The people campaigning against marriage equality seem to suffer from slippery slope syndrome, otherwise known as thin-edge-of-the-wedge-itis.
Such as, if same sex couples are allowed to marry, then boys will be allowed, or perhaps compelled, to wear a dress to school, or girls will be forced to attend sex education classes that discuss, and, possibly teach, masturbation. And so on.
This is similar to opponents of euthanasia, who argue that if euthanasia is legalised then people will start killing off their parents or grandparents, or the disabled, or the mentally impaired.
Neither group argues the merits of the particular reform; they argue instead that any reform will lead to terrible consequences. Such is their fear.
It seems to be part of the human condition, for the slippery slope argument is used in every sphere of argument. In politics, Bill Shorten's policies will lead to Stalinism. Treating refugees humanely will foster terrorism. Abolishing negative gearing will entrench class warfare.
This is often coupled with the we-know-what-is-best-for-you affliction, beloved of totalitarians and many church and political leaders.
Our liberal democracy is under threat from bigots, who want to tell us what to do, and not just tell us but compel us, too.
On the other hand, just because I believe in marriage equality doesn't mean I think you should get married. Just that if you want to, you should be able to.
And if very ill people who want to die are able to get their doctors help them do so painlessly, it doesn't mean that anyone else has to do so too.
We have to learn to recognise when someone is trying to push our emotional buttons, particularly the fear button, and train ourselves to resist it.
Wednesday, August 30, 2017
Tuesday, August 29, 2017
Brian Aldiss
So sad that Brian Aldiss has died.
A seminal writer, and a very generous man.
He wrote the introduction to my anthology Transmutations, and he kept writing at the top of his game right to the end.
Has any other writer produced so many acclaimed works over such a long time? From his 1960s early classics Hothouse, Non-Stop and Greybeard, to Helliconia, his extraordinary climate change trilogy in the 1980s, to Super-Toys Last All Summer Long (the basis of the Kubrick/Spielberg film A.I.), to his superb late novels The Cretan Teat, Jocasta, Walcot and Comfort Zone.
In between he wrote the best selling Horatio Stubbs trilogy, experimental fiction such as Report on Probability A and Barefoot in the Head, edited more than 40 collections, wrote short stories that read today as well as when they were first published, wrote the book of sf criticism Trillion Year Spree, as well as poetry. He painted too.
A promethean spirit is stilled.
Monday, February 13, 2017
A New Desiderata
A New Desiderata
Go placidly amid
the noise and haste,
and remember, if
you cut, to paste.
What peace there
may be in silence
Is improved by
music.
As far as possible, without surrender,
As far as possible, without surrender,
be on good terms
with all curates;
for you may have to
eat the egg.
Speak your truth quietly and clearly; for no one wants to hear it.
And listen to
others, even to the dull and ignorant;
they too have their story, and doing so will teach you patience.
Avoid loud and
aggressive persons,
even yourself, if
you be loud and aggressive.
If you compare
yourself with others, you may become vain and bitter,
So receive the
spit, be not the spitter.
For always there will be taller and shorter persons than you.
For always there will be taller and shorter persons than you.
Keep interested in
your own career, however humble;
When asked how you
like it, remember to mumble.
Exercise caution in your business affairs,
for the world is
full of trickery.
When you think
you’re being done a favour
it could well be
someone taking the mickery.
But let this not blind you to what virtue there is;
The bullies and powerful also strive for high ideals,
Even if they are more shams than reals.
The bullies and powerful also strive for high ideals,
Even if they are more shams than reals.
Be yourself; it’s
too hard to be someone else.
Especially do not
feign affection;
though people do
prefer it to feigned dislike.
Neither be cynical
about love:
Why else would FB
show puppies and kittens if not so to prove?
For in the face of all aridity and disenchantment
For in the face of all aridity and disenchantment
it is as perennial
as the grass,
Which soon will be
legalised, thus ending its criminal farce.
Take kindly the counsel of the years,
Particularly if
accompanied by several beers.
Gracefully
surrender the things of youth;
too much facial
surgery looks uncouth.
Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune.
60 proof is best,
and 25 year single malt if you have a fortune.
But do not distress yourself with dark imaginings.
Light fantasies are far more dire.
Light fantasies are far more dire.
You are a child of
the universe no less than the trees and the stars;
And entropy will
affect you too,
which is why there
are so many bars.
You have a right to be here. And a left.
You have a right to be here. And a left.
Whether or not it
is clear to you,
depends on whether
you have cleaned your glasses yet.
No doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.
But in another
multiverse it’s still no good.
Therefore be at
peace with God,
whatever you
conceive Him, or Her, or LGBTI, to be.
(Or none at all.)
And whatever your labors and aspirations,
keep peace with your soul, or, if you have no soul, your internal processor.
With all its sham,
drudgery and broken dreams,
it is still a beautiful world. Be cheerful. Strive to be happy.
Imagine you’re a baby; maybe all you need is a change of nappy.
it is still a beautiful world. Be cheerful. Strive to be happy.
Imagine you’re a baby; maybe all you need is a change of nappy.
With apologies to Max Erhmann
Sunday, February 05, 2017
"Left" and "Right"
What people mean by "left" and "right" is such a spectrum of opinions that I find it increasingly unhelpful to try to use the labels. I'd much prefer to look at values.
For me: respect for the individual as against the state, responsibility of the community (through levels of government) to create a level playing field re education, health and minimum wages, fairness and equity in the legal system and the polity, fair taxation recognising that people gain wealth because of the way society is structured, and therefore we all need to pay our fair share, a foreign policy that fosters friendship over fear and recognises that trade is the way to enrich the world.
A specific example: decriminalising drugs. so as to treat addiction as a health not a legal problem, empty our prisons, reduce crimes that fund addiction, and reduce the corruption of our police and legal systems. This would save the community hundreds of millions of dollars, some of which could be used to treat the causes of addiction.
For me: respect for the individual as against the state, responsibility of the community (through levels of government) to create a level playing field re education, health and minimum wages, fairness and equity in the legal system and the polity, fair taxation recognising that people gain wealth because of the way society is structured, and therefore we all need to pay our fair share, a foreign policy that fosters friendship over fear and recognises that trade is the way to enrich the world.
A specific example: decriminalising drugs. so as to treat addiction as a health not a legal problem, empty our prisons, reduce crimes that fund addiction, and reduce the corruption of our police and legal systems. This would save the community hundreds of millions of dollars, some of which could be used to treat the causes of addiction.
Tuesday, January 31, 2017
The One Percent Solution
The UN’s refugee agency UNHCR has reported that the number of displaced people is now at its highest level ever, some 65 million, surpassing even post-World War II numbers. This is just under 1% of the world’s population of 7.4 billion people. Around 1.3 million are in dire need.
This is a devastating problem that threatens our global wellbeing both in the short and long terms.
If a solution is not found to help these people, the consequences for all of us include increased terrorism, human trafficking, global economic stagnation and mass human tragedy.
The solution involves changing the mind set about the nature of the problem.
‘The 1% Solution’
Sixty-five million is a very large number, but if every country agreed to take the equivalent of 1% of their own population as refugees and house them, the problem would be solved.
Once the displaced persons are housed, there will be a dramatic reduction in people in refugee camps, as all will have been settled bar those very few rejected by recipient countries, and the inevitable new refugees who are generated from time to time by the global situation.
The UNHCR could be the potential broker for this.
The money saved by closing down permanent refugee camps can be used for peacekeeping and development aid, to minimise the creation of new refugees.
What would this mean for Australia?
For Australia, 1% would mean housing 240,000 people, all to be paid full social welfare entitlements until they earn their own income. This is far less than the 818,863 immigrants Australia welcomed and housed in 2013 on a variety of temporary and permanent long stay visas.
After an initial burden on the national budget, experience shows us that as soon as immigrants and refugees become part of our society and take on work, the national budget will receive a significant net benefit. Australia’s economy will be stimulated, to the benefit of all.
Of course, there would be no need for spending on Nauru, Manus Island and Christmas Island, thus saving more than $1.5 billion a year.
The current refugee centres in Australia could be used to process incoming refugees.
All displaced persons would be initially required to be regionally domiciled to help local economies outside the major cities, to achieve the maximum economic benefit. More permanent residency visas could be made dependent on a period of residence with employment in one of the nominated regions.
The States would be asked to bid to take numbers of people. The economic benefit to a State’s economy would be worth more than $20,000 times the number of people housed in the State, based on an average $20,000 per person welfare payment p.a. from the federal government. The individuals receiving the financial support would spend it all, directly benefiting local businesses and communities.
Because of the very low welfare payments there would be little or no capacity to save.
As an example take Tasmania, which already has a stagnant economy, and is heavily dependent on finance from the Commonwealth. A successful bid for 10,000 people would deliver a $200 million cash injection to its economy. For 20,000 people, $400 million, and so on.
Challenges for resettlement
There will be a range of challenges to make the 1% solution a success. These include provision of housing, education and health services, and jobs. However, increased revenues to local business providing services to the refugees will help the local Australians, providing more jobs, particularly in regional centres currently suffering high levels of unemployment.
Getting other nations on board
Probably the biggest problem with the 1% solution will be in getting enough nations to agree.
Most of the very populous countries may refuse to take on the equivalent of 1% of their very large populations, either because of traditional cultural xenophobia, for example Japan, China, India; recently exacerbated xenophobia, for example the USA, UK and Australia; or inability to fund the process, for example countries such as India, Brazil, Indonesia, Pakistan and Mexico.
The scheme would initially work best with small to medium population, highly progressive countries like the Scandinavians and Canada – and Australia Leadership is required.
If Australia takes a lead, we will show the economic benefits of doing so (pumping money into local economies, providing revenues for small businesses, stimulating the overall national economy – not to mention getting rid of camps on Nauru and Manus Island).
Once a country, Australia, takes the first step, and shows the economic benefits, others will follow. It may be we need to get several countries to agree to this – perhaps negotiating initially with Canada, New Zealand, Sweden and Germany – so that there can be a group announcement.
There is a precedent. After the Second World War, nations came together to help resettle the millions of people displaced by the conflict. The program was successful and drove Australia’s post-war economic boom.
Another benefit is the putting out of business of people smugglers - there will be no more people to smuggle.
The figure of 65 million displaced people will in time reduce, as once hot spots cool down, many people will return to their homelands. As the UNHCR has reported, of this huge number, less than 1.5 million are in dire circumstances. Therefore it can be seen that the need for settling 1% to a large population country such as the USA – equivalent to 3 million people – may well be reduced to a manageable number.
And arguably the move of supporting 1% per capita of displaced persons will reduce some of the pressures currently driving international tensions and conflicts, thus in the longer term leading to decreases in defence spending.
Even if few countries take up this challenge, if Australia takes the lead we will stimulate our economy, help the many people already needing better jobs, and close down centres at Nauru and Manus Island, which I suspect would suit even those who see them as preferable to deaths at sea.
This is a devastating problem that threatens our global wellbeing both in the short and long terms.
If a solution is not found to help these people, the consequences for all of us include increased terrorism, human trafficking, global economic stagnation and mass human tragedy.
The solution involves changing the mind set about the nature of the problem.
‘The 1% Solution’
Sixty-five million is a very large number, but if every country agreed to take the equivalent of 1% of their own population as refugees and house them, the problem would be solved.
Once the displaced persons are housed, there will be a dramatic reduction in people in refugee camps, as all will have been settled bar those very few rejected by recipient countries, and the inevitable new refugees who are generated from time to time by the global situation.
The UNHCR could be the potential broker for this.
The money saved by closing down permanent refugee camps can be used for peacekeeping and development aid, to minimise the creation of new refugees.
What would this mean for Australia?
For Australia, 1% would mean housing 240,000 people, all to be paid full social welfare entitlements until they earn their own income. This is far less than the 818,863 immigrants Australia welcomed and housed in 2013 on a variety of temporary and permanent long stay visas.
After an initial burden on the national budget, experience shows us that as soon as immigrants and refugees become part of our society and take on work, the national budget will receive a significant net benefit. Australia’s economy will be stimulated, to the benefit of all.
Of course, there would be no need for spending on Nauru, Manus Island and Christmas Island, thus saving more than $1.5 billion a year.
The current refugee centres in Australia could be used to process incoming refugees.
All displaced persons would be initially required to be regionally domiciled to help local economies outside the major cities, to achieve the maximum economic benefit. More permanent residency visas could be made dependent on a period of residence with employment in one of the nominated regions.
The States would be asked to bid to take numbers of people. The economic benefit to a State’s economy would be worth more than $20,000 times the number of people housed in the State, based on an average $20,000 per person welfare payment p.a. from the federal government. The individuals receiving the financial support would spend it all, directly benefiting local businesses and communities.
Because of the very low welfare payments there would be little or no capacity to save.
As an example take Tasmania, which already has a stagnant economy, and is heavily dependent on finance from the Commonwealth. A successful bid for 10,000 people would deliver a $200 million cash injection to its economy. For 20,000 people, $400 million, and so on.
Challenges for resettlement
There will be a range of challenges to make the 1% solution a success. These include provision of housing, education and health services, and jobs. However, increased revenues to local business providing services to the refugees will help the local Australians, providing more jobs, particularly in regional centres currently suffering high levels of unemployment.
Getting other nations on board
Probably the biggest problem with the 1% solution will be in getting enough nations to agree.
Most of the very populous countries may refuse to take on the equivalent of 1% of their very large populations, either because of traditional cultural xenophobia, for example Japan, China, India; recently exacerbated xenophobia, for example the USA, UK and Australia; or inability to fund the process, for example countries such as India, Brazil, Indonesia, Pakistan and Mexico.
The scheme would initially work best with small to medium population, highly progressive countries like the Scandinavians and Canada – and Australia Leadership is required.
If Australia takes a lead, we will show the economic benefits of doing so (pumping money into local economies, providing revenues for small businesses, stimulating the overall national economy – not to mention getting rid of camps on Nauru and Manus Island).
Once a country, Australia, takes the first step, and shows the economic benefits, others will follow. It may be we need to get several countries to agree to this – perhaps negotiating initially with Canada, New Zealand, Sweden and Germany – so that there can be a group announcement.
There is a precedent. After the Second World War, nations came together to help resettle the millions of people displaced by the conflict. The program was successful and drove Australia’s post-war economic boom.
Another benefit is the putting out of business of people smugglers - there will be no more people to smuggle.
The figure of 65 million displaced people will in time reduce, as once hot spots cool down, many people will return to their homelands. As the UNHCR has reported, of this huge number, less than 1.5 million are in dire circumstances. Therefore it can be seen that the need for settling 1% to a large population country such as the USA – equivalent to 3 million people – may well be reduced to a manageable number.
And arguably the move of supporting 1% per capita of displaced persons will reduce some of the pressures currently driving international tensions and conflicts, thus in the longer term leading to decreases in defence spending.
Even if few countries take up this challenge, if Australia takes the lead we will stimulate our economy, help the many people already needing better jobs, and close down centres at Nauru and Manus Island, which I suspect would suit even those who see them as preferable to deaths at sea.
Did Robert Heinlein predict someone like Trump?
Did Robert Heinlein predict someone like Trump 65 years ago?
From Concerning Stories Never Written: Postscript, October 1952.
"As for the second notion, the idea that we could lose our freedom by succumbing to a wave of religious hysteria, I am sorry to say that I consider it possible. I hope that it is not probable. But there is a latent deep strain of religious fanaticism in this, our culture; it is rooted in our history and it has broken out many times in the past. It is with us now; there has been a sharp rise in strongly evangelical sects in this country in recent years, some of which hold beliefs theocratic in the extreme, anti-intellectual, anti-scientific, and anti-libertarian.
…
"Could one sect obtain a working majority at the polls and take over the country? Perhaps not - but a combination of a dynamic evangelist, television, enough money, and modern techniques of advertising and propaganda might make Billy Sunday’s efforts look like a corner store compared to Sears Roebuck. Throw in a depression for good measure, promise material heaven here on earth, add a dash of anti-semitism, anti-Catholicism, anti-Negroism, and a good dose of anti-“furriners” in general and anti-intellectuals here at home and the result might be something quite frightening - particularly when one recalls that our voting system is such that a minority distributed as pluralities in enough states can constitute a voting majority in Washington."
From Concerning Stories Never Written: Postscript, October 1952.
"As for the second notion, the idea that we could lose our freedom by succumbing to a wave of religious hysteria, I am sorry to say that I consider it possible. I hope that it is not probable. But there is a latent deep strain of religious fanaticism in this, our culture; it is rooted in our history and it has broken out many times in the past. It is with us now; there has been a sharp rise in strongly evangelical sects in this country in recent years, some of which hold beliefs theocratic in the extreme, anti-intellectual, anti-scientific, and anti-libertarian.
…
"Could one sect obtain a working majority at the polls and take over the country? Perhaps not - but a combination of a dynamic evangelist, television, enough money, and modern techniques of advertising and propaganda might make Billy Sunday’s efforts look like a corner store compared to Sears Roebuck. Throw in a depression for good measure, promise material heaven here on earth, add a dash of anti-semitism, anti-Catholicism, anti-Negroism, and a good dose of anti-“furriners” in general and anti-intellectuals here at home and the result might be something quite frightening - particularly when one recalls that our voting system is such that a minority distributed as pluralities in enough states can constitute a voting majority in Washington."
Serena Williams and blasphemy
Did Serena Williams commit blasphemy when she thanked God for her win over Venus?
"He really got me through this tournament. It was a tough one. I just kept praying and praying and praying."
Fancy God intervening in a tennis tournament, of all things, to favour one player over all the others, let alone one sister over the other.
Old King Trump
I wrote this a few days ago. Things are moving so fast it already seems out of date.
Old King Trump was a very fine chump
And a very fine chump was he.
He called for a wall and no muslims at all
And he called for his fiddlers three.
And every corporate fiddler had a very fine fiddle.
As they ripped off the dollars - whee!
He said to the media you can go take a jump
Stop printing fake news about me.
As to matters of choice, he said with that voice:
NGOs won’t get a cent from me.
Oh, there’s none so rare as can compare
With Trump's inconsistencies.
Old King Trump was a very fine chump
And a very fine chump was he.
He called for a wall and no muslims at all
And he called for his fiddlers three.
And every corporate fiddler had a very fine fiddle.
As they ripped off the dollars - whee!
He said to the media you can go take a jump
Stop printing fake news about me.
As to matters of choice, he said with that voice:
NGOs won’t get a cent from me.
Oh, there’s none so rare as can compare
With Trump's inconsistencies.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)