founding Fathers of the United States took the ideas of Locke and other Enlightenment thinkers and used them as the intellectual basis for the 13 Republics formed soon after the American Revolution, and for the Federal Republic which today is known as the United States of America. Of paramount importance to the Founding Fathers was the right of individuals to “the pursuit of happiness”, as embodied in the Declaration of Independence.

In order for individuals to pursue their own happiness in society, some implicit understanding of the concept of individual rights is necessary. Individual rights is based in a morality of rational self-interest (or an implicit understanding of such a morality). Each individual must be free to pursue his own rational self-interest (his own happiness) in a social context. (It must be also be kept in mind that “society” is nothing more than a number of individuals, and that the individual lives in society because it maximizes his own self-interest.) Individual rights should be seen as moral principles defining and sanctioning a person’s freedom to pursue his own rational self-interest in a social context. Historically, America is the nation of the Enlightenment, and the nation founded on individual rights. It is not a society founded in a belief in the supernatural, which was the distinguishing feature of the Dark Ages. I therefore oppose the inclusion of the words “under God” in the Pledge because it is not an accurate description of America.

Even if the “under God” language were removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, I would still not want to recite it. I have several objections to its recitation. First, I question the usefulness of any ritualistic recitals such as the Pledge. If the average person reciting the Pledge of Allegiance were asked what some of the key concepts in the pledge, such as “justice” and “liberty” meant, I doubt that he could give you a coherent explanation. There was an episode of the original TV series “Star Trek”, in which the main characters visited an “alternate Earth”, where stone-age men would recite a string of incoherent sounds that sounded strangely familiar, but you couldn’t quite figure out why. At the end of the episode, it is revealed that it is the US Pledge of Allegiance. Not only have the concepts been forgotten, but even the original words have been lost by the primitives reciting them. Every time I hear people reciting the pledge, I think of this episode of “Star Trek”. A “ritual” to me is nothing more than a formulaic endeavor that has no meaning and is meant to discourage thought and individualism, and to engender a tribalistic mindset. I find this utterly incompatible with the meaning and historical significance of America.

Additionally, an analysis of the words of the pledge reveals that it is a useless exercise. America is supposed to be a Republic (or, if you prefer, a “representative democracy”). The express words of the pledge say that you are pledging allegiance to “the flag”, but a flag is just a piece of cloth, and is merely another ritualistic display, so I don’t see any point in engaging in a ritualistic chant (the pledge), to a ritualistic display (the flag). The pledge goes on to say that the flag stands for the Republic, but the purpose of government is to serve as the agent, or servant, of “the people”, in the protection of their rights to life, liberty, and property. Therefore, I, as a citizen, do not owe the government allegiance, the employees of government –our elected officials- owe allegiance to the people that they represent (which would include me). I suppose you could say that you are pledging allegiance to “the people”, but “the people” are nothing more than a number of individuals, each with a right to pursue his or her own happiness, and all individuals are “equal under the law”, so there is no person or group of persons that one should rightly “pledge allegiance” to.

You could say that one is “pledging allegiance” to the concepts of liberty and justice, which are concepts that I fully support. But, I know that I support those concepts, and I actually take action to support them by thinking and writing about them -and by doing whatever small things I can to support liberty and justice in my professional and personal life. So long as I know that I support these concepts, and I take whatever action I am able to take to advance them, why do I need to engage in a ritualistic chant to convince others that I support them? Stating that you support the concepts of liberty and justice, but taking no action to advance them is to elevate form over substance, which is contrary to the spirit of our Nation, as best exemplified by the American expression: “Talk is cheap”.

Alexis de Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America”

Any course on American political history and philosophy is likely to require you to read portions of Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America. I recently endeavored to sit down and read Volume 2 of this work, and quickly discovered why they only require you to read portions of it in most classes. It is long, and often discusses issues that are only of slight importance today (if they ever were important.) For instance, Book I, Chapter XVIII is called “Why American Writers and Orators Often Use an Inflated Style”. This chapter claims that American writers are “pompous” in their writing style, and attempts to explain that this (dubious) observation can be explained by reference to the nature of “democratic communities”. This Chapter illustrates one of the chief flaws with this book, namely, that de Tocqueville tends to make sweeping generalizations, but provides little evidence to back up many of the generalizations. (Hopefully, what I write will not prove him right about American writers.)

I am not the only one to have noticed this flaw in DIA (“Democracy In America”), because the edition that I have contains a historical essay regarding the work, written by Phillips Bradley of Queens College, Flushing, New York, in 1944. In that essay, he quotes John Stewart Mill as having said: “It is perhaps the greatest secret of M. de Tocqueville’s book, that, from the scarcity of examples, his propositions even when derived from observation, have the air of being mere abstract speculations.” (Democracy in America, Appendix II, Pg. 421, Copyright Alfred A. Knopf, 1945, Vintage Books, Phillips Bradley of Queens College, Flushing New York in 1944, quoting John Stuart Mill, “M. de Tocqueville on Democracy in America,” Edinburgh Review (1840)).

I have only read the first 2 books, and the first quarter of the third book, of Volume 2. After I skimmed over the rest of Book 3 and Book 4, I decided that they were not of sufficient value to read at the present. Since I wanted to write on the importance of what I had read, without wasting my time with what I consider to be unimportant portions, I decided to inform the reader of this review of that fact. Now that I am again looking at the last Book –Book IV, “Influence of Democratic Ideas and Feelings on Political Society”- I must say that its chapter headings look more interesting than Book III’s, but I will review that book separately, if I later decide to read it.

With all of that said, this is basically a European’s view of American political and social attitudes as they existed in the 19th Century. The author’s general theme seems to be something like this: What is American Democracy, what are its political-philosophical origins, and how is it different from European politics and society? De Tocqueville confirmed that he wanted to explore the implicit American philosophy early on. In Chapter I of Book I, he says:

“I think that in no country in the civilized world is less attention paid to philosophy than in the United States…Yet it is easy to perceive that almost all the inhabitants of the United States use their minds in the same manner, and direct them according to the same rules; that is to say, without ever having taken the trouble to define the rules, they have a philosophical method common to the whole people.” (DIA, First Book, “Influence of Democracy on the Action of Intellect in the United States”, Chapter I, “Philosophical Method of the Americans”.)

What is this “philosophical method common to the whole people” of America? It is to:

“…evade the bondage of system and habit, of family maxims, class opinions, and, in some degree, of national prejudices; to accept tradition only as a means of information, and existing facts only as a lesson to be used in doing otherwise and doing better; to seek the reason of things for oneself, and in oneself alone; to tend to results without being bound to means, and to strike through the form to the substance –such are the principal characteristics of what I shall call the philosophical method of the Americans.”(DIA, First Book, “Influence of Democracy on the Action of Intellect in the United States”, Chapter I, “Philosophical Method of the Americans”.)

To me, this is a definition of “individualism”: look to the facts of reality and use your own mind to reason from, and in reference to, those facts; and use your own mind to improve your circumstances in life because your life is important to you. In other words, the essence of America for de Tocqueville is that it is a nation of individualists. (I agree completely.) But, de Tocqueville doesn’t seem comfortable with the notion of individualism: “Selfishness originates in blind instinct; individualism proceeds from erroneous judgment more than from depraved feelings; it originates as much in deficiencies of mind as in perversity of heart.”(DIA, Second Book, “Influence of Democracy on the Feelings of the Americans”, Chapter II, “Of Individualism in Democratic Countries”.) I regarded this analysis of American individualist philosophy, and what it means in practice, to be one of the most valuable aspects of the First and Second Books of the Second Volume of DIA. These portions of his work demonstrate that contemporary negative connotations associated with the concepts of “egoism” and “individualism” pre-date the 20th Century.

Although he doesn’t seem to like it, de Tocqueville believes that America is a nation infused with the idea of rational egoism:

“The doctrine of interest rightly understood is not new then, but among the Americans of our time it finds universal acceptance; it has become popular there; you may trace it at the bottom of all their actions, you will remark it in all they say.”(DIA, Second Book, “Influence of Democracy on the Feelings of the Americans”, Chapter VIII “How the Americans Combat Individualism by the Principle of Self-Interest Rightly Understood”.)

These observations on American individualism and rational egoism by de Tocqueville illustrates that political scientists and philosophers of the 19th Century were wrestling with the issue of what should be the relationship of the individual vis-à-vis society? Does society exist because it is in the interests of the individuals that comprise it (individualism), or do individuals exist to serve society (collectivism)? De Tocqueville seemed uncomfortable with American individualism for religious reasons: “I do not believe that self-interest is the sole motive of religious men…”(DIA, Second Book, “Influence of Democracy on the Feelings of the Americans”, Chapter IX “That the Americans Apply the Principle of Self-Interest Rightly Understood to Religious Matters”). He also seemed to assert at times that religion was necessary to maintain the social order, which I believe is a common belief today: “…I find that dogmatic belief is not less indispensible to him in order to live alone than it is to enable him to co-operate with his fellows.”( DIA, First Book, “Influence of Democracy on the Action of Intellect in the United States”, Chapter II, “Of the Principal Source of Belief Among Democratic Nations”.)

The issue of religion raises another major criticism I have of de Tocqueville’s work. His discomfort with the secular trend of his era clearly comes through in the book: “The chief concern of religion is to purify, to regulate, and to restrain the excessive taste for well-being that men feel in periods of equality…”( DIA, First Book, “Influence of Democracy on the Action of Intellect in the United States”, Chapter V, “How Religion in the United States Avails Itself of Democratic Tendencies”.) De Tocqueville clearly has an agenda in Democracy in America, which is to protect religion in a post-Enlightenment era. But, de Tocquevill recognizes that American religion has been secularized:

“Not only do the Americans follow their religion from interest, but they often place in this world the interest that makes them follow it. In the Middle Ages the clergy spoke of nothing but a future state; they hardly cared to prove that a sincere Christian may be a happy man here below. But the American preachers are constantly referring to the earth, and it is only with great difficulty that they can divert their attention from it. To touch their congregations, they always show them how favorable religious opinions are to freedom and public tranquility; and it is often difficult to ascertain from their discourses whether the principal object of religion is to procure eternal felicity in the other world or prosperity in this.”(DIA, Second Book, “Influence of Democracy on the Feelings of the Americans”, Chapter IX “That the Americans Apply the Principle of Self-Interest Rightly Understood to Religious Matters”.)

De Tocquville’s commentary regarding American religion confirms for me what I had heard 20th Century atheists, especially Ayn Rand, say, but had never found confirmation of, from a theist. Namely, that American religion is not like the religion of the Middle Ages. It is a secularized version, that is more concerned with worldly welfare than with any sort of rewards or punishments in an afterlife. The fact that de Tocqueville, a French Aristocrat and devout Catholic, would say this provides strong evidence for the proposition that American religion is a largely secularized institution. I consider this “independent” confirmation to be a major value of Democracy in America.

Democracy in America, despite its flaws, is important because it captured the essence of America (individualism) at a particular moment in time (the 19th Century), and preserved that snapshot for future generations of America to learn about, no matter how far they may have strayed from that essence today.

The Incest Taboo

I am just finishing up the 30th Anniversary edition of Richard Dawkin’s “The Selfish Gene”. (I believe that I have already finished the original edition, but the 30th ed. has two extra chapters.) Taken purely as a text on evolutionary biology (and nothing more philosophical than that), it is an excellent work. I will probably have more to say about it in a formal book review once I finish it, but I wanted to note one fact that I discovered that I found very interesting. If correct, I think it gives a definitive and rational answer to the question: why not have sex with your relatives?

In chapter 6, titled “Genesmanship”, it discusses, on page 99, and in an endnote on that page, the high probability of brother-sister matings leading to serious genetic diseases for their children. In fact, the footnote says that each person caries, on average about 2 recessive “lethal genes” per person. The gene is “recessive”, which means it doesn’t manifest itself unless you get a copy from both your mother and your father. Normally, because of out-breeding (non-relative breeding), a child will only get one recessive of any given lethal gene, so he will be safe. But, since brothers and sisters have a high probability of getting the same lethal gene from their parents, the chance of a child from a brother-sister breeding getting two copies of the same recessive lethal gene turns out to be about one in eight. That means if you have 8 children, you are likely to have at least one child with a serious genetic problem that will result in early death. (I was vaguely aware of the fact that this was the reason that brother-sister breeding was bad, but I had no idea the probability of death for their children was that high.) To draw an analogy, a brother-sister breeding would be like taking a revolver with 8 chambers, putting a bullet in one of the chambers, and then playing “Russian Roulette” with your kid.

To me, this had to be a major reason for the “incest taboo” in most human cultures. (I say most, because there are examples of brother-sister breeding, such as the Pharaohs in ancient Egypt.) Pre-historic people probably would have “quickly” noticed that brother-sister breeding led to the death of more children than non-brother-sister breeding. (When I say “quickly”, I mean over the course of decades.) (And, yes, I am assuming that people want to have children, but even the minority of people who don’t are going to be raised in a cultural environment that views brother-sister breeding with great revulsion for this reason, and are therefore probably going to view it with revulsion themselves.)

FYI-Dawkins seems to suggest that this fact would lead to an “instinctive” revulsion by people against incest, but I regard human beings as a “tabula rasa” at birth, and I am not sure that this is consistent with the idea of “tabula rasa” at birth, so I think the taboo would have arisen through observation, not due to any sort of “innate knowledge”. (I will probably have more to say on “instincts” and the idea of “tabula rasa” when I write a book review of “The Selfish Gene”.)