I DN av den 26 januari 2011 redogjorde utbildningsradions VD, programchef och redaktionschef för reaktioner de fått på den satsning de gör för att öka förståelsen och toleransen bland ungdomar beträffande intima relationer mellan människor med olika etnisk bakgrund och olika sexuell läggning. Detta är utan tvekan en viktig satsning.
Enligt UR-cheferna har de bemötts av starkt rasistiska uttalanden på diverse bloggar och i e-mails med smaklösa utläggningar och öppna hot mot dem som ser en fredlig samlevnad mellan människor med olika sorters bakgrund som naturlig och eftersträvansvärd. Det är skrämmande vad UR-ledningen har att berätta om de reaktioner de fått. Den hårresande intolerans, illvilja, rädsla och hat som kommit till uttryck i dessa måste tas på mycket stort allvar.
Ett vanligt sätt att bemöta rasister är att hävda att människor av olika raser mycket väl kan leva i fred och sämja med varandra. Det är ett bra påstående, ett välmenande sådant men ändå felaktigt för det utgår från samma vanföreställning som rasisternas, nämligen att det skulle finnas olika raser.
För egen del tror jag att vi måste höja oss över det rasistiska käbblet och konstatera att det faktiskt inte finns olika raser. Det finns förvisso människor med olika hudfärg men hudfärg är inte ett tecken på ras. Det är inte ens ett etniskt kännetecken utan ett geografiskt. I områden nära ekvatorn utvecklade människor under hundratusentals år ett pigment som hjälpte dem att skydda sig mot den skadligt starka solbestrålningen, medan de som drog sig längre norrut inte längre behövde detta skydd utan tvärtom en hud som lät dem tillgodogöra sig den i dessa områden mer sparsamt förekommande solbestrålningen.
Därför finns det ett helt spektrum av olika hudfärger som varierar från söder till norr. Människor som vi kallar för svarta är som regel inte alls svarta utan snarare bruna. Har någon hört talas om den ”bruna” rasen? – Att indela människor i olika ”raser” beroende på deras hudfärg är ett påfund som det inte finns någon vetenskaplig grund för. Däremot finns det – som jag hävdade i boken ”Tro Vett Vanvett” – miljarder olika sätt att se ut.
Jag tror det vore bra om myndigheter och vetenskapare i god förening ville dödförklara rasbegreppet genom att förklara att det faktiskt inte finns olika raser utan att vi alla tillhör en och samma ”ras” eller art som den i stället bör kallas, dvs arten homo sapiens. Jag tror inte att ett klargörande av det här slaget innebär en lösning på problemet, men det kan få en psykologisk inverkan och bli ett stöd i den fortsatta kampen mot rasismen.
Självfallet kommer somliga människor att även fortsättningsvis hysa agg mot dem som inte har samma hudfärg som de själva, men kanske kan de fås att inse att dessa inte tillhör andra ”raser” lika lite som tjocka människor, eller människor med stora näsor, eller människor med plattfot, eller människor med etc, etc. ej heller tillhör andra raser än de själva. De har visserligen en annan genetisk struktur som för varje människa är unik, men inte ens den värste rasist kommer på idén att indela sådana människor i ”den tjocka rasen” eller ”den stornästa rasen” eller ”plattfotsrasen”.
Så låt oss en för alla gånger kasta föreställningen om olika raser på den historiska sophögen med förlegade och farliga myter och annat skräp.
måndag 31 januari 2011
söndag 23 januari 2011
Definition of Life, continued
The following is a contribution from MD James Lavers to the discussion that started on this blog on the "Definition of Life" on 17 November 2010. For previous contributions to this discussion, please refer to that posting:
This conversation continues to take some interesting turns. I hope that my further muddled thoughts on the points raised will be of some interest.
It seems Katie and I are in agreement on the majority of the debate, perhaps unsurprisingly given we have touched on some of these issues before and found considerable common ground; conversations that were always compelling and challenging and are much missed. She has certainly expanded substantially on my suggestion that we are all just incomprehensibly complex biochemical machines thus eliminating the need to draw any distinction between life-forms in terms of what it means to be alive or indeed in possession of free-will.
I am uncertain how much my thoughts will add to such a well trodden philosophical debate as that of free will vs determinism, but for what its worth I will try and find a coherent line of thought.
I do not like the word determinism. To me it implies that everything is pre-determined and inevitable. This physical determinism, which is admittedly only one strand of the several determinist arguments, implies that there is only one possible future, which is being acted out blindly by everything, every atom, every quark in the Universe to a foregone conclusion. There seems to be substantial doubt over this view, not least because of the sub-atomic uncertainty that you have alluded to in your comments. However I do not believe that the presence of this physical indeterminism infers the existence of free will. While it seems there is room for variation and uncertainty, there is no evidence that we have the ability to influence these uncertainties in any way. We cannot control or choose the instantaneous position of an electron. The uncertainty that exists is external to our decision making and affects us indistinguishably from any other event. We react as we always do, in the way we are programmed to by our biochemical configuration through the stimulation of neuroreceptors by neurotransmitters.
As such, my personal view is closest to a type of Biological Determinism. I imagine that we are all independent physical entities (although the word entity is in itself problematic given not a single atom remains constantly as a part of us throughout our lifetime) that inhabit an uncertain Universe, but that our individual reactions are mediated purely through our biochemical responses to external stimuli, controlled by our genetic make up. An analogy might be that of a computer programme. When it is written, the programmer does not know exactly what it will do and when, but it has no free will, it just reacts to stimuli in the way it was designed to. Clearly, the situation for human beings is more complex than that, because we have an ability to change and will not act in the same way throughout our life. For the solution, I once again have Katie to thank for one of the most interesting and important conversations I have ever had. It seems that the genome does not produce an intransigent code as I had imagined but it acts more like a database from which receptors governing different things may be upregulated and downregulated. The numbers of particular receptors up and down-regulated at any one time affects mood, behaviour and pretty much anything. In experiments (in Humming birds I think), this regulation has been shown to be influenced by environmental factors. In one fell swoop this provides a logical route for the environment to effect the biologically mediated behaviour of humans (including in utero) and may solve another well trodden philosophical path, the debate of nature vs nurture. This model would mean that when considering doing something the idea of not doing it because everything is predetermined and inevitable and thus you have no power to affect anything is nonsensical. You are able to influence your environment with your actions and thus also the reactions of other people. What you cannot do is make a free decision over whether you will do it or not. The chemicals in your brain do that. But the evolution of awareness in the human brain provides the illusion of free will by necessity, as the alternative would mean being a confused passenger on a ride where you feel no association at all with the decision processes.
I admit my argument relies on time being a linear unidirectional entity, which while our perception as humans, may be just evolutionally how it is useful for us to perceive it within the frame of reference of our own existence. However, even if time is capable of being perceived in different ways, it is unlikely that this would make the Universe less deterministic.
You comment in your answers ‘Even if the concept of determinism is correct, it is for us a useless concept.’ Again I am afraid I do not agree. It is true it is a fairly depressing thought, although for me the pursuit of truth is in itself reason enough to try and understand, regardless of what you might find. However, I also believe it has far reaching implications for our society. To what extent are people really responsible for their actions? If some sort of biological determinism is indeed the reality, then the answer is fairly uncomfortable. Should this influence the way society acts in for example punishing criminals? Almost certainly. It is not as simple as saying we should completely scrap the penal system. I imagine that the environmental factors of society have a powerful effect on us. We have evolved to become highly social beings and social pressure and the threat of incarceration effect behaviour, even if in a biochemically mediated way. However, with consideration and research, better understanding of how and why we act may be able to produce a fairer society in a range of areas. Certainly it is worth considering, although clearly care would be needed to avoid producing a ‘Big Brotheresque’ society, where humans were controlled using environmental cues in a mechanistic fashion to produce uniform, conformist beings, which have lost the invention and variation that are such positive traits in our species.
Finally, I would like to return to the original subject matter to reassert my disagreement with what you describe as the exaggerated attention given to the emergence of the first single-cell organism. I think there are two moments in the history of the universe that completely defy logical explanation. The first is the Big Bang itself, where for no reason that we can yet understand an incomprehensibly enormous mass suddenly emanated from one single point. From a fraction of a second after the Big Bang, the expansion of the universe, the formation of stars, galaxies and planets follows a logical process. We have formulated rules that appear to conform to our observations. But what caused that initial moment? What caused the birth of the Universe? From what did it come from? What was there before? Nothing we understand can explain it and likely never will.
Only slightly less extraordinary to me is the first emergence of life. I don't see this as a ‘natural next step of the evolution from the Big Bang via the formation of subatomic particles, atoms, molecules, stars and galaxies,’ as you do. It is something completely different. It is unlikely it was a unique moment, given the incomprehensible number of stars and planets in the Universe, but it is extraordinary and for me, again without logic. What possible reason is there that molecules, to all intensive purposes inanimate objects should start acting together for a common goal? To reproduce and develop? There was no evolution before. It is like the Big Bang but on Earth. The single point from where all life has emanated. From that moment the diversification and development of life on Earth, has again followed a logical process, this time governed by the laws of evolution. That does not make the process of evolution anything less than extraordinary, but it does follow a pattern that we can understand. That an ability to perceive and process the reflections of a section of the electromagnetic spectrum has been developed, to the extent that a representation of what surrounds us can be constructed is unbelievable. Light was not designed to be used to see. It is emitted from stars as a byproduct of nuclear reaction. Evolution has provided the tools to utilise it to confer a survival advantage. It is remarkable. But it follows a logical course of development, which can even be followed by studying organisms with variously developed abilities to perceive light and react to it. A process of slow improvement can be traced. It is logical.
And yes, even with all that has developed, vision, hearing, motor function, sensation, there is no doubt that the self-aware brain is evolution's most sparkling achievement. The crown jewels. A stunning work worthy of awe and wonder, with the ability to perceive beauty, humour, love and even itself. That such a seemingly haphazard process as evolution could create such a work of art is remarkable and worth celebrating. But there is a process there. A process which started with that very first life form. A process that is rational. Why that first life form first came together, at least for me, is not logical.
This conversation continues to take some interesting turns. I hope that my further muddled thoughts on the points raised will be of some interest.
It seems Katie and I are in agreement on the majority of the debate, perhaps unsurprisingly given we have touched on some of these issues before and found considerable common ground; conversations that were always compelling and challenging and are much missed. She has certainly expanded substantially on my suggestion that we are all just incomprehensibly complex biochemical machines thus eliminating the need to draw any distinction between life-forms in terms of what it means to be alive or indeed in possession of free-will.
I am uncertain how much my thoughts will add to such a well trodden philosophical debate as that of free will vs determinism, but for what its worth I will try and find a coherent line of thought.
I do not like the word determinism. To me it implies that everything is pre-determined and inevitable. This physical determinism, which is admittedly only one strand of the several determinist arguments, implies that there is only one possible future, which is being acted out blindly by everything, every atom, every quark in the Universe to a foregone conclusion. There seems to be substantial doubt over this view, not least because of the sub-atomic uncertainty that you have alluded to in your comments. However I do not believe that the presence of this physical indeterminism infers the existence of free will. While it seems there is room for variation and uncertainty, there is no evidence that we have the ability to influence these uncertainties in any way. We cannot control or choose the instantaneous position of an electron. The uncertainty that exists is external to our decision making and affects us indistinguishably from any other event. We react as we always do, in the way we are programmed to by our biochemical configuration through the stimulation of neuroreceptors by neurotransmitters.
As such, my personal view is closest to a type of Biological Determinism. I imagine that we are all independent physical entities (although the word entity is in itself problematic given not a single atom remains constantly as a part of us throughout our lifetime) that inhabit an uncertain Universe, but that our individual reactions are mediated purely through our biochemical responses to external stimuli, controlled by our genetic make up. An analogy might be that of a computer programme. When it is written, the programmer does not know exactly what it will do and when, but it has no free will, it just reacts to stimuli in the way it was designed to. Clearly, the situation for human beings is more complex than that, because we have an ability to change and will not act in the same way throughout our life. For the solution, I once again have Katie to thank for one of the most interesting and important conversations I have ever had. It seems that the genome does not produce an intransigent code as I had imagined but it acts more like a database from which receptors governing different things may be upregulated and downregulated. The numbers of particular receptors up and down-regulated at any one time affects mood, behaviour and pretty much anything. In experiments (in Humming birds I think), this regulation has been shown to be influenced by environmental factors. In one fell swoop this provides a logical route for the environment to effect the biologically mediated behaviour of humans (including in utero) and may solve another well trodden philosophical path, the debate of nature vs nurture. This model would mean that when considering doing something the idea of not doing it because everything is predetermined and inevitable and thus you have no power to affect anything is nonsensical. You are able to influence your environment with your actions and thus also the reactions of other people. What you cannot do is make a free decision over whether you will do it or not. The chemicals in your brain do that. But the evolution of awareness in the human brain provides the illusion of free will by necessity, as the alternative would mean being a confused passenger on a ride where you feel no association at all with the decision processes.
I admit my argument relies on time being a linear unidirectional entity, which while our perception as humans, may be just evolutionally how it is useful for us to perceive it within the frame of reference of our own existence. However, even if time is capable of being perceived in different ways, it is unlikely that this would make the Universe less deterministic.
You comment in your answers ‘Even if the concept of determinism is correct, it is for us a useless concept.’ Again I am afraid I do not agree. It is true it is a fairly depressing thought, although for me the pursuit of truth is in itself reason enough to try and understand, regardless of what you might find. However, I also believe it has far reaching implications for our society. To what extent are people really responsible for their actions? If some sort of biological determinism is indeed the reality, then the answer is fairly uncomfortable. Should this influence the way society acts in for example punishing criminals? Almost certainly. It is not as simple as saying we should completely scrap the penal system. I imagine that the environmental factors of society have a powerful effect on us. We have evolved to become highly social beings and social pressure and the threat of incarceration effect behaviour, even if in a biochemically mediated way. However, with consideration and research, better understanding of how and why we act may be able to produce a fairer society in a range of areas. Certainly it is worth considering, although clearly care would be needed to avoid producing a ‘Big Brotheresque’ society, where humans were controlled using environmental cues in a mechanistic fashion to produce uniform, conformist beings, which have lost the invention and variation that are such positive traits in our species.
Finally, I would like to return to the original subject matter to reassert my disagreement with what you describe as the exaggerated attention given to the emergence of the first single-cell organism. I think there are two moments in the history of the universe that completely defy logical explanation. The first is the Big Bang itself, where for no reason that we can yet understand an incomprehensibly enormous mass suddenly emanated from one single point. From a fraction of a second after the Big Bang, the expansion of the universe, the formation of stars, galaxies and planets follows a logical process. We have formulated rules that appear to conform to our observations. But what caused that initial moment? What caused the birth of the Universe? From what did it come from? What was there before? Nothing we understand can explain it and likely never will.
Only slightly less extraordinary to me is the first emergence of life. I don't see this as a ‘natural next step of the evolution from the Big Bang via the formation of subatomic particles, atoms, molecules, stars and galaxies,’ as you do. It is something completely different. It is unlikely it was a unique moment, given the incomprehensible number of stars and planets in the Universe, but it is extraordinary and for me, again without logic. What possible reason is there that molecules, to all intensive purposes inanimate objects should start acting together for a common goal? To reproduce and develop? There was no evolution before. It is like the Big Bang but on Earth. The single point from where all life has emanated. From that moment the diversification and development of life on Earth, has again followed a logical process, this time governed by the laws of evolution. That does not make the process of evolution anything less than extraordinary, but it does follow a pattern that we can understand. That an ability to perceive and process the reflections of a section of the electromagnetic spectrum has been developed, to the extent that a representation of what surrounds us can be constructed is unbelievable. Light was not designed to be used to see. It is emitted from stars as a byproduct of nuclear reaction. Evolution has provided the tools to utilise it to confer a survival advantage. It is remarkable. But it follows a logical course of development, which can even be followed by studying organisms with variously developed abilities to perceive light and react to it. A process of slow improvement can be traced. It is logical.
And yes, even with all that has developed, vision, hearing, motor function, sensation, there is no doubt that the self-aware brain is evolution's most sparkling achievement. The crown jewels. A stunning work worthy of awe and wonder, with the ability to perceive beauty, humour, love and even itself. That such a seemingly haphazard process as evolution could create such a work of art is remarkable and worth celebrating. But there is a process there. A process which started with that very first life form. A process that is rational. Why that first life form first came together, at least for me, is not logical.
tisdag 18 januari 2011
Det är viktigt med demokrati överallt
„Är vi beredda att acceptera demokrati i Mellanöstern, även om den kan bli en besvärligare granne än en lagom korrupt despot?” frågar Ingvar Persson i Aftonbladet den 18 januari.
Det är en ytterligt cynisk fråga. Nu är ju inte Tunisien just vår ”granne”, men visst skulle vi välkomna varje steg mot ökad demokrati i den arabiska världen. Eller har det verkligen gått så långt att vi också från Sveriges sida skulle förorda medgörliga despotiska och lagom (!?) korrupta regimer framför demokratiska?
Vad frågan i första hand gäller är väl om den utveckling som nu kan skönjas i riktning mot demokratiska förhållanden i Tunisien kan fortsätta eller om den kommer att överflyglas av islamistiska krafter syftande till att skapa en fundamentalistisk religiös regim med åtföljande förtryck av oliktänkande.
Det är en sådan utveckling som vi skulle ha svårt att acceptera, inte en tunisisk demokrati.
För oss som tror på demokratin är det viktigt att göra vad vi kan för att främja en utveckling mot att allt fler stater blir demokratiskt styrda och att stödja de demokratier som är hotade.
På just den punkten har jag i gott demokratiskt sinnelag svårt att acceptera oliktänkande.
http://www.aftonbladet.se/ledare/ledarkronika/ingvarpersson/article8426186.ab
Det är en ytterligt cynisk fråga. Nu är ju inte Tunisien just vår ”granne”, men visst skulle vi välkomna varje steg mot ökad demokrati i den arabiska världen. Eller har det verkligen gått så långt att vi också från Sveriges sida skulle förorda medgörliga despotiska och lagom (!?) korrupta regimer framför demokratiska?
Vad frågan i första hand gäller är väl om den utveckling som nu kan skönjas i riktning mot demokratiska förhållanden i Tunisien kan fortsätta eller om den kommer att överflyglas av islamistiska krafter syftande till att skapa en fundamentalistisk religiös regim med åtföljande förtryck av oliktänkande.
Det är en sådan utveckling som vi skulle ha svårt att acceptera, inte en tunisisk demokrati.
För oss som tror på demokratin är det viktigt att göra vad vi kan för att främja en utveckling mot att allt fler stater blir demokratiskt styrda och att stödja de demokratier som är hotade.
På just den punkten har jag i gott demokratiskt sinnelag svårt att acceptera oliktänkande.
http://www.aftonbladet.se/ledare/ledarkronika/ingvarpersson/article8426186.ab
måndag 10 januari 2011
Celibacy–a Catholic Violation of Human Rights
During the last few months lay catholics have voiced demands on the Catholic Church to abolish the celibacy. A quite recent example of such initiatives was reported on 7 January in the Austrian daily newspaper “Die Presse”.
An important motivation for this emerging pressure is the growing problem of finding qualified clergymen to replace those who retire or are leaving the church for other reasons.
The idea is that the abolition of celibacy would help to attract young male heterosexual theologians to become priests, which would also – as an extra bonus - probably reduce the number of children being sexually abused by priests with abnormal sexual orientation. - Yes, it is abnormal to have sex with children – and criminal as well.
The above reasons for ceasing to demand of Catholic priests that they live in celibacy are good and valid but why not simply admit or acknowledge that even Catholic priests have a fundamental right to get married, if they so wish? Why do states that are not governed by the Pope himself, like the Holy See, allow this inhuman discrimination by one employer (the Catholic Church) of a part of its employees (the Catholic priests)?
The following is an excerpt of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the General Assembly in 1948:
Article 16.1
Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.
Article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
And here is an excerpt from the European Convention on Human Rights which entered into force in 1953:
Article 12 – Right to marry
Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right.
Article 14 – Prohibition of discrimination
The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.
Please note the references in both documents to both “sex” and “religion”.
I repeat my question, why do states, especially those that ascribe to the principles of secularism, accept this kind of discriminatory treatment of a whole professional category?
The Catholic Church in its name of “Holy See” is an internationally recognised “state”, but how long shall other states tolerate its operation as a state-in-their-state?
One of many examples of this situation is its pre-medieval practice of mandatory celibacy for a significant part of its staff, a practice which is in overt violation of human rights and national legislation!
An important motivation for this emerging pressure is the growing problem of finding qualified clergymen to replace those who retire or are leaving the church for other reasons.
The idea is that the abolition of celibacy would help to attract young male heterosexual theologians to become priests, which would also – as an extra bonus - probably reduce the number of children being sexually abused by priests with abnormal sexual orientation. - Yes, it is abnormal to have sex with children – and criminal as well.
The above reasons for ceasing to demand of Catholic priests that they live in celibacy are good and valid but why not simply admit or acknowledge that even Catholic priests have a fundamental right to get married, if they so wish? Why do states that are not governed by the Pope himself, like the Holy See, allow this inhuman discrimination by one employer (the Catholic Church) of a part of its employees (the Catholic priests)?
The following is an excerpt of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the General Assembly in 1948:
Article 16.1
Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.
Article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
And here is an excerpt from the European Convention on Human Rights which entered into force in 1953:
Article 12 – Right to marry
Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right.
Article 14 – Prohibition of discrimination
The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.
Please note the references in both documents to both “sex” and “religion”.
I repeat my question, why do states, especially those that ascribe to the principles of secularism, accept this kind of discriminatory treatment of a whole professional category?
The Catholic Church in its name of “Holy See” is an internationally recognised “state”, but how long shall other states tolerate its operation as a state-in-their-state?
One of many examples of this situation is its pre-medieval practice of mandatory celibacy for a significant part of its staff, a practice which is in overt violation of human rights and national legislation!
Prenumerera på:
Inlägg (Atom)
