Advocacy and climate research

The latest furore to erupt in the climate blogosphere concerns whether climate scientists undermine their credibility by engaging in advocacy? (For some responses, see James Annan, Gretchen Goldman and HB&H.)

As it happens, I recently wrote a term-paper on this exact issue for my philosophy of science class. I've decided to make it available here for those who are interested in this debate!

To summarise, I don't see anything inherently wrong with scientists engaging in political advocacy, as long as they are explicit in their intentions... and the scope of their expertise. (E.g. I often see physical scientists make strong pronouncements about economic matters and that makes me uncomfortable.) One climate scientist whom I feel always struck a good balance on these issues and quote in my term-paper is the late Stephen Schneider. To channel Schneider: Our response to climate change must be underpinned by scientific facts, but it should ultimately also be reflective of society's value judgements -- including those of our scientists.

Some brief points/caveats:

• This was a “pass/fail” essay, aimed at gaining admission to sit the exam, and I hope that you’ll evaluate the material accordingly. That said, the emphasis on citations and quotations probably means that it provides a good overview of the issues.
• Apart from scientists working on the physical basis for climate change, I also tried to pay special attention to the role of economists. The Stern Review, which many people regard as the archetypal blend of economics and advocacy, therefore comes in for special attention.

Click to read the term-paper.

UPDATE: I've just finished listening to a very interesting discussion between the climate scientists, Gavin Schmidt, Richard Betts and Judith Curry, on this precise topic. I am again struck by something that was very clear to me whilst researching my essay: The various sides all seem to agree on the principles (i.e. being open about one’s area of expertise and clear on your value judgements when advocating for policy). The real sticking point appears to be one of application.

Sam Harris on "Life Without Free Will"

He is on top form in this one.

Here is a passage that resonates particularly strongly with my own meta-views of morality:

If we cannot assign blame to the workings of the universe, how can evil people be held responsible for their actions? In the deepest sense, it seems, they can’t be. But in a practical sense, they must be. I see no contradiction in this. In fact, I think that keeping the deep causes of human behavior in view would only improve our practical response to evil. The feeling that people are deeply responsible for who they are does nothing but produce moral illusions and psychological suffering.

Indeed. For more on these ideas ideas, see this old post which quotes liberally from an outstanding article by Frans De Waal.

Back to Harris, there's some dark humour mixed in with the profundity:

[M]y wife and I recently took our three-year-old daughter on an airplane for the first time. She loves to fly! As it happens, her joy was made possible in part because we neglected to tell her that airplanes occasionally malfunction and fall out of the sky, killing everyone on board.

Rhino horn! Homeopathy! Psychics!

A few weeks ago, the South African government announced that it was appointing a team to reconsider the ban on the trade in rhino horn. In short, the idea is that SA could kill two birds with one stone by capitalising on what is effectively an extremely lucrative market. Since a single rhino horn is estimated to fetch $500,000 on the Asian black market, government stock piles of the stuff (from culling and thwarted poaching operations) could actually bring in substantial revenue towards conservation efforts.

Take things a bit further and you could easily argue that the ability to legally farm and "harvest" these animals generally would bring the same positive effects that hunting does for wildlife conservation. That is, it establishes a profit motive that incentivises the preservation of valuable animal species.

Save a horny friend?

The libertarian journalist, Ivo Vegter, penned a provocative column shortly thereafter in support of the government announcement. Unsurprisingly, the essay captures some of the essence of free-market environmentalist thinking. Contrasting the fortunes of sheep with dwindling rhino numbers, he writes that the ban on rhino horn has undermined market incentives for managing these animals:

If they want rhino horn, let's sell them some 

Sheep aren't endangered, because farmers farm them. They have a vested interest in making sure that they breed and stay healthy. The profit motive ensures that sheep are either kept alive (in the case of the woolly kind) or get killed less frequently than they get born (in the case of the eating kind).

Most economists would fully appreciate the logic of utilizing these types of incentives and market signals. I readily agree with the notion that ending the ban on rhino horn could be a boon for the rhino population. However, I do have problems with a subsequent paragraph:

Many environmentalists and armchair liberals are of the view that “we” merely need to educate the backward Orientals about the lack of medicinal qualities of rhino horn. This is rich coming from a group that routinely advocates the use of unproven herbal remedies. It is also supremely condescending. Imagine the Chinese coming to Africa and telling us to stop using muti, or better yet, instructing wealthy elites about the superstition that homeopathy works. We'd tell them to mind their own business and sod off back to China, and rightly so. Even if the Vietnamese and Chinese are wrong about rhino horn, re-educating half a billion people is as tyrannical as it sounds. And even the communists failed at that.

Apart from being wonderfully ironic in highlighting his own condescension -- something, it must be said, that Ivo does not lack for when discussing "greens" or "liberals" -- this paragraph merely serves to sidestep some very important ethical issues. The morality of selling unproven (say nothing of cruelly obtained) substances for human well-being cannot be simply disentangled from its economic outcomes. Indeed, a commentator draws attention to the matter by asking: "How can it be it ethically conscionable to sell, at huge profit, a remedy that has been proven to have absolutely no efficacy? SA should peddle rhino horn to cancer patients . . . shall we also farm and sell African potatoes to people who believe they will cure AIDS? How about exporting a few of our local evangelists to exploit the gullible in exchange for miracle cures while we are about it?" (posted on Wed, 5 Oct 2011 at 12:12)

Ivo responds, but I rather think he draws a line on the wrong side of this issue. To quote the truism: Two wrongs don't make a right... And just because some new-age salesmen are able to peddle their snakeoil wares to Western consumers -- under false pretences and without accurate labeling -- does not provide satisfactory justification for encouraging (or even allowing) others to do the same. Moreover, suggesting that it does, is simply to argue your case by association.

In another sense though, Ivo is quite right because inconsistency can be a maddening thing. The difference between us, is that I would like to see consistency achieved via some form of standard regulation -- at the very least in terms of evaluating product claims and policing false advertising -- rather than a free-for-all. Given the vast asymmetries of information involved, these are the type of situations where Government (and, yes, civil society at large) can play a crucial role in improving market outcomes; by providing accurate information on product effectiveness and regulating products that might otherwise thrive on fraudulent claims. More to the point, this why precisely we expect our doctors and drugs to be licensed in modern democracies, and why we have empowered state authorities to do so on our behalf.

===

I was reminded of all this today when I saw this morning's xkcd strip, which might accurately be described as what happens when homeopathy gets into the book publishing business:

Sad, but true.

Also worth reading is the "tooltip text" that you can see if you hover over the image on the actual xkcd site. It explains the inspiration for this particular strip thusly: "I just noticed that CVS has started stocking homeopathic pills on the same shelves with -- and labelled similarly to -- their actual medicine. Telling someone who trusts you that you are giving them medicine, when you know you're not, because you want their money, isn't just lying -- it's like an example that you'd make up if you had to illustrate for a child why lying is wrong". [UPDATE: See this post.]

===

Let me leave you with one more story that has been making the rounds in the run-up to Halloween, which highlights that fine line between deception and self-delusion. A group of skeptics (not the climate change kind!) has been offering a million dollar prize to anyone that can prove, under scientifically acceptable standards, that they posses paranormal abilities. Not content to see their money go unspent, the skeptics have publicly courted a number of high-profile TV psychics (e.g. Britain's Sally Morgan) and invited them to take up the challenge.

And, would you believe it, none of these self-proclaimed psychics have responded to this wonderful opportunity to earn international fame and scientific respect... say nothing of the cool seven-figure cheque. I know, I know... Unbelievable. The brilliant Derren Brown sums up the situation thusly:

You’d think psychics would be very eager to prove they can really do it. There’s a million dollar prize fund to be won by any psychic who can show under reasonable and controlled conditions (which they can decide upon in conjunction with the scientists) that what they do is real. This is money that could be kept or given to charity of course, not to mention the likelihood of also receiving a Nobel prize and the ability to give the world vital new knowledge that would change us forever. Imagine that! If I woke up to find that I could really do it, I’d be a selfish and odd creature to offer it only to TV viewers and theatre audiences. I’d be out there, doing every test I could until the scientific establishment sat up and listened. You’d be forgiven for doubting my sincerity if I said I had better things to do. 

"I  see  hear dead people. LOL!"

As far as "forcing" he likes of Sally Morgan to take the test, this seems to be most unsatisfactory solution and one that would impinge on any number of individual rights. However, there is the lingering sense that it is simply very wrong to charge grieving people for a service that amounts to little more than selling them outright lies at particularly vulnerable times in their lives. (Although, perhaps comfort is more important than truth in some circumstances?) In that sense, I'm glad she's being called out... Though I don't hold any hopes of either side being convinced.

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY: You often hear it said that economics is not a morality play. Perhaps there's some cold comfort in learning that, apparently, neither is the psychic business.
___
[*] I do wonder about the practicals implications of actually farming these animals, and whether doing so would actually lead to a collapse in poaching. After all, poachers would still be able to capture substantial "rents" through their illegal actions, so long as breeding and raising a fully grown rhino remains an expensive exercise. That, however, is a subject for another day.

Should pregnant women be banned from smoking?

In several recent posts, Dan Kuehn advanced the notion that "the future" is, in some sense, an autarkic regime... Basically, that people in the future simply aren't able to trade/negotiate with us in a way that materially affects our decisions today. Future generations are thus unable to provide the normal market signals and incentives, which would impact our behaviour on matters that stand to directly impact them. (E.g. "We'll compensate you for investing in this technology today, as we'll desparately need it fifty years from now"; "Stop this activity as soon as possible, or we'll sue you for ruining our habitat"; etc).

This sparked off an interesting back-and-forth on, not only whether "autarky" was the correct term to use in this case, but also on whether characterising things in this manner significantly alters the way that we already think about making provisions for / sacrifices on behalf of future generations. For the record, I tend to agree with Bob Murphy that "autarky" isn't technically the right term to use, because it is simply the laws of physics that prevent the future from being able to trade with us. (Contrast, say, the autarkic regime of North Korea, which is physically able to trade with other nations, but has embarked upon a bizarre policy of self-sufficiency because of political and institutional settings.) However, I do think that Daniel's framing was useful because it serves to emphasise the remorseless, uni-directional march of time and how this should inform our policy decisions.

Now, I'm pretty interested in the intemporal trade-offs, as some of you might have guessed from my numerous posts on climate change and, more recently, sustainability. In that light, I left a comment under one of DK's "the-future-is-autarkic" posts... Effectively, the discussion reminded me of an Amartya Sen article that he wrote in support of smoking bans. The position that Sen took was interesting, because he partly appealed to the ethical distinction between a smoker's past and present self, and the inability of these two to negotiate with each other:

Unrestrained smoking is a libertarian half-way house[*]

[H]ow should we see the demands of freedom when habit-forming behaviour today restricts the freedom of the same person in the future? Once acquired, the habit of smoking is hard to kick, and it can be asked, with some plausibility, whether youthful smokers have an unqualified right to place their future selves in such bondage.

Thus, Sen was making a normative argument based on the idea that we aren't always equally "free" to make decisions when it comes to smoking. It's much easier to start the habit than it is to stop and I doubt that any plausible arguments could be made to the contrary. In the Wordsworthian sense, the young smoker is the father of the man that follows him... and yet the latter is far more constrained in his choices than the former. While certainly interesting, this is not what I want to discuss today, however -- not least because there are some very murky waters to tread when it comes to putting boundaries on personal freedom.

Here's another poser for you then: Instead of focusing on an individual smoker's freedom to do to unto themselves as they wish (consequences be damned), should pregnant women be allowed to smoke?

I ask this question after reading about a new British mother who smoked an astonishing 3,500 cigarettes during her pregnancy. This special individual not only exposed her baby to (apparently) six times the safe level of carbon monoxide, but -- surprise! -- successfully ensured that her child was borne underweight and premature. God only knows what medical surprises await this kid as the years roll by... However, I'll offer even money to anyone willing to bet on the mother's own professional prognosis:

I think it was my right and I don’t believe it was hurting Lilly. It’s making the baby use its heart on its own in the first place, so that when it comes out, it’s going to be able to do them things by itself. Where’s the proof that it’s so bad to smoke? - Charlie Wilcox, M.D. (not) and candidate for new mother of the year.

"I'm, like, making the baby's lungs stronger and stuff, innit."
LOL

(Source: Daily Mail via 2oceansvibe)

Is this not the most clear-cut case of a negative externality that you can imagine? Why do we -- for the most part anyway -- endorse smoking bans in public places and yet permit such direct offences to persist in the case of mother and child? Surely there is no logical consistency?

Of course, you could probably extend this argument to parent-offspring relationships in general. If secondary smoke is harmful to strangers in public places, why is it fine for parents to smoke in front of their kids in private homes? Again, there is a strong inconsistency from a purely logical perspective.

I'm interested to hear the libertarian take on this. Is the simple libertarian answer that the child would sue her mother for health ailments, emotional suffering, etc once she reaches the requisite age? [Side note: Does anyone know of such a case?] More plausibly, perhaps children are expected to negotiate with their parents about where and when they smoke in each other's company? (I say "plausible", but that still leaves the uncomfortable period when the toddler or young child is powerless to negotiate on anything resembling equal terms.)

Two caveats before any comments:

1. This is meant to be a thought exercise more than anything else. I'm not making any claims on the practicalities of policing the smoking activities of pregnant women. I'm simply interested in normative ethics at present.
2. Yes, I am discussing a particularly reckless type of parent here. I know that most people are inestimably more responsible than dear Ms Wilcox above. However, I've seen enough pregnant women smoking to know that it happens... Say nothing of smoking in the direct presence of toddlers, which is far more widespread. The point here isn't to examine what most sensible and loving parents would likely do, but to think about how we can best protect kids that are marginalised by the stupid behaviour of their parents. 

[*] Those of you who can't access the original Financial Times article, can read (most of) Sen's text of here.

Hippie Baptists and Libertarian Bootleggers

Like, take it easy, Man.

Disclaimer: I've conflated a lot of libertarianism/Austrianism in post. This was partly for simplicity, but also because I'm recalling a personal exchange where the people involved were familiar with each other's ideological beliefs. My advice before continuing; if the shoe fits, wear it. If not, don't. 

Fresh on the heels of my discussion on the roll of tort law in controlling pollution, say nothing of the asteroid vs taxes showdown, here is another take on the moral implications of dogmatic libertarianism in the presence of negative externalities. In particular, David Sobel argues that strict/deontological libertarianism takes us to untenable places if applied to climate change (and other pollution problems affecting "the commons"):

Libertarianism and Pollution

One might try saying that we are better off because people polluted, or flew, or whatever. If previous generations had been forbidden from doing this, we would have much less material wealth. But again, I might be better off if someone straps me down and involuntarily gives me a root canal, but still, I would have thought, that does not show that doing so does not violate my Libertarian rights. The polluter seems to not leave as much and as good air, water, whatever, for the rest of us, thus seemingly violating the Lockian Proviso. One might try to compensate for the loss but I don’t see how to put a price on the loss. One might give the loss a market price but I might truthfully not have been willing to make the trade at that price. One could try asking me what price I want, but that will result in strategic issues and some rabid anti-pollution folks who will not sell at any price.

Sobel continues in a follow-up post (Property Rights and Moral Seriousness), in which he basically says that failure to distinguish various degrees of rights violations forces libertarians into ridiculous positions:

Now if [all] rights violation were treated as just as morally important as taking someone’s organs against her will, then, since there will be many such rights violations as a result of the pollution, surely such pollution would be impermissible. But this would shut down much of the economy of the world we are imagining and it would radically restrict the liberties of people in such a world. 

[HT: Bleeding Heart Libertarians]

===

Without being too self-congratulatory, I've been trying to point out the same issues to dogmatic libertarian friends of mine for some time. Here is part of an email that I wrote to one such friend last year:

I actually think that the Austrian/Libertarian perspective is particularly weak in this area [i.e. dealing with climate change], given its slavish fixation on property rights. Consider the hypothetical case of some hippie refusing to bargain for any climate change impacts on his property... Let’s just imagine that his love for the environment is not for sale. As far as I understand, he would have the right to enjoin all activities threatening his property under a strict Libertarian framework. Is that correct? If so, couldn’t we literally see a complete shutdown of industry based on the preferences of a very small portion of the population?

My friend responded by saying that other people would hold vastly different subjective valuations of the hippie's property (e.g. $5 versus $5 trillion). Following this, he made the assertion that: "Whatever our subjective valuations are, there will be a market price for this against which the hippie's claim would be measured, to see whether it is reasonable or not." He went on to add that the courts would eventually decide who's claim is most reasonable. I replied:

You haven't answered the question... And it appears that you are abandoning your principles and embracing mine; which would make sense to me, as I can't see the Austrian property fixation holding up to broader logic and a sense of social justice or, (warning: bad word ahead) fairness.  

This is how I understand the "Austrian" position:  

If it is my property, then -- excluding murder and so forth -- I am the only person entitled to decide what happens there. Non-coercion and all that, right? Since we've just been discussing subjective value, isn't it also irrelevant what price you or any other person (including the court) would accept or deem fair for climate change impacts to the hippie's property? He owns this land and $5 trillion is his valuation. To be strictly consistent with your original theory, the court would have to accept that the hippie's subjective value as the only one that ultimately counts... whether everyone else regards it as ridiculous or not. 

A simple thought experiment: Let's imagine it as an extreme version of 'The Castle' [brilliant movie if you haven't seen it - Ed]. Except now substitute the Kerrigins with the hippie, and the Melbourne Airport Company with CO2-emitting industries around the world. The Kerrigins didn't want to move and, ultimately, the courts forbade the Airport company from expanding despite all their financial sweeteners as recompense. In this case, the hippie also doesn't care for generous financial compensation and won't move either. Industry has to stop activities or else find a way to emitting the carbon that impacts the hippie's property. Again: he would ostensibly have the right to enjoin ALL activities impacting his property. 

Of course, I don't regard this is a reasonable position to support. That's why I don't subscribe to it. I think that, somewhere along the line, we have to try and incorporate broader social welfare calculations that transcend the unyielding veto of private property rights. However, as far as I can tell, my little scenario above encapsulates your position pretty well if taken to it's logical conclusion. Either you stick to your guns by accepting that the owner's subjective valuation of his own property right is sacrosanct, and that he has the final say on what happens on his land... Or, you override his subjective valuation through court decision, but betray your fundamental principles in the process. 

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY: Making compromises is part of life. Taking the dogmatic/ deontological libertarian position to its ultimate conclusion often leads - I believe - to untenable outcomes. The case of global warming is a prime example. Libertarians that slavishly hold personal property rights above all else would inadvertently open the way for eco-fundamentalists to enjoin virtually all industrial activity. In doing so, they would threaten to form an unholy coalition that makes it impossible for society to react to an immensely complex problem in any sensible way. They would, in effect, become Baptists and Bootleggers for the 21st century.

Sisters: Doing it for themselves

Meat and Veg(etarianism)

UPDATE: I stumbled upon this George Monbiot post today (Jan 24) from a few months back, discussing what seems to be a very interesting book by one Simon Fairlie: "Meat - A benign Extravagance". Fairlie apparently skewers a number of "green" myths concerning the environmental damage wrought by meat production; although he advocates a much different farming system than the one we currently have to prevent the environmental degradation and suffering that does occur from livestock farming. To his credit, Monbiot (an already admirable environmentalist and journalist in many ways) recants his previous views in light of Fairlie's evidence and research. Read the post; there's much food for thought (he he sorry) therein.

===

Something's been cropping up quite often in conversations that I've been having lately.

Vegetarianism.

Me? I eat lots of meat. Too much, I fear, and have recently endeavored to cut back on red meat in particular. Now, "Stickman" isn't a particularly ironic moniker so I guess you could say I'm doing okay in the weightiness department. However, there is good evidence to suggest that large portions of Western society consume more meat than is strictly healthy. Part of the problem is that we humans are outgrowing our biology, as we now consume certain foodstuffs in much greater quantities than the natural settings of our ancestors ever allowed. (More on that below.) I thus find myself sympathizing with a several pro-vegetarian arguments, although I don't think I'll be going full veggie any time soon myself. Still, a number of my friends have embraced the non-meat path and my discussions with them, as well as fellow carnivores like myself, seem worth jotting down.

Naughty.

To start, it seems biologically obvious to me that we are "meant" to eat meat. Humans are essentially the perfect omnivore. Our teeth are a nice mix of flat molars, premolars, incisors, etc that allow us to easily process both plant and animal material. Similarly, our digestive tract (intestines and all) is adapted to process and absorb the nutrients from all ends of the spectrum. Not only have our bodies evolved to deal happily with everything from rump steak to salad leaves, we actually require certain vitamins and nutrients that are only available in one food group or the other. In other words, we have to source some food from animals (e.g. certain B-vitamin complexes) and some from plant matter.

Can't we just talk about this?!

Of course, that last sentence only holds true in completely natural surroundings and, as I said earlier, I see the vegetarian debate is an example of us "outgrowing" our biology. The irony is that the consumption of meat played a pivotal role in the development of the human brain and broader civilization. The higher protein and calorific content of a partly carnivorous diet provides sustenance over longer periods, which among many other things allowed us time to plan and engage in other activities besides living literally hand-to-mouth. Perhaps most importantly, it fostered coordinated group action and communication between individuals, which were critical to tackling your average woolly mammoth.[*] And, indeed, doing pretty anything of substance ever since.

Getting back to what is "natural", I guess you could say that this is now a largely redundant concept. We don't live very naturally at all anymore... And, of course, this is part of the problem as we now have instant access to quantities of meat (and sugar and fat) that we would never have come across in such abundance in nature. Witness the rising trend in developed nations where more people are dying from diseases of lifestyle opulence and excess (e.g. heart attacks and obesity) than infectious diseases. The flip-side to this is that we are having to consciously curb our intake of certain foodstuffs that our bodies crave; something that I don't imagine has precedent for most of human history. The other aspect of having "overcome" nature in this way is that we now have all manner of supplements and products to make fully-fledged vegetarianism a viable and healthy lifestyle alternative. Or so I'm told.

And then you have to unpack the more tricky component of our evolved biological selves: Ethics.[**] While our physiology and human history provide very good reasons to dismiss the notion that we should be herbivores, there's no denying the strong moral compulsion that many people feel when it comes to killing animals. While it's hard to defend someone's distaste for hunting when they eat meat that comes all conveniently packaged from the supermarket, I do think that decent people can agree the suffering endured by many farm animals is abominable. (Watch Food Inc or the even more disturbing Earthlings - which you can see in its entirety online - if you're feeling up to it. On a quasi-related subject I plan to write something on GM crops sometime soon... I'm actually generally pro them for reasons that I shall explain.) It's not too much of stretch going from anti-cruelty to believing that we should not kill animals at all, although I do make this jump myself. Visiting my family in England (including my aunt who has been a vegetarian for decades), my cousin had an interesting thought. She mentioned how she'd been discussing vegetarianism with a friend and they'd pondered whether eating meat might suddenly become totally unacceptable in much the same way that slavery did. I think that this idea has more to it than face value, because it shows how dramatically  we can shift away from a norm that has been socially acceptable for the majority all of human history.

Another twist in the ethical tale is related to matters of resource use, loss of biodiversity to farming and (dum dum daaaa) climate change. I have several friends that have completely or to a large extent cut back on meat, because of such reasons. I admire the strength of their convictions, but can only see the general trend in meat consumption moving one way... particularly with the increased wealth and rising demand for higher protein, Western-style diets coming out of developing nations.

I'm about done here, but I thought I'd leave you with a final, macare thought. I'm not sure where this thought first came to me -- likely some low budget sci-fi film -- but I sometimes have this vision of aliens feasting around a dinner table in much the same way that we do in polite society. Except, rather than roast pork or skewered beef, the meal on display is a grisly composition of human parts. The fleeting image of an exposed human rib-cage ready for the offing might not be enough to permanently put me off my food, but it does cause me to take a depressing second thought about that rack of lamb I love so much.

Right, that's it for now. I'm off to lunch.

o-[O< 

(fat full Stickman)

[*] This is a major theme in Jacob Bronowksi's The Ascent of Man, which although dated in some minor aspects, is still a fantastic read. The other great book detailing the role of diet in driving civilization is, of course, Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond.

[**] I know many would contend that morality stems directly from a higher power. I would encourage you to view this post if you're interested in that debate.

God, morality and monkeys

And by "monkeys" I really mean "altruistic chimpanzees", but I'm a sucker for alliteration...

I stumbled on a really excellent opinion piece in today's New York Times: "Morals without God" by the Dutch primatologist and ethologist, Frans De Waal. I'm loathe to highlight any particular parts because the whole thing is so good, but here are three excerpts...

First up: Morality without God.

Can we envision a world without God? Would this world be good? Don’t think for one moment that the current battle lines between biology and fundamentalist Christianity turn around evidence. One has to be pretty immune to data to doubt evolution, which is why books and documentaries aimed at convincing the skeptics are a waste of effort. They are helpful for those prepared to listen, but fail to reach their target audience. The debate is less about the truth than about how to handle it. For those who believe that morality comes straight from God the creator, acceptance of evolution would open a moral abyss.

Echoing this view, Reverend Al Sharpton opined in a recent videotaped debate: “If there is no order to the universe, and therefore some being, some force that ordered it, then who determines what is right or wrong? There is nothing immoral if there’s nothing in charge.” Similarly, I have heard people echo Dostoevsky’s Ivan Karamazov, exclaiming that “If there is no God, I am free to rape my neighbor!”

Perhaps it is just me, but I am wary of anyone whose belief system is the only thing standing between them and repulsive behavior. Why not assume that our humanity, including the self-control needed for livable societies, is built into us? Does anyone truly believe that our ancestors lacked social norms before they had religion? Did they never assist others in need, or complain about an unfair deal? Humans must have worried about the functioning of their communities well before the current religions arose, which is only a few thousand years ago. Not that religion is irrelevant — I will get to this — but it is an add-on rather than the wellspring of morality. 

This very closely describes my own feelings. I've often tried to point out that morality derived from personal and social value systems just seems more genuine than morality which is (passively?) adopted as part of a religious system. If a religious person does something “good” because of the threat of hell -- or lure of heaven -- can this really be framed as a question of morality?[*] I doubt it... Now, obviously there are healthy reasons for keeping reward and punishment systems that protect the stability of a society as a whole, but the concept of "managed morality" still appears to me as little more than a lame oxymoron.

Next: Thoughts on Altruism.

Modern popularizers [have argued] that true moral tendencies cannot exist — not in humans and even less in other animals — since nature is one hundred percent selfish. Morality is just a thin veneer over a cauldron of nasty tendencies. [However], instead of blaming atrocious behavior on our biology (“we’re acting like animals!”), while claiming our noble traits for ourselves, why not view the entire package as a product of evolution? Fortunately, there has been a resurgence of the Darwinian view that morality grew out of the social instincts. Psychologists stress the intuitive way we arrive at moral judgments while activating emotional brain areas, and economists and anthropologists have shown humanity to be far more cooperative, altruistic, and fair than predicted by self-interest models. Similarly, the latest experiments in primatology reveal that our close relatives will do each other favors even if there’s nothing in it for themselves. 

[snip] 

Even though altruistic behavior evolved for the advantages it confers, this does not make it selfishly motivated. Future benefits rarely figure in the minds of animals. For example, animals engage in sex without knowing its reproductive consequences, and even humans had to develop the morning-after pill. This is because sexual motivation is unconcerned with the reason why sex exists. The same is true for the altruistic impulse, which is unconcerned with evolutionary consequences. It is this disconnect between evolution and motivation that befuddled the Veneer Theorists, and made them reduce everything to selfishness. 

[snip] 

Nature often equips life’s essentials — sex, eating, nursing — with built-in gratification. One study found that pleasure centers in the human brain light up when we give to charity. This is of course no reason to call such behavior “selfish” as it would make the word totally meaningless. A selfish individual has no trouble walking away from another in need. Someone is drowning: let him drown. Someone cries: let her cry. These are truly selfish reactions, which are quite different from empathic ones. Yes, we experience a “warm glow,” and perhaps some other animals do as well, but since this glow reaches us via the other, and only via the other, the helping is genuinely other-oriented.

Quite so. I'm tired of all the Ayn Rand types bleating on about selfishness all the time. Trust me, I get it: self-interest is very important... But I feel much of the Randian contribution these days is simply to fixate on meaningless semantics. Apart from the fact that altruistic acts often confer no obvious or immediate benefits to us, surely the exact point is that altruism is concerned with the well-being of others? "Altruism" exists as a singular -- and separate -- construct because it reflects a very specific set of actions and motivations.

Finally: Extending an olive branch to religion.

While I do consider religious institutions and their representatives — popes, bishops, mega-preachers, ayatollahs, and rabbis — fair game for criticism, what good could come from insulting individuals who find value in religion? And more pertinently, what alternative does science have to offer? Science is not in the business of spelling out the meaning of life and even less in telling us how to live our lives. We, scientists, are good at finding out why things are the way they are, or how things work, and I do believe that biology can help us understand what kind of animals we are and why our morality looks the way it does. But to go from there to offering moral guidance seems a stretch.

Even the staunchest atheist growing up in Western society cannot avoid having absorbed the basic tenets of Christian morality. Our societies are steeped in it: everything we have accomplished over the centuries, even science, developed either hand in hand with or in opposition to religion, but never separately. It is impossible to know what morality would look like without religion. It would require a visit to a human culture that is not now and never was religious. That such cultures do not exist should give us pause.

[snip]

Other primates have of course none of these problems, but even they strive for a certain kind of society. For example, female chimpanzees have been seen to drag reluctant males towards each other to make up after a fight, removing weapons from their hands, and high-ranking males regularly act as impartial arbiters to settle disputes in the community. I take these hints of community concern as yet another sign that the building blocks of morality are older than humanity, and that we do not need God to explain how we got where we are today. On the other hand, what would happen if we were able to excise religion from society? I doubt that science and the naturalistic worldview could fill the void and become an inspiration for the good. Any framework we develop to advocate a certain moral outlook is bound to produce its own list of principles, its own prophets, and attract its own devoted followers, so that it will soon look like any old religion.

As something of a secular humanist myself, I'll have to mull over the very last of these points. I strongly identify with many of the moral teachings that I've read in religious texts... But I also think that this reflects the innate strength of certain religions: They simply codified a set of moral guidelines that societies needed to "evolve" if they wanted to survive and flourish over the long-run. This, in turn, acted as the ballast for these religions to endure. The fact that we -- at least in Western societies -- seem far less concerned with certain rules than we might have been in previous years (e.g. don't eat shellfish, no sex before marriage) reinforces my belief that our morality will partly evolve with the times. (We even reject outright certain notions from religious texts, such as the right to own slaves.) Nevertheless, I completely agree that there is no need to insult someone who finds value in religion; provided their beliefs cause no demonstrable harm to others. And, as I have said previously, I look forward to the day when we come around to the idea that calling someone an "idiot" is not the best way of convincing them of your position.

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY: Too much, I fear, in this piece to sum up in a few lines. Perhaps I can do no worse than...

Oh, oobee doo!

I wanna be like you (oo-oo-oo)

I wanna walk like you

Talk like you, too (oo-oo-oo)

You'll see it's true (oo-oo-oo)

An ape like me

Can learn to be human too!

[*] An analogy is the paradox of intrinsic versus instrumental ethics that you often hear about in courses on business ethics... The basic idea being that trying to “manage” the ethics of employees is a contradiction in terms: By subjecting ethical matters to regulation and management control, employees aren't necessarily doing something good because of it's innate goodness, but rather because they are told to so or suffer the consequences. Similarly, it could be argued that ethics derived from any authority – moral or otherwise – has some element of inherent contradiction.