Smoking Kills!

So, we have possibly the first casualty in the War On Smoking. A man was shot after annoying some smokers in a bar. Now I don't condone shooting people who annoy you. We're not Americans after all. But it's just another, predictable, consequential effect of legislation. If you put in annoying laws, people are going to get annoyed. And occasionally people will get hurt.

Now I see that Friends of the Earth is recommending that patio heaters be banned. This means that all those annoyed smokers won't even be able to sit in a pub garden without freezing. So more people are going to get hurt when they come back inside. It's not even as though there's a clearcut link between passive smoking and health, according to this study.

Slow handclap for the totalitarians. Again.

Fisking the Extreme Porn Bill

This really follows on from my last post, but it was getting a tad unwieldy so I thought I'd split it. Plus writing sensibly was beginning to annoy me. These are the government's supposed reasons for bringing in the new law. Let us now peel back the foreskin of ignorance, and apply the wire brush of vitriol to their proposals.

Extreme Pornographic Images

802. The Government believes that these clauses constitute an interference with Convention rights under Articles 8 and 10 but that for the reasons set out below this is justified as being in accordance with the law, and necessary in a democratic society for the prevention of crime, for the protection of morals and for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

This is bollocks. The government admits that it is a breach of human rights, but hopes to get away with it. On moral grounds. God I loathe people who believe that they have a right to impose their tired old morals on others. The grounds for banning something should be demonstrable harm. Not just because its objectionable. Which leads us to:

803. The material to be covered by this new offence is at the most extreme end of the spectrum of pornographic material which is likely to be thought abhorrent by most people.

So fucking what? All sorts of things are abhorrent to each and every one of us, but that's no grounds to make pictures of them illegal. Unless you're a moralising cunt like John Beyer.

It is not possible at law to give consent to the type of activity covered by the offence,

Oh yes it is! under the Sexual Offences act 2003 you are allowed to give oral sex to an animal, you are allowed to fist your wife, or give your lovers breasts or genitals a good thrashing. Distasteful? maybe. But not illegal. Fucking liars.

so it is therefore likely that a criminal offence is being committed where the activity which appears to be taking place is actually taking place.

This is nonsense. Given that the bill includes the idea that images that are acted or fake are prosecutable, it is entirely likely that no criminal offence is occurring in a majority of cases.

The House of Lords upheld convictions for offences of causing actual and grievous bodily harm in the case of Brown [1994] 1 AC 212 which involved a group of sado-masochists who had engaged in consensual torture. The threshold that the clauses have set is very high, so while those taking part might argue that they had consented to it, such consent is not valid at law.

This was a truly disgusting piece of legislation, in which a group of gay men were engaged in a bit of consensual BDSM, and were jailed for it. One of them died in jail. Gay clubs were raided for years, and the BDSM scene is harassed because of it to this day. For the government to regard this as a good thing shows what a bunch of moralising bastards they really are.

804. In the case of images of staged activity , the Government believes that banning possession is justified in order to meet the legitimate aim of protecting the individuals involved from participating in degrading activities. This is also the case with images of bestiality, which while involving harm to animals can also involve the non-consensual participation of humans who are harmed in the process of making the images.

Ah, here we come to the actual reason. The government regards these paraphilias as "degrading". No wait. They believe that acting in a production depicting these acts is degrading, whilst in most cases actually doing them is not. Ludicrous inconsistent fuckwits.

805. The Government considers that the new offence is a proportionate measure with the legitimate aim of breaking the demand and supply cycle of this material, which may be harmful to those who view it.

This entire paragraph is hearsay, with no scientific backing from any source. It will not break the supply and demand cycle, since the rest of the western world will go on supplying and demanding it. This material may be harmful, they say except that evidence shows exactly the opposite. Banning this material will be harmful, as it will increase the rate of sex crimes. How many women need to be raped or murdered before the government bothers to read the studies? Lazy, ignorant, stupid mendacious cunts.

Irrespective of how these images were made, banning their possession can be justified as sending a signal that such behaviour is not considered acceptable. Viewing such images voluntarily can desensitise the viewer to such degrading acts, and can reinforce the message that such behaviour is acceptable.

There is absolutely no evidence that support these statements. However, contrary to my previous statements the government is not being inconsistent. They really do hate BDSM, fisting and all the rest. I'd just like to know what fucking business it is of theirs what people get up to in their own homes. The BDSM movements motto is "Safe, Sane, Consensual". I wish it was the governments motto.

806. The Government considers that the restrictions on this material also achieve the aim of protecting others, particularly children and vulnerable adults, from inadvertently coming into possession of this material, which is widespread on the internet.

Don't be so fucking stupid. England is the only country enacting this legislation. They may not even have it in Scotland. It'll all be up there, just the same. Unless, of course you want to use this as an excuse to start censoring the internet. Just like Saudi Arabia, China and all those other models of democratic freedom. You authoritarian fuckpigs.

Even More Extreme Pornography

So, the UK government has released the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill 2007 with the promised legislation on Extreme Pornography in sections 64-67. I've blogged on this before here and here. I know it came out a while ago, but I haven't had a chance to study it in detail until now. And guess what? It's even worse than they suggested in the consultation.

As always the legislation itself is boring to read and hedged about with legalese, but the notes are rather easier to read. The nub of it is as follows:

If you have pictures that the government doesn't like, of perfectly legal acts between consenting adults, you may be sent to prison for up to 3 years, and placed on the Sex Offenders Register for life. You can be branded a nonce and locked up with all the other paedophiles, rapists and murderers, just for the sake of a few harmless pictures of legal acts.

So what sort of pictures doesn't the government like now?

Well, firstly they have to be pornographic. An image is “pornographic” if it appears to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.

Secondly they have to be “extreme”. An image is “extreme” if it depicts:

(a) an act which threatens or appears to threaten a person’s life,
(b) an act which results in or appears to result (or be likely to result) in serious injury to a person’s anus, breasts or genitals,
(c) an act which involves or appears to involve sexual interference with a human corpse,
(d) a person performing or appearing to perform an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal, where (in each case) any such act, person or animal depicted in the image is or appears to be real.

The first thing to notice, is that in all cases these images only have to "appear to be real". In other words, it doesn't matter if it's just acting, or completely fake. The second thing is that many of these acts are actually perfectly legal to perform (including giving an animal a blowjob, curiously enough).

Images the government wants to criminalise:

Rape (a)
Torture (b)
Necrophilia (c)
Bestiality (d)

In actuality, images that are likely to be criminalised include:

Breath play (a)
Fisting (b)
Anal intercourse (b)
BDSM involving the parts listed in (b)
Sleepy sex (c)

There are probably a lot more. Perhaps interested readers will suggest a few and I'll list them.

As I've said before, you personally may not be into any of the above things. But a lot of people are. Around 5% of the population are into BDSM, and about 25% of the gay population. In England that's around 2m people. Around 10% of the population like a regular bit of back-door action. That's another 4m potential criminals. Even if not many are photography enthusiasts, that's still an awful lot of people.

And there's simply no point to this. The government themselves admitted that there was no causal link between Extreme Porn images and criminal activity. No other western democracy wants to ban images of this sort, and numerous studies have shown that the free availability of porn actually reduces sex crimes.

This legislation will, by the governments own admission protect no-one, criminalise many law-abiding people, and increase the number of sex crimes in England. It will also encourage the Police to burst into peoples houses at dawn to confiscate their computers, and provoke more censorship of the Internet. Still think that it has nothing to do with you?

There are other articles worth reading on the subject here and here.

The governments offical line on this is here, and this debate is pretty representative of the lack of understanding of this issue by the powers that be. References can be found in my response to the initial consultation.

The thrill of being forced

In the great game of Dominance & Submission which makes up our human existence (and that of most other pack animals), I like to think of myself as a Dom, a Top, an Alpha. Probably this is to do with the testosterone which courses through my male veins. I like to be in charge, or more specifically, I loathe being ordered about, especially when it's 'for my own good'. This in turn fuels my right-wing libertarian political viewpoint.

However, many people do not share this view, and naturally appreciate the firm smack of authority. It makes them feel secure, wanted and part of something greater than themselves, It also helps diminish death anxiety. The converse is also true. Studies show that people become more authoritarian when they are anxious.

I was reminded of this whilst reading an article on spiked-online, which quotes Al Gore on climate change:

‘The climate crisis also offers us the chance to experience what very few generations in history have had the privilege of knowing: a generational mission; the exhilaration of a compelling moral purpose; a shared and unifying cause; the thrill of being forced by circumstances to put aside the pettiness and conflict that so often stifle the restless human need for transcendence; the opportunity to rise…. When we do rise, it will fill out spirits and bind us together. Those who are now suffocating in cynicism and despair will be able to breathe freely. Those who are now suffering from a loss of meaning in their lives will find hope.’

So Big Al enjoys 'the thrill of being forced'. Indeed it fulfils his 'need for transcendence'. It's funny how often those in positions of power often turn out to be subs.
This appeal to authority has other implications for contemporary eco-warriors. In the old days, and particularly during the Christian dark ages, people solved problems about the world through appeals to authority. If it was in the bible, then it was true. If the bible was a bit sketchy, or inconsistent, then further proof would be provided by reference to Plato, or Aristotle. No-one actually checked the information. No-one did rigorous observations of the world. so for hundreds of years people believed that the world was flat, and that geese were born from barnacles.

However, there has been another thread to western civilisation. Since Aristotle first wrote about Empericism some 2300 years ago, through the Muslim polymath Alhacen, via Dr Mirabilis in the West, to Karl Popper in our time, the scientific method has been developed. After the renaissance, scientific thinking became our dominant way of dealing with the world. This fuelled the industrial revolution, and lead us to the world of today, where at least in the West, we are living longer, healthier lives than anyone in the history of Mankind.

But Eco-Masochists like Gore want to turn the clock back. Their science is merely appeals to authority. The IPCC report has lots of scientists contributing so it must be right. George Monbiot writes in the paper, so he must be right.

This world of plenty and change frightens Eco-Masochists. They don't want unlimited horizons and the freedom to achieve our dreams. They want a 'compelling moral purpose', so that they will be able to 'breathe freely' and 'find hope'. They want to be bound by regulations and slapped promptly when they transgress. They want state interference with every aspect of their lives, so that they feel cared for, and less scared.

I think that Bertrand Russell put it best: 'If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it's still a foolish thing'

Extradition

Just a quickie, because I'm busy. Compare and contrast two government attitudes to extradition. And there's me thinking we live in the free part of the world. Next thing you'll be telling me there are people watching our every move. Oh wait.

The Noble Savage

The doctrine of the Noble Savage was first popularised in Rousseau's Emile (1762), . It's the idea that in our natural state, unsullied by technology, people were peaceful hunter-gatherers, with a deep respect for nature and all living things, living in harmony with our environment. Children, too, are naturally good, kind and innocent, until corrupted by their contact with the adult world.

In my opinion it is arrant nonsense and the cause of many of societies current ills :- Green Fundamentalism, Anti-intellectualism, and the Paedophile Panic, to name a few. It's the mirror image of the doctrine of Original Sin, which is just as silly.

In Edge magazine, Steven Pinker dismantles one of the planks upon which the idea of the Noble Savage rests upon; the idea that society is more violent today than in the past. Despite all the wars and genocides* of the last century, he makes the point that if modern society was as violent as historical society, our death toll in the 20th century would have been 2 billion rather than the comparatively meagre 100 million we actually killed.

He isn't sure exactly why we've got so much nicer and less violent, although he lists a few possibilities. One possibility he doesn't list explicitly is the possibility that is is the fact that we are getting more prosperous as time goes on. It does seem that rich people are actually nicer to each other, presumably because they don't need to squabble over scarce resources, and aren't so anxious and aggressive because they're less scared of dying.

* I hate the way genocide has been redefined to mean attempting to kill people of an ethnic group, rather than actually annihilating a particular ethic group, (e.g. the Tasmanian aborigines). Likewise with decimate, which means to kill 1 in10, not to kill nearly everyone in a group.

The Tragedy of Cod Fishing

Cod fishing in the North Sea is an emerging example of the tragedy of the commons. It's been brought into sharp focus by the decision of the European Ministers to slightly decrease the fishing quotas. This is against a background of cod stocks and catches decreasing year-on-year since the 1970's. The ICES, who monitor this, have been advising a moratorium on cod fishing since 1992.

In the summer of 1975 I spent a month in Newfoundland, in the city of St Johns, which at that time was a thriving fishing port, catching its share of 300,000 tonnes of cod caught off the East coast. St Johns isn't a big place, and most people were involved in the fishing industry. They were thriving on it though.

However, even then the catch had fallen from its peak of 800,000 tonnes in 1963. 1975 was also around the time they were introducing draggers (or trawlers), and this technology kept the levels up around 250,000 through the 1980's. In 1986, scientists recommended the catch be halved, due to dwindling stocks, and the Canadian government responded with a small reduction in the quota. See any similarities here?

By 1992 it was all over. There were simply no fish. The Canadian government responded by banning cod fishing, but it was too little, too late. A 1994 survey found only 1700 tonnes of biomass. 20 years later, and there's no real change. The cod have not returned.

The story is told here, by greenpeace, and there's a discussion of it as a tragedy of the commons here. Or in video here, if you like. It's a big deal to Newfies.

Fishing is interesting, because it's the last truly hunter-gatherer occupation that we have. All our other food production industries are a variation of farming. Even with highly mechanised fishing boats it's still hunting. History shows us that hunting on land can't support a large population, maybe 1% of that supported by farming, and hunting at sea isn't much different.

Using history as a guide, I predict that the sea will be given over to commercial fish farming, with a few nature reserves where people can fish for sport, and sell their high priced catches to discerning consumers.

A recent report in Science predicts the demise of commercial sea fishing worldwide by 2050. Its a classic tragedy of the commons, and we should all tuck in to our wild fish and chips, because soon there won't be any more. We'll have to make do with the farmed stuff. It's not so bad, although less romantic.

Mind you, Jared Diamond thinks that giving up hunting was the "Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race", and I can see why.

UPDATE: Here's an amusing site which confirms my views about the viability of cod farming, done by people who obviously have too much time on their hands.

Why I don't recycle

Via Samizata I came across this, which is funny, and this, which isn't. What they both say, in a nutshell, is that recycling, with the lone exception of aluminium cans, costs more and wastes more resources than making things from scratch. In fact it costs 3 times as much. Another source for costs is Friends of the Earth, who estimate that it costs us £375m to provide a doorstep recycling scheme. In the US it's closer to 8bn. And it's all pointless.

We're not saving the planet by recycling, we're not running out of landfill space, we're not saving money.

So why are governments and people so keen on recycling? I think that these are separate questions. People like recycling because it makes them feel good. It gives them a sense of agency, which reduces anxiety, and makes them feel part of something bigger than themselves, which also reduces anxiety. Also the government lies to them and says that it works.

Governments, on the other hand, like recycling because it looks as though they are doing something, and because it provides lots of jobs for the boys (50,000 according to FoE). It's popular with voters, for the reasons mentioned above, so the government continues to propagate the myth. Additionally, any form of control over our behaviour appeals to the authoritarian nature of our government. Remember, Hitler was a green.

Venal, Stupid, Mendacious Politicians - who knew?

Dear gods, I don't want to talk about politics, but I feel like Al Pacino in the one of the later Godfather films; "just when I try to get out, they pull me back in again".

This time it's the government having a pop at bloggers, of all people. Matthew Taylor, ex-strategy advisor to Tony Blair has said that:

"The internet has immense potential but we face a real problem if the main way in which that potential expresses itself is through allowing citizens to participate in a shrill discourse of demands"

He also says that the public are like "teenagers": "demanding", but "conflicted", and are encouraged by bloggers to regard all politicians as "mendacious".

Well Damn Right! Hell Yeah!

The point about blogging is that it is an uncensored way for ordinary people who actually have lives, families and jobs, to comment about the things that they see around them, and in particular the things that annoy them. I'm not a teenager, and I resent the patronising tone in Mr Taylors speech, although it is entirely in keeping with their nannying attitudes to their subjects.

The "shrill" tone of many peoples blogs is frustration, and real anger at their stupid, illiberal, and yes, mendacious policies. And as for having a "more mature discourse" with the government, that can only happen if the government is actually listening. And if it won't listen to a million people demonstrating against their stupid war, it certainly won't be listening to bloggers.

Religion is just childish part II

There is a fascinating article called Why Johnny Can't Reason based on the work of Jean Piaget, which in a nutshell, shows 68% of the adult population are incapable of abstract reasoning. Abstract reasoning, in this context is:

"...abstracting from directly experienced objects or situations to broader groups which could not be directly experienced. For still another example, children could begin to grasp the idea of probability..."

In other words, the majority of the population are incapable of reasoning about situations that they have not directly experienced. Such as religion, which almost by definition is not objective.

Why do people get religious in the first place? Young children are naturally predisposed to be religious, because they can only copy what the adults around them are saying, by rote. Older children, and most adults, are unable to look beyond their limited experiences, and analyse what they have been taught.

It would take a whole book to write about where religions come from, but essentially, people are very good at seeing patterns in the world, and making theories about cause and effect, but we don't understand probability, overgeneralise, and become superstitious.

Superstition is a false conception of cause and effect, where we see things happening together, and assume they are connected, when in fact they aren't. So, for example we may reasonably notice that cloudy skies tend to precede rain, and conclude that rain is caused by clouds. We might also see that meat left uncovered becomes maggoty, and conclude wrongly that meat causes maggots (or causes cats to eat it).

In a discussion of programming methodologies Steve Yegge comments obliquely on BF Skinners work on Superstition in the Pigeon, saying: "...superstition isn't necessarily a bad thing! We couldn't possibly go and verify every single fact we've heard that we think is probably true. We'd never make any progress (as individuals or as a civilization). We have to take most things we know for granted. Most of what we know at any given time is superstition. It's normal."

He's right of course, but for 68% of people, that's all they have.

I just can't help myself sometimes

"Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer" -- Mark Twain

Christ I hate this fucking country. I was born and bred here, but I haven't hated the place so much since I was a nine year old at school being beaten with a cricket bat 'for my own good'.

Generally I'm an optimist; I tend to think that life gets better for each successive generation, but reading todays paper made me just want to vomit with rage and frustration at what a filthy fucking pestilant pool of shit our craven, pusilanimous, deceptive, lying, manipulative, self-serving, ignorant political fuckwits are turning this country into.

I remember back in 2000 or so looking out of a bus window, at the recently renovated statue of Prince Albert in Hyde Park, which had just been unveiled, after having being boxed up for the previous two decades (well, for as long as I could remember anyway) . I was filled with sense of well-being at being part of a society that was prepared, and could afford to restore, such a pointless and gaudy monument. The cold war was over, we had no enemies, the economy was good, and a feeling of cheerful liberty was in the air.

And since then, every fucking thing that the government have done has made the place worse.

Here's a small selection of stories from todays Sunday Times:

• Inland revenue to crackdown on people who have trouble filling in their tax forms, despite the government having made them almost impossible for anyone to understand.


• Britons are now the most surveilled society in the western world. One CCTV camera for every 14 people, our internet movements tracked, our phone calls recorded, our financial details shared with every fucking small-minded official that wants to see them. Our, and our children's DNA being kept on file. And now compulsory ID Cards and National Register. All 'for our own good'. Bastards, bastards, bastards.


• Alan Johnson caving in in typically pathetic fashion over the proposal to make faith based schools take a 25% quota of children of other faiths, just so that they realise that there are people who think differently to the religious zealots that are trying to indoctrinate them. What a fucking waste of space that man is.


• Council tax may double, despite the fact that the CBI says councils are wasting at least £3bn a year.


• Green parking charges in Richmond, and proposals being made for green taxes to that pension-raiding means-testing cunt Gordon Brown. Despite the fact that we emit only 1/10th as much CO2 as the US, and that CO2 may be an effect of gobal warming not a cause.


• Britain is becoming increasingly gridlocked despite that fat moron Prescott pledging to reduce congestion by 2010. At the same time, overcrowding on commuter trains into london has doubled since 1996. How do those mendacious fuckers expect us to get into work in the morning if they won't build more railways and roads? Presumably by taking taxis down the bus lanes as they do. Hypocritical wankers. I hope they all get cancer.

Enough ranting for now. Normal service will be resumed after this post.

Religion is just childish

As it says in my profile, I'm a humanist. I'm also an atheist and a bright. Actually I'm an agnostic when it comes to religion, but like Richard Dawkins, I'm agnostic in the same way as I'm agnostic about teapots in orbit around Pluto. In other words, it's possible that they may be true, but the possibility is so slight as to be not worth worrying about.

It's not that I don't know about religion. My grandfather was a vicar and my mother a missionary. I attended a cathedral school and was confirmed into the Church of England at the age of 14. I've been a scholar of ancient religions all my life. And whilst I understand the religious impulse very well, falling for it is simply absurd.

It's absurd in the same way that an adult believing in the tooth fairy, or father christmas, would be absurd. In the same way that belief in genies , rakshasa's or kami is absurd. It's absurd because as adults, we seek to know truth by the best means available to us. And if we don't do that we are wallowing in a child-like fairyland of magic and superstition.

So what counts as a good method of discovering truth?

My Parents told me so - No
My Teachers told me so * - No
Everyone in my society believes it - No
I intuitively feel it to be true - No
It has been revealed to me in dreams or visions - N0
It is common sense - No
It makes me feel better - No
It must be true for moral reasons - No
You can't prove it's not true - No

There is one way, and one way only of discovering the truth about the world. Observe, Hypothesize, Test your hypothesis. Get other people to test it. If it's correct, repeat and move on.

Luckily we don't have to do all this ourselves. There are many many great people who have spent their lives doing this, so that we can reap the rewards of their work. As Newton said, "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."

All the rest is superstition or hearsay. And that's no way for an adult to live.

* But I said that "My Teachers told me" is not a method of discovering truth. And it isn't if you do it uncritically. If you study what your teachers say, and find a scientist at the root of it, and the arguments are sound, then there is truth there.

Homeopathy 'proven' effective

New regulations came into force on 1st September 2006 allowing homeopathic remedies to be marketed alongside conventional medicines as proven effective. You can read about it here.

The concept that homeopathic medicine should be considered on a par with scientifically tested and proven efficacious 'conventional' medicine is simply absurd.

Homeopathy has been proved to have no more efficacy than placebo (i.e. none at all) and has a theoretical basis which is nothing more than medieval superstition.

What will we have next - Galen's four humours based medicine? Witch doctors chewing sacred grasses? Utterly ridiculous.