Gay extinction, to a degree?

Homosexuals across the world are celebrating their sexuality, expecting their numbers to increase in the near future as tolerance spreads from one corner of the globe to another. However, it should be at least considered that the result of this tolerance may be the exact opposite of what they're expecting: that homosexuality as a biological trait may, in fact, become endangered as a result of this tolerance. Let's establish a few facts first:

First, it'd be ludicrous to claim that homosexuality is, by and large, a choice. Some Christians want it to be so, so that the "naturalness" of homosexuality would not conflict with their "God created man in his image" view.

Second, as implied above, homosexuality is, to a degree, hereditary, i.e., the offspring of a person with "gay genes" (but who's not necessarily gay) is more likely to be gay than the offspring of a straight person. Obviously genes are not the only biological factor affecting sexuality but they are a significant factor nevertheless.

Third, one reason why homosexuality has survived this far despite its obvious selective disadvantage is precisely because of the society's negative attitude toward homosexuality in the past. When gays weren't tolerated and it was assumed that everyone marries at one point in their lives, this effectively ensured that homosexuals too managed to pass on their genes even if in an unwanted union with a straight person.

Combine these and you've got a situation where the "coming out" of gays might contribute negatively to the overall number of homosexuals. If homosexuals are no longer under societal pressure to procreate with the opposite sex then they won't whileas their own sexual desires are an evolutionary dead end.

This isn't to be misunderstood. Genes influencing homosexuality can spread even if there are no homosexuals left and even if we disregard genes, homosexuality may still result from fetal-stage disruptions. But the point I'm making is that the recent openness toward homosexuality may have a negative effect on the proliferation of those genes, not that gays will go extinct.

This also makes all fears of homosexuality overblown. The reason why homosexuality seems to be on the rise is because of the "coming out" factor, not because homosexuality as a biological feature is on the rise. The latter would be ludicrous as there are no evolutionary benefits to being gay. (In fact, there may be some but hardly anything that'd lead to a notable proliferation of homosexuality.)

And for the same reason it's stupid to claim that "heteronormativity" is a social construct. People are not heterosexual because society forces them to but because heterosexuality is the only kind of sexuality that makes sense from an evolutionary point of view. If, as a result of genetic drift (chance) maybe, bisexuality were the norm, it wouldn't take long for evolution to take us right back to "heteronormativity".

Unnatural selection

A 25-year-old Brit, Keith Macdonald, has fathered 15 children with 14 women while living on unemployment benefits like most of his "victims" (the article doesn't use the word specifically but it's implied; I'd use a less flattering word) who're also dependent on government assistance and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

Biological fitness can be measured by the number of offspring an individual produces during his or her lifetime. What biological features increase fitness is defined by the environment which, in human context, includes the society. It is then no wonder that the welfare state has changed the environment so that people who less than a hundred years ago would have been considered "unfit" are now among the fit thanks to taxpayer-funded welfare checks.

One could draw the apparent conclusion that we're on a degenerative path heading towards some kind of an idiocracy. Obviously, this won't happen as the welfare system is dependent on production which in turn is defined by how the society allocates its factors of production; capital and labor. The overall tax burden cannot be increased indefinitely without causing the system to collapse (at high tax rates, government revenue starts to fall) which would leave the high-breeding, non-working individuals without a safety net.

Church of Immorality

Vatican's record of immorality spans for a hefty 1700 years. These days theVatican is kept in check thanks to the fact that it happens to exist in the middle of a civilized world. Unlike people in the Middle East, we don't allow totalitarian and evil institutions to run the show.

One of the most distinguishing features of the Catholic Church is clerical celibacy which is based on the sick view on human sexuality presented in the Bible, the idea that sexuality is wicked (or should at least be considered a necessary evil) and should be suppressed.

Suppressing sexuality is of course as unnatural as it gets. The constant barrage of news stories exposing clerical paedophilia merely demonstrates this and that it is not worth trying(unless you're a pedophile, in which case you should consider castration). Don't get me wrong: it is not a bad thing that religious extremists refrain from participating in reproductive activities. If anything, clerical celibacy should be celebrated if it worked. It, however, does not.

Now that the Church is once again under paedophilia charges, it is acting exactly the way it's been acting for the past two millennia, with one exception. The history of the Church is filled with anti-Semitism and downright persecution of Jews but here, in the 21st century, the Church is now identifying with the people it has been persecuting for millennia.

And as for how the Church is acting like it's business as usual, well, now they're blaming sodomites for the rampant wave of paedophilia within the Church:

“Many psychologists and psychiatrists have shown that there is no link between celibacy and pedophilia but many others have shown, I have recently been told, that there is a relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia,” [Cardinal Tarcision Berdone] told a news conference in Santiago.

If there is a link between homosexuality and paedophilia, it is the same link that links Catholic priests to paedophilia: suppression of human sexuality. Rather ironic then that it's largely thanks to the Catholic Church that homosexuals have been forced to suppress their sexuality for two millennia now. Moreover, holding homosexuality responsible for paedophilia is like holding heterosexuality responsible for rape in general (well, sexuality is to blame but that's not a very fruitful argument). Apparently the Church considers the "sodomite card" useful now that they can no longer blame the Jews for everything.

So, the Catholic Church seems more than willing to continue its track record of immorality and depravity which, for a religious institution, is just business as usual.

Avatar: Cameron's manifesto

One word defines this film: naivety. In James Cameron's world, white men are evil capitalists who're willing to slaughter innocent natives or sacrifice colonists and marines for a profit. The natives are of course depicted as beings living in total harmony (even symbiosis, as in the film) with nature, which is how the left views tribes living in rainforests and on the prairie. In fact, harmony is an understatement: Cameron goes to great lenghts to push some sort of a Gaia hypothesis.

Of course, I wouldn't use the word harmony to describe the relationship some natives are perceived to have with their environment in our world. In reality, the relationship is one of oppression, based on keeping the native population in check. This also explains why natives (be that the Na'vi in Avatar or some bushmen in Africa) have little use for precious minerals lying beneath their "sacred" lands.

To be more specific, the relationship with nature is one of death, famine and an endless stream of deadly diseases. The population size is kept constant so that there's no need to build megacities, not to mention spaceships. It is only after this "harmony" is broken that man is able to break free from the oppression of his environment and of his tribe where individuals are delegated to roles they were chosen for by their elders (or some imaginary beings).

This oppression, or harmony, is not anyone's choice. It's merely a sad state of affairs. An individual wishes to preserve his or hers genetic heritance. Pumping out as many babies as you can, hoping that one or two of them reaches maturity is not ideal considering the opportunity costs of being nothing but a birth machine which is why we desire to improve our living standards so that we can settle for a smaller number of children. To get around this oppression, we discover ways to exploit our surroundings, to cultivate land. This results in production surpluses. We end up having countries instead of small and isolated tribal areas which are far from ideal from a genetic point of view; problems such as inbreeding depression result from low levels of genetic variation.

Since living in that state of oppression is not a choice, it's only stupid for people to perceive this primitive way of life as something that is much closer to man's true nature. It's usually echoed that Western people have lost their touch with that something magical in the dirt and have embraced techno-consumer culture instead. Of course, that "something magical" is nothing but ignorance. Having lost this ignorance does not make us Westerners any poorer but richer, both materially and spiritually. Science and magic cannot co-exist. Pockets of superstition and oppression such as Indian tribes or Islamic neighborhoods cannot exist where the West rules.

And then there's imperialism. We are to believe that Westerners only brought tears and sorrow to the darkest corners of the world while in reality we brought technology, education and, ironically, the means (agricultural technology, food aid and modern medicine) to maintain surplus populations in 3rd world countries, populations that would not exist without Western aid. (This wouldn't be such a bad thing if 3rd world economies were liberalized in order to end this dependency. Aid, however, only provides an excuse not to liberalize.) Of course, property should not be taken by force (although property rights of extraterrestrials have not been defined: would we consider aliens as animals, comparable to dogs and cats instead of humans?) as in the movie, not when it's already being utilized by the natives.

Even worse, in the film imperialism is mixed with modern American politics. America never was an imperial nation (except for their sole possession, the Philippines). The film makes references to America's post-9/11 foreign policy, mentioning well-known concepts such as "pre-emptive strikes" and "shock & awe". In the movie, marines are used to further commercial interests, pushing the ridiculously simplistic view that the Iraq War is/was about oil. This only hurts the credibility of the movie and it's totally unnecessary. (The same thing happened with V for Vendetta.)

As a 3D experience the first half of the movie was incredible but the story (its premise was copied directly from Unreal) turned out to be so repulsive, predictable and naive that I was in great pains watching the second half. No wonder: Cameron's political views have been well known since at least Aliens but while Aliens is a brilliant movie with subtle reflections on human nature, Avatar is an in-your-face type of political manifesto.

Homo Economicus

In a Mises.org article a kids' Halloween candy trade drifts from a barter economy to a monetary economy while heading toward its ultimate goal, a Pareto-efficient equilibrium. The article also reminds us of the potential dangers of a government fiat currency monopoly.

Some picks:

Though this problem might seem an intractable one, as it happened, it only took a few minutes for everyone to discover what would become money for the evening: a micro-size Three Musketeers bar.

Once it became clear that 3M was the commodity of the most use in exchange, it didn't matter whether you actually liked it or not. You were happy to trade the candies you didn't much care for in order to obtain a 3M simply because this could then be traded again for something which really did make your mouth water.

Outside observers of a Misesian bent imagined the following: let's say someone arrived at the scene and threw down 100 3Ms on the table. All kids know precisely what would happen. The price of 3Ms would tumble. Each one would purchase far less than it had before.

But, fortunately, no Halloween bogeyman from the Federal Reserve Candy Factory came to ruin their game. So the kids could remain free to trust in the soundness of their candy unit.

Luonto hylkää luonnon hylkäävät

Kaksi naispuolista hippitaiteilijaa lähtivät liftaamalla (ja vielä morsiuspuvuissa) kiertämään Lähi-itää tavoitteenaan todistaa, että ihmisiin kaikkialla voi luottaa. Toinen näistä, Pippa Bacca, raiskattiin ja murhattiin Turkissa. Ironista.

Sellaiset seikat kuin vieraan pelko jne. eivät ole mitään evoluution turhaan luomia vaistoja. Ne varoittavat eläimiä potentiaalisesta vaarasta. En minäkään lähtisi Bagdadiin tällä naamalla. Näiden hippien tekoa voisi verrata ihmiseen, joka nälästä huolimatta päättää olla syömättä. Nälän tunne kehittyi, jotta ihminen tietäisi syödä. Jos ihminen jättää nälän huomiotta, ihminen kuolee. Samoin käy ihmiselle, joka pelotta lähtee Pakistanin maaseudulle "Muhammed oli homo"-kyltin kanssa. Pelko ei ole mikään sosiaalinen konstruktio vaan miljoonia vuosia sitten kehittynyt vaisto, jonka olemassaololle on ihan oikeasti todella hyvä syy.

Pippa Bacca olisi oiva Darwin-palkinnon voittaja täksi vuodeksi.

Mainstream economics under attack for not being left-wing

Some anti-consumerist magazine recently called Greg Mankiw, a Harvard professor of economics, a propagandist because he teaches the mainstream version of economics, neoclassical economics, which, apparently, is right-wing propaganda. This is of course the same thing as saying that a professor of biology who teaches evolution is a left-wing propagandist. In other words: when science doesn't support your particular view of society the science must go.

According to Mankiw, if a problem persists, it can only be for one of two reasons: the market is imperfect, or it is inexistent.

Neoclassical economics is value-free. It's mostly concerned with efficiency: how to allocate scarce resources without creating waste. One way to do this is through competition, which is a sufficient condition for efficiency. Competition may not always be perfect but free competition is perfect enough when resource allocation is based on price signals i.e., the market mechanism. When scarce resources are not wasted more goods and services are going to be produced. Even if you're a redistributionist you should appreciate this efficiency because it allows for more redistribution than a system that doesn't create wealth.

About pollution (a negative externality):

But the problem is that, to the amazement of his students, Mankiw never mentions self-restraint, and downplays government regulation as a way to regulate production and diminish consumption or waste.

Again, economics views this from an efficiency point of view. Because of imperfect property rights it may be economical, from a producer's point of view, to pollute. People are seen as utility-maximizing individuals and producers are no different. Mankiw downplaying government regulation may be simply because government regulation might make things much worse since governments are not well aware of all the costs associated with regulation.
Neoclassical economics can in fact help explain how an increase in demand for "green stuff" can make it possible for producers to profit from being green. This profitable self-restraint is caused by consumer behavior that's based on voluntary exchange of goods.

Also, the very notion of “need” is absent from Mankiw’s text.

I haven't read Mankiw's textbooks but I doubt they are much different from, say, Varian's. I'd be surprised if Mankiw's textbook didn't mention utility and indifference curves, both based on individual preferences.

Also, Mankiw downplays inequality, even if the growing gap between rich and poor in the US over the last decade has commanded the attention of more and more American economists, even within the mainstream.

I don't see how this is relevant. A society can be well-off, everyone can have an access to free education and health care even if the rich are a billion times wealthier than the poor. Pleasing some petty, envious and greedy people who are unable to feel good about their own lives for as long as someone else is making more money than them is not economics.

Each year, tens of thousands of students go out into the world, with Mankiw’s biases as a roadmap to the future. But we know that the neoliberal agenda is more and more disputed outside universities. And within universities, alternative textbooks are flourishing.

Yes, and that scares the shit out of me. It's like creationist textbooks taking over books that deal with evolution from a biological point of view. Economics is one of the few social sciences that has, so far, been able to guard itself against bias and fanatic left-wing idiotarianism.

This label calling for students to "Download this warning label and glue it to orthodox economics textbooks" is particularly alarming and - humorous:











Economics based on efficient allocation of scarce resources is in fact the only suitable system for a planet facing ecological limits.

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.