Media, Technology and Society

Finally. Radical Wingnuts and Religious Nutcases Explained by Economic Theory

I was always wondering why for example, someone might a) believe that global warming is refuted by various passages in the bible and yet b) drive a car in a reasonably rational manner, avoiding running through stop lights given the rational expectation of having a car accident. How can someone who demonstrates their lunacy on the one hand at the same time behave in a rational way when it comes to other aspects of life? Well, according to the Economist,

"Being irrational may even be rational, according to some rationalists. Irrationality can be a good to be consumed like any other, argues Bryan Caplan, an economist at George Mason University—in the sense that the less it costs a person, the more of it they buy. A peculiar feature of beliefs about politics and religion, he says, is that the costs to an individual of error are “virtually non-existent, setting the private cost of irrationality at zero; it is therefore in these areas that irrational views are most apparent.” Maybe, although Mr Caplan may grow sick of having those views read back to him for eternity should he ever end up in hell." Dec 16, 1999 "Rethinking Thinking"

So there you have it folks. People are crazy because the individual costs of error approximate zero. Incidentally, religious freaks may have the last laugh. If, by being a religious freak and thinking that all questions and even, yes, global warming is explained by the bible, they lower their stress level and thereby prolong their life, who has the last laugh? Perhaps, it would be best to pull a Diderot maneuver, become a religious nutcase, benefit from the stress reduction that comes with believing all universal questions to have been completely and utterly answered, and then...on my deathbed...recant it all! Brilliant, I say, brilliant.

Hey little girl, want some candy?

It seems like every other person charged with pedophilia these days is a priest. Why is that? I have known many priests and they have been nothing but fine people (from what I know of them) and I don't want to generalize unfairly....but this is ridiculous. Why is it that the priesthood seems to attract people who will abuse their position-power, and/or would have the inclination to do so? I get tired of reading about priests luring little girls/boys to their rectory with promises of "candy." Ew.

[Charles] Sylvestre, 83, of Belle River, pleaded guilty Thursday to 47 counts of indecent assault against young girls from the early 1950s to early 1980s. It's believed to be North America's largest case of priest sex abuse in a non-residential school setting. On Thursday, following the guilty pleas, 21 of 47 victim impact statements were read to Ontario Court Justice Brice Thomas in a packed court.

The others, including Petcoff's statement, are expected Sept. 22. when the case resumes in court in Chatham. Petcoff heard the heart-breaking testimonials Thursday, some from school chums. The victims in the case were all girls, ages about nine to 14, in some of Sylvestre's parishes in Windsor, Sarnia, Chatham and Pain Court during his 40-year career as a priest." (from London Free Press, Aug 6, 2006)

Does the biologically unnatural sexual repression that come with the priesthood create people like this, or does it attract people who are pedophilic in nature to begin with? Shouldn't the Church do something about this rather than pretend it doesn't exist? So disgustingly gross...

Pope Affirms Traditional Marriage in Spain

The Pope visited Spain yesterday to bolster support for traditional marriage and to voice his political opposition to Zapatero's socialist government and its legalization of gay marriage in 2005. The Pope had this to say:

"Certainly, we come from our parents and we are their children," he said. "But we also come from God who has created us in his image and called us to be his children.

"Consequently, at the origin of every human being there is not something haphazard or chance, but a loving plan of God."

I love my parents, I really do, but the heterosexual union that gives rise to children has less to do with "loving plans" than with...that's right, avoiding disease and increasing the incidence of genetic mutation.

Why is genetic mutation so desirable? Well, sexual reproduction is a characteristic of more advanced species. You see, because there are different sexes, males and females can travel in different geographic areas, you know and do their thing. The fact that they move around, and associate with (hopefully) different pools of genetic material, reduces the chance that segregated groups of people will continually select traits from the same (possibly vulernable) pool of genes.

Asexual reproduction has the disadvantage of reducing the ease with which genetic mutations can be produced, and increasing the vulnerability of that species to disease and parasites (which also evolve...!). 

By having sexes, our species increases its odds that adventurous men and women will wander far and wide, mate and reproduce, and create especially disease resistant offspring. Thinking back to the time when size, intelligence, and other factors perhaps had more of a role in determining who lived and died before the age of reproduction, genetic diversity was absolutely essential to species survival. It is unclear to what extent extra-genetic factors like modern medicine are affecting what genetic traits are being favoured at this point, but it is undeniable that this process is still occuring.

If the pope could just work a little more genetic mutation and disease resistance talk into his delightfully enchanting discussion of God's "loving plan" and other assorted discussions of marriage, and heterosexuality, that would be great.

On Religiosity, Same Sex Marriages and Birthrate

A friendly and articulate blog author wrote the following which caused me to do some thinking and come up with a detailed response. It concerns what I believe to be a slight misconception about the relationship of same-sex marriage to birth rates, and then evolves into a statistically supported generalization about the relation between the following variables: education (college and university), personal/familial wealth, religiosity, and birth-rates. I made these connections to point out some fairly intuitive and statistically supported relationships between these variables, and how this relationships is played out on a global scale. This analysis is mostly positivistic, with obvious normative connotations which I may detail at a later time.

The catalyst in question is the following:

"And, in the case of conservative Christian right states like Idaho and Utah (two of the "reddest" states in the 2004 elections) how much of that projected population growth would be due to a greater emphasis on the value of families (and correspondingly larger family sizes) vs. a smaller number of practitioners of liberal "rights" such as abortion-on-demand and same-gender relationships-- both obviously dampers on childbirth rates."

Positivist Section:

The issue in question is that I can't quite understand why same-sex relationships would have any significant affect on child-birth rates (I say same-sex, because gender and sex are not the same thing. Gender is culturally contingent, while sex is biological). From what I understand, many same sex couples choose to adopt children, while others don't. Strictly speaking, same sex unions cannot produce children, but they may choose to (and do) use surrogate parents, in order to have families, in which case they may increase the birth rate marginally (given that homosexuals constitute 10% of the population, surrogate-birth same sex couples may actually marginally increase the birth rate). Though perhaps as a group, they might be expected to produce less children per-capita than would "breeders" or heterosexual individuals. That said, the number of heterosexual individuals in society and their affect on birth-rates (if any) would not increase or decrease whether "same sex" unions are legally allowable or not. The number of people who are heterosexual or homosexual is independent of cultural or legal norms.

In any case, I can't see how same sex unions will (or would) decrease birthrate. The only possible way this view could be substantiated if one takes the view that if same sex unions were "not allowed" somehow, or made culturally unacceptable, such that most (or many) homosexuals decided to repress their nature and have children within (culturally sanctioned) heterosexual relationships (that they wouldn't otherwise have in same-sex relationships with surrogate partners). For same-sex couplings to result in a reduction of birth rate among this group, the birth rate from forced (culturally expected, or individually submitted to) couplings with a homosexual partner, would have to exceed the birth rate of same-sex couples with surrogate partners (a view which is possible, but certainly not inevitable, and in any case, this circumstance would be counter to the wishes of homosexual individuals, who naturally would prefer to have children in a same-sex relationship).

Normative Section, and Global View of these (and other) Relationships (or variables):

My point in writing this response is to critique the idea that same-sex couples are necessarily childless, or that they are excluded from the notion of what a "family" is.

The notion of what a "family" is is by no means exclusive to Christians or the religious for that matter.

Lastly, in identifying secularism as the independent variable in determining childbirth rates, one is making the assumption that there are no conflating variables obscuring other actual, or more likely causal factors or variables. Among these could include such well known birth-rate inhibitors as education and wealth rates.

Both increasing education and wealth (both of which are coincidental variables) are correlated with decreasing childbirth rates.

Incidentally, religiosity and childbirth are, as you correctly point out, correlated.

However, again, a conflating variable is at work, and that variable is poverty and lack of education.

It is not an accidental paradigm that being poor, being uneducated (in relative, western college terms) and being religious tend to coincide, resulting in a global equation of mostly rich, educated, secular nations with low birthrates standing in stark contrast to poor, under-educated, religious nations with very high birthrates (see pew global research studies)

Notable exceptions to this generalization include the United States (highly religious) and Vietnam (relatively poor, but quite secular).

Hail the Pope Benedict XVI!

Or should that be heil? No matter, atleast one can now reasonably expect that the global, media-induced frenzy of popomania will now gradually subside as many people voice their muted disgruntlement concerning the latest pick.

I just finished wandering through the web, looking at the new york times, BBC, CBC and other outlets and their take on the lates pope (formerly Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger).

Many anonymous commentators from the BBC expressed disappointment, feeling that this new pope would only exacerbate a growing sense that Europe and the Catholic Church are going seperate ways.

Looking over his biography I have to say, its quite interesting.

*Served in the Wermacht (Germany Army) in WWII. He deserted and was later found in an allied POW camp.

The BBC has the following interesting footnote:

"Schooled in the Nazis' power of rhetoric during his childhood in Bavaria..." These are interesting footnotes, but they infer nothing about his character. Anyone of his age of German descent, would have naturally had to come in contact with national socialist state practices (including education etc). Also the Wermacht is properly understood as the German Army, not the "nazi army." It was obviously under the control of the party's military leaders, but it was not a partly loyalist militia as was the SS under Himmler.

*Rose in the Catholic Church in the following post-war decades, is well known for his arch-conservative leanings, particularly his fierce opposition to the ordination of women, liberation theologians and progressive social ideas. 

*A trained classical concert pianist (always a good thing).

*In his post as a prominent Catholic theologian in German educational institutions in the 1960s, he was "horrified" by Marxist commentators and ideologues.

The BBC summarizes of his past theological legacy,

"Pope Benedict has consistently pursued doctrine that can endure, independent of cultural or social trends. He argues that only with a completely separate values system can the Church offer individual freedom. His critics call this "papal fundamentalism", but the Pope is unflappable in his personal theology." http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/profile/

So, what does it mean to have former Cardinal Ratzinger as the new Pope Benedict XVI?

I think it may entail, as I've already mentioned, a continued falling out with socially progressive and generally secular Europe (Only 20% of Europeans say the Church is "very important to them" (Pew Research Centre, 2004-05)).

One also suspects, as one commentator on the BBC espoused, that this new pope may be a disappointment to many if he brings the conservatism of John Paul II to the fore, without John Paul's "heart." His preference for intellectual over populist ecclesiasticism may send the Church into an increasing spiral of irrelevance in Europe, Canada and among the world's youth.

In Africa, many parts of Asia and the uniquely highly-theistic industrialized nation, the USA, the new pope may bring hope for a new order of moral conservatism. The idea of a Church that "stands firm" against the changing tides of progressive social practices, beliefs and opinions will certainly be pleasing to social conservatives in these parts of the world.

Another matter to keep in mind however, is the age of the newly elected pontiff. At 78, it is reasonable to expect a relatively short reign, in comparison to John Paul II anyway.

Advocates for change in the Church's fundamental point of view can atleast hope that within a decade, a more moderate, socially progressive successor will be elected.

Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga of Tegucigalpa might be a good choice, if that eventuality does occur.

To touch on a previous point, perhaps its a good thing that an arch-conservative has been elected pope. If the Church does become increasingly irrelevant, is that not a good thing from the point of view of secular humanists and the socially progressive? Certainly, it wouldn't hurt the global AIDS crisis, and it might lead to the greater equality of groups of people historically disenfranchised by the old white men of the Vatican elite (women, homosexuals, etc).