One of my favorite Internet sparring partners in the evolution debate is a Hare Krishna devotee who teaches English in South Korea1. I debate with him on a message board for expat English teachers. Unlike most fundamentalist Christians who posit a 6,000 year old universe, Hare Krishnas seem to believe the universe is trillions of years old. What actually brings them into conflict with science is while the best evidence points to modern humans being about 130,000 years old the Hare Krishnas believe modern humans have been around for millions of years. And by modern I mean MODERN. Millions of years ago humans were zipping around the sky in TIE fighters and nuking each other with hydrogen bombs. Since both science and his religious teachings can't both be right, and science doesn't at all seem to support the truth of his religious teachings, science is a closed-minded conspiracy seeking to spread its atheistic views. Hence, it has to go.
What I always found amusing about my Hare Krishna sparring partner is the same arguments he'd drag out for very, very ancient human beings are largely the same arguments creationists drag out for a 6,000 year old Earth.
It gets even better when the message board's resident young earth creationists repeats the Hare Krishna's evidence a few pages later in defense of a young earth. Both seem to be oblivious to the contradiction, even when the contradiction is pointed out to them.
Of course, what they're really doing is trying ultimately to argue "X can't exist if evolution is true and since X is true evolution is false and my belief wins simply because it showed up to the argument." This is, of course, the false dichotomy fallacy. The idea if you can show evolution is wrong then your creationism theory wins by default was soundly rejected in the McLean v. Arkansas trial back in the 1980s. The judge firmly rejected the creationist's "two model" approach that evidence against evolution is by default evidence for creationism.
Yeah, so my point? Anyway, the Hare Krishna debater sometimes got sidetracked into whole other areas, ranging from UFOs to vegetarianism2. Every now and then he'd start grousing about corporations, the stock market, banks and the like. He thought they were greedy
Greed. It's a term we've been hearing a lot, not just from barmy old ESL teachers with a religious axe to grind against the capitalist west for rejecting hemp powered cars, the obvious truth that man's savior takes the form of a giant purple baby, and world peace can be achieved by the running around shopping mall parking lots banging finger cymbals in people's faces.
The banks and Wall street types were greedy. This is what got us into this mess. Greed. It's so obvious.
When my Hare Krishna "friend" (I'm sure I'd be his friend in real life and I don't mean to use scare quotes in a sarcastic manner) started on a jag about corporate greed, I always pointed out to him that Koreans generally viewed us ex-pat ESL teachers as being greedy. We want to be paid significantly more than the average Korean salary but only work half the hours of a typical Korean. Most of us have freshly minted BAs in English or Psychology and zero work experience or actual skills. Yet, we want to be paid more than most Koreans earn as entry level workers in medicine or engineering. We demand a free apartment and don't want to share it with anyone.
Did he think of himself as greedy? He certainly wasn't totaling up his living expenses and then asking his boss for a salary reduction. No, he was more than happy to be saving $1,000 a month while working a 4 hour day.
Is greed a case of "I'm forceful and clear about what I want. But she's a bitch." ""I'm dynamic. He's a show off." "I'm proud of my accomplishments. He brags too much." In other words, my attempts to get ahead of the curve and provide for a secure future are reasonable but the next guy is a greedy resource hog.
I remember during the dot.com days when my stock options were worth more than a million bucks. That seemed like a lot of money. But closer I got to the day my options would vest (i.e., I could actually sell those options) the more I realized how little a million was. After taxes, a new house, a new car, money for your mother for a trip to Europe, put some aside for your nephew's future university education, there wasn't a whole lot left.
Well, no problem, dot.com stocks seemed to do 2-1 splits every six month and it seemed back then it was a mathematical certainty that if the share price was $120 before the split it would go back to $120 after the split. To wit, wait a year and your million would become two million.
So you'd start to think, okay, taxes, house, car, family, saving to retire at age 55, there was nothing left, really, to pay for the property tax on my new home, the insurance for my BMW Z33, and my new found hobby touring the wineries of Washington and Oregon.
Well, again, you dream up yet another 2-1 split. Now you have $4 million. Now you start thinking "house, car, family, retirement, lifestyle upkeep, sail boat, gas for the sail boat's motor because sailing is hard, some mild cosmetic surgery, and a donation to the symphony that will get me invited to thrice yearly 'Golden Baton Galas'", well, again there's nothing left.
So your $4 million becomes $8 million. It's nice 'n' all and it's going to cover all the things $4 million won't but damn you start thinking how much it's going to cost you to get the new medical school at your university to name the building after you. It's all about leaving a legacy.
When you're a short year away from having lottery jackpot type money suddenly dumped in your lap simply for showing up to work every day, you begin to really consider what that money can actually buy. And you quickly realize dreams the money will satisfy are replaced by dreams it won't.
Did it seem to me wanting a house, a decent car, and being able to indulge in a bit of "strategic" philanthropy was greedy?
Are you being greedy if you put $50,000 into an investment at age 30 and wanted more than the average annual returns because you knew it meant when you retired you could eat salmon steaks and not canned tuna?
Does greed exist? If I say, no, I think I'm committing the False Continuum Fallacy. Let me quote from wiki on the False Continuum Fallacy:
Q: Does one grain of wheat form a heap?
A: No.
Q: If we add one, do two grains of wheat form a heap?
A: No.
Q: If we add one, do three grains of wheat form a heap?
A: No.
...
Q: If we add one, do one hundred grains of wheat form a heap?
A: No.
Q: Therefore, no matter how many grains of wheat we add, we will never have a heap. Therefore, heaps don't exist!
Let's rephrase:
Q: Does wanting one extra dollar than you are getting now constitute greed?
A: No.
Q: Does a desire for two extra dollars constitute greed?
A: No.
Q: Does a desire for three extra dollars constitute greed?
A: No.
...
Q: Does a desire for one hundred extra dollars constitute greed?
A: No.
Q: Therefore, no matter how much more we want out of our investments we will never be considered greedy. Therefore, greed doesn't exist!
The Simpsons had a funny version of this chain of logic once. Bart was helping a mafia type called Tony fence stolen cigarettes. Bart began to suspect this might not be on the up 'n' up.
Bart: Uh, say, are you guys crooks?
Tony: Bart, um, is it wrong to steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving family?
Bart: No.
Tony: Well, suppose you got a large starving family. Is it wrong to steal a truckload of bread to feed them?
Bart: Uh uh.
Tony: And, what if your family don't like bread? They like ... cigarettes?
Bart: I guess that's okay.
Tony: Now, what if instead of giving them away, you sold them at a price that was practically giving them away. Would that be a crime, Bart?
Bart: Hell, no!
So neither wiki nor The Simpsons helps me resolve the False Continuum Fallacy. I'm feeling a bit like The Office's Michael Scott who is at a loss at to what to do because "there is no Wikipedia page for office robbery statistics".
Greed certainly exists. If your mother puts a cake in front of you and your brother, 50/50 would seem fair. If you take 75% of the cake, you're greedy. You can't really argue you're just fattening up to get to puberty quicker to have babies quicker to ensure your genetic survival. Your brother, of course, has the same goal.
If wiki can't rescue me from committing a logical fallacy, what or who can? What good is this Web 2.0 crap anyway? Luckily, Web 2.0 can rescue me. I think. EconTalk podcaster Russ Roberts frequently notes economics is not like the cake example. Getting a bigger slice of the cake doesn't necessarily mean the next person gets a smaller share. If taking a larger slice means you make the cake bigger when it's passed on to the next guy then who is to complain?
Still, the events of the past several months don't appear to have made the cake bigger. If the crisis was set off by sub prime mortgages and the sub prime crisis was set off by too many people putting 2% (vs 20%) down on a home, well, was that greed? Home ownership strikes me as a reasonable dream, not greedy. Coming back to our dialog between Bart and Tony, is it greedy to want decent shelter for your family? Is it greedy to want a safe backyard for your children instead of the dangers of a public park? What if your kids don't like tree swings but would rather swim in a kidney-shaped pool with a water slide? Hmmm?
There are, of course, smart ways to realize our dreams and stupid ways. Putting 2% down on a house is stupid. Just as they say don't ascribe to malice that which you can blame on incompetence, it is possible one should not blame greed on which you should first try to explain via human stupidity.
_____________________________
1Karl's Long Run Blog Drinking Game
Take a shot when Karl mentions:
1) Korea
2) Roseanne
3) Canada
4) Rambles for about half the post before getting to the actual point of the post.
2I don't believe in UFOs and I think the arguments for vegetarianism are quite sound but goddamn I love a Wendy's triple and I'm not about to abandon some pleasures in life for cold logic.
3While discussing what cars we were going to buy when our stock options vested, I informed my coworker Hayden (simply the coolest human being you'll ever meet, assuming you never get to meet vegas juggler Michael Goudeau) that I wanted to get a Mazda Miata. Hayden informed me that was a "chick ride" and said my only acceptable, manly choice for a two seat roadster was the BMW Z3.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
As a very general definition that retains the negative connotation of greed, I think that we could say that "greed a tendency to injure others by demanding an unfair share of a resource for yourself". How do you fit that into an employee handbook or a contract? I'm not sure that you can. I think that you may end up with an arbitrary rule like "the highest paid full-time employee cannot make more than 50 times what the lowest paid full-time employee does". Arbitrary rules invariably lead to some ridiculous circumstances, but they can also be used as a general gauge to keep our frame of reference from shifting too much.
ReplyDeleteHaribol,
ReplyDeleteInteresting read, but a very misguidedly oversimplified view of Gaudiya Vaishnavism.
And there is some evidence to suggest that ancient civilizations existed that did have advanced technology, so I don't think its objective to deny such claims outright ... Puma Punku in Bolivia is a good example, if you haven't checked it out yet.
Your ever well-wisher,
Narayan Higgins.
What is your definition of "advanced technology"? That's a pretty loose definition and quite relative. The Egyptians were pretty advanced and had pretty advanced technology compared to, say, nomadic tribes kicking around Palestine. But I mean no flying vehicles, death rays, etc. If that's what you mean by advanced technology.
ReplyDeleteThe wiki page for Puma Punka is pretty lame on the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumapunku
But I'm not sure how "using a lot of people to perform extremely hard labor and using religion as a motivator" isn't a reasonable hypothesis.
Archeology ascribes to cultures technology that they can demonstrate the culture has based on evidence. Archeology just can't invent technology and ascribe it on a hunch. You'll notice science is pushing back dates for agriculture. That is not to say humans didn't farm earlier and science has pronounced the current date as fixed in stone. Archeology uses the phrase "earliest known..." for this reason.
Haribol,
ReplyDeleteYeah that wiki page is disappointing. My understanding of the site (based primarily off a history channel special ... lol) is that there are numerous 100 ton + rocks (one even weighing 800 tons). Surprisingly, there are no quarries for miles, as the site is located on a 13,000 ft high plateau. The archaeologists on the program dated the site as 14,000 years old.
But here's the really interesting part, there are precise inscriptions and cuttings in the stone, down to the millimeter. The stones are all granite and diorite, making them impossible to carve with stone or copper tools (the program said only diamond-tipped tools were suitable). Finally, all of these 100+ ton stones fit together seamlessly through interconnecting notches and slits (mortar would degrade, it was built to last).
While the program was using all this information to give evidence of extraterrestrial meddling, I think it more appropriate to say archaeologists know a lot less about the ancient world then they think. -My limited, speculative view on the subject. (btw the site is now *mostly* in ruins, apparently from a cataclysmic earthquake and subsequent floods).
Bottom line: This ancient, so-called primitive civilization built an ENORMOUS (outshines the great pyramid) megalithic structure, with extremely precise carvings and inter workings.
The basic gist of the Yuga cycle, according to the Vedic literature, is that man was once extremely advanced in subtle sciences - though lived plainly, taking only what they needed (Satya Yuga). Eventually degrading through the Treta and Dwarpa Yugas to our current age; Kali Yuga. "The iron age of quarrel and hypocrisy" - a very fitting description of our present condition, I'd say. There are various predictions in the Srimad Bhagavatam of symptoms of this age, which are also startlingly accurate. I'd recommend checking that out, if at all interested. (By the way, by most calculations we're only 5,000 years into the 432,000 year long age; btw a golden age is said to exist - coinciding conspicuously with the Mayan 2012 date). Important to note is that the Vedic understanding of time is cyclical, and after this Kali Yuga, Satya will start again, etc etc.
http://hubpages.com/hub/Ancient-Mysteries-Puma-Punku-in-Tiahuanaco
http://vedicinsight.blogspot.com/2009/01/vedic-prophecies-symptoms-of-kali-yuga.html
(P.S. you mentioned going off topic with vegetarianism, I'd like to know your views on the subject. I consider the environmental, ethical, and health consequences of a meat eating diet irrefutable. You can't be a meat eating environmentalist)
Plain living, high thinking.
Your ever well-wisher,
Narayan Higgins
First, I'd still like you to define advanced technology.
ReplyDelete||Yeah that wiki page is disappointing. My understanding of the site (based primarily off a history channel special … lol) is that there are numerous 100 ton + rocks (one even weighing 800 tons). Surprisingly, there are no quarries for miles, as the site is located on a 13,000 ft high plateau. The archaeologists on the program dated the site as 14,000 years old.||
There's a pretty detailed site on some aspects from an American archeological team, including methods for moving the rocks:
http://www.archaeology.org/interactive/tiwanaku/project/experiment.html
(Use the arrow buttons at the bottom to scroll through the site)
Regarding the 14,000 date:
||The idea that Tiwanaku is 14,000 years old is based on a rather faulty study done in 1926. Since then, there has been a huge quantity of work both on the archaeology and geology of the area, and all data indicates that Tiwanaku existed from around A.D. 300-500 to 900-1000. ||
||The stones are all granite and diorite, making them impossible to carve with stone or copper tools (the program said only diamond-tipped tools were suitable).||
I tend not to take the word of a tv show. According to wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obelisk_building_technology_in_ancient_Egypt
||It is now known that the tools employed for carving the granite were small balls of Diorite that is a mineral harder than granite.||
It would appear there's no mystery there.
||I think it more appropriate to say archaeologists know a lot less about the ancient world then they think.||
I would challenge you to cite one archaeologist who thinks they have reasonably complete knowledge about the ancient world.
I think any archaeologist would say there is a lot to discover, what they know and understand is small, and they're constantly being amazed by what they discover. If young students found the field of archaeology without challenges, without the ability to add in significant ways to the field, they wouldn't enter the field.
So, no, it's not actually appropriate to say.
||Bottom line: This ancient, so-called primitive civilization built an ENORMOUS (outshines the great pyramid) megalithic structure, with extremely precise carvings and inter workings.||
Right. Humans 3,000 years ago were as smart as we are today. It's impressive what they were able to accomplish using primitive tools + smarts + lots of elbow grease.
Advanced
ReplyDeletehttp://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+advanced&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
Technology
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+technology&btnG=Search
...
"I would challenge you to cite one archaeologist who thinks they have reasonably complete knowledge about the ancient world."
I'm sorry I did misuse words there. My point of view is that of a student. In every history, geology, archaeology related class I've ever taken, the subject was most definitely regarded as a "closed matter". I think their may be a disconnect between what archaeologist propound and what is actually taught in most schools today (I've attended public schools in Hawaii, Arizona, California, and Texas) So once again, my limited view.
The article you linked was about the construction of obelisks in ancient Egypt. While impressive, they are no where near the complexity and scale of Puma Punku.
Regarding the dating, I can only find conflicting reports and speculations on the internet. But I'll agree concede a 500 AD dating, for conciliatory purposes. The fact that the site is so amazing, yet so covered (soil, earthquake, after only 1500 yrs) leads me to believe that thousands of such civilizations could have lived and flourished; only to be swallowed whole by cruel time (especially when you think of the time scale ! Thousands of millions of years! Surely you must agree that there is a probability, or at least a possibility that many great civilizations - perhaps greater than ours - have come and gone. Looking at what we know of the last 5,000 years, I'd expect that to be obvious.
And I never advocated flying space crafts and death rays.... haha.
Still would like to know your position on vegetarianism, hope you aren't dodging that.
Your ever well-wisher,
Narayan Higgins
godveg.wordpress.com
||In every history, geology, archaeology related class I’ve ever taken, the subject was most definitely regarded as a “closed matter”.||
ReplyDeleteThat might be possibly your memory of how the subject was presented. Undergrad courses especially are rather terse. We want new students to have a firm grasp of the current thinking. For example, you don't teach kids how to paint abstract art at first. You teach them the fundamentals. That should not be confused with "this is the only way to do art".
||The article you linked was about the construction of obelisks in ancient Egypt. While impressive, they are no where near the complexity and scale of Puma Punku.||
I was merely linking to answer your claim that granite etc can't be carved by copper tools. Right. But it can be carved by a stone that was freely available to the builders of Puma Punku (and was used by the Egyptians). There is no mystery there and if the TV show didn't list that as a possibility then they were either ignorant of known techniques or being dishonest.
||Thousands of millions of years! Surely you must agree that there is a probability, or at least a possibility that many great civilizations – perhaps greater than ours – have come and gone. Looking at what we know of the last 5,000 years, I’d expect that to be obvious.||
Anything is possible. But I generally don't believe something until I see evidence for it. We have very good evidence than modern human beings are no older than 100,000 to 200,000 years old. If modern humans had lived millions of years ago, you'd think we'd find signs of them among the fossils we do find from millions of years ago.
I eat and love meat to answer your previous question. I think there are some good arguments for vegetarianism, just as there are good arguments for having sex with a condom. But. Meh. Humans don't always follow what is logical where desires are concerned.
Haribol,
ReplyDelete||I was merely linking to answer your claim that granite etc can’t be carved by copper tools. Right. But it can be carved by a stone that was freely available to the builders of Puma Punku (and was used by the Egyptians). There is no mystery there and if the TV show didn’t list that as a possibility then they were either ignorant of known techniques or being dishonest. ||
There are also equidistant, 6 millimeter thick grooves made in DIORITE meaning a harder substance was most likely used to carve them.
Also, the reed boat site you linked wasn't in working order (none of the links work). Assuming the project went forward, they were only transporting an 8 ton slab, not the 100+ton slabs or even the huge 500+ton ones (the comparative reed boat size needed would be ridiculous, but I suppose plausible).
Regarding the fossil record, I can only stress how incomplete and insufficient it is. A majority of ancient civilizations would have lived in lands now covered by ocean. (some are being discovered, even Krsna's Dwarka off the cost of India).
Oceans cover 71% of the Earth's surface
We have explored less than 10% of this area. Obviously a lot remains undiscovered.
||But I generally don’t believe something until I see evidence for it|| While useful, the senses cannot be taken as an authority on all matters. By nature they are limited and imperfect.
And that is a real shame. The arguments for vegetarianism aren't just good they are practically irrefutable. Any serious environmentalist, humanitarian, or just decent human being would adopt vegetarianism when presented with all the facts.
We are living in times of great hypocrisy! Your example of how you know the arguments for vegetarianism, yet still eat meat verily allude to this truth. Perhaps a strong enough argument has not been presented to you. Please don't cheat yourself.
Your ever well-wisher,
Narayan Higgins
||There are also equidistant, 6 millimeter thick grooves made in DIORITE meaning a harder substance was most likely used to carve them.||
ReplyDeleteQuartz is harder than diorite. That's another freely available stone. Why couldn't they use quartz?
Diorite was a common stoned used through out the ancient world to make sculptures and bowls. It didn't take yet defined "advanced technology". The Egyptians were carving bowls out of it in 4000 BC. Hammurabi's code was carved into the stuff. So many ancient cultures used it for so many things if there was no known method it would be one of the biggest mysteries of archeology, up there with deciphering Egyptian and Mayan hieroglyphs. You'd find numerous academic web pages devoted to unraveling this amazingly troubling mystery. But it's no mystery. Quartz dust or chips are fashioned into a saw, either on the end of a copper blade or worked into the stone by a rope and a lot water to keep the medium dry. A user here explains:
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=26210&st=30
||General methods of cutting the stones are relatively easy to conjecture though I would need more information to be specific.
1. Using small bits of diorite, quartz or other similar stone and placing them as teeth in a saw or drill. This was done by a number of ancient people.
2. Using diorite, quartz or other similar stone powder, spreading it on the surface of the stone then using a weaker material to saw... using the powder to grind into the rock. This was certainly used by a number of South American tribes.||
||Also, the reed boat site you linked wasn't in working order (none of the links work). Assuming the project went forward, they were only transporting an 8 ton slab, not the 100+ton slabs or even the huge 500+ton ones (the comparative reed boat size needed would be ridiculous, but I suppose plausible). ||
Can you document 500 ton blocks were used? The wiki page on the subject says:
||Some of the blocks brought up to build the temples are said to weigh about 100–130 tons||
How many such blocks of the highest weight were used? Again, why can't a lot of determined human effort be an explanation? Even if there is no current answer established by a reasonable level of evidence, so what? A gap is a gap. It's not a two model hypothesis: either human effort or "advanced technology" (which you've yet to define).
And why did none of this advanced technology survive? I mean you would think the equipment used to move 100 ton blocks is of much hardier stuff. Archeologists can turn up simple tools, musical instruments, pots, etc around the site that have survived. Why none of this undefined "advanced technology"?
||Regarding the fossil record, I can only stress how incomplete and insufficient it is. A majority of ancient civilizations would have lived in lands now covered by ocean. (some are being discovered, even Krsna's Dwarka off the cost of India).||
Forgive me if I don't take it on your authority that the fossil record is insufficient to establish humans did not live 2 million years ago.
The fossil record, homology, archeology, geology, and genetics (all independent spheres of science) converge quite clearly on the theory that modern humans are not much older than a couple hundred thousand years. Review:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution
If you have positive peer reviewed evidence to the contrary, you should table it.
||We are living in times of great hypocrisy! Your example of how you know the arguments for vegetarianism, yet still eat meat verily allude to this truth. Perhaps a strong enough argument has not been presented to you. Please don't cheat yourself.||
I like my burgers. Anyway, we are fortunate indeed a morally perfect individual like yourself has arrived on this blog. To wit, I won't debate the ethics of eating steak with you.
Haribol,
ReplyDeleteYou completely straw-manned on the lack of ocean exploration. Never have I once claimed my own authority in asserting that humans have been around longer than believed.
And there are plenty of sites documenting Puma Punku's 500+ ton stones. Wikipedia... rofl you are kidding right.
And I gave you plenty of definitions on Advanced Technology (maybe you should pay more attention). Ironically, you are the one making bold assumptions. The most applicable composite definition being :
"ahead in development; complex or intricate" and "the study of or a collection of techniques; a particular technological concept; the body of tools and other implements produced by a given society"
It is funny that you try and juggle all these words to explain away your greed. Linking to wikipedia like a mad man. Inside, you must know that you are cheating yourself. That is Paramatma, listen.
We could argue indefinitely, because we'd be arguing an unknown. More important then is the present and future, which don't seem too good for you. I won't be returning because this is an exercise in futility, but if you'd like to contact me further in friendly discussion I can be reached at n**@*.com [ed: removed personal email]. I can only leave you with this; thought I'd quote a respected scientist rather than religious work. Maybe that will get through to you.
"What is the meaning of human life, or, for that matter, of the life of any creature? To know an answer to this question means to be religious. You ask: Does it make any sense, then, to pose this question? I answer: The man who regards his own life and that of his fellow creatures as meaningless is not merely unhappy but hardly fit for life." - Mein Weltbild, Amsterdam: Querido Verlag, 1934.
A human being is a part of the whole, called by us the 'Universe', a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separate from the rest - a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. Nobody is able to achieve this completely, but the striving for such achievement is in itself a part of the liberation and a foundation for inner security. - New York Post, 28 November 1972
"Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet. "
-Albert Einstein, perhaps the greatest thinker of our time.
Your ever well-wisher,
Narayan Higgins