Rise of the Machines

I like to think that I'm pretty reasonable in most circumstances. I'm not generally given to hyperbole or paranoia. Sure, I talk occasionally about how conservatives and Republicans and Christians and Muslims are going to be the end of the world, what with their repressive social agendas, their thirst for war and general disdain for science and rationality. But although I do truly believe those things about those groups to varying degrees, I don't really think that the world is going to end. Sure, the oceans may rise, polar bears may go extinct, Israel and Iran may bomb the Middle East into rubble, same-sex marriage may never be legal in South Carolina and women may have to cross state lines to get a legal abortion. But the world and the human race will plod forward in some fashion. History is full of peaks and valleys and I'm sure that the 21st century will be no exception. When I say otherwise I am merely talking out of frustration, not insanity.

So when I speculate about the future of humanity in the face of technology, I am merely posing a question. I don't actually think that we are about to create SkyNet and go toe to toe with militarized robots in a struggle for our survival. But I have to wonder about our role in the future. Specifically, how will (what I perceive to be) the natural ends of Capitalism and industry leave humans? Capitalism and industry work together in symbiotic unison, each using the other to advance.

This is the part where I'm afraid I'll sound paranoid and delusional: please remember that this is just a question for discussion.

Technology has been rendering humans redundant and superfluous at an increasing pace. From the wheel to animal domestication to engines to computers, each step seeks to replace expensive and hungry and needy human labor with a well-behaved, reliable machine. Of course, there have always been plenty of jobs for humans to perform, but it isn't at all certain to me that this will continue to be the case. Manufacturing jobs are largely performed by machines and, in places where they aren't it is because human labor is either less expensive or more intuitive. But as technology improves and gets cheaper, this will be less and less true.

And there are plenty of cases where human involvement is simply a hindrance. If mass transit could be reinvented from the ground up, I'm sure that human input would be extremely minimal. It doesn't take much imagination to envision technology advancing to overtake virtually any current human tasks: pilots, maintenance workers, cooks, farmers, soldiers, firemen. All of these jobs may not be vulnerable just yet, but I don't think it is outrageous to suggest that they never will be.

Certainly humans have imagination and art and passion and curiosity, so there may always be gainful employment for some humans. Perhaps there will always be places for scientists and musicians and politicians, but are there really enough of those jobs for 8 billion people? My question is this: what will we do when machines do all of our jobs and hundreds of millions of people are no longer able to find work? Will our technology cause our population to actually shrink? Will we become a society of science surrounded by technology?

I want a time machine!

Atheists in the Architecture

A common complaint about atheists is that we're mean-spirited, obsessed with snuffing the light from the lives of believers. "If it isn't harming anybody," the believer might say, "why not just let it go? I don't care if you don't believe in god, so why do you care if I do?" 


It's a fair argument, although I believe that to a large degree religion does cause harm, and not just to the individual believer. Like second-hand smoke, religious belief can have consequences for those around. Nonetheless, I believe that atheists should reserve judgement when possible and only interject or intervene when the fight is absolutely worth having. 


A related issue is that of setting up an identity that is anti-something. It turns out that atheism is a pretty one-dimensional philosophy, which is why most atheists are also something else. I, for example, consider myself a humanist, or a vegetarian, or a political progressive, or a dog lover, or a gamer before I think of atheism. I am proud and happy to be an atheist, and I consider my god-free life to be significantly better than one based on religion, but being an atheist simply defines my attitude toward religion, which only comes up in specific contexts.

All of this brings me to atheist temples. From the linked article: ‘Why should religious people have the most beautiful buildings in the land?’ he asks. ‘It’s time atheists had their own versions of the great churches and cathedrals’.


I have a real problem with that. Atheists don't need their own versions of great churches and cathedrals. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a deity, full stop. There should be no further baggage. The proposed 'atheist temple' certainly does look beautiful, but there are plenty of structures that I find beautiful: banks, hotels, even rest stops can be beautiful. To my mind, any building that is not specifically a church, mosque or temple is an atheistic building. But I get it: there is something appealing to the idea of a building devoted to the beauty of nature and of scientific knowledge and reason. But a building that has no real purpose other than to be a 'fuck you' to religion is a bit absurd, as much as I like to give religion the finger myself.


There are already plenty of places where religious ideas do not hold any power: libraries, scientific labs, universities, national parks, museums, planetariums, etc. Believers are welcome at all of these places, but they are not designed with religion in mind. Anyone can read a book or marvel at the cosmos. Religion only fogs the lens of those who let it. 

I give up: a post in two parts

Part 1

Despite having no religion, I am not a nihilist. My morality is based on reducing the suffering and increasing the happiness of others, and I extend this principle to as many creatures as I can. I stop short of caring too much about viruses and bacteria, and although I no longer kill bugs just for the sake of it (as I did when I was a kid), I don't feel too bad about a dead mosquito.

As those who follow my blog may know, I have been struggling with the idea of exploiting animals (and humans) for food and convenience. I am a vegetarian, which was an easy step and one that I have not once regretted or reconsidered. I don't use any leather, which was a bit more challenging, although I did end up finding pleasant solutions. Most recently I have been trying to go completely vegan. This is partially fueled by health concerns as well as some practical ones. I am lactose intolerant, so cutting large amounts of cheese and real milk from my diet made sense. I've grown to love almond milk and vegan cheese pizzas, and I don't miss ice cream as much as I thought I would. And I certainly don't miss the predictable and painful stomach upset that used to accompany those items. 

I wanted to avoid hypocrisy, and I truly wanted to stay as close as possible to my principles of decreasing suffering and increasing happiness. Dairy cows are not happy animals. Laying chickens are not happy animals either. In fact, an argument could be made that some of these animals are worse off than their bred-for-food counterparts. I don't know if I would agree with that perspective, but I've heard it made and it's a compelling idea. So the step toward veganism makes sense. Except that there's a step beyond that. And one beyond that as well. No matter how far I go to be kind and gentle and humane, there are people and sentient creatures who are harmed and humiliated and killed. 

I can't help the harm that is caused to bring me the lifestyle that we are all used to. And just because I can't be perfect, it doesn't follow that I shouldn't even bother. But after a point it becomes tiring and I don't know if my spirit is really up for it. Chinese workers threaten mass suicide because of appalling conditions at the plant where they work building the XBox that I spent all day playing. I know this, I feel terrible about it, and when my current XBox dies I will drive out immediately and buy a new one.

So yes, I am hypocritical. I am aware that my actions cause pain to others and damage to the environment. And for the first time, I think I understand the motivations behind people who are aware of the horror of factory farming and still eat meat. I don't agree with their decision, but I understand it. I don't agree with my decision to eat eggs and butter.

Part 2

This is all a part of my decision to withdraw a little bit. I was wandering through a bookstore recently and walked past a stand of conservative political books. I was struck with a violent anger toward all of the bigoted idiots and cruel assholes who write and read those books. And then I had an epiphany. I knew that those people would never understand. I briefly entertained the notion that they might have some valid points, but I discounted that. I don't think that they do - sure, I might be wrong on a great number of things, but I don't imagine that Glenn Beck is right on anything at all. And the thought of being an ambassador for good was just depressing and tiring. I want to change the minds of conservatives because they are destroying the world, but I don't think any progress can be made. So I gave up. 

Roughly coinciding with the New Year but not being related to it, I have resolved to no longer give a fuck. I want to live in an echo chamber and talk to people who share my point of view. I'm tired of fighting over things of substance. I still want to write about the things that enrage me and I do want to practice what I scream about, but I'm not particularly interested in changing anyone's mind.

So I have stopped listening to Citizen Radio (a podcast that I really can't recommend highly enough) even though (or maybe because) they were the only people who constantly challenged me to be a better person. No one else in my life really does that. Everyone else is happy with me the way that I am; everyone but me. But I'm tired of feeling guilty about everything. I'm tired of trying to be better. For now I'll just try to be good.

A brief ramble about virginity

I'm sure I've written about this before, but as usual I'm too lazy to actually look it up.

We've been watching Downton Abbey (late to the game again, but we're catching up!) and without going into spoilers or plot points, someone's virginity/virtue is taken and she is considered by everyone, including herself, to be a lost cause. Simply because she had sex without being married, even though the sex [spoiler alert, I guess] was kind of rapey. Once again I find myself enraged with the absurd reverence placed on virginity. I grew up in a very conservative, very religious home, so the idea of virginity as a kind of currency is not new to me. It isn't really new to anyone - we in the modern world (in America, at least) place a very high and almost ubiquitous premium on virginity. It's in our language (think 'virgin forest') and it means 'unspoiled.'

Clearly this is an idea taken completely from religion, since a woman's virginity (I know that men can be virgins too, but no one cares about that) has no real relevance in secular society. It's true that there is an evolutionary basis for jealousy of a kind, but from a modern, practical standpoint there is no difference at all between a woman or man who has had sex with one, two, fifteen or twenty different partners.

I guess I don't have a real practical solution to propose here. It's just something that bothers me because it's a stupid, pointless and potentially damaging thing to value. And I don't mean to suggest that virgins are just as good as non-virgins; I mean that virgins are just as good as Virgos. That is, the very definition has no value and should not be used.