Category Archives: technology

The programming of life

Share/Bookmark

Exploding TV sets and government regulation

Many people today consider government regulation to be a necessary evil. Without government overseeing greedy corporations, the thinking goes, attention to quality, and especially safety, will degrade.

It is assumed that government is the only entity with the ability and motivation to look out for the interests of everyone.

To help illustrate how faulty the notion of government regulation being our saving grace is, let’s take a look at how the Soviet Union regulated the production of its most effective propaganda outlet, the common TV set. Keep in mind that the USSR had an interest in producing quality TVs in order to govern more effectively.

Soviet television sets tended to explode, because of faulty manufacturing. The surprising and alarming propensity of Russian receivers to blow up, and by extension the apprehension it causes in Soviet viewers, was one of the stranger features of Soviet life. By one estimate, sixty percent of all apartment fires in Moscow are caused by mass-produced Soviet television sets, which hada tendency to explode. Of the 715 apartment fires in Moscow in November 1987, 90 were blamed on exploding television sets, a statistic the Soviet press viewed as an alarming commentary on Soviet technology. Police said three television models notorious for defective wiring are being removed from the market, and millions of warning leaflets have been mailed to television owners.

Its true that markets aren’t efficient (in terms of the efficient market hypothesis ), but as inefficient as they are, governments are worse. It is a fallacy to think that a small subset of the market can do a better job than the whole market in ferreting out bad products.

Thomas Sowell: Global Warming Manufactured by Intellectuals?

The green gospel: More vs. better

[HT Q Ideas]

"We are gradually undoing the stability that God built into our climate system."

If this is true, then what we are saying is that 1. God is a poor designer and 2. that God lied about the durability of the earth, a promise given from Genesis to Revelation.

And the supposed scientific evidence cited is not nearly as solid or "settled" as Bill wants to assert. Science is simply not done by consensus. There are still large gaps in and questions about the data.

The argument from the OT is based on a patently false assumption that mankind is merely a virus or scourge on the environmental. Merely using the environmental for our ends does not constitute raping the environment. It seems like Bill's hermaneutic is based on his narrow pursuit of saving mother nature.

Similarly Bill's argument form the NT appears to amount to nothing more than equating the gospel with man-made global warming hysteria and then co-opting the good Samaritan parable to somehow prop up this new Franken-gospel.

If we want to talk about injustice, we need to expose Bill's solution what it really is. Its the forcing everyone to worship this new environmental religion.

Sorry, but reality here is that the notion that men are able to and indeed are (in a causal sense) destroying the world that God made is still an unsubstantiated myth. A fad. A religion.

Loosing faith: My deconversion story

I’ve weighed the evidence, listened to the best debaters, and carefully examined the scriptures. And I’ve reluctantly come to the conclusion that I simply can’t believe in it anymore.

The most articulate priests and prophets were unable to persuade me of the validity of their position. And they were wholly unable to answer the serious questions I had about the sacred texts. Even in the original languages its plain that the texts are hopelessly riddled with errors and omissions.

If I had to pinpoint what tipped me over the edge, though, I suppose it would have to be the dismal performance of one of the faithful’s most ardent defenders in a recent debate.

If I’ve throughly unnerved you by this point then my post has Happy April fools day! And in case you haven’t figured it out yet, my post is about scientism with the priests and prophets being the new atheists and the sacred texts being their books and others including Darwin’s classic, Origin of Species.

Parallel universes: The materialist’s comfort in the face of death

If you want to get a good idea of the best way materialists have to deal with the otherwise nihilistic implications of their philosophical system, take a look at this clip from the movie “Rabbit Hole“.

I find it interesting how the boy makes the assertion that the notion of parallel universes are 1. infinite and 2. well evidenced by science. The truth is that 1. parallel universes are not infinite (as a matter of logical deduction) and 2. have absolutely no evidence for them whatsoever.

I’ve studied this theory for quite a while now. Ever since 5th grade in fact. And while stories like Quantum Leap and Number of the Beast may be wildly entertaining, the fact is that they simply don’t hold water scientifically (for a number of logical and philosophical reasons) and they ultimately provide no hope for anyone searching for real answers worth staking your life on.

Additionally, here is a documentary which attempts to breathe spiritual life into the otherwise dead philosophy of materialism. If you listen closely you will be able to pick up on the distinct fingerprints of post modernism. In order to add any weight to an otherwise vacuous theory, it is wholly necessary to wage an all-out epistemological assault on the mind. If we call into question what we know and how certain we can be of what we know, then we can sneak in a theory like parallel universes which has no real evidence to speak of.

However they do raise a very valid point about the question of where our knowledge really lies. I would argue, along the lines of Alvin Plantinga, that without God, the ability to reason and trust our thoughts is clear evidence of a personal creator.

Michael Crichton on Environmentalism as a Religion

Meet Blinky, the helpful robot

Blinky™ from Ruairi Robinson on Vimeo.

The above video is EXTREMELY well done for a 12 minute short. What makes it even more chilling, however, is how in a recent debate regarding the meaning of life, the question was asked about making sure Asimov’s 3 laws of robotics should be imprinted in all robotics. One of the responders, and it was left unchallenged by all, emphatically said “No!”.

The lesson is simple, morality does not come from within a being.

The Great Debate – What is Life?

[HT Uncommon Descent]

Margaret Sanger’s failed population gamble

In this interview with Mike Wallace circa 1957 Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, laughs at the notion that the earth could sustain the then-current human population growth. Mike Wallace cited a claim made in a study done by James Bonner a California professor who claimed that the earth could sustain a 1/3rd rise in human population in the next 50 years. 1/3rd was apparently considered a large number.

Sanger, based on Malthusian notions, said the idea was absurd and that unless something were done right then to cull the human population explosion, we would face massive starvation and other calamities within 50 years.

Well the results are in, and 50 years later the human population of the earth has more than doubled and it appears we’re all doing just fine. Mrs Sanger was wrong.

Mrs Sanger’s failed gamble should be a lesson for modern-day Malthusians who want to buy into the myth of overpopulation. It is unwise to bet against the human spirit and it is immoral to advocate the wanton destruction of human life.