1. 'Probably' the best atheist bus campaign ever

Comment #272310 by Scot Rafkin on October 27, 2008 at 8:12 am

For those along the Colorado Front Range, just got an email from the Boulder Atheist Society about this outfit:

http://www.cocore.org/,

which is starting a billboard campaign with the message, "Don't believe in God? You are not alone."

(edit: I'd prefer "god" rather than "God".)

2. Biologists on the Verge of Creating New Form of Life

Comment #244830 by Scot Rafkin on September 9, 2008 at 2:09 pm

At the very least, it shows the fundamentalists that there is nothing special about their god. If humans can create life, something that they believe to be one of the most awesome and supreme powers exhibited by their god, then that isn't saying much.

3. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #244828 by Scot Rafkin on September 9, 2008 at 2:02 pm

1519. Comment #244825 by al-rawandi

Boom you are a fatherless black boy in the inner city with a mother addicted to crack, Okay go become CEO of a fortune 500 company.

Al, I really love this idea. It points out everything wrong with our current social programs.

First off, the kid should be immediately removed and placed in state custody. I'm not talking about current versions of state custody. I'm talking about a well-funded system with highly qualified administrators, care-takers, social workers, etc.

The mother should be taken to rehab and given the opportunity to get clean, followed by social programs that giver her the best possible opportunity to stay that way. She should also be given an education, including reproductive education and access to birth control.

Back to the kid. Ideally, he would eventually be placed in quality foster care. But, if not, institutionalized in a facility that any one of us wouldn't feel ashamed about leaving our own kids in for daycare. We owe that to these kids, who are innocent victims.

The kid, like all kids, should be given a quality, free education. Not just K-12, but through college.

Even with all this, the kid is clearly starting from an unlevel playing field. No doubt, he'd have to work harder than Dubbya to succeed. But, society owes it to the kid to provide every opportunity for success. That's all we can do, is provide opportunity and way out. The rest is up to the individual.

These sorts of quality programs would cost quite a bit, I'm sure. But, how much do we all pay for not having them now? Seems like a good investment. I'd really like to see an economic study that traced the total cost to society.

4. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #244822 by Scot Rafkin on September 9, 2008 at 1:40 pm

Sciros,

Just to add to my Comment #244813...

What I've said does not fully apply to our current reality. Many folks are stuck burger flipping and shit shoveling, because they aren't given the opportunity to get out. I'd like to see that fixed. Until then, I do see some benefit to minimum wage. But minimum wage is a symptom rather than a solution. The solution is for society, via what amounts to socialist programs, to make sure that everyone has an opportunity to get a better job or a better education. The only barrier to advancement should be the individual. At that point, the government has done its job.

5. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #244813 by Scot Rafkin on September 9, 2008 at 1:28 pm

Comment #244803 by Sciros

should I take it that you are saying that those people who are "stuck" doing jobs which aren't highly valued (whether by virtue of necessity or not) by society and therefore do not pay as much as most others would ideally only be "stuck" doing them by virtue of their own unwillingness to take advantage of the opportunities presented to them?

I think that is a reasonable assertion. It may be unfortunate, but that's the way I feel. As much as I love science, if I couldn't make a living at it, I probably would have found some other profession and taken up science as a hobby. It's all about choices in life. If one finds burger flipping a satisfying life endeavor, and one is fully aware that the pay isn't enough to live on, and one has been given the opportunity to do something that society, via market forces, has deemed more valuable, then one is free to flip burgers. But, don't ask me to cover your food stamps.

6. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #244810 by Scot Rafkin on September 9, 2008 at 1:22 pm

Why should the market only decide? Is it some kind of God?

Don't be silly. Why should you decide? Are you a god?

The market/economy is a reflection of the goals of the society. In a capitalist society, the market/economy rewards hard work and perseverance of the individual. These are positive qualities for individuals of a society. In a socialist society, or under socialist-like policy, this is, of course not the case.

Also keep in mind that a minimum wage says nothing about the value of labor. Shit shovelers are deemed just as important as burger flippers. Is this true?

Deciding that burger-flippers should make $10/hour is arbitrary and has no relationship to their actual benefit to society. Societies, with their economies, have a natural thermostat to regulate value. Let's use it.

7. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #244801 by Scot Rafkin on September 9, 2008 at 1:11 pm

Comment #244792 by Bonzai

Bonzai,

Just to be clear, I'm not passing judgment on what jobs are "deemed worthy of good pay" and neither should the government. I'm saying the market, indeed society should do this through labor supply and demand. If a bus driver or ditch digger can make $100K/year, because that's the going rate, then more power to them.

8. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #244789 by Scot Rafkin on September 9, 2008 at 12:57 pm

Bonzai,

Do people exist to serve abstractions like "the economy" and "the market" or is it the other way around?

Neither and both. In most places people live in a society. Most societies have an economy of some kind. So, if you live in a society, your purpose is to serve the economy and the market, as this benefits society as a whole. Your purpose is also to serve yourself to the extent that it doesn't infringe upon others freedoms. Often, this means that the economy and the market also serve you. It goes both ways.

What is the "appropriate wages"? Decided by what? If a job is necessary, has little job satisfaction and draining then people who do them should be compensated well.

The market will determine this. If there is insufficient labor, because the job is "draining", then the wages will rise to attract more labor.

Put it this way, since we agree that these jobs are necessary, someone would have to do it. It doesn't matter if you "work hard" to advance yourself or not.

Someone will have to do it if it is a necessary job. Markets will adjust wages to reflect this. The person who needs the job to get done will pay what he needs to in order to attract the labor. If the market dictates that the job does not pay the appropriate livable wage, then you should be given the opportunity to educate or train yourself for a better paying job.

If you structure society like a zero sum game someone will end up at the bottom no matter how you shuffle the deck.

Of course. The trick is that those who remain at the bottom should be there because they are lazy, not because they haven't been given an opportunity to get out. (I'm, of course, excluding those who can't work due to physical or mental handicaps, etc. Society should take care of these individuals). If you've been given the opportunity (perhaps even a few chances) and you piss it away, that now becomes your problem, not mine. I owe you nothing more and either does the government.

If everyone takes your advice to get a Ph.D.in rocket science some rocket scientists will end up shoveling shit and that may be you.

I never said this, and I actually wouldn't give this advice. In most cases, pursuing an advanced degree is not a wise financial decision. The need and demand for scientists and engineers determines the pay grade. If everyone was a scientist, then there would be a labor surplus that would drive down wages for this profession. However, there would be a massive shortage of shit shovelers. And, the wage for this job would be higher than a scientist. And, if that were the case, I would suggest that the scientists be given an opportunity to reeducate themselves in the art of shoveling. Supply and demand, baby!

9. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #244772 by Scot Rafkin on September 9, 2008 at 12:36 pm

Al, Gregg,

It's not just about salary, but lost income. At 41, I've spent most of life in school. I just finished paying off my student loans from grad school. I make a pretty good salary now, but I've only been at it for ~10 years. I've forgone at least 10 years of income because of grad school and accumulated debt while doing so. I've also lost out on the interest I would have earned on that 10 years of income.

I'm not complaining. I could have been a plumber. But, I don't enjoy plumbing, and while they generally don't shovel shit, they fix shitty pipes. I hate plumbing. I enjoy what I do know. I haven't really lost money, I've subsidized myself so that I would enjoy my life. Now, if the typical plumber made, say $300K/year, I would have seriously considered becoming a plumber out of high school. Then, I could have retired at 35 and then gone to grad school.

10. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #244762 by Scot Rafkin on September 9, 2008 at 12:29 pm

Decius,

Even Joe should be given the opportunity. I don't have a lot of confidence in his success though.

11. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #244756 by Scot Rafkin on September 9, 2008 at 12:22 pm

SPS,

Absolutely. The market will do this. If you wanta good shit shoveler, expect to pay more. If you want just a run-of-the-mill shit shoveler, you might get away paying less. Pay me enough, and I'll shovel shit. Everyone has their price.

12. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #244751 by Scot Rafkin on September 9, 2008 at 12:16 pm

1477. Comment #244746 by Bonzai

Yes, but if shoveling shit is a necessary service at least the people who do it deserve to get good pay.

I disagree. They should be given the opportunity to advance out of the shit-shoveling profession through their own hard work. This could be through accessible education or through other means.

The idea of a "liveable" minimum wage is misplaced. A minimum wage job should be a stepping stone, not a career. If you want to shovel shit or flip burgers your whole life than be prepared to receive the appropriate wages.

13. 'Climate crisis' needs brain gain

Comment #244744 by Scot Rafkin on September 9, 2008 at 12:02 pm

Gregg,

Motives are important to consider. For those that think we need to act now, I wonder if that's because of their concern for the world as a whole or a concern for their own personal way of life (or their kids). Although I accept AGW, it's not obvious to me that it is a bad thing as a whole. Sure, if you're countries high point is 3' above sea level, it sucks. But, if you're living in unarable arctic tundra, things may be looking up. Northern Canada and Siberia could become the world's bread basket. I've also heard predictions about the disease, famine, and political and social unrest that will visit countries in the tropics and subtropics. You know, as opposed to what we have now.

I'm pretty sure that even if the global temperature rises 5C, humans will be quite abundant. We'll be living differently, but we'll do just fine. I'm more worried about theocratic facists nuking us into oblivion.

Finally, let's be realistic. CO2 production isn't going to stop anytime soon. At best, we might be able to slow the rate of increase, not stop it.

14. 'Climate crisis' needs brain gain

Comment #244713 by Scot Rafkin on September 9, 2008 at 10:50 am

Locri,

I'm in complete agreement, for the most part. I have no problem with Hansen making outrageous statements, but he needs to make it clear that he is speaking as a concerned citizen rather than as a scientist advocating extreme policy. His science should speak for itself, without a megaphone. Likewise, Gore is certainly free to spout what he wants, but frankly, no one should listen to him. I'm pretty sure he has only a shallow understanding of AGW. As such, he is just parroting back what he's been told and believes. I'd be much more inclined to listen to Gore if he was suggesting policy based on the science consensus. But, he's not. He's trying to convince us of the science. He's not qualified to do that.

15. 'Climate crisis' needs brain gain

Comment #244691 by Scot Rafkin on September 9, 2008 at 10:15 am

Continuing the way OT...

Severalspeciesof,

I didn't know that about Alan Parson's. My reference was to the more recent Austin Powers movies. Thanks for the trivia. I'm a classic rock fan and I like to accumulate these sorts of useless tidbists of info!

The numerous coincidences you have pointed out surely point to the existence of a divine creator. There can be no other explanation.

16. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #244684 by Scot Rafkin on September 9, 2008 at 10:09 am

Al,

I don't think Bonzai or Mitchell are advocating a strict socialist state, just as I don't think you are advocating a captalist state with no government interference. It seems to me that the issue is at what point does government assistance and reallocation of resources become too much? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we all agree that some intrusion is necessary. But, where is the line? As I accumulate life experience, I've gone increasingly more toward a libertarian position.

Governmental reallocation can be a tremendous help, but it can also enable destructive behavior. Further complicating this is that uniform government assistance can have both effects simultaneously. Welfare does help some lift themselves out of poverty. But, it also drives some into an endless generational cycle of poverty. If you kill welfare, you eliminate the poverty-enabling aspect, but you also eliminate its economic benefit to some. The choice then is to either tinker with the existing system to try and increase the benefit while decreasing the downside, or scrap it and start over with something with more promise.

I'm in favor of scrapping much of the current system. Some of it needs to just go away permanently. Some of it needs to be replaced with something more promising.

[Edit for punctuation]

17. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #244665 by Scot Rafkin on September 9, 2008 at 9:53 am

Frankus, Al:

The "grade" story is a good one, but one could also twist it a bit more. In some many cases, students with poor grades are in their predicament, because the playing field isn't level. For example, they have to work full time while going to school, because they don't have a trust fund. Or, because they went to a crappy inner-city school and weren't properly prepared.

I'm in favor of some level of government intrusion to provide reasonable help in these situations, as long as it doesn't infringe upon or discriminate against others (e.g., affirmative action is out of the question). However, there is a threshold where some becomes too much. Life isn't fair, and that's an important thing to learn. Sometimes you just have to work a bit harder than everyone else to improve your situation. It sucks, but that's just the way its. You can't completely level the playing field in every dimension. Even unadulterated socialism can't do this.

18. 'Climate crisis' needs brain gain

Comment #244656 by Scot Rafkin on September 9, 2008 at 9:37 am

Decius,

You just missed it. I had a big bbq this weekend with several of my fellow practitioners and conspirators. We came up with our next strategy, which we've decided to code name "Plan 9 from Outer Space" or "The Alan Parson's Project".

OK...seriously...I'm sure I have a better grasp than most on the actual science behind AGW. I certainly have the foundational training and even started off doing research on Earth meteorology and climate. But, I don't consider myself expert enough to come to a fully informed opinion. I defer to my colleagues. I trust them, and I trust the scientific process. There's no doubt that politics are in play regarding some aspects of AGW-driven policy, but the scientific process backing AGW is clean.

19. 'Climate crisis' needs brain gain

Comment #244634 by Scot Rafkin on September 9, 2008 at 9:17 am

Decius,

We should all rely on what science tells us rather than using our own armchair science. And, just as in evolution, there is an overwhelming consensus on AGW. One can argue against AGW or evolution, but none of it will bend my ear unless they are successful in publishing their criticisms in a scientific peer-review journal.

A discussion of what to do about AGW is certainly a good and proper discussion to have. Even so, we must at some point rely on experts to perform cost-benefit and risk analyses and, hopefully, experts will come to a consensus. I'm not qualified to do this, nor am I qualified to argue about the accuracy of such analyses.

20. 'Climate crisis' needs brain gain

Comment #244609 by Scot Rafkin on September 9, 2008 at 8:48 am

I'm continually amazed that the majority of people somehow feel qualified to participate in a debate about the veracity of anthropogenic global warming. How many of those that adamantly support one position have ever had any formal education in meteorology or climatology? How many understand the physics and mathematics behind radiative transfer? How many understand the climate models: the underlying physics and numerics? How many understand the representation of clouds in climate models? How many understand or have studied the sensitivities of the climate system to perturbations? How many have actually gone into the peer-reviewed literature, read, and understood the papers in addition to all the references upon which the work is based? How many understand the principles of remote sensing that allow inversion of radiance to temperature measurements?

If you want to have an opinion based on watered down press releases, discover magazine and shows produced for the national geographic channel, that's your business. But, don't try to argue for or against AGW like you actually have a clue.

For some reason, everyone is an expert on topics like AGW and evolution (maybe they stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night), but seem to lack the same level of expertise in microbiology, nuclear engineering, and theoretical physics.
Most folks are as qualified to debate the topic of AGW as they are to discuss the finer points of cosmology with Hawking.

21. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #243302 by Scot Rafkin on September 5, 2008 at 11:50 am