On Fatal Conceit & PZ Myers

Pharyngula, a popular "science" blog, was a blog I loved to read a few years back. PZ Myers, a professor of biology, used to make funny remarks about creationists and other religious fools whose small brains couldn't comprehend even the most basic ideas behind evolution (this actually seems a challenge to many atheists as well). Then it turned out that Myers had naive ideas about economics that were no more rational than anti-evolution arguments by creationists. Myers also argues like a child. When someone makes a good point (assuming the discussion is not about creationism; creationism cannot be defended rationally) that conflicts with Myers's ideas on economics, Myers makes a few sarcastic comments that avoid discussing the issue. A common strategy of Myers is to associate all opponents with evil Republicans. Then his loyal fanbase follows with their misguided opinions.

It was particularly entertaining when Climate Audit, a global warming skeptic blog, was about to win (and won) the Best Science Blog 2007 award. PZ Myers instructed his minions to vote for another blog because, well, apparently all material that challenges the so called "consensus" on climate change is right-wing propaganda that should be ignored.

I understand the importance of biology but you cannot dismiss the importance of economics. Professors and intellectuals should take at least some university-level courses on economics before preaching their anti-market rhetoric. It's especially regretful when biologists, who should understand the importance of and mechanisms behind spontaneous order, are guilty of the fatal conceit, the idea that a scientist (or an enlightened intellectual) can guide an economy like God guides evolution.

A country that firmly believes that some biblical version of Jesus actually existed (he did not nor was he a historical person) but that also understands the importance of free markets can thrive. A socialist country cannot thrive whether it's religious or not. Teaching kids creationism is perverted but it cannot destroy a country like bad economic policies can. After all, nearly all Finnish kids are taught that Jesus was the son of God from the moment they hit first grade.

Maybe someone should tell these professors that socialism is to economics what creationism is to biology.

Well, Merry Christmas! (We avoid all controversy on the name by calling the occasion Yule)

Edit: Btw, here's a good entry on why militant atheism is needed and why it's sometimes okay to ridicule religious people.

Kauneus on rikos

Rumat argentiinalaiset haluavat verottaa kauniita ihmisiä (via Mankiw):

The beautiful people get all the breaks. Beauty is a natural advantage and he wants the good-lookers to be taxed to finance compensation for the ugly people.

Niin, tässä jälleen uusi sovellus marxilaisesta "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" -sloganista. Pohjimmiltaan kyseessä on yksilöiden rankaiseminen näiden kykyjen (sekä luontaisten että hankittujen) mukaan. Kauneuden verottaminen olisi tietenkin vasta alkua, eturyhmiä kun riittää kaikenlaisille "syrjäytetyille". Kenellekään tuskin tarvitsee erikseen tavata, millainen tulevaisuus koittaisi yhteiskunnalle, jossa kyvykkyys olisi rangaistava ominaisuus ja epäonnistumisesta palkittaisiin. Tosin tältä pohjaltahan se progressiivinen verotus toimii...

"There are no advantages in life - there's just luck. My dear daughter is beautiful, she's got a good body and she's a lawyer - and she has been divorced twice."

"My beloved son-in-law left her for another woman and didn't care about their two daughters. It is matter of luck in life, there are no advantages. Luck. Everything is just luck."

Tällaista päästi suustaan joku randomilla kadulta poimittu tallaaja. Tämä ei pahemmin eroa edellisestä lainauksesta. Marxilaisten logiikan mukaan ihmiset eivät onnistu kykyjensä ansiosta tai epäonnistu kykyjen puutteen takia. Henkilökohtaisesta vastuusta on turha puhua, sillä kaikki on onnesta kiinni. Miten kukaan voi olla omasta elämästään vastuusta, jos onnistuminen on tuuripeliä? Haastatellun ikäihmisen tytärkin todennäköisesti voitti miehensä lotosta.

Ehdotuksessa verottaa kauniita on muitakin ongelmia: kuka määrittelisi kauniuden? Sisältyykö ehdotukseen ajatus perustaa jokin valtiollinen virasto, joka rankkaisi ihmisiä näiden pärstäkertoimen mukaan? Miten se vaikuttaisi tasa-arvoisen yhteiskunnan kehittymiseen ja insentiiveihin, jos omassa henkilöllisyystodistuksessa lukisi "ruma"?