Comments for Sean Hastings http://www.whysean.com Mon, 05 Apr 2010 13:10:54 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 Comment on The Case For AGW And Why I Am Skeptical by Charles King http://www.whysean.com/2009/12/20/the-case-for-agw-and-why-i-am-skeptical/comment-page-1/#comment-138 Charles King Mon, 05 Apr 2010 13:10:54 +0000 http://www.whysean.com/?p=220#comment-138 All science debate aside, I do like to think the planet has identified us as an annoyance and has decided to either cook us off or freeze us out. Comment on Gay Marriage Should NOT Be Legalized by nikki boxer http://www.whysean.com/2009/11/04/gay-marriage-should-not-be-legalized/comment-page-1/#comment-103 nikki boxer Thu, 18 Mar 2010 16:00:13 +0000 http://www.whysean.com/?p=204#comment-103 they should legalize gay marriage...just ban gay divorce...that'll stop em all in their tracks! Comment on The Case For AGW And Why I Am Skeptical by Sean Hastings http://www.whysean.com/2009/12/20/the-case-for-agw-and-why-i-am-skeptical/comment-page-1/#comment-22 Sean Hastings Thu, 31 Dec 2009 17:49:01 +0000 http://www.whysean.com/?p=220#comment-22 Neil, sorry, I may have munged your reply a little bit in answering it. I have seen other blogs where the author answers inside the comment, but I didn't like the effect. I edited your comment to add and then remove my answer text, and I hope I didn't damage any of your original text. Anyway, here is what I wrote: A. Indeed, there is “a much lesser degree of certainty in climate science, given all the variables” (known and potentially unknown), hence my skepticism that anyone can accurately predict global temperature on a decades scale. And the hypothesis for the CO2 forcing curve for global temperature is not even testable on a smaller time scale. If you can’t do an experiment to demonstrate your hypothesis, any conclusion you reach can not be considered scientific. B. Solar forcing does indeed not perfectly correlate to recorded historical temperatures - but if that is your standard for “thoroughly discrediting” a potential variable from being included in a complete climate model, then you have to throw out CO2 forcing as well - as CO2 has rising significantly from 1940 - 1970 while temperatures declined, and temperatures have failed to rise since the late 1990s while CO2 has continued to rise. Solar forcing could explain the 1940-1970 decline - if it was overcoming the effect of CO2 increase at that time, because there was less CO2 present. Then from 1980 - 2000 it would be the other way around - maybe higher CO2 levels were then overcoming the expected decline in temps that Solar forcing would have been predicted in the early 1990s. If so, this makes CO2 forcing even more impressive. But then what has happened 2000 - 2010? temps have stalled. Does Solar forcing finally overcome CO2? Does the CO2 only drive temps so high and then fade off logarithmically? Is there some third forcing factor at work here? Or is none of what we know true, and the climate is a true chaotic system with such extreme sensitivity to initial conditions that the attempted models will never be correct? I don’t know - nor I believe, does anyone else. You should really follow the link in the article above and watch the video about the experiment they are doing at CERN right now with the brand new super collider, with the intention of demonstrating a proposed mechanism for solar forcing. There are also shorter term solar magnetic field drop outs that happen all the time, allowing experiments to be done when these occur. Some (but not all) of these experiments that have been done have shown regular temperature correlation with about a one week lag for ions created by cosmic rays to attract other aerosol particles until they are large enough to act as a seed for water vapor condensation and increase cloud cover. Interesting and exciting stuff. Brand new testable climate science being done right now. C) I believe that when and where clouds form will turn out to be the key factor. They block incoming sunlight but also outgoing infrared. So at night they will raise temps and in the day they will cool. And interestingly, this pattern shows up in the warming signal shown in recent temperature records - greater warming at night than in the day - pointing to cloud cover as a factor in the recent temp rise. Also, land absorbs and emits more IR than Sea, so clouds over sea are likely to cool more in the day and warm less at night. Lots of interesting potential additions to the models - and not present in any form in the climate models I have seen information on (pre-2001), although I bet such things are being included in more recent models. D) The satellite data and ground station data do track pretty well, but with less sharp or recent warming shown in the satellite data. I have no specific argument for either, I am just pointing out uncertainties in the data upon which models have been based. And depending on how chaotic climate really is on these scales (unknown) bad initial data will have more or less of an effect. There are also some troubling issues with “corrections” of the raw land data, both at time of initial collection and even years later with historical revision of the data. These corrections always seem to be towards greater recent warming. The Antarctica thing is just one of several odd choices made by those constructing the temperature record that was used in the models. I don’t put this down to conspiracy, but there is a reason why, in most fields of science, data collection is usually done on a double blind basis. Also, raw data is not usually withheld from independent review and comparison to the finally chosen data sets - with people filing FOIA requests to try to get it to independently examine the methodology. Unconscious confirmation bias has long been known to pollute scientific studies when proper safe guards are not in place. Here is a link that touches on these issues (probably written from a biased viewpoint, as a lot of register articles seem to be anti-AGW, but the facts given look correct, even if the conclusions are open to opinion): <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/" rel="nofollow">http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/ </a> E.) One could just as easily use that "snails pace of government" argument as a caution for passing such laws. Harmful laws seem to stick around forever. The only thing slower than getting the government to pass a good law is getting it to admit a mistake and repeal a bad one. <blockquote>"The fact that earlier models didn’t work out is only testament to the size of the problem they’re dealing with." </blockquote> If you are implying that somehow failure of the hypothesis implies that it is more likely to be true, then that is just silly. But I agree that it is indeed a hard problem - lots of room for uncertainty - lots of room for doubt. <blockquote>"The one point you seemed to have missed in all of this is the main thrust of the AGW evidence–that of the vast disparity between pre- and post-industrial levels of CO2 and the effect on the climate." </blockquote> Not missed at all - that is the basis for the AGW argument I described at the top. But historical CO2 levels and historical temperatures are the initial observations upon which the hypothesis was formed - they are not evidence. New data must be gathered (preferably in a controlled experiment) to see if it matches the hypothesis. The new data is what we call experimental evidence. The data used in the formulation of the hypothesis can not also be used as evidence to confirm the same hypothesis.

A. Indeed, there is “a much lesser degree of certainty in climate science, given all the variables” (known and potentially unknown), hence my skepticism that anyone can accurately predict global temperature on a decades scale. And the hypothesis for the CO2 forcing curve for global temperature is not even testable on a smaller time scale. If you can’t do an experiment to demonstrate your hypothesis, any conclusion you reach can not be considered scientific.

B. Solar forcing does indeed not perfectly correlate to recorded historical temperatures – but if that is your standard for “thoroughly discrediting” a potential variable from being included in a complete climate model, then you have to throw out CO2 forcing as well – as CO2 has rising significantly from 1940 – 1970 while temperatures declined, and temperatures have failed to rise since the late 1990s while CO2 has continued to rise.

Solar forcing could explain the 1940-1970 decline – if it was overcoming the effect of CO2 increase at that time, because there was less CO2 present. Then from 1980 – 2000 it would be the other way around – maybe higher CO2 levels were then overcoming the expected decline in temps that Solar forcing would have been predicted in the early 1990s. If so, this makes CO2 forcing even more impressive.

But then what has happened 2000 – 2010? temps have stalled. Does Solar forcing finally overcome CO2? Does the CO2 only drive temps so high and then fade off logarithmically? Is there some third forcing factor at work here? Or is none of what we know true, and the climate is a true chaotic system with such extreme sensitivity to initial conditions that the attempted models will never be correct? I don’t know – nor I believe, does anyone else.

You should really follow the link in the article above and watch the video about the experiment they are doing at CERN right now with the brand new super collider, with the intention of demonstrating a proposed mechanism for solar forcing. There are also shorter term solar magnetic field drop outs that happen all the time, allowing experiments to be done when these occur. Some (but not all) of these experiments that have been done have shown regular temperature correlation with about a one week lag for ions created by cosmic rays to attract other aerosol particles until they are large enough to act as a seed for water vapor condensation and increase cloud cover.

Interesting and exciting stuff. Brand new testable climate science being done right now.

C) I believe that when and where clouds form will turn out to be the key factor. They block incoming sunlight but also outgoing infrared. So at night they will raise temps and in the day they will cool. And interestingly, this pattern shows up in the warming signal shown in recent temperature records – greater warming at night than in the day – pointing to cloud cover as a factor in the recent temp rise. Also, land absorbs and emits more IR than Sea, so clouds over sea are likely to cool more in the day and warm less at night. Lots of interesting potential additions to the models – and not present in any form in the climate models I have seen information on (pre-2001), although I bet such things are being included in more recent models.

D) The satellite data and ground station data do track pretty well, but with less sharp or recent warming shown in the satellite data. I have no specific argument for either, I am just pointing out uncertainties in the data upon which models have been based. And depending on how chaotic climate really is on these scales (unknown) bad initial data will have more or less of an effect. There are also some troubling issues with “corrections” of the raw land data, both at time of initial collection and even years later with historical revision of the data. These corrections always seem to be towards greater recent warming.

The Antarctica thing is just one of several odd choices made by those constructing the temperature record that was used in the models. I don’t put this down to conspiracy, but there is a reason why, in most fields of science, data collection is usually done on a double blind basis. Also, raw data is not usually withheld from independent review and comparison to the finally chosen data sets – with people filing FOIA requests to try to get it to independently examine the methodology. Unconscious confirmation bias has long been known to pollute scientific studies when proper safe guards are not in place.

Here is a link that touches on these issues (probably written from a biased viewpoint, as a lot of register articles seem to be anti-AGW, but the facts given look correct, even if the conclusions are open to opinion):

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/


E.) One could just as easily use that “snails pace of government” argument as a caution for passing such laws. Harmful laws seem to stick around forever. The only thing slower than getting the government to pass a good law is getting it to admit a mistake and repeal a bad one.

“The fact that earlier models didn’t work out is only testament to the size of the problem they’re dealing with.”


If you are implying that somehow failure of the hypothesis implies that it is more likely to be true, then that is just silly. But I agree that it is indeed a hard problem – lots of room for uncertainty – lots of room for doubt.

“The one point you seemed to have missed in all of this is the main thrust of the AGW evidence–that of the vast disparity between pre- and post-industrial levels of CO2 and the effect on the climate.”


Not missed at all – that is the basis for the AGW argument I described at the top. But historical CO2 levels and historical temperatures are the initial observations upon which the hypothesis was formed – they are not evidence. New data must be gathered (preferably in a controlled experiment) to see if it matches the hypothesis. The new data is what we call experimental evidence. The data used in the formulation of the hypothesis can not also be used as evidence to confirm the same hypothesis.]]> Comment on The Case For AGW And Why I Am Skeptical by Neil http://www.whysean.com/2009/12/20/the-case-for-agw-and-why-i-am-skeptical/comment-page-1/#comment-21 Neil Thu, 31 Dec 2009 17:43:56 +0000 http://www.whysean.com/?p=220#comment-21 A) "Having a formula that turns CO2 into higher temperatures and successfully maps past temperatures, in no way guarantees that it correctly projects future temperatures." No, but what other model of prediction are you going to use? Tea leaves? Sarah Palin twitters? Haruspicy? (Combining the latter two might not be a bad idea, actually). Seriously, looking for a guarantee from scientific findings is never going to happen, and there's a much lesser degree of certainty in climate science, given all the variables. B) Solar activity has been thoroughly discredited as a source for the climate change activity we've seen over the last 200 years: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/solar-activity-not-the-cause-of-global-warming-456785.html C) There is room for uncertainty here, I agree. However, studies of Venus have shown the cloud cover there traps heat on the planet's surface, so this could go either way. If there are other negative feedback effects (hurricanes, etc), I'd be interested in seeing them, but I don't think any of this relates to human-caused global warming. If there's a study that has shown significant changes in cloud cover vis-a-vis climate changes, I'd be interested to see that as well. D) "The argument in favor of the surface based temperature record has been that the satellites do not monitor the poles, and that most of the warming is happening there. But there is no known mechanism (at least not any that I have been able to find an explanation for) by which CO2 increase would mostly heat the poles." So a) why would that mean that the data from the poles was irrelevant and b) how is this an argument for using the satellite data? Minus the data from the poles, how closely do the ground and sat readings match? are there any other reasons either one would be more accurate? E) Define "urgent" in regards to political change. I think we can agree, that's the subject of some debate as well. However, given the glacier pace at which the widespread reform we would need to stop the level of human activity is perhaps the only thing slower than climate change, I would say it does demand "urgent" attention. The fact that earlier models didn't work out is only testament to the size of the problem they're dealing with. The one point you seemed to have missed in all of this is the main thrust of the AGW evidence--that of the vast disparity between pre- and post-industrial levels of CO2 and the effect on the climate.
No, but what other model of prediction are you going to use? Tea leaves? Sarah Palin twitters? Haruspicy? (Combining the latter two might not be a bad idea, actually). Seriously, looking for a guarantee from scientific findings is never going to happen, and there’s a much lesser degree of certainty in climate science, given all the variables.

B) Solar activity has been thoroughly discredited as a source for the climate change activity we’ve seen over the last 200 years: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/solar-activity-not-the-cause-of-global-warming-456785.html

C) There is room for uncertainty here, I agree. However, studies of Venus have shown the cloud cover there traps heat on the planet’s surface, so this could go either way. If there are other negative feedback effects (hurricanes, etc), I’d be interested in seeing them, but I don’t think any of this relates to human-caused global warming. If there’s a study that has shown significant changes in cloud cover vis-a-vis climate changes, I’d be interested to see that as well.

D) “The argument in favor of the surface based temperature record has been that the satellites do not monitor the poles, and that most of the warming is happening there. But there is no known mechanism (at least not any that I have been able to find an explanation for) by which CO2 increase would mostly heat the poles.”

So a) why would that mean that the data from the poles was irrelevant and b) how is this an argument for using the satellite data? Minus the data from the poles, how closely do the ground and sat readings match? are there any other reasons either one would be more accurate?

E) Define “urgent” in regards to political change. I think we can agree, that’s the subject of some debate as well. However, given the glacier pace at which the widespread reform we would need to stop the level of human activity is perhaps the only thing slower than climate change, I would say it does demand “urgent” attention.

The fact that earlier models didn’t work out is only testament to the size of the problem they’re dealing with.


The one point you seemed to have missed in all of this is the main thrust of the AGW evidence–that of the vast disparity between pre- and post-industrial levels of CO2 and the effect on the climate.]]> Comment on The Case For AGW And Why I Am Skeptical by Sean Hastings http://www.whysean.com/2009/12/20/the-case-for-agw-and-why-i-am-skeptical/comment-page-1/#comment-20 Sean Hastings Wed, 30 Dec 2009 20:30:01 +0000 http://www.whysean.com/?p=220#comment-20 My understanding of the scientific method is at the heart of my skepticism about AGW We hold science in such high regard because the scientific method has proven to work so well in producing useful new knowledge. But the success of this method relies on experimental confirmation. The less experimentation that can be done, the less you can consider a given conclusion to be based on science. Consider the number of ways that one can do smaller scale experiments to test an evolutionary hypothesis. Each time you put a shovel in the ground you are engaged in an experiment that might unearth fossils that demonstrate new evidence for or against evolution. Each new fossil that has been discovered after the theory of evolution was published can be considered as new evidence. So even before science advanced to the point of understanding DNA or observing cultures of bacteria react to induced environmental changes, a lot of experimentation was actually going on. Now consider the very complex hypothesis that the average temperature of the earth will increase to specific high levels over decades due to increased CO2 enhancing the green house effect. What are the smaller scale experiments we can do to verify this claim? The scope and time frame of this hypothesis make it almost unverifiable by the scientific method. The only thing we can really do, by way of collecting new experimental evidence, is to wait decades and see what happens. Now, the experimental data collected over the past decade has not supported AGW. Overall temperatures have not risen as expected. Where temperatures have increased, it has not been at the latitudes or altitudes predicted by the hypotheis of CO2 enhanced greenhouse effects. But I have to be skeptical even about this non-confirming data, because any given experiment can produce anomalous or coincidental results. It is only through significant repetition that we gain scientific confidence, and repeating these experiments (even once) requires another 10 years (or more), its not something that is fast or small scale enough for the repetition of experimental results that gives us scientific confidence. Although conclusions based on AGW hypothesis have been published by people with degrees in science, they have not arrived at these conclusions via the the scientific method. They have skipped the most important step in that method. So, these conclusions should not be given the level of respect that you usually reserve for scientific conclusions.
We hold science in such high regard because the scientific method has proven to work so well in producing useful new knowledge. But the success of this method relies on experimental confirmation. The less experimentation that can be done, the less you can consider a given conclusion to be based on science.

Consider the number of ways that one can do smaller scale experiments to test an evolutionary hypothesis. Each time you put a shovel in the ground you are engaged in an experiment that might unearth fossils that demonstrate new evidence for or against evolution. Each new fossil that has been discovered after the theory of evolution was published can be considered as new evidence. So even before science advanced to the point of understanding DNA or observing cultures of bacteria react to induced environmental changes, a lot of experimentation was actually going on.

Now consider the very complex hypothesis that the average temperature of the earth will increase to specific high levels over decades due to increased CO2 enhancing the green house effect.

What are the smaller scale experiments we can do to verify this claim? The scope and time frame of this hypothesis make it almost unverifiable by the scientific method. The only thing we can really do, by way of collecting new experimental evidence, is to wait decades and see what happens.

Now, the experimental data collected over the past decade has not supported AGW. Overall temperatures have not risen as expected. Where temperatures have increased, it has not been at the latitudes or altitudes predicted by the hypotheis of CO2 enhanced greenhouse effects.

But I have to be skeptical even about this non-confirming data, because any given experiment can produce anomalous or coincidental results. It is only through significant repetition that we gain scientific confidence, and repeating these experiments (even once) requires another 10 years (or more), its not something that is fast or small scale enough for the repetition of experimental results that gives us scientific confidence.

Although conclusions based on AGW hypothesis have been published by people with degrees in science, they have not arrived at these conclusions via the the scientific method. They have skipped the most important step in that method. So, these conclusions should not be given the level of respect that you usually reserve for scientific conclusions.]]> Comment on The Last Generation by Sean Hastings http://www.whysean.com/2009/12/30/the-last-generation/comment-page-1/#comment-19 Sean Hastings Wed, 30 Dec 2009 20:19:52 +0000 http://www.whysean.com/?p=412#comment-19 I acknowledge that global disaster is possible, but I don't have a species wide global hedging strategy, nor would I encourage anyone to have one. Here is why: If I were to come up with one, I would have to get everyone (or some large fraction of the population) to follow my plan. That might be done by being very convincing and letting people act freely, or it might involve having people with guns forcing other people to act according to my plan. The more I need people with guns to subvert free human behavior, the higher the enforcement costs are, and the less likely the plan could ever produce any net benefit above and beyond these costs. In predicting a global crisis there will always be some level of uncertainty. The less the level of uncertainty about impending doom, the greater the expected value of implementing my plan and the more obviously right my plan will be to everyone else - thus causing voluntary compliance and reducing enforcement costs. At some level of obviousness, it is no longer just "my plan" - other people will have thought of it independently. At some higher level of obviousness, it is no longer even a "plan" - it is just what any normal sane rational person automatically does. So I don't need to have a plan. The overall belief of everyone - expressed in the feedback of a market of free action - will provide a probabilistically best possible solution. The only thing that might prevent the best possible course of action is some smaller set of people implementing their chosen courses of action on others through threat of violence - rather than through free behavioral feedback like boycott/shunning anyone whom they believe to be acting poorly. Where it is all carrot and no stick, free human behavior and trade among everyone acts to produce a prediction market with as good a guess at the future as any smaller group can ever expect to have. Or, put another way: Plan your own actions. Planning the actions of others just causes trouble.
If I were to come up with one, I would have to get everyone (or some large fraction of the population) to follow my plan. That might be done by being very convincing and letting people act freely, or it might involve having people with guns forcing other people to act according to my plan. The more I need people with guns to subvert free human behavior, the higher the enforcement costs are, and the less likely the plan could ever produce any net benefit above and beyond these costs.

In predicting a global crisis there will always be some level of uncertainty. The less the level of uncertainty about impending doom, the greater the expected value of implementing my plan and the more obviously right my plan will be to everyone else – thus causing voluntary compliance and reducing enforcement costs. At some level of obviousness, it is no longer just “my plan” – other people will have thought of it independently. At some higher level of obviousness, it is no longer even a “plan” – it is just what any normal sane rational person automatically does.

So I don’t need to have a plan. The overall belief of everyone – expressed in the feedback of a market of free action – will provide a probabilistically best possible solution. The only thing that might prevent the best possible course of action is some smaller set of people implementing their chosen courses of action on others through threat of violence – rather than through free behavioral feedback like boycott/shunning anyone whom they believe to be acting poorly.

Where it is all carrot and no stick, free human behavior and trade among everyone acts to produce a prediction market with as good a guess at the future as any smaller group can ever expect to have.

Or, put another way:

Plan your own actions. Planning the actions of others just causes trouble.]]> Comment on Seasteading Conference Speaking Gig by devon http://www.whysean.com/2009/12/02/seasteading-conference-speaking-gig/comment-page-1/#comment-18 devon Tue, 29 Dec 2009 22:08:05 +0000 http://www.whysean.com/?p=238#comment-18 I thought you did a fine job, actually. I've been taking classes in speech/rhetoric, and you didn't do any of the Horrible Things that we learned about. Everybody has "throat-clearing" moments from time to time in a speech, whether verbal or hand-motions. It's cool. You kept the attention of the crowd by being a good speaker, so you won! Comment on Seasteading Conference Speaking Gig by Sean Hastings http://www.whysean.com/2009/12/02/seasteading-conference-speaking-gig/comment-page-1/#comment-16 Sean Hastings Mon, 28 Dec 2009 02:26:44 +0000 http://www.whysean.com/?p=238#comment-16 I noticed that my eyes were sometimes closed - also my hands moved around too much. Whomever cut this together did a good job editing the sound - playing with the volume from the room mic and the mic I was holding - to compensate somewhat for me not having the microphone in front of my face when I was busy talking with my hands. Lessons learned for if I ever have to do this again: 1.) Eyes open. 2.) Don't move hands - except for non mic hand - and then only for deliberate spokesmodeling style reference to something on the screen. 3.) Try it with one less drink so I might eventually ramp myself down to the point where I can do this sort of thing sober. (maybe there is a quitters alcohol patch system for this...)
Lessons learned for if I ever have to do this again:

1.) Eyes open.

2.) Don’t move hands – except for non mic hand – and then only for deliberate spokesmodeling style reference to something on the screen.

3.) Try it with one less drink so I might eventually ramp myself down to the point where I can do this sort of thing sober. (maybe there is a quitters alcohol patch system for this…)]]> Comment on Free Will? by Sean Hastings http://www.whysean.com/2008/09/19/free-will/comment-page-1/#comment-13 Sean Hastings Sun, 27 Dec 2009 19:30:34 +0000 http://www.whysean.com/?p=154#comment-13 Ok, I gave the “Free Will” issue a little more thought and here is my conclusion. The universe is, at its lowest level, either deterministic, random, or influenced from outside of the universe, and there doesn’t appear to be any way to tell which from the inside. If it is deterministic, then everything we are and do is predestined. If it is random then everything we are and do arises from chance. If there is an outside influence then we are puppets of that influencing force. However, whether pre-written, random, or controlled from outside, we do exist, and we do make choices. The term “Free Will” when negated carries connotations of not being able to choose, or that choice is meaningless. This not the case. No matter from where our will to act originates, it is our will to act, and the actions we choose are important, if only to ourselves. No matter where they come from, there is no reason to think that our choices are ever meaningless. The only sense of meaning that we have originates from exactly the same source as our will to act. Therefor our choices can have as much meaning as anything can have, and should be the most meaningful thing there is. Our actions are how we present ourselves to the world. Our choices say to the universe, “No matter how I got here, I am here, and this is who I am!” [I will return to this at some point]
The universe is, at its lowest level, either deterministic, random, or influenced from outside of the universe, and there doesn’t appear to be any way to tell which from the inside. If it is deterministic, then everything we are and do is predestined. If it is random then everything we are and do arises from chance. If there is an outside influence then we are puppets of that influencing force.

However, whether pre-written, random, or controlled from outside, we do exist, and we do make choices. The term “Free Will” when negated carries connotations of not being able to choose, or that choice is meaningless. This not the case. No matter from where our will to act originates, it is our will to act, and the actions we choose are important, if only to ourselves.

No matter where they come from, there is no reason to think that our choices are ever meaningless. The only sense of meaning that we have originates from exactly the same source as our will to act. Therefor our choices can have as much meaning as anything can have, and should be the most meaningful thing there is.

Our actions are how we present ourselves to the world. Our choices say to the universe, “No matter how I got here, I am here, and this is who I am!”

[I will return to this at some point]]]> Comment on Long Division by Sean Hastings http://www.whysean.com/2008/05/07/long-division/comment-page-1/#comment-12 Sean Hastings Sun, 27 Dec 2009 17:43:51 +0000 http://www.whysean.com/?p=143#comment-12 People are nuts. I mentioned my Odd and Even street addresses analogy in another forum and someone pointed out to me that the Hutu and Tutsi designations in Rwanda and Burundi started out as designations almost as arbitrarily as street addresses. Here are a couple quotes from the Wikipedia entry for “Tutsi”: “When the Belgian colonists conducted their censuses, they desired to classify the people throughout Rwanda-Urundi with a single classification scheme. They merely defined “Tutsi” as anyone with more than ten cows or a long nose.” “In Burundi, a campaign of genocide was conducted against Hutu population in 1972 and an estimated 100,000 to 200,000 Hutus were killed by Tutsis. In 1993, Burundi’s first democratically elected Hutu president, Melchior Ndadaye, was assassinated. It was widely believed that the assassins were Tutsi extremists.” So this means that people are capable of essential thinking “that guy’s great grandfather had fewer cows or a shorter nose than mine did - I must kill him!” Paul and I detail how this insanity evolves in our book “God Wants You Dead.” So upon looking at this book, another guy in the same chat forum notes that one of the author’s last names is “Rosenberg.” He then concludes that the book is an attempt by the Jews to get all other cultures (and of course specifically the “White Race”) to abandon their group loyalties so the Jews will be the only ones with any group unity left and can rule the world unopposed. (Apparently all the Jews get a special memo telling them not to read this dangerous book.) I find all this very depressing. Especially the knowledge that my people, the Scots-Irish (where my last name “Hastings” comes from) are not perceived as a serious threat to the “White Race.” We should qualify as being just as non-white as the Jews. Why couldn’t we be the ones with a vast world-domination conspiracy based on encouraging individualism in others? Give us a little credit…
I mentioned my Odd and Even street addresses analogy in another forum and someone pointed out to me that the Hutu and Tutsi designations in Rwanda and Burundi started out as designations almost as arbitrarily as street addresses.

Here are a couple quotes from the Wikipedia entry for “Tutsi”:

“When the Belgian colonists conducted their censuses, they desired to classify the people throughout Rwanda-Urundi with a single classification scheme. They merely defined “Tutsi” as anyone with more than ten cows or a long nose.”

“In Burundi, a campaign of genocide was conducted against Hutu population in 1972 and an estimated 100,000 to 200,000 Hutus were killed by Tutsis. In 1993, Burundi’s first democratically elected Hutu president, Melchior Ndadaye, was assassinated. It was widely believed that the assassins were Tutsi extremists.”

So this means that people are capable of essential thinking “that guy’s great grandfather had fewer cows or a shorter nose than mine did – I must kill him!”

Paul and I detail how this insanity evolves in our book “God Wants You Dead.” So upon looking at this book, another guy in the same chat forum notes that one of the author’s last names is “Rosenberg.” He then concludes that the book is an attempt by the Jews to get all other cultures (and of course specifically the “White Race”) to abandon their group loyalties so the Jews will be the only ones with any group unity left and can rule the world unopposed. (Apparently all the Jews get a special memo telling them not to read this dangerous book.)

I find all this very depressing.

Especially the knowledge that my people, the Scots-Irish (where my last name “Hastings” comes from) are not perceived as a serious threat to the “White Race.” We should qualify as being just as non-white as the Jews. Why couldn’t we be the ones with a vast world-domination conspiracy based on encouraging individualism in others?

Give us a little credit…]]>