Fat camp, here I come

From the Daily Telegraph we have the following UK government proposal. They want companies to be able to provide tax-free incentives to their employees to encourage them to lose weight.

I spot a business opportunity here. Suppose I run my own company (which I do) does this mean I can pay myself to get thin and claim the tax back? Tax free skiing holidays on health grounds beckon as well.

Would I have to pay the tax back when I almost inevitably put all the weight back on (as 19 out of 20 dieters do)? Or can I just make a pledge to improve things and keep paying myself tax free. Sounds like a winner to me.

Mind you it's a mystery to me why doctors invariably prescribe diet and exercise to lose weight when, long term, the vast majority of their patients will fail to lose weight that way. It's as though I went in with a headache and they gave me a pill with the advice that there's only a 1 in 20 chance that it would fix me up. I wouldn't be very satisfied with that, and I don't suppose many others would either. Yet people simply look shamefaced as their disgustingly obese BMI is read out and promise to try harder.

I think this is because being fat is regarded as a moral weakness (especially by some young people) , rather than simply being the result of us being anatomically cavemen with a metabolism tuned to make the most of scarce food resources. The only problem is that we're living in a culture in which tasty nutritious food is all around us. It's not about willpower, it's about biochemistry.

H/T to Mr Eugenides for this one.

Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature

Here's an article from Psychology Today which I rather enjoyed. It looks at a number of social phenomena from an evolutionary psychology basis, and although the evidence offered is a bit sketchy in some places, it's worth a read. Evolutionary psychology is one of those things which is so obviously right that it's a no-brainer (pun intended), but almost no-one believes in because it de-mystifies our behaviour and makes us feel less like free agents, and more like the semi-conscious automata that we really are.

Debunking third-world myths with the best stats you've ever seen

Do you want to understand global trends for life expectancy, child mortality and poverty rates? Are you rubbish with figures and hate statistics, and thus find the modern world hopelessly confusing?

Notwithstanding the fact that if you're stupid, you're probably too stupid to realise it, of course.

Debunking third-world myths with the best stats you've ever seen is a talk by Hans Rosling which is both funny, informative and for me at least, quite surprising. Even better, you can play with the lovely visualisation tool he uses for yourself. A fine way to waste an afternoon in my opinion.

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'

Can we be religious and sane?

Martin Newland over at the Grauniad's Comment Is Free offers the following assertion - "I am a Catholic. I'm also sane". It is an assertion that the majority of believers in any faith would make.

It is also an assertion which cuts to the heart of the religious vs scientific debate, and makes arguing with theists such an intensely frustrating experience for atheists.

What do we men by 'sane'?

Of course we need to consider what we mean by sane. Wikipedia defines sanity as a legal term denoting that an individual...can bear legal responsibility for his actions. I think that most believers fit this definition, although the definition of children as insane seems odd. I digress.

Generally, sane means whatever the majority agrees is sane. In England a century ago, homosexuals, and umarried mothers were regarded as candidates for the local asylum, and a few hundred years previously you would have been thought insane not to believe in god.

Nowadays, by contrast, having an interest in sexually mature members of the opposite sex who are under eighteen is regarded as insane, despite being the norm for most cultures for most of history.

However, probably the definition that most people use in everyday life is: mentally healthy; free from mental disorder. And it is here that atheists and theists disagree.

Atheists believe that it is mentally disordered to believe in supernatural beings without a shred of evidence. They, and I include myself here, feel that all we need to do is point out the irrational nature of belief to a theist, and they should accept our logic and join our ranks. Unfortunately this doesn't happen. Why not?

Why do religious people not listen to reason?

A recent study by Emory University shows that people who are strongly attached to a partisan position do not use facts to make decisions. Brain imaging studies of comitted American political party members using fMRI showed that it is the emotional parts of the brain which is active during discussions, not the reasoning parts. If you argue with someone about an entrenched position, they defend with their emotions, allowing them to ignore contradictory or conflicting evidence.

In other words, it's very difficult to change someone's mind about an entrenched position with logic, because the logical part of their brain isn't listening.

So, is Martin Newland sane? Yes. He's no more insane than the rest of us. He is, however less rational than the majority of his countrymen.

Darwin Online

The complete works of Charles Darwin have recently been digitised and made available here, courtesy of the British taxpayers via Cambridge University.

Darwins seminal work not only explains that we are in fact descended from a long chain of ancestors, all of whom reproduced and passed on their characteristics to their offspring before dying. What is particularly impressive about this is that Darwin managed to formulate his theory without knowing Mendel's mechanisms of genetic inheritance.

Daniel Dennett called natural selection "the single best idea anyone has ever had", in his book Darwin's Dangerous Idea. He's right. It explains why every creature on this planet looks, acts, eats, sleeps, thinks and fucks the way they do.

Religious fundamentalists of all persuasions should read it before uttering another word about evolution.