kindheart

This still seems wrong to me. Of course, as a philosophical nihilist, I realize I have no basis other than my own emotions for making that statement. It just seems unfair to me for one species of animal (let's be clear: humans are just another species of animal) to use another as property. It's fundamentally different from, for example, a lion hunting a zebra. The lion may kill and eat the zebra, but it doesn't own the zebra. It's that ownership (and the cruelty that often comes from it) that doesn't sit well with me. I never said eating meat in and of itself was unethical, I said that about factory farming and livestock production. Then keep them alive and taken care of for a generation, but don't allow them to breed anymore -- this will eliminate the problem. Anyway, this is simply another symptom of overpopulation. Such large-scale factory farming and livestock raising would be totally necessary if the human population wasn't so high. In my subjective opinion (which I realize doesn't mean much), humans aren't inherently anymore valuable than other animals, and because of this, we shouldn't take over the planet at the expense of the well-being of other species.

I'm a bit torn on this issue. On one hand, I recognize that businesses are amoral rational actors: their sole raison d'etre is to maximize profits by any means necessary. By selecting out workers who might be empathetic to customers, these banks are fulfilling their mission of profit maximization. After all, a stern, hard-nosed employee who does things "by the book" and attempts to make high-pressure sales is more likely to maximize profits than one who tries to be kind and fair to accountholders. That's capitalism, that's business, that's just how it works. On a more personal level, however, I'm quite bothered by these banks' practices, and the cold logic of capitalism in general. Although I'm technically an ethical nihilist (I believe there are no moral facts or objective moral duties), I do have a type of personal, subjective "code" I follow that basically boils down to three values: fairness, kindness, and respect for other sentient beings. It's hard to mesh those values with the cutthroat nature of modern consumer capitalism, so I'm inclined to oppose that system. Still, the problem with capitalism is that it's the worst modern economic system, except, of course, for all the others we've tried. Anti-capitalist economic and social systems, like, for example, communism and socialism, have been consistently more adept at producing human suffering than capitalism, despite the fact that the latter is founded on avarice. So, what's the solution? I'll be honest and say I don't know. The idealist in me wants to formulate some other system that can replace the profit-seeking economic we have today, while my pragmatist side says "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." Either way, there's no quick fix available for something (competition and greed) for which the balance of scientific evidence says is ingrained in human nature.

As others have said, if there's no credible evidence for the existence of 'X,' the most rational thing to do is remain skeptical in regards to 'X.' In light of this, I disbelieve in deities because there's no evidence for gods or miracles. Any 'scientific' explanation of how the virgin birth / water into wine / etc. could have happened is irrelevant, because there's no evidence that such events ever took place. It's useless to discuss their plausibility without first providing some evidence that these fantastic events actually happened. However, despite my atheism, I have no problem with people who choose to hold religious or mystical views -- as long as they keep their views separate from the political sphere and don't use them as a justification for bigotry or discrimination toward others.

What, exactly, is wrong with a vegan diet? It's far less cruel than meat-eating (especially with our current factory farm system), and it is demonstrably better for the environment. As for the population problem, it needs to be addressed. We can't just keep raising the population indefinitely, and interstellar space travel is still hundreds of years away (if it is physically possible at all). Population reduction needs to be on the agenda, along with consumption control. Free them. Keeping animals for consumption is not only unethical, it is woefully inefficient and damaging to the environment. Predators would probably eat most of them, but some will survive and even thrive in the wild.

How is it emotion-based? I think the proposition that the Earth is overpopulated is backed by sound science, and the solutions being proposed here seem very rational to me.

The other option is to do nothing, keep growing, keep consuming, and find ourselves caught in a Malthusian crisis and environmental disaster. I'm not saying my suggestions should be carried out in a dictatorial way, I just said they were "ideal" in my opinion. Other people probably have better ideas. Dictatorship is not a good option, I agree, but we as a species have to come together to do something to solve the population / resource problem . . . or we can destroy ourselves and the planet we inhabit.

Why do you think we have the right to abuse, harm, and eradicate other creatures? I find such a thing highly unethical.

If we're not going to reduce our population, then we need to drastically reduce our impacts on the planet and the other species with which we share it. Ideally speaking, we'd need to: 1) Move everyone to a vegan diet. This would lower animal deaths and pollution from mass meat, dairy, and egg production. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/jun/02/un-report-meat-free-diet 2) Get rid of sprawling suburbs, as they take up valuable land that should be either used for farming or animal habitat. Move everyone into cities, small towns, or rural farmsteads. Restrict any future urban sprawl. 3) Abolish consumer capitalism. Our current economic system encourages mass over-exploitation of natural resources, and it is simply not sustainable for the planet: http://www.globalissues.org/article/238/effects-of-consumerism . Instead, we need to transition to an economic system that encourages cooperation, reuse, and as little consumption as possible. 4) Develop alternatives to the car-and-plane dominated transportation system we have today. Drastically reduce personal vehicle use, make much greater use of mass transit (in both cities and small towns), and develop alternative means of transport. 5) Zero population growth. If we can't reduce population, at least prevent it from growing any further. 6) Long term, find a way to colonize other planets. Earth is a finite planet with finite resources, and regardless of how much we conserve, we'll eventually exhaust the planet's resources or (with further population growth) exceed its carrying capacity. Spreading out elsewhere will help guarantee our species' survival.

Heavy fines for each birth above the one-child limit and criminal charges for having more than two biological children (excluding twins / multiples), combined with tax breaks (or cash payments) for electing to remain childfree, adopting, and so on.

We could always create incentives to reduce birthrates below replacement level, which, if successful, would gradually lower the population over time. That seems like the best solution to me.

Because it's very important to have gender equality in all spheres of society, especially the field of knowledge production.

There was no evidence for God's existence.

Given the lack of evidence for the existence and nature of aliens, I think any commentary on their motives is essentially meaningless speculation. Without having any information on their cultural norms or even basic cognitive processes, how could we possibly have any idea what their agendas would be?

Hi! My name is JL, I'm 27, and I'm currently a doctoral student in a fairly well-known sociology department. My research centers around the subfields of social psychology and demography, and I'm especially interested in exploring the intersection between the brain, consciousness, social interaction, and epistemology (how we know what we know). Aside from my studies, my other interests are reading (mostly fiction and poetry, some philosophy), learning more about the natural sciences (yes, I know, I'm a nerd), hiking, and listening to independent music. I'm an atheist and philosophical nihilist, but I still try to keep a positive outlook on life and existence as a whole (hey, we're here, we may as well enjoy ourselves and help make the world a better place). I look forward to having some interesting discussions around here.

Hi Aydan. Thanks for asking these questions, they're really good. I'm an atheist (and a former evangelical Christian), so I'll try to answer your questions: I agree with this. "Proof." in terms of absolute certainty, is a concept that doesn't make any sense in the real world. Any atheist who claims to have proof that there are no gods is either mistaken or lying (the reverse is also true: any theist who claims to have proof that god(s) exist is also wrong or lying). What you call secular science is not based on faith. It is based on hypothesis formulation, observation, testing, analysis. Scientists use this process to formulate models of reality that they call "theories" (the theory of gravity, germ theory, and the theory of evolution are good examples). Any hypothesis or theory that isn't supported by sufficient evidence is abandoned. If scientists find new evidence that contradicts an existing theory, then the theory is modified or abandoned. This is the opposite of a faith-based approach, where you start with the conclusion and hold to it even in the face of contrary evidence. But how do we know the scientific method is reliable? Simple: it works. Through the scientific method, we have designed computers, sent people to the Moon, cured numerous illnesses, and developed countless products that you use every day (phones, TVs, electric lights). Creationism, on the other hand, has produced nothing, which gives us a good reason to reject it as an acceptable model of reality. If you have more questions, you should ask your school's science teacher or send an email to a university science professor: either would be able to provide more detail. I'm not a physicist (physicists, please correct me if I'm wrong), but from what I understand, the first law of thermodynamics did not apply prior to the expansion of the universe we call the big bang. 'Before' (for lack of a better term -- time itself did not exist at this point) the big bang, the universe existed as an initial singularity -- an infinitely small, infinitely dense point. What, if anything, caused this point to expand? At this point, scientists don't know for sure, but there are several hypotheses, including ones involving colliding branes within a higher-level universe or a random fluctuation within a quantum vacuum state. It may even be the case that the universe began with no cause at all. Regardless, even if the universe were created by a god, it would have no bearing on the validity of scientific theories like the big bang, evolution, and gravity. Scientists formulated these theories to explain the data they found when researching the world around them, and this evidence would still exist whether or not any gods exist. These three points are actually not true. I'll address them one-by-one: 1. Scientifically speaking, all species are transitional. Evolution is a process without any specific goal: the species that exist today are around because they are suited to the environments in which they live; as these environments change, the living things that inhabit them will also adapt. Twenty million years from now, life on Earth will probably look very different: the species that exist today will have changed in response to selective pressures from the environment, predation, and breeding. Our descendants -- assuming humanity survives that long -- will probably be unrecognizable to us. 2. No, they aren't (for the sake of this question, I'll assume you mean "a fossil that demonstrates an extinct species evolving into a living one" by "transitional form"). The numerous pre-humans in the genus Australopithecus, for example, are universally accepted to be transitional between ancient ape-like creatures and modern humans. There's actually a chart showing a gradual progression of human evolution: it starts with the skull one of our early ape-like ancestors and ends with a modern human skull. The transition is obvious. 3. I'm not sure where you heard this claim. It's not true: biologists have upheld some "transitional forms" (keep in mind all life is transitional), like Archaeopteryx, for more than a century. Once again, try asking your biology teacher these questions -- I'm sure she or he will be happy to give you more information. Again, thanks for asking these questions, they're really good! I hope you found my answers informative and useful .

The Onion is a satirical newspaper -- its stories are comedic, not real.

We are vastly overpopulated. For about 69,700 years, the world's human population was stable at a few million, and then it has exploded dramatically in the past 300 (and especially in the last century). The overwhelming human presence on earth is driving climate change, resource shortages (food, water, fuel), and environmental damage, and it will only get worse as the number of people on the planet increases.

The way our government has been behaving is absolutely shameful. I still don't think we'll slide into default -- I don't think our "leaders" are that crazy -- but it's looking like we'll get dangerously close, and even the threat of not paying the nation's bills will harm the country's credit rating and cause the markets to take a hit. This is disgraceful, and voters need to wake up and push for change in 2014.

The sociological literature definitely supports the view that childhood gender stereotyping plays a role in dissuading girls and women from entering STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) fields in college. I certainly think the imbalance is largely social in origin, and that it's something that should be addressed at the educational and institutional levels.

Very interesting. Obviously we're not at that stage yet, but as our knowledge of the brain increases, we will be able to tell more and more about a person's emotions simply by analyzing her/his brain activity. Imagine the implications this might have not only for the OP's hypothesis, but for the neurological, medical, and social sciences as a whole. Exciting times lie ahead, and I hope I live long enough to see them.

Nocebo effects are entirely psychogenic: they are generated by individuals' brains in response to beliefs that harmless substances / treatments are actually harmful. Because of these beliefs, brains respond as though the substance truly is harmful, sending pain signals and immune reactions to the body. I'm not sure why this is supposed to be problematic for evolutionary theory.

As the sociologist Émile Durkheim said, God is a socially constructed concept, a reflection of societal structure and the morals, values, and hierarchies contained therein. This is evinced by the wide variety of deities worshiped in various human cultures, and the fact that they seem to follow societal structures: highly stratified cultures (such as traditional India) have vast hierarchies of gods, while more egalitarian societies (such as many Amazonian tribes) have a large number of equally powerful spirits. These are quite obviously human projections. There is no evidence for the existence of any kind of superintelligence, and even if there was, it would still have no relevance to the universe. This is because it is logically impossible for a being that possesses no physical properties (such as the god of classical theism) to interact with the material world, because this being would have absolutely nothing with which to influence physical reality.