Evil and Good, 3rd

I just realized I've made a terrible PC error - I've implied that strictly homosexual individuals are at least bad for the species and possibly evil. That is at least partly incorrect for several reasons. In most of human history and in most of human cultures, simply because of the relative strengths and social structures, the sexual orientation of female human has had little effect upon human reproduction. So that has not been a factor in what is good or bad. In just the last century or so, that has changed for a significant part of the world (mostly the European/western cultures), but remains (mostly) in effect for the majority of the human cultures. Even male homosexuality, historically and culturally, has been controlled and had little effect. But even without that, the lesson from evolution (where I'm trying to base ultimate good and evil) is that a homosexual individual who helps siblings, nieces, and nephews prosper is likely serving a positive good. The current social change where homosexual behavior is removed from the family connection is more dangerous, and I would argue that proselyting for a strictly homosexual lifestyle as a good in and of itself, without regard for family connections is likely an evil. Note that by this standard, homosexual marriage and adoption are not evil.

Not surprisingly, the basic evil of working against your our species survival gets complicated as you examine how to react or evaluate real world situations. Does that mean you should always have as many kids as you can? I think not, if also means that they will not survive to reproduce themselves, or that they will be in poor physical/mental condition due to scant resources and thus be less likely to be able to succeed at the complications of life themselves. Remember, in an evolutionary sense, it is not personal survival that counts, but the survival of offspring that can and will also reproduce successfully. In human cultures, especially more technical and dense (i.e., existing in high population densities), the complexity of the social "rules" take real effort and time to learn. Just look at how long it takes your average teenager to act like an adult for some hint of this. So having lots of children is often shortsighted, in a species survival sense. But by the same token, I can argue that choosing to have no children is generally a poor, and maybe even evil choice. If a biological evolutionary sense, you have become a zero. Indeed, by not allowing your genetic heritage to be spread into the future, you may very well be damaging the human species - a true evil. The problem with this logic is that it can lead to the political abuses of eugenics. I have no problem with eugenics as a personal choice, but a huge problem with eugenics as a government mandated program - or even something the government encourages. So, the only exceptions to doing evil by deciding not to have kids are 1) you determine that you are not fit, or 2) you determine that your value in a cultural/scientific/societal sense is so high that it more than negates the lack of offspring. The latter, of course, requires a very high opinion of not only yourself, but what you are accomplishing in life. And self evaluation is always suspect. The only true test of the second would be, I think, societal recognition.

Good and Evil

For some reason, I've been giving a fair amount of thought to the problem of good and evil. Not why they exist, but rather are there any absolutes when talking about good and evil, or are they just cultural constructs. We need to start with biology and evolution. To talk about good or evil in the context of an extinct species strikes me a silly at best - the concepts are irrelevant when the entity acting does not exist. So, maintaining survival is a necessary condition to even discuss good and evil. But it is a mistake to just focus upon individual survival. The indications from biology and evolution are that species survival is the true goal, so good will generally result from actions that improve species survival, while evil will generally decrease that chances for species survival. Once that standard is accepted, there are absolute goods and absolute evils that can be defined for a species. Since our species is Homo sapiens, let's discuss what those absolutes might be. They should be things that seem obvious, in fact, so obvious that they are hard to define, or even think of. The first one I could think of is that humans do not eat their own young. This is an absolute evil for the human species because of the pattern of reproduction human have - relatively few children, with long dependencies upon parents. Note this would not be an evil for a species with a different pattern. Guppies, for example, happily eat their own young, but they have relatively many young and basically no dependency upon their parents. What is good or evil for guppies many not represent what is good or evil for humans.

Origins of Political Order

I recently read "Origins of Political Order" by Fukuyama and was very impressed - and a little upset too - many of hte themes he presents are themes I've been playing with for several years in an attempt to understand why political system succeed or fail. "Origins" is certainly more convincing and helpful that Diamond's "Collapse", which I found - frankly - to be simplistic and written with an agenda in mind. "Origins" on the other hand, does an excellent job of integrating politics, power, biology, religion, and ideas into a reasonable picture of how historic political systems came to be. It does not address the current global political structures, since the analysis ends at about 1800. But he has promised a sequal to address development since that time.

While I found it to be a comfortable read, it isn't an easy read, and one compliant I have is that Fukuyama tends to be a little to free with some technical jargon and historic allusions that could use more definition and support.

If you are interested in what makes a political system durable, and what factors historically weakened political systems, I strongly recommend this book.

Fishing again!

Another great day. A friend of mine has access to a private reach of the upper Arkansas River, near Leadville, and we spent the morning fishing it. 8 kept (a limit for both of us). They were caught a variety of flies, including copper johns, matuka streamers, tarantulas,and pheasant tails. Nice variety of fish, including browns, brookies, and one cuttthroat. Sizes were really nice, ranging from 9 inches to 14. This is the second fishing trip in one week - If I can keep this up, I might feel like I'm retired!

Fishing

I love to fish and had a great day on the south fork of the South Platte yesterday. I started with a #12 wooley bugger, then used a #10 elk hair caddis with a #16 brazzie dropped, and then switched to a #12 bead headed pheasant tail dropper. Got three good strikes on the wooley bugger and landed a nice 14 inch rainbow. The brazzie got me nothing, but the pheasant tail got me about 6 8 inch browns. And best of all, I was the only person fishing I saw all morning! It was a great day fishing!

Treasure Creed

Over the last several years, I've been playing with the idea of trying to state my "creed" for life is a fairly simple way. This is where I am now with that effort:

If you have a job,
Do it.
If you need to know something,
Learn it.
Your family is special,
Honor it.
Your country is special,
Defend it.
You are special,
Take care of yourself.
Keep a smile on your face.

This stuff seems so self evident, that, to me, it warrents no discussion. But I'm sure others would say something entirely different. For example, the whole question of God and religion is absent - and to many people, that is the first thing they would mention. It's interesting that the first thing I mention is work ("a job"). Of course, that's also reflected in my favorite Bible verse - Ecclesiastes 3:13 "That each of them may eat and drink, and find satisfaction in all their toil—this is the gift of God." A satisfactory life implies satisfaction in some action - and a (near) universal action is work - something you have to do whether you want to or not.