Marco's Blog

Comets, astrobiology, the origin of life

2012-01-28T10:48:00.000+10:00

In Chandra Wickramasinghe's 2009 book, he mainly proposes comets as agents of transportation of panspermia cells. The prospect of billions of comets having had water for up to a million years, and larger, comet like objects even having permanent water, does lead him to believe they are also agents of the generation of the chiral precursors to life. He uses a lot of the most recent cometary findings to back up his case.

He doesn't go to the extent I have of thinking how far chemical evolution has gone in comets, whether an RNA world or DNA world could exist in a comet, and think why would it stop evolving? If it hadn't stopped, it may have got to a point where the proto-life in the comet may act in a way that may increase the chance of the "survival" of the comet, in the kind of attrition where comets are gradually getting absorbed into planets with hostile environments. Could actions by the proto life make it more likely for the comet to split up into two, where one of the fragments would be more likely to survive than if it hadn't split? Could chemical or biological action by the protolife make the outside of the comet black? Would that give the comets an alternative energy source for the middle of the comet to stay liquid (the original source being decay of Al 26 or otheer elements)? Could the emmission of particles from the gaps in the black exterior serve as ways to control the spin of the comet, or even course corrections (to avoid planets, or to get close enough for a gravity assist)? Could the emmission of particles get rid of unhelpful chemicals in a kind of metabolism?

In other words, if we can see evolution working in the environment on Earth that leads to eventual intelligent behaviour due to the needs of survival, why wouldn't this be the case for comets?

Principally, is there any evidence that the two most obvious features of life are plausibly existing for comets? That is, do they reproduce? Do they metabolise? Certainly, there is plenty of evidence that they "break up". How could we tell whether this is similar to a living cell breaking up, or a non-living rock breaking up? For metabolism, how could we tell whether the outgassing is making the outside more random and making the inside of the comet more ordered? Is it plausible that it is just outgassing a random selection of compounds that make up its interior? Could it be that it is metabolism regardless of whether the comet is a living thing?

The very high resolution images of Hale Bopp combined with ground observations of the spin and emission profile, may give us some ideas on splitting comets. The rate of rotation is not constant, and the axis of rotation is such that the two ends of the peanut shape may pull apart if it spins up to a fast enough speed. The change in rotation has been determined to be from the activity of the jets streaming out more in one direction than the other. From ground observations, the spin-up is more efficient than the spin-down. The conclusion is that the comet will eventually break up due to the centrifugal forces therein. It doesn't take much imagination to feel that it could be a rudimentary reproduction similar to amoebas.

Comet Origins II

2012-01-24T22:17:00.001+10:00

In continuing the theme of comets being way outside of expectations, I will discuss the ultra low albedo of the comet surface (at .02 , it is blacker than tar) Clearly organic matter is at play, perhaps in a particular texture optimized to absorb light and heat. Not only that, it appears stuck firmly onto the "snow" and doesn't disintegrate, even around the holes in the blackness, where matter ejects profusely into the corona.

It would appear that the ejection of matter of comets would satisfy one requirement of metabolism - that of making the surroundings more random. One can assume that the inside may thus become ordered and enable complexity. The edge of the comet nucleus is an analogue of a cell membrane - it lets randomness out, and importantly, can let energy in. Solar energy is absorbed by the low albedo, and any particle or clump of radioactive material would melt the snow due to its related heat, and enter into the protected part under the snow, helping to keep the water liquid, and perhaps to help power the metabolism also.

Chemical energy, would be stored analogously to life as we know it, in sugars and various other chemicals. Of course, if there is a central control to consciously pilot the comet to its future direction and gravity assists and reproduce, it needs a brain. Surely DNA, would be the brains rather than a reproductivity code, although it would need to reproduce as well.

As well as a brain, for the other observed features of "steering" requires thrust for both rotation and course adjustments, an eye/eyes to pinpoint its precise location and trajectory, and a communication/nervous system to control devices.

For the observed reproduction/ splitting, first the nucleus of the comet nucleus,ie. the heavy elements in the middle have to split up and move to opposite ends of the liquid centre. Then the comet would have to rotate around an axis such that centrifugal forces can stretch the shape. Finally, a snow fill in between the two sides for new walls, and then have two loosely connected comets until it goes close enough to a planet for tidal forces to pull the two halves away from each other and make their orbits different.

Comet origins

2012-01-23T21:11:00.000+10:00

I'll start with a quote from Sherlock Holmes "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?". It is hard to know what is impossible and possible with regards to comets. The original pristine born from a molecular cloud hypothesis is fairly solid as a starting point. However, the question of "why are they still here?" appears to be the most pertinent. By all accounts, orbiting bodies essentially are finding a minimum energy, and the tendency is to coalesce into planets and moons in the general plane of the ecliptic. The expectation is that they shouldn't be able to persist over billions of years moving from the Oort cloud where they formed, to the scattered disk or the Kuiper belt, cross by Jupiter without hitting it, then go into semi-stable but often highly elliptic orbits. Creation scientists have jumped on this lack of the actuality emanating directly from the solid physics that explains the planets and asteroids very well but not comets, by claiming they could only have been placed there supernaturally (Me and Sherlock would rule this out as impossible).

Proximally, the comets are following the laws of gravity fairly precisely, barring a few exceptions of non-gravity accelerations. Tracing back and forward, it is often hard to predict past certain points where they invariably go past large planets. With robotic spacecraft, these are called gravity assists, and they save a lot of power, but require very precise calculations because a small error can send the craft into the planet or shuttling off in a helpless direction. Therefore, although the orbits, and even the breakup into families etc. is individually explainable, the overall picture of comets appears very contrived, trajectory wise. From the semi stable orbits they are in (Oort Cloud, Scattered disk, Kuiper belt, Jupiter group, Sungrazer), random interactions, perturbations or collisions would be *expected* to send them on a collision course, or to a trajectory from whence they cannot get back to one of the semi stable orbits possible.

With the discovery of CAI's from comet's coma as captured by stardust in 2006, the prospect that radioactive aluminum with a half life of half a million years was likely to have been intercepted by pristine comets, have increased the expectation that a fair percentage of comets had liquid three dimensional lakes for at least millions of years. I don't think it is a stretch to surmise that since CAIs are almost certain to be directly from a supernova remnant dust cloud, and proximally from the accretion disk of the forming sun, that heavy elements could also have made their way from the same general source to the comets or molecular clouds. The dirty snow simulations done in the lab generate aggregate that has a density of about .2. Comets with known density have a density closer to .6, so although the outside coating may be low density fluffy dirty ice, the centre is more likely to have a liquid, or formerly liquid, more dense material.

Comet 103P/Hartley gives me an impression that it is made up of two sections with a smooth neck in between. It would seem plausible to me that the comet will eventually break up into two comets, both of which have a very dark exterior with subsurface ice and certain gaps in the dark exterior. Could it be classed as reproduction? Several other cases of relationships between comets with quite different current orbits can be traced back to a common speed, trajectory, and point in space and time.

Assuming a time that comets had liquid water, autocatalytic cycles of the kind where various autocatalytic species would be competing for substrate would occur within the liquid portion, protected from ionizing radiation. The outer snow hull would serve to insulate from ionizing radiation, and also to protect from more minor impacts. These impacts would not directly affect or stop any delicate chemistry, but would supply more substrate. Hot dense materials intercepted would work their way to the gravitational centre, while low density matter may add to the bulk of the protective shell. Freezing and melting cycles (assuming elliptic orbits, solar heating would vary dramatically between perihelion and apehelion) would be a natural form of chromatography - separating different organic chemicals. Nuclear particles from beta decay would also have an affect on the chemistry.

It would be an expectation that the chemistry would continue to evolve, and not have a limit of say an RNA world or single cell organisms. DNA could coexist fairly loosely with RNA, single cell organisms and various bases, enzymes, proteins etc. Chemical evolution and biological evolution could happily coexist while the centre stayed liquid. If Earth is considered a perfect environment for higher animals to evolve, the inside of comets should be even more perfect. It wouldn't be just a possibility that evolution could go on to well past the sophistication of Earth's evolution, but an actual *expectation*.

Marconomic evolution 102 - identify some razors and make them disposable.

2012-01-23T13:52:00.001+10:00

So in regards to the modern evolutionary synthesis, there are a few uses of parsimony which are so often fallen back on, a casual scientific observer would be forgiven for thinking they were *proven*. Not only are they not proven, but it is plausible that some may be impossible. However, because of the traditional religious contentions of impossibility being used to demonstrate something else, simple to understand but also impossible (supernatural intervention), I am distancing myself from conclusions that are also simple and rely on the impossible. No good science can come from believing in supernatural proximate causes. A few uses of Ockham's razor in evolution. 1) non-life to life transition happened on Earth.2) The Weismann barrier (preventing direct feedback from the environment back to DNA)3) Modern evolutionary synthesis (micro evolution leading to macro evolution and speciation due to random mutations and selection)4) selfish gene (decisions based on the individual, rather than group selection)For instance in the book that I'm reading, number 1 is assumed to the point of it seeming proved, to a casual observer. Even the seeding of chiral amino acids etc. from asteroids/comets sees resistance from scientists as a hypothesis, despite evidence that all tested meteorites appear to have them.From what is now known about the Earth in the time before life, expectations given known conditions appear to be unlikely to even generate amino acids, let alone chiral ones, nor have a bounded niche where chemical evolution would be *expected* to occur. Most narratives involve a fair bit of "wishful thinking" chemistry, with the corollary that microbial organisms appeared, so it *must* be possible, no matter how mathematically implausible it seems. A naturalistic alternative would be that Earth was seeded with the *final product* ie single cell organisms, leaving the chemical evolution and non-life to life transition somewhere that both such an evolution and transition would be an *expectation*, and the transportation to Earth would also be an expectation. Although this appears more complicated, mathematical probability might say otherwise. 2) The Weismann barrier is said to prevent the environment from directly influencing inheritable traits. Thus selection based on shuffled Mendelian traits is the only feedback possible. Apart from there actually being evidence that the Weismann barrier is broken, the assumption is that they are exceptions, and thus the hypothesis holds as if it was proven despite evidence to the contrary. An alternative naturalistic explanation is that the barrier is merely a normal response to avoid copying errors when there is no adaptive stress to the organism. When there is adaptive stress, ie. drastic changes to environment, signals from the environment may be let through to mutate in appropriate ways. 3) mathematically, if the issue is reduced to the simplest organism, relying on random mutations, with natural selection, and cumulative mutations causing speciation, trillions of organisms, and thousands of generations would seem to be required for a single beneficial mutation to come out naturally. Translating to more complex organisms would appear to actually make it less likely. There are other naturalistic razors that would make beneficial mutations an expectation, but these are more complex and are burdened unfairly with having to be proven, while micro( not the extension to macro) evolution appears to be self evident and demonstrable to a point.

Marconomics on Life origins and evolution 101 - Reject Ockham's Razor

2012-01-19T12:04:00.000+10:00

Replace parsimony with Marcomony!
Reverse Ockham's razor and replace it with Mahkco's bag of 50 disposable ones.

This is critical with the historical sciences especially, and not really relevant for physics at all. Basically with quantitative models where calculations yield repeatable results one should certainly pick the simplest model which makes the numbers work precisely. Not only that, but any new theory which complicates a model of this nature needs to have a heap of evidence and the burden of proof is against the new, more complicated theory. In these cases we should be Jack McCoys - It's not what you know, it's what you can prove. This is Ockham's Razor, or parsimony.

With historical sciences evidence is scattered in time and space compared to the "experiment" (ie. nature has done the experiment for you, but it cannot be repeated precisely to check or "prove" anything), so Ockham's Razor is a cut too deep. Not to mention that the "simplest" explanations of all often involve God, or at least an explanation that relies on faith, because by their nature the hardest questions of history have the least incontrovertible evidence. With these questions we *constantly* need to be detectives. We follow our hunches - we need a gazillion of them. EVERY scrap of evidence, no matter how circumstantial, no matter whether it is something that shouldn't be there, that is, or something that should be there that isn't, peculiarities even if they appear to be random peculiarities. These should be only weeded *roughly*. We rule out any that are impossible based on naturism, mathematical probability etc. *Not ones just because they are impossible to prove or have no direct evidence*. We need to be Sherlock Holmes, not Jack McCoy. We don't keep looking for something in a particular spot because that is where the light is shining - we need to feel our way in the dark and glean complex enough theories that make the tiniest scraps of circumstantial evidence meaningful probability-wise. We cannot stick with one theory because it is the simplest and has the most provable elements. We need a dozen, more complicated, theories that fit the circumstantial evidence in the middle of their probability range.

First of the Believers of intelligent beings in comets

2012-01-18T16:18:00.000+10:00

I don't know why I've gone from convincing myself of the plausibility of life starting in comets, to believing that super-intelligent amoeba shaped creatures reside in there surviving for millions of years, and can even control the comet like a spaceship, albeit needing solar flybies for thrust, and sequences of gravity assists to change their orbit. I have zippo evidence for any of it, except for the strange things that have been discovered about comets in the last 26 years, with the stardust sample return, Halley Comet flyby, and a couple of other NASA missions. Basically from the 1986 Halley flyby, a "dirty snowball" model was indicated and still mostly fits even the new evidence.
Mysterious discoveries:
1) comets, although mostly water ice appear to be covered in a thin coating of very dark black carbon soot. Not predicted. Origin completely unknown.
2) Stardust samples from the corona included minerals that formed at extremely high temperatures, that were predicted not to be in comets, due to the mineral origin requiring 1000+ degrees C, and the Oort cloud never being subjected to anything like that.
3) DNA bases were also found in the stardust indicating that they were ejected from the comet.
4) Minerals were also found on one of the comets that indicated there must have been liquid water in the comet.
5) Gaps in the carbon soot layer, were evident when comet has a corona. Having a look at the picture they looked like bright circles in the dust layer with the ejecta shining through, on either side of the comet,.
6) Comet surface almost perfectly dry, yet not far under the surface is mostly water ice.

Anyway, there is more but it made my imagination go wild with possibilities.

Chapter 5 Lennox Dissection

2012-01-15T22:40:00.000+10:00

I am going to have fun here. In chapter 5, Lennox is brave and takes on, as a mathematician, the quantitative statistical corollaries of the Modern Evolutionary synthesis, as described by renowned Biologists such as Richard Dawkins, and finds them severely lacking in quantitative believability. I pretty much agree with him on every detail except the conclusion. Clearly, the biologists, have Occam Razored out plausible naturalistic explanations for the yawning gaps between what and how speciation happens as explained by the synthesis, and what is observed in both the geologic record(speciation is way more jumpy than the synthesis explains) and what is observed as a result of artificial selection(lack of speciation even after continued selective breeding). Lennox completes the obvious mistake of the biologists who decided on the synthesis and those who fail to overturn it, by Occam Razoring out even the mechanism that has the most scientific credibility and replacing it with the simplest explanation of all, a God designer. The plausible naturalistic explanations are not mentioned in Lennoxes book, and to be fair, they are not mentioned in the God Delusion either, except perhaps briefly as something to mock. The naturalistic explanations that would each close the yawning gap of macro evolution are as follows - horizontal gene transfer, Neo-Lamarckism ie. ways that the environment can have direct baring on how, when,and what type of mutations happen, group selection theories - more important with some gregarious species than others, design style programs programmed into the DNA or in the subconscious of brains, and selective breaching of the Weismann barrier. Some or all of these are postulated by some biologists some of the time, but the burden of proof is extremely onerous, and experiments are notoriously hard to design, and are expensive without much chance of "pay dirt", especially if biologist peers keep ruling them inconclusive even if the data lends to these alternative explanations. The statistical issues that Lennox brings up through reductionism are real, and the corollary should be for the biologists to shift the burden of proof to a requirement to prove that some of these other explanations are not happening during macro speciation.

Dissecting God's Undertaker, by Lennox via FB

2012-01-06T11:13:00.000+10:00

Marco Parigi-> Winston Inabox

The view that Lennox takes on Galileo on several pages including this one, is quite biased and misrepresents religion's role in the affair. The Catholic church at the time was using religion as a way to keep power and control information and embedded Aristotleanism into its Theology. The challenge Galileo was making was clearly against the authority of the church. It is quite plausible that he wasn't at all religious himself, but he would have had no choice other than to claim he believed in God.

Winston Inabox
I've got no idea why Lennox would even try to claim the nonsense that he claims in this Myths of Conflict section in Chapter 2. The Catholic Church's role in stifling Galileo's ideas is well documented, and it matters naught if the opposition was first from secular philosophers or not. It was the Church who put him on trial, it was the Church who put him under house arrest, and it was the Church who banned publication of his ideas. And then to say that Galileo believed in the Bible like it's some kind of proof of God's existence is just one of Lennox's many appeals to authority. Oh... OK... Galileo believed in the Bible, so it must be right! Case closed. What utter nonsense. Galileo's religious convictions - and I don't know if he was religious as Lennox claims, or just not at all - matter for nothing as evidence. What I do know is that Galileo got some things right and other things (the motion of the tides) wrong. For a man of Lennox's obvious intellectual powers this part of the book is embarrassing.15 hours ago · Like.

Marco Parigi

There are reasons to believe the primary cause of conflict between science and religion have nothing to do with the belief in God, but he did not address that directly. Galileo had taken away the specialness endowed on humans by being at the centre of the universe. 3 hours ago · Like.

Marco Parigi

Lennox relies a lot on "This famous scientist believed in God" as being evidence that should be accepted as "forensic". There are two problems with that 1. What a person wrote as what he believed is not necessarily what they believed. 2. Believing something that is even a little bit immune to repeatable experiment or visual evidence doesn't have any baring on the likeliness of it being true, no matter how rigorous the person is scientifically. I am kind of directing this towards Nathanael Small. The Myths of conflict section does not ring true with either the atheist or the agnostic. It may well be directed at the uncommitted or the loosely committed or doubting churchgoer. It is worth reading up about the Galileo affair oneself on a neutral media such as Wikipedia to get an impartial picture.9 minutes ago · Like.

Marco ParigiWinston Inabox

From God's undertaker. In this page, he is attempting to define science. Things that are not repeatable cannot be proven to a level of general satisfaction. Making inferences on available evidence is all we can do. I think he is alluding to an intelligent design inference? He is saying that it is no less provable than any cosmological inference. He used the word hypothesis earlier, but in this case he is saying that they are t he same thing.

Like · · Unfollow post · Share · Edit · Yesterday via Mobile

Winston Inabox
P31 Thanks for the photo Marco. Lennox, because he's mostly running a negative campaign, always tries to show there is some discord. It doesn't help his point, he just tries to make it look like science should be doubted, that it doesn't ha...

Yesterday at 10:00 · Like.

Marco Parigi Popular impression exists, and, for instance, I disagree with the logical positivism interpretation of science but am quite happy with the axiomatic principles approach of the greek philosophers, and many other scientists. He is using the fact that scientists don't agree on this point to discredit ways to look at science other than his own way.

Winston Inabox Lennox wants to focus on the repeatability of science because he sees it as weak link with which he can further cast doubts on science. So he dredges up this quote saying science is that "by definition deals only with the natural, the repeatable, that which is governed by law". Then he boldly states that "the most obvious weakness in this definition is that, if allowed to stand, it would rule out most of contemporary cosmology".

Now rather than going back and modifying his definition to one that would include cosmology, he instead runs off with the 'method of inference' which he says is "an essential part of the methodology of contemporary science". This allows him to claim that "with unrepeatable events it is still possible to ask: What is the best explanation of this event or phenomenon?"

In other words he's softening the reader up to later accept that although the creation of the universe is unrepeatable, science can possible say that a god did it.
Yesterday at 10:19 · Like.

Winston Inabox In this case it would have been better if Lennox had taken his own advice and not let the poor definition stand. Here's a better definition from Wikipedia "The chief thing which separates a scientific method of inquiry from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, and contradict their theories about it when those theories are incorrect.[4]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

en.wikipedia.org

PhysicsApplied physics · Atomic physicsComputational physicsCondensed matter physicsExperimental physics · MechanicsNuclear physicsParticle physics · Plasma physicsQuantum mechanics (introduction)Solid mechanics · Theoretical physicsThermodynamics · EntropyGeneral relativity · M-theorySpecial relati.....

Yesterday at 10:21 · Like · .

Winston Inabox Now that we've a definition that can satisfy, we can proceed with looking at the creation of the universe, and we don't necessarily have to invoke a god.

Marco, the above shows that Lennox is quite adept at rhetoric. Everything he says seems logical because he is very careful about about making only small claims that on the surface seem reasonable, that are then built up to make his point.
Yesterday at 10:29 · Like.

Winston Inabox Marco, I don't really want to get hung up on this point about popular impressions, so if you disagree then that's fine with me. But Lennox is just saying there are popular impressions. He says that there is a popular impression that there is one agreed scientific method. That is a very definitive statement, and if it were in any kind of academic writing or encyclopedia worth reading, he'd have to show some source for that. Otherwise it is just his opinion.

Now I wouldn't normally care less if he were just stating his opinion, but he then uses this opinion as fact to imply that there is difficulty in defining scientific method, so let's use Ruse's definition, Ruse's definition uses repeatability, but repeatability excludes cosmology which is obviously science, so let's go to method of inference, so that allows the inference of a god in the creation of the universe.
Yesterday at 10:45 · Like.

Winston Inabox And the above long-winded paragraph (sorry, Enter without Shift again) is why I think he's very adept at rhetoric!

Yesterday at 10:46 · Like.

Marco Parigi ‎"Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable, to guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter." from the same wikipedia article. The link between the repeatable experiment and the unrepeatable event is still a tough one to get around without an apriori assumption about what the universe is like (for instance, assumption that rules that appear constant now were constant at the particular event we are concerned with) Logical positivists do not accept that any assumption is required. I do, otherwise we open ourselves to circular arguments.

Yesterday at 11:17 · Like.

Winston Inabox I'll reprint the sentence preceding your quote from the article:

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge.

Your sentence that follows this is an example of an identifiable feature that distinguishes scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. As is the rest of the paragraph.

Lennox however doesn't want to inform his readers that "procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another". He'd rather focus on the non-repeatability of aspects of cosmology because he wants to introduce method of inference.
23 hours ago · Like.

Marco Parigi I think Lennox is also asking "Who is the authority that decides which procedures are appropriate for any particular field of inquiry?" I don't trust scientists themselves to know the right answer. Half of them believe in God :-)

23 hours ago · Like.

Winston Inabox Ha ha.

23 hours ago · Like.

Marco Parigi I think his point is valid, but it makes his hypothesis invalid as hypothesis. He demonstrates that it is untestable, and scientific procedures as they stand don't allow for it at all.

23 hours ago · Like.

Winston Inabox I think his point is valid only because he selects the definition of science that suits his objective. His objective being to say that as method of inference trumps repeatability for cosmology, god did it.

23 hours ago · Like.

Marco Parigi I am not a big fan of cosmology as a science. Inference appears to be all that scientists have for string theory also, for instance. I prefer naturalistic cosmos theory only because I find them to be more elegant, not because of evidence.

22 hours ago · Like.

Marco Parigi

I got the Lennox book for the Kindle for ipad. We might be more inclined to be on the same side comparatively to Dawkins, but I have a habit of finding things we disagree about. It doesn't appear that the ipad app has the same ability to take notes? I might have to hook notes onto your FB notes ;-)

Like · · See friendship · Tuesday at 16:58 ·

Winston Inabox Marco, it is frustrating to post because you can't copy and paste from the Kindle. Linking Amazon to FB allows you to share directly to FB from the Kindle, but that is one share for one post. Copy and Paste is really needed on the Kindle.
Tuesday at 17:02 · Like · 1.

Marco Parigi The closest I can get with kindle for ipad is a screenshot copied to a computer to be imported to google docs ocr. Then the bits of text can be copied and pasted from there. Not particularly good, but doable.
Wednesday at 09:18 · Like.

Winston Inabox The other problem is when you're flipping between the two programs on the iPad it is easy touch the screen in the wrong place and you can lose a half composed post or comment. That's why I have shorter comments now because of the frustration of losing all the work.
Wednesday at 09:33 · Like.

Winston Inabox If you bought Lennox's book from Amazon then linking FB to Amazon will let you post quotes as I did.
Wednesday at 09:35 · Like.

Nathanael Small Hey Marco Parigi, glad you've joined the fun! I'm going to make a start on this later in the week - suggest we focus on the comments my bro has already made and seek to grow our understanding of each other's (and the author's) position on those. If Marco and I both do what Rob's done with Chapter 1 it should be a really good exchange. Thanks again for both stepping up to this.
Wednesday at 09:43 · Like.

Winston Inabox Nathanael, I'm not interested "to grow our understanding of each other's position". We know each other's position.

I want to talk about whether Lennox makes claims that are backed up. I've posted those claims and I want to find out if you agree with what he says, and why or why not.
Wednesday at 10:22 · Like.

Marco Parigi How invested are we in our own positions? I know that after a decade of philosophical discussion with Dr Clam, my perception is that his position has subtly changed!
Wednesday at 10:33 · Like.

Marco Parigi And so has mine, possibly. Lennox talked a few pages about Galileo. I had mentioned Galileo in my conversation with the minister which baptised a couple of our children when he wanted to know whether I would give myself to God. I graciously declined, and felt that the freedom to think about the Universe with no preconceived ideas as I felt Galileo also wanted to, is way too important to me.
Wednesday at 10:38 · Like.

Winston Inabox Marco, I can tell you that if my position were to change, reading Lennox's book wouldn't be the cause. 8-)
Wednesday at 10:41 · Like.

Nathanael Small Bro, you think you know my position. I don't presume to know your perspective on atheism, as there's a myriad of layers of variants. I'd encourage to not take your understanding of the "meta narrative" and label me (or any other J follower) with it, despite the temptation to pick out what on the surface appear to be easy targets (e.g. "interventionist God").
Wednesday at 12:24 · Like.

Winston Inabox Nathanael, I'll reword that then.

I don't care what your position is.
I'm only interested in what you claim.
Wednesday at 12:44 · Like.

Nathanael Small Which for all of us comes from a position. To judge the claim without understanding positional context risks wading in the shallows of presumption & assumption. End result? Gnats strained & babies thrown.
Wednesday at 12:47 · Like.

Winston Inabox Nathanael, no. The sun rises in the East and sets in the West. There is my claim. You need to know nothing more about me, who I am or what I believe in to judge whether that is a justifiable claim or not.

You want to make the discussion an about an all encompassing ~ism then go ahead. I won't be joining in those parts. I'm interested in looking at the parts, and not the sum thereof.
Wednesday at 12:52 · Like.

Winston Inabox Lennox makes claims. I want to look at those. If his claims turn out to be bollocks or God's own truth you can mull on the consequences of that in your own time. Or you can post it here if you want to. As I said I won't be responding to them. You gave me a book to read and assess. I've read 1/2 the book and posted on the first chapter. I'm not going to get embroiled in a discussion that is two steps above Lennox's book without first looking at that.
Wednesday at 12:55 · Like.

Nathanael Small But the sun doesn't rise - that's only what we perceive from an earth-bound perspective. Or is that subtly part of your point? The parts create a whole. The pieces create a jigsaw puzzle with a picture. Some scientific disciplines seek to integrate to provide a grand unified theory of everything. Big breakthroughs come from the sum of truths being greater than the parts (take advances in neuroscience, or materials engineering, where I've lived for the last 3 years) To judge the Sistine Chapel by decaying materials alone is to reduce the experience (even the parts that can be measured empirically) to something far less than what it is. Happy to discuss the parts, but behind those you have an all encompassing ~ism. I'll contend Understanding that how that ~ism is constructed means we see more clearly exactly what we disagree with and why.
Wednesday at 13:08 · Like.

Winston Inabox ‎Nathanael, after that "but the sun doesn't rise" semantics bullshit you've got one more chance. Make some observations about the posts or I'm walking. Months ago I answered your email point by point. Now I've bought and half read your book and posted what must be close to 10 posts on it. Either I see something concrete coming the other way that is more than waffle or I'm out of here.
Wednesday at 13:14 · Like.

Marco Parigi It's just that "sun rising" thing was in the early part of the book. I detected a facetiousness that probably wasn't there about that comment also.
Wednesday at 13:18 · Like.

Marco Parigi Lennox's book has several "history of philosophy" side notes that are actually very interesting to me. They are not interspersed with rhetoric. It is an easier read for me than for winston. It doesn't come close to proving anything.
Wednesday at 13:24 · Like.

Nathanael Small Ah bro, you posted twice before I replied - I didn't see your second post because of a PC freeze requireing a re-boot. Once again the limitations of this medium are exposed and I'm sorry if I came across as flippant.
I'm happy we've defined the rules of engagement enough so that at least we know when not to get angry, frustrated and chew up unnecessary time posting when it's something one of us actually doesn't think is relevant. It will help keep us on point.
You've put a good amount of effort in spite of tech frustrations and being on an overseas holiday, and that will be respected.
As promised, I'll start on replying to your Lennox posts over the coming week.
And I will get back to your reply to my email - with job hunting, family Christmas, mystery Lydia back & shoulder pains etc etc it's fallen on the back burner. Personally, with 6 kids and business, I don't know how you find the time, Marco Parigi, but I'm grateful there's a third voice. See you on Winston Inabox's Lennox post stream.
Wednesday at 14:08 · Like.

Winston Inabox In the services it's called mission creep. We've a simple plan (discuss Lennox) and the means to to it (3 people all with his book on iPads, all as friends on FB). Talking about people's positions is neither here nor there as far as that mission goes.

I've no desire to convince anyone to think anything or change their opinion. I've a desire to examine Lennox's claims. Period. But I don't own the Internet and I can't tell others what to do. All I can say is that I won't be joining discussions that go beyond those boundaries, or at least not until some significant progress has been made on Lennox.

2011 - bad year for being a dictator

2011-12-29T21:06:00.001+10:00

Man of the year was the protester, but woman of the year must be mother nature. A sequence of Queensland floods, then Yasi, then the Christchurch earthquake then the Japanese tsunami. Not to mention the Asian floods, and an unseasonal Phillippine typhoon in the mix. Sovereign debt crises made Australia's economic problems look like a family picnic. The Arab spring ground on the whole year just like the Murray river floods. Yet protesters started to Occupy western democracies, Perhaps not realizing that Democracy is as good as it gets. And the Murray Darling Process assumed a state of lack of water, when the issue is variability, not a low average availability.

Murray Darling bets

2011-12-26T21:44:00.001+10:00

The Murray river has had a flow of water out of its mouth(barrages open) now for 16 months since August 2010, including now the whole of 2011. My bet is that the Murray will keep flowing for another couple of years. To pick a date, I will choose February 2014. Not only that, but I am also betting that Murray Darling storages will not drop below 40% until 2020.

What are you looking here for?

2011-12-14T12:55:00.000+10:00

All the action is on Facebook:

Save Marriage Petition www.australianmarriage.org
To the delegates of the 2011 Labor National Conference: Marriage is the union of one man and one woman, voluntarily entered into for life. It is an institution vital to the well-being of all of society. In particular it confirms the importance of motherhood and fatherhood and seeks to protect ch.....
Like · · Share ·
28 November at 14:30 near Sydney, New South Wales · . Paul Aitkenhead likes this..
Nathanael Small PS I tried several times to make both the links show their graphics, but only the 'Save Marriage' one would show. 28 November at 14:31

· Like.
Paul Aitkenhead
Marriage helps to define and establish kinship. To deny gay people the right to marry is to underline that "we" think "they" are different. Many gay people have grown up having that message beaten (both figuratively and literally) into them. For that reason I vote in favour of gay marriage equality. 28 November at 14:52
· Like.
Marco Parigi
I would lean towards the status quo, myself, but I don't feel strongly enough about it to sign either petition. 28 November at 17:15
· Like.

Kylie Jensen Parigi
Gay people are different, but different doesn't necessarily mean bad. All 6 of my children are different and are loved and raised according to their needs and desires. Saying that gay people are different doesn't mean that they are bad and should be cast out, but marriage is a rite and tradition born of religion, and no religion accepts or condones homosexuallity. Civil unions already cover the legalities needed, why should gay couples be allowed to undermine the fabric of the religions that their lifestyle rejects? 28 November at 19:54

· Like · 1.

Winston Inabox
I've no idea about Australian law as it pertains to civil unions, but do they really cover ALL legalities? I also find the wording in he Sav Marriage Petition amusing. Marriage is hardly "natural" it being a human institution, and one many people opt out of. 28 November at 23:18

· Like.
Winston Inabox
Where can I find the petition for polygamy? 28 November at 23:23 · Like.

David Astley
Marrying someone is a public declaration that that person is the most important person in your life, and they are entitled to be treated as such. Every person is capable of feeling that way about another, and many wish to declare their love publicly. We forbid children from making this decision because they lack maturity. We forbid adults from making this decision because we lack maturity. 28 November at 23:32 · Like.

Marco Parigi
I think the main area in which the "legalities" would be different between civil union and marriage pertain to the treatment of infidelity and the amount of time, paperwork and separation for a divorce to be finalised compared to dissolution of a civil union. Mainly, it is more of a sociological distinction. Making civil unions as binding as marriages will not necessarily be what people who enter into civil unions are after. 29 November at 06:34 · Like.

Kylie Jensen Parigi
I believe you can find the petition for polygamy in most Arab countries and some parts of Utah. As for marriage being a public declaration, it doesn't need to be. Some people get married with the minimum of people present, just as a civil union doesn't need to be a private declaration. There is nothing standing in the way of it being as big and public as a royal wedding. Just ask Elton John. And referring to peoples religious beliefs as lacking maturity is rather insulting, and lacking in maturity itself. People aren't childish because they stand behind the courage of their own convictions. 29 November at 07:06 · Like.

Winston Inabox
Depends on the convictions they're courageous about and how they stand behind them. If someone opposes something and the best reason they've got is the flying spaghetti monster told them it is wrong, probably I'm going to find them less than convincing. Let's take the Christian god for example. Slaughters all the 1st born of Egypt and yet is concerned about what goes where in which orifice. Talk about screwed up priorities. And people want to use Him for justification for anything. Please. If you met someone who said they've no problem with mass murder but thinks that eating carpet is wrong, you'd think Him or Her a nutter. 29 November at 08:35 · Like · 1.

Marco Parigi
Branding all those opposed to gay marriage as "religious" in the way that you, Winston Inabox do, is insulting to me. There is considerable precedent in that marriage constituted as it is *works*, and changes to the basic definitions of what it is, is more likely to further erode the traditional family and the benefits to society that entails, than to improve society. I am happy if you give me examples of other states or countries that have had long term success by expanding the definition of marriage in this way. If not, I certainly don't want Australia to be one of the first to experiment in this direction. 29 November at 08:59 · Like.

Kylie Jensen Parigi
It's not about whether Christianity is right or wrong. Marriage is a part of Christianity, and Judaism and Islam, and possibly other religions I know nothing about. Marriage only came about in the first place because of the religious beliefs of those people whose God saw fit to slaughter all the first born Egytians. If gay people want to reject the parts of religion which tell them what can and cannot go in which orrifice, why then do they want to take on something as entrenched in religious law and tradition as marriage? 29 November at 09:01 · Like.

Winston Inabox
Marco, please show me where I've branded "all those opposed to gay marriage as 'religious'". I've done no such thing. I await your quote. And Kylie, while marriage may well have begun as a religious tradition it is very much a civil one now. The religious ceremony is just that - a ceremony. 29 November at 09:09 · Like.

Kylie Jensen Parigi
Also you seem to be a little entrenched in the old testament. Perhaps sometime you should skip ahead to to the new testament and find out some of the things that Jesus taught, as this is what Christianity is based on. 29 November at 09:10 · Like.

Kylie Jensen Parigi
In the same way that the religious ceremony is just a ceremony, so is the civil ceremony. It's the conviction of the couple and the definition of marriage which is really at stake here. And a big part of that definition stems from what happens biologically when particular parts go into particular orrifices. Stats also show that couples who live together before marriage are more likely to divorce than those who chose not to. The more we mess with marriage, the less relevent it becomes. My marriage is very important to me, because of my religious beliefs, (and because I have the most fabulous husband), and I don't want it to become irrelevant in society because we change the laws to make it something that anyone can do without regard for the traditions and beliefs behind it. 29 November at 09:26 · Like.

Winston Inabox
So what's the Old Testament then? A bunch of stories we can ignore? Stuff that didn't happen? Can I flip past that part because it isn't real? If I'm going to "skip " parts of the Bible, I really ought to know which parts are optional. Jesus stuff = real. OK. Let's cherry pick the nice parts, and skip the parts where god does bad stuff. God kills thousands of people and you say just skip that. LoL. 29 November at 09:29 · Like · 1.

Marco Parigi
‎"If someone opposes something and the best reason they've got is the flying spaghetti monster told them it is wrong, probably I'm going to find them less than convincing. Let's take the Christian god for example." You are basically going from something holistic such as marriage, whose reasons can be encapsulated in a religion, to something individual - the spaghetti monster told them it's wrong. 29 November at 09:32 · Like.

Kylie Jensen Parigi
I didn't say that the old testament wasn't real, or relevant. Simply that the laws of Christianity are based on the teachings of Jesus, and that just as Jesus coming to earth and dying on the cross for the sins of man provided all of us with a new way to become closer to God, and one day reside with him in heaven, as opposed to making sacrifices in the temple, he aslo provided us with a new, more loving and less violent way of resolving disputes and treating our fellow man. He did not however tell us to go out and sin away to our hearts content, that it didn't matter any more. We are responsible for our own actions in life, and will be judged accordingly. And the last time I checked putting the the wrong parts in the wrong orifices was still a sin. 29 November at 09:37 · Like.

Winston Inabox
Notice the "if someone" there. That means "if". It doesn't mean "all people". If you don't use that reason, then you're not in the group I'm talking about. You don't need to apologize. Language is tricky sometimes. 29 November at 09:37 · Like.

Kylie Jensen Parigi
Oh and murder, mass or otherwise, is still a sin too. 29 November at 09:39 · Like.

Marco Parigi
Nah Winston Inabox. It still sounds like a generalisation of the *against* argument. Neither me, Kylie, nor Noel have said that God (tfsm) told us that it is wrong (gay marriage) as the basis of our argument. Why are you addressing that argument rather than the ones we are talking about (precedent and "ownership" of the institution) The *against* argument as you perceive it is really only going to convince believers in a church context. 29 November at 10:37 · Like.

Nathanael Small
Ok - Marco is right, we've chunked up the original post topic into the meta narrative. While intimately related, not the original direction I'd hoped for. 29 November at 10:38 · Like.

Winston Inabox
Nathanael, welcome to the Internet. Marco, I'm glad we've progressed from you saying I was "branding all" to "sounds like a generalization". I said "if" plain and simple. Check this thread and you'll see I was originally responding to Kylie's comment which was "People aren't childish because they stand behind the courage of their own convictions." which was a response to Dave's comment. To that I said "Depends on the convictions they're courageous about and how they stand behind them." Then I provided an example based on Christianity pertaining to the double standard where mass murder gets a pass because God did it, to non-acceptance of gay relationships because God said it. For the record I'm sure different people bring different kinds of data, theories, beliefs, misconceptions and prejudices as to why two people of the same gender can't enter into the human-made institution of marriage. 29 November at 11:09 · Like.

Winston Inabox
And disagreeing is different to opposing. I've got no vested interest in agreeing or disagreeing with gay marriage. I personally lose nothing if it happens nothing if it doesn't, and I'm blowed if I can work out how it would harm me in any way shape or form. But if I were to sign a petition against gay marriage then I am actively taking a stance against it. I am opposing a group of people who want nothing from me, have never done me any harm, and who are only looking for the same rights that I enjoy because society has historically deemed it so. 29 November at 11:14 · Like ·

1. Kylie Jensen Parigi
First of all, I may have minunderstood the original post. I am not asking anyone to sign a petition, and by posting on this wall I didn't realise that I was doing that. So I'm sorry if that's the impression I gave. I was simply stating my own position, and whilst this is what I believe, I don't hold others who don't believe to the same standard. I just don't think that you should be able to pick and choose different parts of other peoples religions and say, well we don't want to follow this part of it, cause we don't like it, but these bits are the bits we do like so we want to have them for ourselves and so we'll just rewrite the definition of marriage, and then we can be married ourselves. I don't consider marriage to be a right, I consider it a privilege, and privileges are earned. You earn the privilege of being married by agreeing to the terms of marriage, such as love and fidelity, and that a marriage when a man and woman are joined as one, in the eyes of 29 November at 11:26 · Like.

Kylie Jensen Parigi
God and the people. 29 November at 11:26 · Like.

Winston Inabox
I don't believe that you're asking anyone to sign a petition. I also understand what you're saying. But I disagree with it as a basis for opposition. I don't believe that marriage need any longer have any basis in religion, which for me undermines pretty much your whole position. If you want to believe that all marriage must be based on religion, that's your privilege. But if there are ANY marriages not based on religion, then those marriages may be defined as we wish to define them. Now of course there are marriages which have nothing to do with religion. I'm living one right now. The question is how do we define those marriages. This talk of marriage is a secular discussion. 29 November at 11:48 · Like · 1.

Marco Parigi
I perceive Marriage to be a license thus not necessarily everyone has a right to it as such. (Not everyone has a right to a class A manual driving license). Basically it is still essentially a license to exclusivity in sexual relations and the children garnered thereby. Ill effects to me or you personally, as you say, are hard to imagine to allowing a broader range of sexual relations and how the children are garnered. However, I still think keeping civil unions and marriage licences as two separate but similar licenses is an important principle, just as having an automatic license isn't equivalent to a manual license. This is because possible ill-effects are pernicious and won't be visible for generations. 29 November at 11:49 · Like.

Marco Parigi
Societies which have had this marriage license encapsulated in a religious ritual have thrived better in the long term. Modern secular societies have essentially copied the whole ritual, and then wonder why there is a greater societal tendency for the breakdown of the family unit. Secular marriage laws are not enough cement to keep essentially moral promises in the long term. People must also believe in the basis of that moral promise, whether it be secular humanism or whatever. 29 November at 12:02 · Like.

Winston Inabox
Come on Marco, a license "to exclusivity in sexual relations" WTF are you licensing? Infidelity by a partner will not guarantee the damaged partner custody. Divorce in Australia is no-fault. You really need to explain that one. And someone can father 1000 children with a 1000 different women and they are all that person's kids under law. 29 November at 12:04 · Like.

Kylie Jensen Parigi
I'd like to point out Nathanael Small, that since you placed this post on your wall, you have been conspicuously absent from the ensuing fallout. I know you're chicken when it comes to disagreeing with me, (not an issue your brother has at all), but since you started this, perhaps you would like to weigh in? 29 November at 12:05 · Like.

Winston Inabox
Now you're claiming that societies with a ritual tend to thrive. What is the current divorce rate? And even if the rate is low in these societies, is it because the ritual keeps them together, or because of other societal pressure such as women have lower earning power, or if you leave your husband our religion says you'll be stoned or burnt to death. Where do you get the idea that a ritual is all people need to hold society together?!? 29 November at 12:08 · Like · 1.

Kylie Jensen Parigi Where do gay couples get the idea that a ritual will make them more accepted in society. That if they too can be married then it makes them the same as hetrosexual couples who are married? 29 November at 12:13 · Like.

Kylie Jensen Parigi You're also implying that large numbers of women only stay married to their husbands because they have lower earning power than men. Rather insulting to women and the men they are married to. Apart from which, the main reason women have lower earning power is because of time lost in the workforce having and raising children, a situation which is currently being addressed by many first world countries. And that is also part of the reason why marriage came about. Husbands love your wives means take care of them emotionally and physically. I don't stay married for the money. I stay married because I love my husband, and the ideal way to raise our children is together, with a mother and a father. Because men and women are different and bring very different but important things to the table when it comes to raising children. 29 November at 12:22 · Like.

Marco Parigi Breaking any number of road rules not losing your license does not unmake it a license. I think YOU have to explain that one to me. Why do they call them "illegitimate" if they are legitimate. It doesn't matter how many cars you drive without a license, they can still be your cars. Within a marriage license your right to custody of children is automatic and assumed. If you go around hooning in your car, it is entirely plausible that it be taken away from you. Your wife/partner and/or God if you so choose to believe is the judge of your fidelity to the vows of your marriage license. I'm wondering why you got married if you don't thimk it made any difference in that sense. 29 November at 12:22 · Like.

Winston Inabox Kylie, I'm not implying that. You're inferring that. Please read the comment again. Marco suggests that societies with the ritual thrive. I ask him what's the divorce rate in these societies, and how does it compare to societies without the ritual. Then IF (there's that word again... a Parigi blindspot?) it is lower in these societies is it really because of the ritual, or some other factors. Then I propose some factors why it may be less in those cases. 29 November at 12:32 · Like.

Winston Inabox Marco, you can try to connect the dots between breaking road rules (an illegal activity) and having children (not an illegal activity) if you like, but I'm just going to say that most analogies don't bear close examination. And you still haven't answered what you're licensing. With a car it is a license to drive. It's not the children who are by default the parents license or not. It's not the exclusive sexual relationship. It's not damages in court if you're partner is unfaithful. Marco, what are you licensing? 29 November at 12:37 · Like.

David Astley In Australia, marriage does need to be a public declaration. It goes on the public record and it affects your legal status. The number of public is irrelevant as long as you have the legal representative and a few witnesses. Marriage does not belong to any one particular type of religion. It covers arranged marriages, polygamy, lineage, inheritances and various other concepts. But for the Australian government it is a legal process granting legal rights and recognition. Your family and friends may care if you dress up as Star Wars characters for your wedding, but the Australian government doesn't. As such, nobody referred to people's religious beliefs as lacking maturity. It is forbidding adults from choosing who to marry, the act of needlessly exercising one's will over that of another, that lacks maturity. The government has no legal reason whatsoever to forbid gays from marrying, only political reasons. A mature government would act for the benefit of minorities instead of reinforcing prejudices and stereotypes. 29 November at 12:40 · Like · 1.

Kylie Jensen Parigi I believe that the divorce rate is higher because society has taken away the meaning and importance of the ritual. We stand at the altar, or in a park or wherever, and say the words, and in many cases now make up our own vows, which aren't necessarily vows, but just some pretty speech about how fabulous our lives together are going to be, but with the firm knowledge in our minds that if it doesn't work out, we live in a no fault divorce state, and we can start over with the next husband. We don't need to make marriage accessible to more people, we need make divorce less accessible. When you take away the need to have a reason to divorce, you take away the incentive to be faithful, and to love your spouse, and work through your problems together and make it work. I'm not saying that there aren't good reasons for divorce, but not every divorcing couple has them. For some people it's just too hard. Make it harder to get married and divorced, and then maybe we'll stop seeing the break down of our society. 29 November at 12:42 · Like.

Kylie Jensen Parigi A mature government represents the people, and I see no evidence to show that the majority of people in this country believe that the marriage act should be changed. Marriage also doesn't cover polygamy, lineage and inheritances in this country. Polygamy is illegal, lineage is covered by birth certificates whether your parents are married or not, they are still your parents, and your parents are quite within their legal rights to cut you out of their will if they so choose. All the legal processes and rights and recognition of which you speak are covered by the laws pertaining to civil unions. Marriage in the coming together of a man and a woman as husband and wife. I am yet to see a same sex couple who can make themselves into a husband and wife. And civil unions are still public declarations, and part of the public record. 29 November at 12:51 · Like.

Winston Inabox Kylie, believing why something is true doesn't mean it is true. Believing "that the divorce rate is higher because society has taken away the meaning and importance of the ritual" isn't the same as having evidence to back that up. I might believe it's higher because all those gosh darn women keep leaving the kitchen and working for a living instead of staying home. Someone else may think it's because we've just gotten better at keeping statistics about divorce, someone else may say it's because there's less prejudice, another because there's fewer children being born and someone else may say that it was always this high we just never had the means to keep track of it. 29 November at 13:21 · Like.

Winston Inabox ‎"A mature government represents the people, and I see no evidence to show that the majority of people in this country believe that the marriage act should be changed." The first part is something I can finally agree with you. If the majority of Australians are opposed to this, then the gay and lesbian community have to rethink their strategy. Anything from more education right up to civil war! But as to the second part I don't know. It seems a little early to have decided the election before counting the ballots. 29 November at 13:25 · Like.

Kylie Jensen Parigi Well if it is because fewer children are being born, I have certainly done my bit to help stop the rot. 29 November at 13:35 · Like.

Nathanael Small Hi Kylie - I've been driving & in meetings (and I try to keep vigorous debates off FB & between the parties directly where I can). I was hoping for an open change of views so people could understand different perspectives - but if you want to debate it's fine. I do owe my brother a private reply to a big topic we're working around - again, life & priorities have gotten in the way. Hope that explains my conspicuous absence. N 29 November at 13:36 via · Like.

Marco Parigi ‎"And you still haven't answered what you're licensing." Ok. I'll keep it simple. Go to your wife (or if you are really timid, imagine what she would reply), and ask her as a husband what you are and what you are not allowed to do (and conversely for her). That is what is being licensed here. 29 November at 13:42 · Like.

Winston Inabox What you are speaking of is not being licensed. The vehicle license allows me the privilege to drive on the road. Without the license by driving on the road I am performing an illegal action. The marriage license doesn't work like that. I can have kids and live in an exclusive sexual relationship without a license, and it is not illegal. It is that simple. 29 November at 13:55 · Like.

Kylie Jensen Parigi Hi Nathanael, just playing with you again, although if you prefer to keep vigorous debates of FB and between the parties, you should be a think just a bit more about how contencious an issue is before you get it started and the run for the hills. 29 November at 13:55 · Like.

Kylie Jensen Parigi Besides which, I'm not fbfriends with either of the other parties, so I don't really see us entering into any private debates. I've never even met Winston Inabox, but I wouldn't mind if he got back in his box. :-) 29 November at 13:58 · Like.

Marco Parigi ‎"Marco, you can try to connect the dots between breaking road rules (an illegal activity) and having children (not an illegal activity)" Traditionally, having children out of wedlock was considered "illegal". Softening the laws over time doesn't mean that it isn't considered an "infringement". It is always considered as points against you if it comes up in divorce proceedings. Breaking road rules (that don't break any broader laws) does not go on your criminal record. That's why they call them "infringements". You lose points that may lead to you losing your license - but only if you get caught (as above where it only matters when the law gets involved) 29 November at 13:59 · Like.

Winston Inabox You're now arguing the semantics of "illegal" and "infringement". Marco, you can keep on drawing that long bow if you like, but when you're using semantics to defend an analogy, you'd be better looking for a better analogy. A vehicle license requires a competency test, and without one the act of driving is illegal. It separates those who are allowed to do something from those who are not allowed to do it. Nothing like a marriage license at all. 29 November at 15:29 · Like.

Winston Inabox Don't worry Kylie, today work is slow so I've had plenty of time to cause trouble. You'll unlikely hear from me again for the rest of the week. Ha! 29 November at 15:30 · Like.

Kylie Jensen Parigi A marriage licence requires a competency test, knowing which part to put in which orifice. And so I shall look forward to hearing from you next week. Hopefully Nathanael can come up with some new topic for us to debate. 29 November at 15:40 · Like. Marco Parigi From Wikipedia - A marriage license is a document issued, either by a church or state authority, authorizing a couple to marry. 29 November at 15:54 · Like.

Marco Parigi My view of a "license" is not really about the legal recourse associated with it, as there is, but a different way of enforcing promises made and competencies such as they are. Licenses modify behaviour through fear of losing the license rather than fear of punishment in other ways. Thus people are motivated not to speed because they may lose their license, and you may be motivated to being faithful due to the threat of divorce rather than by the threat of being stabbed or poisoned. 29 November at 16:02 · Like.

Winston Inabox Yes Marco. And a driving license is a document issued by a state authority, authorizing a person to drive. And a gun license is... And a dog license is... And a TV license is... By this level or rigor you could choose any license for your analogy and you'd be just as equally correct. However once you look at what you have to do to acquire the driving license and what it allows you to do and the consequences of doing those things without it, and compare it to what the marriage license allows you to do and the consequences of doing those things without it, and you'll see (or rather not see in your case) that they are two completely different types of licenses. 29 November at 16:03 · Like.

Winston Inabox As to your next view of a license enforcing promises... well if you believe that it's the piece of paper (although earlier you thought it was the ritual) that is stopping the divorce rate from being any higher, then that's that I guess. 29 November at 16:07 · Like.

Kylie Jensen Parigi Apparently if Marco breaks the rules of his marriage license, I might just be able to poison or stab him. And if you have a gun license, it doesn't allow you to go and just shoot people randomly, in the same way that a marriage license doesn't just allow you to marry any random person. You have to choose someone with the correct parts/orifices. And dog registrations are handed out by local authorities, not state authorities. 29 November at 16:14 · Unlike · 1.

Marco Parigi Like I intimated, I am not sure why you got married if the marriage (piece of paper, ritual, and happily ever after) was "valuable". We protect privileges which we think are valuable. We treat with disdain unenforceable laws which we don't believe in. 29 November at 16:30 · Like.

Marco Parigi I meant to say not valuable in the first sentence. 29 November at 16:31 · Like.

Winston Inabox Do marriage licenses even have rules? And if they do, I'm pretty sure that they are not enforced the same way as other licenses. Break your marriage vows and there is no authority checking up on you. no fine. No points to lose. Although the Church police from Python might be game for a laugh. LoL. Licenses other than marriage allow you to do something associated with the license that otherwise you couldn't do without the license. Drive a car, own a dog, own a gun (shooting people ain't covered in the license AFAIK). Without the license one can still have kids and have an exclusive sexual relationship. Really apart from the word license, there's little similarity between a marriage license and a driving license. And in point of fact I never wrote that a dog license is handed out by the state. 29 November at 16:38 · Like.

Marco Parigi Sounds like you value your driving license more than your marriage. Your marriage doesn't give you any privileges that you couldn't get without it, and gives you a sword of damocles threat of divorce to boot. No legal recourse if your partners vows are broken except to split. 29 November at 16:44 · Like.

Marco Parigi Marriage rule enforcement and point scoring only happens at Point-of-Divorce. Most people realise too late and their actions leave themselves open to attack in divorce court or custody hearings. 29 November at 16:52 · Like.

Winston Inabox Marco, the analogy was yours, not mine. And it's you who continues to defend the analogy. On a side-note I've no driver's license, so if I were to drive and get stopped by the police I'd have more legal problems with the state than if I fathered children all over state, marriage license or not! Actually, if I continued to flaunt the road rules and continued to drive and get caught I bet the state could even revoke my privilege to drive even though I never held the license. I'd like to see the state try and stop someone fathering children who has no license. 29 November at 16:57 · Like.

Marco Parigi In a sense, marriage is only valuable as a license if you believe in the institution and agree to be bound by the promises made. This seems to be a neat fit to religion, and not so much to normal modern sexual behaviour. 29 November at 17:01 · Like.

Marco Parigi There are people who drive unlicensed for decades before they ever get jailed for the crime. Maybe China would be a bit different on the fathering of many children, whether in a marriage or not. I think with pre-marital sex, the analogy does not work, as you say, because not even partners try to enforce it or even bring it up after marriage, but for extra marital affairs excetera, it works just fine. 29 November at 17:10 · Like.

Winston Inabox Ah yes, the good old days when people respected the sanctity of marriage. When were they again? 29 November at 17:18 · Like.

Kylie Jensen Parigi Of course there are rules to marriage. No 1 being do not leave your shoes where your wife will trip over them and likely break her neck. And if you think there aren't consequences to breaking them, try it and see what happens. On a serious note though, the consequences are far more likely to be emotional, and cause more pain and suffering than the consequences of driving without a licence. And a lot of people do drive without licences, and just don't care. Just as a lot of people do have children without getting married. I know some of those people and the lack of stability in their relationships, and therefore for the children, is palpable. No matter what happens, Marco and I will always be together, as long as we live. Because we take the religious aspect of our marriage vows seriously, we can say that, and we made that decision before we started having children. We can do that because we believe that marriage is a part of God's plan for men and women, and so we accept all the rules of marriage without question. If you can't accept God's laws, why do you want to be a part of something that is so intwined in religious belief? Whether you are gay or straight? 29 November at 17:21 · Like.

Winston Inabox I thought the #1 rule of marriage had something to do with the position the toilet seat is left in after use. 29 November at 17:23 · Like.

Kylie Jensen Parigi When you're 6 months pregnant and get up at 2am to use the toilet, and trip over the shoes which have been left in front of it, and so end up belly first in the toilet, it doesn't really matter whether the seat is up or down. 29 November at 17:32 · Unlike · 1.

Winston Inabox I sense a disturbance in the Force. 29 November at 17:40 · Like.

Kylie Jensen Parigi I didn't get married in Starwars costumes, so I really don't get that. 29 November at 17:52 · Like.

David Astley Yes, a mature government represents the people- all of them. Ideally, every citizen should have equal access to the laws of the land to be allowed to marry their true love. But currently marriage, in Australia, is the coming together of a man and woman as husband and wife. It says nothing about being faithful, loving your spouse and working through your problems together to make it work. It is a weak definition and it must change. Society has not taken away the meaning and importance of the marriage ritual, however. While there are many straight people that see marriage as just another relationship, the core of our society still believe marriage is committment for life. This is the marriage that gay people support and want. Gays know and understand how important marriage is, and that's why they're prepared to fight for it. They also would be in favour of tougher divorce laws. And gays respect marriage because they've already fought discrimination to get married, as opposed to having marriage handed to them on a silver platter. The idea that two people will respect marriage more because they are of different genders is laughable. Same sex couples, however, feel their exclusion from society every day- they understand the true importance of marriage, they support the strengthening of marriage laws and they should certainly be allowed to marry. 29 November at 23:29 · Like · 1.

Kylie Jensen Parigi When all of the people don't have the same opinion or ideals, a mature government needs to choose, and usually in favour of what the majority of people want. There is quite a loud group of people who want and are willing to fight for legalisation of marijuana in Australia, but I don't see the government giving those people what they want, even though that would possibly make those people very happy. 30 November at 08:46 · Like.

Kylie Jensen Parigi And gay people have the same rights to get married as straight people, within the bounds of the definition of marriage. I'm not allowed to marry another woman either, even though my house would probably be cleaner if I did. And if marriage vows are being taken less seriously in Australia, then why is the divorce rate so high, and why are so many people simply choosing to live together and not bother getting married? I've heard so many times that marriage is just a piece of paper, and if that is the case, why isn't the piece of paper that a civil union is printed on, just as important or unimportant? The real meaning of marriage stems from the religious beliefs that created it. So you give me a good reason why those of us who believe in the whole definition of marriage, including that it is between a man and a woman, should have to dilute those beliefs to allow marriage to exist between same sex couples, a relationship which flies in the face of what we consider to be right and moral. Marriage allows us to have that relationship and still be in a right relationship with God, same sex marriages can never be right in God's eyes. So why exactly do gay people feel the need for something that they have no real belief in? If it's just about being the same as everyone else, that is silly, they are already different, and being married isn't going to make them the same, any more than me wearing a head scarf will make me the same as a muslim woman. People are different, and true lack of discrimination is when we accept people for their differences, and stop trying to make them conform with every ideal that exists for each indivual group and their belief system. Like that you need to be married to be a true couple, or have a complete committment to one another. A civil union is just as binding as a marriage, it just isn't tied up in anyone elses religious beliefs. 30 November at 09:03 · Like.

Kylie Jensen Parigi And I doubt if a weak definition would have survived as many thousands of years as the definition of marriage has. 30 November at 09:05 · Like.

David Astley A mature government does what's best for the people, whether the majority want it or not. In particular, a mature government should treat all its citizens equally regardless of race, colour, gender, sexuality or choice of religion or politics. Legislation should never discriminate based on these things. If you want to strengthen marriage, you should give it to those who want it, not inflict it on those who don't. The real meaning of marriage has changed from country to country and time to time and will change again in the future if not now. Many gays believe in the sanctity of marriage and wish to be allowed to exercise those beliefs. While same sex marriage may never be right in your God's eyes, many people believe in a loving God who accepts all those that wish to follow Him, whether they be prostitutes, tax collectors or gay. Your beliefs are important, but not more important than theirs. 30 November at 10:05 · Like · 1.

Marco Parigi David says"It says nothing about being faithful, loving your spouse and working through your problems together to make it work" I don't think you can legislate for committment. You can neither enforce it through the normal state channels (police) nor judge it fairly in the courts. This depends on the spouses themselves believing in the institution. I do remember seing on a clip, an impassioned plea and argument from someone who was gay regarding the issue of marriage vs. civil unions. He went through several anecdotes about how it would fix all the issues that came of being classed differently to a married couple, and made a reasonable case that it wouldn't generate any new issues. The anecdotes were almost exclusively about "presumptions" under the law that were and still are different between the two classes of union. My assertion is that new issues in changing the definition of marriage are pernicious, thus hard to prove, and that it is a much safer bet to continue to narrow the gap between civil unions and marriage legally, even to the point of being able to call civil unions "marriages". There is a bit of resistance within the gay community itself to toughening up civil union laws, but that is up to them. Is it possible to have a civil union between a man and a woman? 30 November at 11:13 · Like.

Kylie Jensen Parigi Just because you think that what the majority wants is not what is best for them, does not make it so. In a democracy what is right for the country is based on what the majority wants. Other no matter how "mature" the government is in making laws that they consider to be best for the country, at the next election they will be thrown out of government, and the new government will change the legislation back again, as was seen with the Howard government and the IR laws it considered to be best for the country. You also have no way of proving that changes to the marriage act would be for the good of the country as a whole. For all I know your real reason for wanting legalisation of gay marriage, is just so that you can get invited to more weddings. 30 November at 11:37 · Like.

Winston Inabox Kylie, the history of slavery pretty much contradicts your stance. Abhorrent to us now, it was endorsed by governments of the society that practiced it. It had even been sanctioned by the major churches! Of course, you could easily claim that those governments weren't "mature"... 30 November at 12:15 · Like · 1.

Kylie Jensen Parigi I doubt very much whether comparing the complete oppression and slavery of one race by another to the technical differences between marriage and civil unions is remotely useful to this conversation, but if you aren't happy with the way our democracy works in Australia you could always try starting a civil war. That might be a more mature way to solve this issue, although I thought you were anti mass murder. But then I also thought that you were going into hibernation for a week, and I wouldn't be hearing from you until then, so I guess I could be wrong on both counts, you might just be fickle. 30 November at 12:26 · Like.

Kylie Jensen Parigi Come to think of it, isn't that why all the first born sons in Egypt were killed, because of the complete oppression and slavery of one people (the Jews) by another (the Egyptians)? 30 November at 12:33 · Like.

Nathanael Small I'm finding the asynchronous communication challenging to keep up with and the discussion has flowed around a lot. My perspective (for what it's worth):1. A licence is a helpful analogy - to a point. Marriage is much more intimately relational than a car / gun (though some enthusiasts might disagree with me), so it gets tricky to apply the analogy consistently. I see marriage as a covenant, reflected in a licence (contract). 2. I agree that marriage should be harder to enter into and much more support given to those who want to leave when there isn't abuse, adultery or abandonment but simply personal selfishness. 3. Unfortunately, although we might have a government, it is not a mature one - more of an ineptocracy. 4. Slavery is not a fair comparison, as this is not a cultural oppression / civil rights iissue (and it was Christians who led the charge for its abolition). Allowing gay marriage will not magically end discrimination. There are a couple of small areas where Australian law needs to change (including allowing people to marry first cousins being struck out), but equal rights for exclusive partner relationships is almost here in Australia. Bringing those into law will over time continue to decrease the discrimination 5. I'm yet to see a compelling argument against the value of having a unique definition for a male / female exclusive relationship which seeks to parent children (biologically or otherwise). Gay exclusive couples cannot be a mother and father - either biologically or genetically. Some other party has to be involved. It's all too easy for the position of Christians to be turned into the hateful (but sadly true) caricature of "Adam & Eve, not Adam & Steve"). While love, compassion and care for those homosexuals who have been hurt, marginalised or treated unjustly should be central to any faith-based response, it appears to me there is a boundary of gender difference and specific role that gays cannot overcome. heterosexuals are different from homosexuals, but can be treated equally with respect to all civil rights without requiring the label of marriage. There's more, but I need to go to another meeting. Perhaps later tonight or tomorrow. 30 November at 12:46 · Like.

Winston Inabox Kylie, I'm not comparing slavery to marriage. I'm saying that your stance where the government should do whatever the people want is undermined by the example of slavery. Those in power wanted slavery and it was given general support by the religions of the times. Today we find that position abhorrent. 30 November at 13:42 · Like.

Kylie Jensen Parigi Winston, I refer you to what Nathanael said. He worded it better than me. And don't you have a job to do? 30 November at 13:54 · Like.

Winston Inabox Unfortunately he didn't word it better because he thought I was saying the same thing you thought I was saying. As I explained I'm not talking about gay marriage, but your idea that the government should do whatever the people want it to do. If the people want it to do abhorrent things (slavery) then they shouldn't be doing it. 30 November at 14:10 · Like.

Marco Parigi Just a thought. I have just read an article today that there is a vote going through QUEENSLAND parliament to do with allowing civil unions, and I have realised that civil unions are not yet universally accepted accross the various levels of government. I guess I would be siding with the left (Labor, Greens), but perhaps it was time Qld allowed and recognised these within its jurisdiction. 30 November at 14:58 · Like.

Kylie Jensen Parigi Winston, in that case you also probably missed the bit where I said that I don't consider not allowing gay marriage to be abhorrent, and obviously neither does the government at this point, as they haven't felt the need to legalise gay marriage. Just because you and David think it's abhorrent, doesn't necessarily make it so, 30 November at 15:19 · Like.

Kylie Jensen Parigi And we as the voters in this great democracy of ours are still capable of voting in a new government to change laws which we do find abhorrent. Such as slavery, not allowing all people the same voting rights, discrimination against people because of their race, gender, sexual orientation etc, unfair treatment in the workplace. At the moment we seem to have a government in place which doesn't consider it necessary to change the marriage act, and we won't see one until they are sure it is the will of the people, not just the will of the people who complain the loudest. 30 November at 15:25 · Like.

Winston Inabox Kylie, again you're missing my rebuttal of your point. Your point is that the government should do what the people want. I'm providing an example (slavery) that shows that this is not true. I am in no way connecting slavery and gay marriage. Do you think that a government should do what the people want when the people want slavery? is my point rephrased as a question. 30 November at 15:50 · Like.

Marco Parigi ‎"Do you think that a government should do what the people want when the people want slavery?" I think the problem at the time when it was considered the majority wanted slavery, was that if you included the actual slaves (they couldn't vote obviously), that would never really be a feasible possibility. In really wretchedly hard times, if there was a choice of being a slave and being fed, or of starving, even the slaves may agree with slavery at least until prospects got better. Therefore, yes, if conditions dictated that the majority wanted slavery (if you include the slaves as voters) it is plausible that the government ought to either allow it or ensure it has enough welfare money to obviate the need. Slavery exists in most countries today and I can't think of a single country where there would be a majority that could ever be in favour of it. I therefore think that the question is either rhetorical or a straw man variation. 30 November at 16:09 · Like.

Kylie Jensen Parigi Winston, the truth is I really don't care. I have a clingy 11month old who wants to be carried around all day, a two year old who is competing for the same privilege, a nine year old who needs to find a library book by tomorrow morning, or I have to pay for it, a 12 year old who wants me to find wrapping paper for her, a 15 year old descending into the abyss of online gaming addiction, and an 18 year old who wants to chat about all things relevent to a hormonal teenager in her first serious relationship. I really can't be bothered playing semantics with you, and I get the distinct impression that you are now just debating for the sake of the debate, I doubt very much whether you have any real emotional investment in the issue all. So I'm sorry, but I just don't feel like trying to understand at the moment. I tell you what, I'm going to take a week off FB, and when I come back, if you still want me to answer the question, I'll have a crack at it then. 30 November at 17:30 · Unlike · 1.

Winston Inabox Kylie, you are correct that I have no emotional investment in this at all. And I would recommend the same to you. You don't know me, I don't know you. We've never met and probably never will. We are two people discussing a topic on FB. If you're unable to continue the discussion that's fine with me. This is the Internet, people come and go as they please. Nothing you and I discuss here will have any impact on the outcome of this issue, so don't sweat it. If you ever wish to discuss any issue I'm here. Enjoy the time with your family. 30 November at 17:43 · Like.

David Astley Marco says "I don't think you can legislate for committment. You can neither enforce it through the normal state channels (police) nor judge it fairly in the courts. This depends on the spouses themselves believing in the institution." Correct, which has nothing to do with the race, colour or sex of the spouses. In fact, there are so many gays who believe in the institution of marriage that they want to get married. Previous changes to the definition of marriage have never damaged the institution of marriage despite allowing, among other things, marriage across class and race. Marriages across class and race are now considered not only acceptable, but tributes to the concept of 'love conquers all'. We know discrimination still exists and we admire those who rise above such discrimination to show us the power love. Civil unions are an excellent option for those who don't believe in marriage. They're not an option for those who do. What is right for a country is not always based on what the majority wants. What is right for the country is based on what the majority needs. They need to be educated, employed and taxed in spite of their protests. They need to stop smoking and drink responsibly. They need to be treated equally and fairly by the government. They need to marry the people they love. Allowing gays to marry will not harm you in any way whatsoever. Not allowing them to marry denies them rights and recognition that are afforded to others without question. 1. No license should be tested for based on race, class, gender, sexual orientation or political or religious beliefs. 2. To make marriage harder perhaps introduce a 1 year wait. Do not reduce the number of applicants by race, class, gender, sexual orientation or political or religious beliefs. 3. This government has floated Australia to the top of a collapsing world economy and is recognised as one of the best in the world outside Australia. 4. Allowing gay marriage will not magically end discrimination, but it will help. 5. See 1. While Nathanael says "While love, compassion and care for those homosexuals who have been hurt, marginalised or treated unjustly should be central to any faith-based response," I say such sentiments should be unconditional. Actually, disallowing gay marriage is abhorent, because it is a law that discriminates based on race, class, gender, sexual orientation or political or religious beliefs. 30 November at 17:54 · Like · 1.

Winston Inabox Marco, the question is neither rhetorical nor a straw man. Kylie's position stated simply was that the government should do the will of the people. I don't believe my question misrepresents her position, nor is it asked in a style designed to trick or confuse. Slavery has been around since the beginning of time, and it has been practiced by many governments who were doing the will of the people. I'm happy to answer my own question. I think that this is a case where governments shouldn't have been doing the will of the people. The people were wrong, and the people who make up the government were wrong to enforce it. Therefore I cannot agree with Kylie that governments should do the will of the people. 30 November at 17:57 · Like.

Marco Parigi With regards to a democratic government *not* doing the will of the people, I've seen that recently in two cases. One, where a clear majority thinks we should pull out of Afghanistan, the Government and opposition both agree to do the opposite. Second, where it is quite clear that a majority do not want a carbon tax, that is rammed through anyway. In the first example, the logic is completely strategic in terms of the conflict. It is likely taken on military advice vis a vis with the strategy that is most likely to achieve the goals of the deployment at the least cost in lives. As far as the second one goes, the calculation is that although the majority fear the worst, they will appreciate the medium term results and give it the benefit of the doubt. If the majority of people are wrong, say in pre-liberation USA, or apartheid South Africa, the majority must be won over Before a democratic government dare make a move. I still think that comparing the lack of a right to marry someone of the same sex is in the same league as slavery. Perhaps the majority will be won over. Perhaps not in Australia first. I think that a government will consider its re-election chances ahead of moral righteousness. 30 November at 23:22 · Like.

Marco Parigi I meant to say not in the same league as slavery. Slavery impinges on practically all freedoms, including sexual preference. Come to think of it, many people think that marriage impedes freedoms more than giving freedom. 30 November at 23:27 · Like.

Nathanael Small Hi all - David Astley, the challenge your argument faces is that it breaks down when the definition of marriage involves exclusivity based on gender. For mono-theists, this is a non-negotiable and something that impacts on the whole of life. For Jesus followers in particular, there are no restrictions based on class & race - just gender (must be opposite), relation (must not be family) and belief system (i.e. must be Christian). It's quite clear - "male & female", "a man shall leave his father & mother and cleave to his wife", which is consistently presented throughout their Scriptures as the marriage norm. To say "Allowing gays to marry will not harm you in any way whatsoever" is naive because it changes the definition in a way which from their perspective discriminates against their definition and practice of marriage - especially the role of mothering & fathering. To say a single gender partnership can provide both mothering and fathering is biologically not possible. Yes, it takes a village to raise a child, more then one role model etc...yet male/female, mother/father primary care of children is central to that understanding of marriage. What's wrong with equal but different (marriage & civil partnership) terminology in the eyes of the law? Finally, unconditional acceptance does not mean saying yes to whatever people want because they think it's a good idea. Do i love and accept my daughter unconditionally? Yes, absolutely. Does she always get her own way? No. Let's hold up a mirror - if a word with thousands of years of cultural significance and meaning that was held in the highest esteem by homosexuals and was a key part of their belief system faced being changed in way that meant the definition lost its meaning, in a way they believed was harmful both to them and society at large, what would be their response? Hypothetical, but it's helpful to look at it from the other side. Oh, and PS A digression, but on "Australia at the top of the world economy". 2012 will reveal just how shaky our house of cards two speed economy really is. All Rudd, Gillard & co did (and I'm a swinging voter who probably leans Labor) in 2008 was to push the inevitable pain further down the road. Every self-funded retiree I've talked to who is still an active investor and old enough to remember the Great Depression from personal experience says that Australia is in for its worst kicking since then. Done lots of research on this, and gotta tell you it's not looking good. The only question is whether it will be a great crash or steady decline at varying speeds of descent over 2-3 years. Neither will be pleasant. Buckle Up.... 1 December at 03:15 · Like.

Winston Inabox Marco I like the examples you've given of the government not doing the will of the people. But still you say "I still think that comparing the lack of a right to marry someone of the same sex is in the same league as slavery." I don't know how many times I can say that I NEVER did this. Never. Ever. Never. 1 December at 08:47 · Like.

Winston Inabox Nathanael, fortunately we no longer take monotheism's beliefs in situ into account in a secular government. As you quite plainly point out Christians are willing to discriminate based on gender. They have done so since forever, and it's only that you live in a modern society where that discrimination has been whittled down to the marginalized of this society does it seem like to you at least there's no discrimination worth worrying about all. Some Christians have provided Biblically based reasoning for all manner of gender discrimination in the past, the right for women to vote for instance. I find it as little surprise that the Christians of today still support discrimination, just as they've always done. They may label it as "unconditional acceptance", but it's unconditional with strings attached. I wonder if the Christians of 2050 will look back to the Christians of today, just as we look back at Christians who opposed the vote for women, as well-intentioned but misguided anachronisms 1 December at 09:02 · Like · 1.

David Astley Nathaniel- Your interpretation of a chosen section of your chosen religious text is important, but not more important than someone else's interpretation of a chosen section of their chosen religious text. Something does not discriminate against us merely because it includes them. In Australia, no particular religion owns marriage. The government determines the laws and it is the duty of the Australian government to legislate without discriminating against race, class, gender, sexual orientation or political or religious beliefs. If this forces one group to be more tolerant of the ways of another, that's actually a good thing. In fact, that's actually the point of not discriminating against race, class, gender, sexual orientation or political or religious beliefs. Single gender partnerships are not harmful to children. Other factors, including support, tolerance and acceptance, are actually determinants of a child's healthy development. This sideline remains irrelevant unless children become a mandatory aspect of marriage. Having made it to 2012, we've made it 5 years further than many other governments. As such I'm grateful to ours. 1 December at 09:39 · Like · 1.

Nathanael Small ‎Winston Inabox / Bro, while we can't look into the future with any certainty, what's of most interest to me is how language is used strategically to re-frame the debate and marginalise an entire world-view to the point where people will reject it on the basis of one point of possible contention. John Dickson in a sermon series in his church about sexuality recently called it a 'defeater belief'. Of course there's discrimination worth worrying about - the fact that we acknowledge that means that we hold to absolutes that aren't yet conclusively scientifically proven one way or the other (e.g. is there a homosexual gene that means you are "born gay"). Let's remember the dictionary definitions:dis·crim·i·na·tion/disˌkriməˈnāSHən/ Noun: 1. The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex. 2. Recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another. 1 December at 10:08 · Like.

Nathanael Small Definition 2 has been completely subsumed in this issue and only the negative aspects are focused on. If you want to be really nit-picky, note that Definition 1 mentions sexnut not sexuality 1 December at 10:09 · Like.

Nathanael Small sorry, sex not sexuality. David Astley, you've made several generalise comments as absolutes - e.g. "single gender partnerships are not harmful to children" - where is your empirical research to back this? There's others, but i am off to a meeting. & Winston Inabox - we've been around the gender discrimination merry go round before and you've got (some)of my position on that. And unconditional acceptance means two things: grace, which is free but not cheap; and truth, of which there are many kinds (not just scientific), which is often the first casualty in issues which are deeply personal. If we're going to crack 200 with this thread, let's try to focus on those with this issue and avoid red herrings. And bro, you never answered my original question that started this snowball down the hill. Which way & why? 1 December at 10:25 · Like.

Paul Aitkenhead The argument seems to go "they are equal but different"but because God's word says "a man shall leave his father & mother and cleave to his wife" then there is no room for them in "our" marriage tent. Surely, to be consistent, marriage should then be restricted to only those that share your spiritual values. 1 December at 10:35 · Like.

Paul Aitkenhead Why should an atheist heterosexual couple be allowed, or even encouraged, to enter into marriage, while gay couples are left out in the cold? I'm openly critical of the value of religion, and if there is a God I certainly don't think highly of him/her. And yet I'm allowed entry into the tent. If it is the word of God that is meant to be the authority on this matter surely christians should be lobbying hard to annul all of those atheist, pagan, hindu, buddhist, sikh etc. etc. marriages that have been acknowledged. Surely there is only room for one version of "right". Or, perhaps the argument is the other way around? That there is only one "wrong"? Only gays aren't allowed into our tent. Those gays really stuffed things up when they fell in love. Can't they see all of the trouble their causing good clean living people? I'm sure even the discussion of gay marriage has some people cleaning out their bomb shelters and readying themselves for the gaypocalypse when we're all forced into homosexual relation ships. Don't be part of that crowd. Gays aren't "different but equal". They're normal people like you and I, that have suffered abuse and injustice for generations. It's time that we recognised that and did more to help restore them as equal participants in society. 1 December at 10:46 · Like.

Marco Parigi Winston, the point I make about your mentioning slavery is this: in me saying that I believe that if the majority believes slavery is legal that it should be; makes it sound that I believe in slavery, or that I have sympathy of that view. This distorts the argument into either me looking like I agree with slavery, or that I should accept that the Government should not take the will of the people into consideration. This is definitely a straw man variant. I say YES. If the majority believes in slavery, the government should trust that this is the collective right decision and not "groupthink" and legalize it. Does that make me look like someone inhuman from the last century? Yes. I don't agree that this is just a random example chosen from history. You have chosen it for this very reason. Straw man argument QED. 1 December at 11:24 · Like.

Paul Aitkenhead I'm sure Winston will set me straight if I'm off target on this, but I'm pretty sure the guts of his point was that good mature, competent and confident government should make decisions based on what's right and best for the country, rather than blindly doing what's popular. The denial of gay marriage isn't a great example of a government trying to maintain the status quo because it's popular with a majority of Australians. Indeed in a number of recent polls the majority has now moved in favour of gay marriage. The problem is that it's a show/vote-stopper for the anti-gay marriage crowd. There are many Australians who are pro gay-marriage but aren't so personally invested in the topic as to change their vote on it as a single issue. The opposite is true of a large number of conservative christians who will absolutely change their vote on this one issue alone - so great is the RISK to "the family". In this political age it seems the game is one by whoever can gather the most/lose the least votes at the margins. The result is somewhat the opposite of government by popular opinion, but rather policy by polling prediction. 1 December at 11:32 · Like.

Paul Aitkenhead http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/gay-marriage-at-the-mercy-of-fear-and-prejudice-20111130-1o6od.html Fear and prejudice, wrapped up in faith and tradition. It saddens me to realize that otherwise fine thinking, generous people are so committed to discriminating (and not in the #2 sense) against their fellow man. 1 December at 11:52 · Like.

Paul Aitkenhead http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_same-sex_unions_in_Australia#Public_opinion_polls Public support for same-sex marriage equality is steadily rising. Link supplied as reference. 1 December at 12:00 · Like.

Nathanael Small Thanks Paul - some great comments & articles - will have a read at another time as I'm multi-tasking on a conference call. 1 December at 13:06 · Like.

Winston Inabox Marco, first I never posed a straw man argument. I posed a question. You could claim I've achieved a straw man question, which would be quite an achievement as I've just created a new type of question. But as I've no need for further accolades let's not quibble about the correct definition of something and instead assume that I was making an argument rather than what I was actually doing. For it to be a straw man I'd have to somehow be misrepresenting the position, arguing to some extreme point of view, twisting the other person's words, etc.To argue against the proposition that governments should do what the people want I need an issue of such significance that it affects the government. I also, for the purposes of my side, need an issue that puts the answerer precisely in the position you say it does. I WANT to show that a person who agrees with this is somehow wrong. That you complain that my straw man question (OK, let's share the credit for this new meme) puts makes you looks like an inhuman from the last century is exactly what I was hoping for. Why would I pose a question that supports the other side??? 1 December at 14:08 · Like.

Winston Inabox Nathanael, before I could agree that grace is needed as part of unconditional, I'll need to understand what meaning of grace you're using. After all you use grace in the original post, but I don't think that's what you mean here. As to which way and why... I'm more interested in the arguments that people make against this proposition. It's always interesting to see how those with the power, how those "in the norm" justify excluding others from their group. And apart from all the nonsense arguments they make about unnatural behaviors and tradition, I just like to see Christians airing their dirty, hypocritical laundry. How they like to talk about their unconditional love, when in the back of their mind they're thinking that what these people are doing is an abomination in the eyes of their god, and unless they change their ways they are going to go to Hell. And how just because he is XY and she is XX (cause I'm guessing that a person who has undergone a sex change and has a partner with different bits is still unacceptable to the church) can have as many tries at marriage as they like (How does God feel about divorce? Oh wait, that depends on the era one is living in.), but anyone who doesn't fit into that chromosome niche is out. And I don't mean of the closet. Not sure that answers your question, but it sure feels good. 1 December at 14:37 · Like.

Marco Parigi Hmmm. The intent of the question was to equate denying gay marriage with denying freedom from slavery, despite your protestations to the contrary. No wonder Kylie refused to answer. 1 December at 15:03 · Like.

Winston Inabox As you wish, Marco. As you wish. Despite my explanations and protestations to the contrary, you have decided my intentions. 1 December at 15:09 · Like · 1.

Paul Aitkenhead I can't help but think that you've tried very hard to construct your own straw man out of Winston's comments. Seems to me he highlighted a valid example of when it's not a good thing for government to just endorse the popular position. Nothing more, nothing less. Now he's accused of trying to equate denying gay marriage with denying freedom from slavery. According to my understanding of the straw man argument, you Marco appear to have mastered it. 1 December at 15:12 · Like.

Marco Parigi It's not a valid example because there is no example of governments overturning slavery against the wishes of the majority. How can we believe it is a good thing if it never happened that way? We can only surmise in hindsight. I suggest we are jumping the gun if legislation got ahead of the mood of the people. 1 December at 15:50 · Like.

Kylie Jensen Parigi I don't know what a straw man arguement is. I just believe that Winston likes to push other peoples buttons in debate, and that he relieves the boredom of his day by playing devils advocate. And throwing in the most inflammitory comparison, like human slavery, whether as a hypothetical issue for a government to rule on, or as an actual comparison between the two themes, is a really good way to get someone to bite. That's why I stopped playing his game. 1 December at 16:05 · Like.

David Astley Nathanael - While I have stated that raising children is irrelevant to the Gay Marriage debate, your sudden desire for empirical research for my specific and accurate statement "Single gender partnerships are not harmful to children" is interesting given that you provided no empirical evidence for your statement "To say a single gender partnership can provide both mothering and fathering is biologically not possible." and for your underlying assumptions that both of these vague and loosely defined concepts are needed to promote healthy childhood development. I also question your attention to such empirical research given that 3 sentences later you state that scientific truth is but one kind of many. However, if you genuinely do wish to look at healthy childhood development you may wish to start with Werner's studies on Resiliency which have been around for decades and inspired many other researchers to look into that field. If you are looking for empirical research on the impact of gay parents on children, there are plenty of studies, but in keeping with the Australian theme may I suggest The Australian Psychological Society and this literature review in particular http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/LGBT-Families-Lit-Review.pdf In case you aren't interested in reading the whole thing let me draw your attention to the conclusion on page 25 that states "The research indicates that parenting practices and children’s outcomes in families parented by lesbian and gay parents are likely to be *AT LEAST* as favourable as those in families of heterosexual parents, despite the reality that considerable legal discrimination and inequity remain significant challenges for these families." (My own emphasis added) I look forward to reviewing your own empirical research when you provide me some. (Did I mention that whilst obtaining my Bachelor of Education degree we looked at child psychology? :-) 1 December at 16:19 · Like.

Winston Inabox Kylie, a straw man is where one person takes the other person's point of view and in an attempt to win an argument exaggerates, distorts or out and out falsifies what the first person originally intended. The problem for Marco's claim that I'm using a straw man are two-fold. First, I didn't take your position and propose a new position that did any of the above. I posed a question, not a position so right off the bat it's not a straw man. Second he claims I link gay marriage to slavery, (this would be the exaggeration he's thinking of) which I don't because I'm not at all interested in gay marriage with the question but rather the connection between a people and their government. As he would say QED. I will however say that if I had made a proposition (which I didn't) that did use slavery in a debate about gay marriage, it would be a pretty good contender for straw man status. I'm not interested in pushing buttons. I am interested in vigorously debating issues, which if you're not able to distance yourself from may feel like buttons are being pushed. But this is the Internet. It's like standing in the street and shouting out your views. If someone then comes along and disagrees with you, it's your choice to continue the conversation, take on board what they say, respond, leave etc. If I were interested in inflammatory comments I'd simply say that your viewpoint is akin to Nazism and be done with the whole thing. But I haven't. I've explained repeatedly and I feel in minute detail why I disagree with the views aired. I've also several times corrected assumptions and mistakes about what I've said in the hopes of furthering the debate. And even now when you've pretty much made an ad hominem attack on me (an attack on myself rather than my opinions - I just like to push buttons, I've a boring life) I've taken the time to explain "straw man" and yet again explain why Marco is mistaken to claim so. You should know I'm an atheist. A pretty stringent one. I'm keen on debating religionists. You expressed religionist's views and seemed willing to talk, so I'm willing to talk. If you aren't or you're uncomfortable with that then I understand and, as I did yesterday, wish you well with whatever you'd rather be doing. But I'd rather hope that instead you find the conversation challenging and not confrontational. I've no ill-will to either you or Marco. In fact Marco and I have debated topics in the past, and I quite enjoy the exchange. I thinks he's pretty much wrong ;-) but that doesn't mean I can't talk with him. If we surrounded ourselves with Yes Men, what a boring life that would be. 1 December at 18:22 · Like.

Nathanael Small Damn - that'll teach me to try and do a long post instead of posting in bits. Darn super sensitive trackpad hit the back button as I was nearing the end of a long response to David Astley & Winston (Paul, you'll come later). Will have to start afresh sometime over the weekend, as I'm away from FB. Some good discussion, and thanks Winston Inabox for clarifying your approach, atheological position and perspective on universal rules of asynchronous internet communication. Perhaps I should've been clearer at the start in asking people to stay on the topic question - if this was an essay exam, I'd be struggling to pass us on the basis that at times we've wandered far off topic with a discussion that on reflection I should've asked to be taken off-line sooner. I'll end where I was when I lost the first post. Winstonbro, I'd be very careful of making broad sweeping generalisations about Christians, power and how they relate to people who aren't heterosexual. You risk over-extending your reach and committing multiple ad-hominems and building several straw men. I know lots of people who follow Jesus who have homosexual friends they consider very good friends - I'm one of them. The relationship is one of mutual respect. Your "guess" about a transgender in a heterosexual relationship is simply wrong and proven so by many church communities who welcome people in that situation with open arms. Comments about heterosexuals marrying as many people as they like due to differing chromosomes and God's feelings about divorce being dependent on your era at face value are ignorant, inflammatory, and disrespectful to both marriage and the people like myself who have endured the tremendous pain of that kind of broken relationship when they desperately wanted to make the relationship work. What's "interesting to you" and "writing what makes you feel good" in this instance I find quite hurtful and frankly I expected better of you given all your posts thus far. 1 December at 20:47 · Like.

Marco Parigi Nathanael, I think that you are being a little unfair on Winston. To tell you the truth, this whole thread is marvellous and I request that you do not delete anything at least until I can copy and paste it somewhere so that I can show herr fellows the thread as he is no longer on FB and I am sure he would like to contribute to the conversation. 1 December at 22:14 · Like.

Kylie Jensen Parigi Winston, now you're misquoting me. I didn't say you had a boring life, just a boring day, which you yourself alluded to earlier when you stated that you were having a slow work day and therefore had the time for this (very long, drawn, drawn out, and really going nowhere apart from around in circles - in my opinion) debate. Sorry if I offended you by saying that you liked to push buttons, it's just the impression I got. And I had already worked out that you don't really care about the actual issue, but that you are fairly anti-religion, and therefore would be willing to tackle any issue where you got to take the anti-religion (or perhaps even more accurately, anti-Christian) point of view. As for me wanting out of this whole thing, I feel like both of us have put forward our point of view on the subject, you haven't made me change my opinion and I doubt I've changed yours, and I don't want to just keep going back and forth over the same thing again and again. As for David, nothing is going to change his mind either. For someone who takes a very anti religion point of view, he comes across as very sanctimonious and self righteous, something which Christians are normally accused of. You guys might enjoy the debate, but I care about the actual issue. For a country that is not very Christian any more, everyone seems to be out in the shops at the moment preparing for Christmas, and in the commercialisation of the season, the true meaning of Christmas has been lost. Everyone wants to pick the good parts of religion, that are fun or loving but doesn't want to actually believe where it comes from, or make the sacrifices and live their lives the way that Jesus taught us to. Christmas only exists because the Son of God was born in a stable, to live among men, and show them how to live a holy life, in a right relationship with God. Easter only exists because the Son of God died on a cross for our sins, so that we could be forgiven and return to God's grace. Now though, Christmas is all about Santa and presents. Easter is all about bunnies and chocolate eggs. And now those of you with no faith want to do exactly the same thing to marriage. And when those of us who believe in the true meaning of what a marriage is, and why God gave us this instution, take a stance for that faith, and speak out about what we believe to be right, we get called anti-discriminatory, and compared to Nazi's. And no Winston, I'm not saying that you personally said that, but that other people do. Our Christian faith, and the laws that go with that, are what make us the people that we are, and I don't see why we should just roll over and say "Go ahead, take everything that seems fun to you from our religion, and through out the rest. We don't mind." 1 December at 22:15 · Like.

Winston Inabox Nathanael, this thread is well over 100 posts. That's an achievement in itself. You can start a thread, but trying to control it over that many posts is pointless and if I might say not really in the spirit of posting. It's like herding cats - you can push a post in the general direction you'd like to see it go, but beyond that it's pretty much out of your hands. As for over extending my reach, I'll do it with pleasure. Building straw men, sure. This is not a spectator sport. It's up to you to call me on it if I do, and not me to be cautious lest I do. And as for ad hominems, I haven't even come close. I've spoken derogatorily about no one by name. You can't make an ad hominem attack against a group. So if I'm misinformed about some group or something, then inform me. Crying about my post being "ignorant, inflammatory, and disrespectful" without any explanation as to why is just sinking to the same level you think I'm at. Which I'm not at BTW. Let's look at what I said about transgenders, I most specifically connected it to marriage and not friendships. If my "guess" is incorrect that Christians wouldn't be accepting of a married couple where one is transgender, then how about telling me that with some evidence. You boldly state I'm "simply wrong" but back that up with some generalized statement about churches with open arms. I'm less than convinced by your claim, and haven't been persuaded one iota that I'm "simply wrong". Same with divorce. What is the divorce rate in Australia? Two-thirds or there about? In Australia alone there must be several million divorcees. That's a pretty huge portion of the adult population to pussyfoot around when the topic is marriage. Sure, my writing was strident, but rather than taking the opportunity to correct me, that the church's stance isn't hypocritical and that it hasn't shifted position on divorce through the ages, you made it into some kind of personal attack on you. I'm sorry that you happen to be in the majority in this instance, but that doesn't mean I'm writing about you or any one else in particular that makes up that enormous group. I'm happy to pulled up on my mistakes. I'd love to be shown the evidence for a church which welcomes marriage for transgender couples, and have it explained how the church hasn't shifted its position on divorce over time. Just because I think the church is a hypocritical, anachronistic and I'll add superstition-driven institution doesn't mean I wouldn't like to be proven wrong. And no, that last sentence isn't ad hominem. It's just a strongly worded opinion. 1 December at 23:55 · Like.

Winston Inabox Kylie, I stand corrected on my saying you said I have a boring life. My mistake. 2 December at 00:06 · Like.

Kylie Jensen Parigi You're also mistaken about the divorce rate in Australia. I believe it's about half. But you never know, there may have been a rush on them recently. Also different churches have different views on divorce, for example the Catholic church doesn't recognise it. But all churches are certainly against it, the just accept that as humans none of us are perfect and some mistakes are bigger than others with proportionately bigger consequences. 2 December at 00:13 · Like.

David Astley Kylie is correct when she says nothing will change my mind. Gays must be allowed to marry- marriage is part of Australian society and exclusion based on sexual preference is discrimination. I'm very much against discrimination, and the more subtle and insidious the justifications for it, the more I wish to point out that there are no justifications for discrimination, at all, ever. And Christianity will continue to gather a bad name while there are those that use Christianity to justify discrimination. Kylie is right when she says people don't want to make sacrifices and live as Jesus taught. Jesus taught humilty, service, love, acceptance and sacrifice, and not just to those we like. The one time Jesus got angry was when the temple was filled with moneychangers and merchants. These he threw out of the temple. Into the temple he welcomed the blind, the lame: those who were discriminated against. Sadly, the churches who accept and support gays get nowhere near as much press as the churches that don't. 2 December at 01:47 · Like.

Nathanael Small ‎Winston Inabox - I'm not trying to control the posts, just asking people to stay on point. Skating across the surface of so many different issues in this medium of communication, where it's asynchronous and only words on a screen without tone of voice or body language means that only 7% of the real message is communicated. The online context leaves what is posted highly open to misinterpretation and inevitably results in long strings like this where the point shifts so frequently it doesn't resemble an adult conversation at all, regardless of how intelligent and articulate the posters are. Instead it quickly becomes dominated by whoever can type the fastest and has the most time on their hands. Much easier than real face-face conversation where you're having to process a lot more data to understand what is really being said and respond accordingly. I was hoping for more than 7 people contributing to this string, but I wonder whether a quick skim of the first 20-30 posts would have caused many people to opt out (difficult to prove from silence, but I have several hundred friends and several who I thought would've contributed who didn't). Claiming that it's like herding cats abdicates you of any responsibility to recognise the unique dynamics of written asynchronous communications vs face-face, and adapt accordingly. Do many people do that well? No. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try. If you're comfortable with calling yourself a cat with all the negatives that the metaphor implies (solitary, individualistic, self absorbed, only interacts when they want something, predatory instincts that cause them to play with the food they catch), then that's your choice - and there's an example of an interpretation that can quickly become an ad hominem which can then lead to another red herring post. Slience to points in previous posts doesn't imply consent to the view stated - sometimes it's just that people have lives that exist outside on-line that require their physical attention and trying to keep up with the dynamic requires more effort than it's worth. Making sweeping generalised statements with no reference to back it up (e.g. is the divorce rate in Australia 2/3?) when some quick online searching would lead you to the ABS data puts other people in the position of needing to make the effort to find the specifics that you could easily find yourself. So when you raise so many different points so stridently it becomes exhausting because when combined with the potential for misinterpretation outlined above people just give up. Street corner shouting is a very difficult and tiring way to reach an understanding of another person's point of view. Wearing people down doesn't mean you're right - it just means people reach a point where they run out of energy. Your way of making a point, e.g. "And how just because he is XY and she is XX (cause I'm guessing that a person who has undergone a sex change and has a partner with different bits is still unacceptable to the church) can have as many tries at marriage as they like (How does God feel about divorce? Oh wait, that depends on the era one is living in.)" uses unhelpful debating tactics - "I'm guessing" = a personal, subjective opinion with no research to back it up. "Just because...can have as many tries at marriage as they like" implies to me that the majority of heterosexuals view marriage as an easily disposable commodity because they have the legal right to be. It's hard not to interpret that from a personal perspective when I and many others have been through the pain and trauma of divorce. And your last sentence I've quoted states a strident opinion with no reference given that backs that up. Hard not to view that as inflammatory. Although you can't ad hominem a group you sure can caricature their position in ways that appear derogatory and disrespectful. To try and outline a succinct theology of divorce and remarriage in response to a statement like that makes it incredibly hard work if all you do in response is pick out select points that are made and then apply the same tactic. My personal view on divorce and remarriage was shaped by over a year of counselling to try and deal with the grief of a failed marriage, lots of reading, talking with others and wrestling with the implications of the four major positions that Christians can hold that could practically be lived out. 2 December at 03:48 · Like. Nathanael Small Phew, got that one posted. In conclusion, here's the thing. What would it take for you to accept that a position you hold is wrong? How much 'evidence' and what type? David Astley challenged the different types of truth. Winston Inabox and I have previously discussed scientific and historical knowledge. Here's an article that I think neatly sums up the dilemma: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/art-of-persuasion-not-so-simple-20110708-1h6m9.html Art of persuasion not so simple www.smh.com.au Art of persuasion not so simple.. 2 December at 03:52 · Like.

Nathanael Small Or this, cited from the guardian on Dawkins' website: http://richarddawkins.net/articles/3502-matthew-parris-as-an-atheist-i-truly-believe-africa-needs-god What's even more interesting is to read the tone of the posts that follow in the context of John Dickson's SMH article. Matthew Parris: As an atheist, I truly believe Africa needs God - Times Online - RichardDawkins.net richarddawkins.net By TIMES ONLINE Added: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 00:00:00 UTC.. 2 December at 04:03 · Like.

Nathanael Small Sorry, cited from The Times, not the Guardian. There's some recent work I've come across in 'meme surfing' that I'm still getting my head around which may provide a good context for a separate discussion. But Winston Inabox, I'm basically asking that in future you look at how others try to post - specifically David Astley and Paul Aitkenhead in this string - and seek to emulate the style & tone whilst staying on point and not pursuing sub-topics that digress away from the main one proposed. I suspect a lot more people might have contributed if that were the case. It is possible to passionately hold to a point of view without being strident, inflammatory or denigrating. I need to apply my energies to other things over the weekend, so forgive me if I don't post back for a few days. Hope everyone has a good weekend. 2 December at 04:09 · Like.

Winston Inabox Nathanael, I'm sorry that my style of writing doesn't suit your sensibilities, but you don't own this conversation. You don't even own this space which it's being hosted on. You're the person who started it and that's it. If someone can't post because their too busy then unfortunately that's their position. If no one is interested in challenging what I've said, thinks what I've said is stupid, or anything else they can not reply and the conversation will die a natural death. As it it we've got a very vigorous debate about a hot topic. We aren't scoring points for a team or even changing minds here. This isn't a contest where the most vocal person wins. It's a sharing of ideas and opinions by adults in an adult forum. And BTW this is the second time you've dragged the subject of divorce back to your own experience. If you're going to do that then please stop complaining that's it's me whose somehow causing you to do that. I never mentioned anyone by name, why do you keep doing so then telling me to be more circumspect with my comments! You're right about David's posts. I never knew he had such a wonderful way with words. And a very nice post about and link refuting the opinion that gay marriages are going to be the doom of society. I await how reading it alters your thinking. 2 December at 07:06 · Like.

Winston Inabox And I see Kylie says the divorce rate is about 50%. Thanks for that. It doesn't alter my claim at all, that there are a huge number of divorcees. So long as comments about divorcees, the church and gay marriage remain non-personal, which they have by everybody except one, then I believe it's a fair topic for debate. 2 December at 07:15 · Like.

Winston Inabox The Art of Persuasion was a nice read. But methinks you're confused about at my reasons for posting here. As I said above I'm not scoring points, nor trying to change minds. The Christian god says that discrimination against gay marriage is OK. There's no fact that I can bring that's going to cause a Christian to alter their opinion. It's God! If I were trying to persuade, which I'm not, I'd say the best I could do is get an admission that that opinion is discriminatory, but as it's OKed by God then that's OK by man. But I'm not trying to persuade. I'm trying to debate. 2 December at 08:47 · Like.

Paul Aitkenhead Do discriminate against somebody because of their sexual persuasion is as bad as discriminating against somebody because of their race. I'd hope that we are all outraged by the following: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/01/kentucky-church-bans-interracial-couples "I am not racist. I will tell you that. I am not prejudiced against any race of people, have never in my lifetime spoke evil about a race" - but interracial couples aren't allowed into their "tent". Has a familiar ring to the "I'm not against gay people, but I can't ignore the fact the bible tells me they are committing a sinful act against 'his' word so I'm sure as hell not letting them into my tent" defence of marriage as exclusively a christian, heterosexual concept. If marriage isn't exclusively a christian concept, then making the bible the authority on what should or shouldn't be allowed seems completely wrong. And without the bible's "man shall leave his mother" trump card in play, what other real world reason is there to stand in the way of gay marriage? But I hear the cries ... "think of the children!!". I think David addressed that very nicely. So what's the grave risk that remains? Real world risk? Not just "the bible says so" argument. Or is it that there isn't any great risk, but that certain groups want to claim ownership of the "tent", and only let in people that are members of their club? I guess there are a few disappointed interracial couples in Kentucky wondering why they are no longer welcome. 2 December at 09:21 · Like.

Paul Aitkenhead ‎^^^^ warning - possible straw man argument above. 2 December at 09:22 · Like.

Winston Inabox An interesting read... http://www.australianmarriageequality.com/AME-MarriageNotCivilUnions.pdf 2 December at 11:02 · Like.

David Astley Thanks all for your comments on my posts. I have read a similar article to the Art of Persuasion several months ago and I try to be more aware of my behaviour and beliefs. I am non-negotiable on discrimination because we all do it, whether we mean to or not. I was raised a white, straight, male in a first world, English speaking country. There are few in this world as privileged as I. My cultural behaviour is always 'correct' and I examine it all too infrequently. In fact, my culture has trained me to be racist, ageist, sexist, homophobic and to disparage the beliefs of others. We automatically believe that if their ways are not our ways, they must be inferior. Overtly, we know these behaviours to be wrong. Covertly, they are still with us and will probably stay for centuries. Thankfully, we can change our behaviour, but it is hard work that requires painful examination of every assumption we make, including the knowledge that we are making assumptions. There is a similar debate to ours on the abc comments at http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3708792.html I found the article itself of little worth, but the following comments contained much debate similar to ours, but also including multiple Christian viewpoints. Perhaps for non-religious debates, the Christians should argue with Christians and the athiests with athiests. But I suspect if this were always the case, the world would be poorer for it. Thanks. :-D avid Same-sex marriage: the last word www.abc.net.au Today's ALP national conference will speak of many things but few more controver...See more.. 3 December at 09:05 · Like · 1.

Nathanael Small http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1082190/posts try this one, from a US secular financial economist. David, he doesn't cite any longitudinal studies, but at least presents a discriminating position that fits the second dictionary definition I posited much earlier. Would welcome yours, Paul's and Winston's thoughtful response to the points he makes. 3 December at 10:34 · Like.

Marco Parigi Marriage is a strange institution vis a vis slavery and race discrimination. A marriage appears to be more similar to the sanctioning of mutual bonds of slavery, entered easily, but by design, harder to exit, than it is the freedom from slavery. And when you think about it, men are women are close to different species. It is like we accept a bond with someone that is more different in form and function than someone of another race. If there was a contract that allowed the obliging of one to perform work for the other with no pay, and the other had to be of the opposite race, we wouldn't be trying to expand the freedom of whom people could have this contract with, we would unequivocally be banning this type of contract. 3 December at 11:50 · Like.

Marco Parigi States have inherited (from the churches) the legal structures underpinning marriage, just as they had in previous times inherited other moral laws based on the ten commandments etcetera. Even the concept of discrimination itself has biblical origins. The reason is because those structures work. We might end up deciding, like we did with slavery, that marriage should be banned wholesale, because the vows are arbitrary and unenforceable, and the contract does not preclude slavery or sexual discrimination within the private confines. Just because a contract is entered into willingly, does not make it fair. 3 December at 12:19 · Like.

David Astley http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N6/saffordlet.6c.html The Economic and Social Case for Homosexual Marriage - The Tech tech.mit.edu An article from the Friday, February 20, 2004 issue of The Tech - MIT's oldest a...See more.. 3 December at 16:36 · Like · 2. Winston Inabox Nathanael, that article is woeful. Check out the premise "In a sense, a married couple receives a subsidy. Why? Because a marriage between to [sic.] unrelated heterosexuals is likely to result in a family with children, and propagation of society is a compelling state interest. For this reason, states have, in varying degrees, restricted from marriage couples unlikely to produce children." If you think there is anything worth talking about despite his whole case resting on this opinion presented as fact, then I'm prepared to further mutilate it. Otherwise all I can say is it is embarrassing and not at all "the" atheist perspective. 4 December at 00:19 · Like.

Winston Inabox Oh wait. I should have just read David's link. Someone else has already done it or me. The first article is so bad I suspect Adam Kolasinski wrote it as a parody of articles that argue for discrimination. If that is indeed the case then it is quite clever. 4 December at 00:27 · Like.

Winston Inabox Nathanael, as for the article on the Dawkins' website, commentator #8 says it best: That Parris is the writer of such (no doubt unintentionally) racist, condescending, arrogant and dangerous rubbish is a huge surprise to me, as in the past I have been an admirer of his work. In one fell swoop he denigrates an entire nation by confining its inhabitants to an ignorant, superstitious little box, from which he asserts that they cannot emerge but by further inebriation from ignorant, superstitious Christianity, and denies them all collectively and despicably any right to be educated in the principles of some of the greatest secular and faith-free minds who have ever set pen to paper, and which principles are the only conceivable mechanisms which the peoples of Africa have deserved for so long and now need more than ever before. With apparently the best of intentions, he would impose on an entire country a stultifyingly superstitious and progress-sapping creed which he himself has now dismissed as man-made nonsense. When superstitious supernaturalism is the problem, the solution can never be to add more of the stuff into the mix, by whatever name he chooses to call it. I am truly appalled by this article. Best, Styrer 4 December at 00:53 · Like.

Nathanael Small To work back in reverse order: Winston Inabox, commentator #8 is perhaps the best example of the worst of the atheists' responses that I frequently see when someone in the atheist camp has been on the ground, up close & personal over a long period of time and are an eyewitness to the activity of faith based aid & development organisations as well as secular ones with people of faith, many of their strongly held negative pre-suppositions about Christianity are challenged at the core. I would correct one point of commentator #8 - by their standard, Parrish hasn't denigrated one country, but an entire continent ;-). But #8 over-reaches their grasp. Nowhere is Parrish denying "any right to be educated in the principles of some of the greatest secular and faith-free minds who have ever set pen to paper". If proponents of the greatest secular & faith free minds want to promote their good news and supplant what they believe is the superstitious supernaturalism of Christianity and it's "progress sapping creed", no-one's stopping them. Parrish merely pointing out that based on years of direct first-hand observation, those who are living out of a Christian world-view in an aid & development context are having a profound and positive transformational effect in African nations that is accelerating its progress. Which begs the point: if Steyer (and yourself by direct admitted association) are indeed truly appalled by Parrish's conclusions, then why aren't you on the first plane over to Africa offering to educate the people out of such ignorance and into an even more enlightened path? Where are the atheistic army of truth denouncing this inebriating superstitiousness and offering their avowedly superior alternative? 4 December at 07:01 · Unlike · 1.

Nathanael Small Bro, you've also said you're "happy to be corrected." However, you've also said you're not posting to persuade or be persuaded, you're here to debate. That appears to be very difficult place to maintain a discussion in - if you are proven wrong about something (and I'm not sure what proof that would take), then would that not by inference persuade you to consider that the "right" point, no matter how apparently intellectually unpalatable, is the one to accept with all its implications? I provide you with proof in the form of first hand perspective from a committed atheist, and it's ignored and rebutted with another's ad hominem. Outside of Africa, I could go to England and the work of the people who became known as the Clapham Sect. They pursued causes such as the abolition of the slave trade and did so even though it was opposed by the Government and Church authorities of the day. Members included William Booth who founded the Salvation Army; John Newton; William Wilberforce; Robert Raikes (Schools); Elizabeth Fry; George Williams YMCA; Anthony Ashley-Cooper, the 7th Earl of Shaftesbury. Between them, they founded 75% of the 500 British charitable institutions formed during the 19th century. Five of them were elected to Parliament. Together they pursued reform, tackled the debtors' prisons releasing 14000 prisoners and rallied public support for public education, housing the poor, help for the disabled and stopping child labour. The text that taught them this was right and inspired their activity was the King James Bible, now celebrating its 400th anniversary. Even Dawkins acknowledges its influence (and I agree with his comments on religion): http://www.kingjamesbibletrust.org/news/2010/02/19/richard-dawkins-lends-his-support-to-the-king-james-bible-trust Richard Dawkins lends his support to The King James Bible Trust : News : King James Bible Trust www.kingjamesbibletrust.org Oxford scholar and author Richard Dawkins has contributed a reading of a chapter from the Song of Solomon to the King James Bible Trust's YouTube Bible project. Or I could cite Australian stats: our formation since European settlement has greatly benefited from faith based agencies in social welfare, humanitarian aid, hospitals & schools. Today, 80% of humanitarian aid and social services to needy and disadvantaged Australians come from faith based agencies, and these agencies started by Christians with a faith inspired motivation driven by relationship, not religion. They had power, and they sought to give others access to the same rights because of their faith based convictions. But none of that makes any difference if when proven wrong you don't follow acknowledgement of error through to the logical conclusion of being open to changing your mind What I've consistently sought to put forward is that it is possible discriminate (i.e. recognises the difference, the positive meaning of the word) that heterosexual marriage and homosexual civil union can be named differently but treated equally in the eyes of the law (i.e. compassionate and just) and not discriminate negatively on the basis of: 1. Biological gender difference; 2. The ability to create children within that difference (whether acted on or not for whatever reason); and 3. The provision of mothering and fathering in those roles All of the legal issues and examples raised by both the MIT article and the Australians for marriage equality can be addressed by better legislation and processes within the system to set a framework that will allow for the elimination of negative discrimination over time, as it has currently been moving for the last two-three decades. 'Making marriage equal' won't end negative discrimination in the same way that forcing minimum gender at levels of leadership within political parties and company boards will create equity between men & women in those realms. Merit based performance or leading by example will continue to prove that different but equal in the eyes of the law based on gender is both workable and non-negatively discriminatory. You can hold that position without needing a Christian faith framework - but it also happen to align with one as well. But all of this "debate" is empty words unless participants leave their posting boxes and actually engage with the world outside the screen to allow their 'facts' to make contact with the realities. I'd be interested to hear how your proofs stack up when removed from the ivory intellectual tower and actually go a be amongst the people who are seeking to live out positively discriminating, just & compassionate lives. Peace out - need to head off to hang out with a group of just such people. Richard Dawkins lends his support to The King James Bible Trust : News : King James Bible Trust www.kingjamesbibletrust.org Oxford scholar and author Richard Dawkins has contributed a reading of a chapter...See more.. 4 December at 08:24 · Unlike · 1.

Winston Inabox I have never said that Christians don't do good works. They do. I have said that their motivations for such works are based on superstition and the supernatural. They are. Those beliefs should be challenged. I do. Also sadly now it's coming to light how those beliefs cause some who are professing to be aiding others to actually withhold that aid because the people that they are professing to help don't hold the same beliefs. You've proven me wrong in nothing if you're just going to build straw men then bash them down. Kylie, take a look at Nathanael's post for some wonderful examples. The reason why Christian charitable organizations are the biggest and most prevalent have little to do with being right, and everything to do with the way Christian dogma controlled society for most of the last two thousand years and abused that power to stop other ways of thinking. Also it's only fairly recently that the body of scientific knowledge has got to the point and to the level of dissemination and where it can cohesively challenge Christianity's beliefs. Imagine trying to start a charitable organization that actively labelled itself as atheistic when the Clapham Sect was active. No, the playing field for religious-based and non-religious-based charitable organizations has only been leveling in recent years. You've obviously read the article I posted but disagree with it. You think that having separate legislation that is exactly like marriage in every way except the word marriage is crossed out and the words civil union written in solves the problem. To me this highlights the discrimination. Basically you want ownership of the word marriage, though I can't work out why Christians feel that they own it to begin with. Marriage isn't solely Christian-based. It is found among different peoples. It is a manmade ritual, so we may define it as we wish. Allowing gay marriages in no way stops Christians from having Christian weddings, just as teaching the scientific method in schools doesn't stop Christians from believing in the supernatural. I understand that you want to discriminate (recognize the differences) between heterosexual unions and gay unions. But the government must try not to discriminate (treat one group different from another), either positively or negatively. Separate legislation is still treating others differently. It's saying that they are just like us, but they're not, so let's highlight that. And debate may well be empty words, but rightness isn't determined by who is most active in the real world. If I were typing this as quadriplegic blowing on a tube to activate a keyboard, or a patient suffering a mental illness and so because I'm unable to leave my ivory tower my opinion is considered less correct I'd be pretty pretty offended by reading that. But I'm not, so I'll just simply say that you are wrong. I could sit on my sofa playing video games till the day I die and your opinion in this matter would still be condescending and discriminatory. So while you're praying today with those people who seek to live positively discriminating (no comma), just and compassionate lives tell God that Africa doesn't need collection money to help the people of Africa when he could just fix the problem with one of his miracles. He's either an underachiever or a procrastinator. Or he's just not there. 4 December at 09:26 · Like.

Nathanael Small Re Africa - or maybe God chooses to work through people who whether they believe in his existence or not choose to act in ways that reflect his values. We've got more than enough resources in the world to help Africa without miraculous intervention, so perhaps the problem doesn't lie with God. 4 December at 10:38 · Like.

Nathanael Small ‎"If I were...I'd be offended." to suggest that quadriplegics and the mentally ill aren't capable of acting and engaging might be construed as more offensive. I've seen people with both conditions do just that. My point was that to tear someone's clearly significant and real-world experience over many years down on purely a philosophical / intellectual basis without having sought to test / validate their experience by getting out there when you're more than capable of doing so is on some level abdicating responsibility to investigate whether what's claimed has validity. Agreed, rightness is not made certain by activity - but experience counts when weighing up how much the words & actions of someone is relied upon. I'd trust a neurosurgeon over a self-proclaimed faith healer on advice regarding whether to operate or not - so why should I value the rebuttal of someone who's not demonstrated any interest to observe first-hand? Supernaturalism (depending on how you define the term) is something I'll happily acknowledge as part of the Christian worldview - superstition has all sorts of connotations but I suspect we'll agree to disagree there. On 'church' history and the track record - at an institutional Catholic level from 3rd Century when Constantine took over and made church as empire I'd agree, to the start of the Reformation I'd agree - but since then, it's been theists & atheists alike who've led the charge to slowly decentralise the power base (something I'm all in favour of) 4 December at 11:37 · Like.

Winston Inabox Nathanael, thank you for pulling me up on my badly worded examples. I'll amend it to say that all manner of people may have all manner of reasons why the don't take an active part in the world beyond the debate they are engaged in. That they choose to do that for whatever reason doesn't make their opinion any less than someone who does in the nature of a debate when the amount of experience matters not to the debate. I'm not gay and so have had little experience what it is like to live in a society which marginalizes one because of one's sexual preferences, but on an intellectual level I can see the discrimination. Likewise I've never lived in Africa so I've no experience about what it's like there, but on an intellectual level when someone says that God is changing their lives for the better I can see that while African's lives may indeed be being improved, to give the credit to God is a leap. What I do believe is that motivated people achieve a lot, even if the basis for their motivation isn't real. Christians are motivated by their faith and Tom Cruise is motivated by Scientology. I think that both these belief systems are based on little real world evidence, but I can't deny that they both motivate people to achieve a lot. But as I also said there are plenty of examples where these motivated people then dole out aid dependent on the people they are helping subscribing to their world view. Just the other day I think it was David who posted an article showing that the Salvation Army has had a long history of discrimination against gays when giving out aid. Even actively pursuing legislation against them. Mother Theresa has controversy about choosing who to aid and following best practices that clash with her Christian world view. I show these examples not to slam all religious-based aid - as I said Christian aid is doing a lot of good - but to show that aid is done by people, and everyone carries their own prejudices with them even though they may have the best of intentions. You ask why you should value the rebuttal of some who's not demonstrated a desire to experience these things first hand. Well for one this is an intellectual debate about discrimination. The elimination of discrimination is not only done by doing ones part, but also by understanding what discrimination is. I have, as has David although he's done it much more eloquently, tried to show that discrimination is still discrimination even if a god says it's ok. Christian beliefs, although they may sometimes intersect with humanist beliefs in points such as murder being wrong, shouldn't hold sway over secular government policy. I counter that why should I believe in the power of prayer when people have been praying for aid for Africa since missionaries first started going there, but change only happens when people get on the ground and make a difference. Africans would starve in ever greater numbers if all the Christian organizations over there doing good decided to give up making a human effort and instead rely on the power of prayer to save them. It's said that God helps those who help themselves. Well I think that that is half right, but not the God part. And should you believe me? No. You should weigh the evidence against the real world and make your own conclusions. What I argue mostly with Christians is the way to weigh evidence to form an opinion, because mostly they do it so badly. They take fact as opinion, they fail to check experience with the real world, they fail to apply basic tests of credibility to evidence, and they fail to understand how science is based on observation, experimentation, reproducibility, modification and peer review.Whenever these are applied to the claims of religionists those claims constantly fail. But then they are quite happy to use the same methods to claim someone else's religious beliefs are without basis. They are blinkered to their own hypocrisy. As has been said before the only difference between Christians and atheists is that atheists believe in one less god than Christians do. How Christians come the conclusion that all other gods are not real but theirs is, is what I debate. 4 December at 12:56 · Like.

Marco Parigi Sorry Winston, but I didn't see the straw man in your brothers argument, and I am not blinkered by a belief in the supernatural because as you know, I don't. As an outside observer on the previous several posts, the argument is polite, but as with Kylie's and my arguments aired on FB, they are tinged with domestic familial argument. As for the issue itself, it has moved into atheist vs Christian territory, which is not what this is all about. Even that has the potential to influence me at least. I will say about Africa, the most successful and influential country there is SouthAfrica. Why? My belief is that it is so because it was kept segregated until enough infrastructure and institutions became entrenched before it transitioned to fully inclusive democratic society. Religion had little to do with it, but long term discrimination was an important reason why it was so. Tribal warlord ism is the natural state of affairs in Africa, and works to break nation states apart. I do believe that organized religion is part of the solution rather than being part of the problem, in general. To me that includes organized atheist groups, as I consider it to be a religion. 4 December at 17:53 · Like.

Marco Parigi Oh. And no mention was made of my previous posts regarding slavery and discrimination as being "made possible" within marriage as an actual feature of what marriage is. Does this make it essentially an unfair contract and thus should be banned altogether? 4 December at 17:59 · Like.

Winston Inabox Marco, the straw man is the claim I have said Christains don't do good works. I never claimed this. Well perhaps god does let hundreds of people starve everyday despite having the power to do something about it as a lesson to teach humankind some higher purpose. As with the long ago mentioned first born of Egypt he was willing to slaughter them in order to break the pharaoh's will. Not lifting a finger to aid those starving in Africa is a step down from that, really. And if his level of effort truly is he "works through people who... reflect his values" well it's not hard to see why people such as myself get confused about there being a god or not. Seems that level of commitment could be easily misread as people having to help themselves. But it's Christians who believe in an interventionist god, so they are the ones who have to come up with an explanation as to why terrible things happen though god has the power to right them. Now about discrimination and gay marriage. Is it the case as I outlined above? Do Christians really just want ownership of the word marriage? Because if civil unions are elevated by law to be exactly the same as marriage then the only difference as far as they are concerned (but not the gay community or myself) is the word. 4 December at 18:53 · Like.

Winston Inabox Marco, sorry there was no reply, but I assumed you were joking. Would we ban such a contract. Absolutely. Is this even remotely close to marriage. Not at all. 4 December at 18:57 · Like.

Marco Parigi Well, if a potential employee of a day care centre willingly signed a contract that paid her one cent less than the award, that would be against the law. If someone, for reasons valid or not, signed a contract that involved them changing nappies etc at said day care centre, but the details about it would be private between the people concerned. This would also be illegal. However, within marriages, all sorts of unpaid work happens, with varying amounts of coercion involved. If polygamy was allowed, I am sure plenty of employers would marry all their employees to get the unions off their back. In divorce proceedings, unpaid work is barely a side note compared to the breaking of trust with other misdemeanors. 4 December at 20:10 · Like.

Winston Inabox Marco, do you now see the straw man? Slavery is so much more than unpaid work. Slaves can be bought and sold. Children can be born into slavery. Slaves have no rights to own property, no chance of social or economic mobility, freedom of travel and very few legal rights and protections. As I said, nothing like marriage 4 December at 21:03 · Like.

Marco Parigi No. Not really. Nathanael wasn't implying that you were and I didn't perceive it that way. For the most part, he was addressing the issues that he found important from the links you and he supplied. A contract that allows for unpaid work is still illegal right? Modern slavery comes in many forms, the only common feature being loads of unpaid or underpaid work. The other features are a straw man, and technically, modern slaves have all those rights, and are coerced by various cocktails of debt trap, addiction, physical imprisonment, and sometimes marriage to their captors or an agent. If we thought the bit about underpaid work didn't matter, we would just concentrate on regulating slavery rather than banning it. 4 December at 21:32 · Like.

Winston Inabox Marco, "A contract that allows for unpaid work is still illegal right?" You say "modern slavery" but I thought you were referring to slavery in the sense of slavery that is legalized by the state, which would be why you think my points not relevant. So in fact you're trying to make some connection between unpaid work in sweatshops and unpaid work in marriage. If a marriage dissolves the spouse would have a claim on the entire wealth of the couple, something a sweatshop worker has no claim to on being fired. Prenuptial agreements could leave one out in the cold though. As for unpaid work in a legal contract. Not nice, but welcome to working in Japan. I've known more than a couple of salarymen that work many extra hours of unpaid overtime. Twenty extra hours a week would be just the beginning over here. I think more than half the teachers I work with would do that. 5 December at 18:37 · Like.

Winston Inabox Nathanael, "I provide you with proof in the form of first hand perspective from a committed atheist, and it's ignored and rebutted with another's ad hominem. " Both ignored AND rebutted - quite a feat, even for me. No Nathanael you didn't provide proof. Remember my complaint about how Christians confuse opinion for fact? Here's an example. What you linked to was one man's opinion. Now his opinion might have the weight of experience behind it, but it is opinion nonetheless, and most certainly not proof. But what are you trying to prove anyway? Christians do good works? I never claimed they didn't. Dawkins supporting the Kings James Bible Trust... What's your point? The KJB is a great work of literature so I'm sure Dawkins supports it. I think he enjoys church music as well, but that doesn't mean he believes the Creed. So please lay it out for me. What have you proven me wrong in? 5 December at 18:50 · Like.

Winston Inabox Nathanael, to illustrate my point about facts vs. opinion here is a link to another group of missionaries in Africa. Are the claims in this article fact or opinion? http://www.scientologynews.org/press-releases/dedication-johannesburg-expansion.html Maybe just reading the URL is enough for you to make up your mind. Church of Scientology of Johannesburg Dedicates New Three-Story Wing to Greatly Expand Service to th www.scientologynews.org.. 5 December at 19:02 · Like.

Marco Parigi I think it's quite unfair to compare something that is unpopular now (legalised state slavery) with something that is popular now, at least in Qld (legalised discrimination against gay marriages), and say it is fair to dispense with it even though it is popular. Legalised state slavery was most evident in the Americas, and wasn't the American civil war fought because some states had majorities still in favour of slavery while the others weren't? Australia had convict labor to build our infrastructure of every major city in Australia. It was our version of slavery, and had a much better result in winding it down. It still exists to some extent. In Townsville itself, Kanaks were imported for labor by Mr Towns himself, and because they were paid less than official employees, they were considered outside the law, but a blind eye was given to it. The current conflagration on gay marriage has the tension of some states being majority in favour, others not. Civil war should not ensue, but people are very passionate, so Labor is treading gently, it seems. 5 December at 21:10 · Like.

Marco Parigi I would like, as a non sequitur, to add my personal impressions on my decision to marry. My father, as an atheist, also stopped believing in the institution of marriage. He could see the need for "the piece of paper" with the way Italian inheritance laws went, but felt both that it was inextricably linked with religious ideals, and made it harder and more painful if the relationship fails in the long term. As far as my personal feelings on the matter, I felt that there was some merit in the institution in general, but specifically, it works at a psychological level rather than the legal one. The thought of what other peoples experiences were with marriage was quite important, especially from my partners family. The trend towards civil ceremonies, and other trends, even though they are not what we chose, I felt diluted the institution, making it a tougher ask to put my all into the ceremony. What other people choose shouldn't affect how we perceive the institution but it does. 5 December at 21:30 · Like.

Winston Inabox Marco, one more time. I never compared gay marriage to slavery. Never. I used legalized slavery as a point against the government doing the will of the people. 5 December at 22:47 · Like.

Nathanael Small Need to focus on other areas for a while, so will be off long FB posts. The question of proof goes to the heart of epistemology - how we know. Without agreement that there are different types of knowing that offer truth (scientific, historical, eyewitness account), then we're going to waste a lot of keyboards and create a lot of finger calluses but never reach consensus. In an extensive set of posts about the police and Occupy movements, David Astley relied on eyewitness accounts to prove his points. We all rely on evidence outside of empirical scientific evidence to provide information that informs and influences decisions about how we live our lives. These can and do co-exist. I don't want to open up another whole line of debate on this within this post, as it takes us down another path. To conclude, my perspective has been made known. In the specific instance of the Australian Marriage Act and its state equivalents, I'm comfortable with everyone expressing their opinion, the Government making a decision, legislation being updated and everyone getting on with their lives seeking to live equally in whatever exclusive relationship arrangements are approved by law. 6 December at 04:19 · Like.

Marco Parigi And my counterpoint, when I got to it was that the only time the government fought the will of the people with slavery, it led to civil war. A good enough reason not to fight the will of the people, even with slavery. Convince them first, like in South Africa. 6 December at 07:16 · Like.

Winston Inabox Nathanael, I'm happy to debate you on truth anytime. Eyewitness accounts are observations. Observations are not truths, but they are needed to determine facts. Until you recognize that observing something, say the power of Christianity to change lives, doesn't at all substantiate the claims that Christianity makes, then you'll continue to make groundless claims. 6 December at 08:34 · Like.

Winston Inabox Marco, I agree that convincing is the best way. Hopefully in these times when technology allows easier communication between people that ideas might be shared more and prejudices and misconceptions challenged. At far as this debate is concerned I agree with Nathanael that we've gone as far as we can go. Thanks for the time well spent and I look forward to out next topic. I just wish Dr. Clam was about. He's great. 6 December at 10:15 · Like.

Marco Parigi I am a little concerned about how the Aus states are at odds with each other, and have contrasting responsibilities to the federal gov. Qld doesn't even allow civil unions at this stage. The license(permission to marry) is covered by State legislation, while marriage legislation is enforced federally. This is a bit of a minefield, as for the foreseeable future, gay couples will be battling between jurisdictions, to get something as close as possible to the marriage contract they have in mind. 6 December at 22:33 · Like.

Marco Parigi As far as my views are, I think this one is intractable. It may take decades for say Qld to become "progressive" to the point of being accepting, and it is by no means assured. 6 December at 23:24 · Like.

Marco Parigi We didn't make it to 200 comments. Thats just wrong. Yesterday at 07:07 · Like.

Europe's Problems Summed Up:

2011-11-28T06:30:00.001+10:00

• Pythagorean theorem: .......... 24 words• Lord's prayer: .......... 66 words • Archimedes' Principle: .......... 67 words • Ten Commandments: .......... 179 words • Gettysburg address: .......... 286 words • US Declaration of Independence: .......... 1,300 words • US Constitution with 27 Amendments: .......... 7,818 words• EU regulations on the sale of cabbage: .......... 26,911 words

The Day of the opposites

2011-11-24T14:31:00.001+10:00

When it comes to voting for the Speaker of the house, a kind of opposites Universe comes into being. Labor members nominate an LNP member, who has to then defect. Then an LNP member waxes lyrical about a string of Labor members who are then nominated by him to the position - all of whom refuse the nomination.All this, partly because of Andrew Wilkies insistence on pokie reform. Each person in the parliament has power, but that power cannot be taken for granted and does not guarantee a veto on even a single policy item.

What is it with pears?

2011-11-22T16:34:00.001+10:00

Almost all fruit that I store in the fridge stays the same ripe as when I put it in until eventually it rots. Mangoes, avocadoes, bananas etc. can't be put in the fridge until they are ripe because they won't ripen there. With a bag of pears however, that were as hard as gibbers when I put them in several weeks ago and forgot about, had become beautifully soft and sweet - more edible and ripe than before. Perhaps 2 deg celcius is perfect ripening temperature for the fruit?

Solar power: My views are in line with Sobek, the crocodile God

2011-10-22T21:56:00.000+10:00

Sobek while praising the capabilities of solar, has been scathing in the use of feed-in tariffs.Solar feed in tariffs reek of the sulphurous stench of Hades.

I'm Changing my Qld Government vote to LNP because the Industrial Relations minister is a Dick

2011-10-18T12:56:00.000+10:00

By name and nature:See:article on clothing manufacturingThere really is not a lot of jobs nor candidates for union membership anyway, within this industry, so beating up the issue of sweatshops *again* is really flogging a dead horse no matter which way you look at it.

Getting a return on NBN battery backup = Marconomic solar PV plan

2011-10-12T12:30:00.000+10:00

This article has a bit on the bottom regarding the battery backup unit, which many commenters have also mentioned. The problem is that although it is great to have broadband as well as voice calls available during blackouts, because blackouts are rare, and many homes were already in a situation where their phone was dependent on grid power, return on the investment in money and space to have the battery there can be dubious.

Once you have a battery permanently in your house, a return can be garnered by making the battery useful regardless of blackouts. A very small cheap solar panel can keep the battery charged up independently of the grid. Enough power is generated and stored to use the battery as a device charger (ipods, nintendos, mobiles etc.) that will cut your power bill considerably with no inconvenience to the utility. In my house charging devices uses a lot of electricity - not because of the amount of power required to charge the device, but because the chargers leak power all day, and the power points are hard to reach to turn them off and on each time they are needed, and the power conversion ac to dc is very inefficient. The battery/solar PV will double as an emergency charging point for devices during blackouts as well.

Still water flowing down the Murray Darling and out the mouth

2011-10-03T14:02:00.004+10:00

The perceived wisdom that drought and a closed Murray Darling system is the new normal continues to be challenged by reality. From my reckoning and the following graph of the Murray river flow rate at lock one, the closest proxy of what is flowing to the sea from the system, 15,000 GigaLitres (or 30 Sydney Harbours) of fresh water has flowed to the sea since September 2010.

This link to see more live river data flows if you are interested.

I had predicted at around January that more water would flow out of the mouth than the total official storage of the whole of the Murray Darling before it stopped again. The total official storage is around 22,000 GL so I could yet be right. I figure that one more year of this kind of thing and we will be wanting to redact our thinking and declare that (the 10 years from 2000 to 2010) was just a freak drought the likes of which we would never see again in our lifetime. It is plausible that we may want to keep strategic dams along the Murray at half capacity to hedge our bets with catastrophic lower Murray floods now possible if we get a repeat of the inflows of last year. Namely the Menindee lakes, Hume and Lake Victoria could moderate catastrophic inflows to just the major flood mark at Renmark and below if they are pre-emptively emptied.

Yuan for the money?

2011-09-28T21:27:00.002+10:00

My latest read of the Economist had a particularly disturbing but compelling argument that it is only a matter of time before the Yuan will be the Worlds reserve currency. The article describes it as an overdue change, although I get the impression that it is not desirable, but inevitable and the alternatives eventually being virtually disastrous. I don't like it, but I realize now that it will probably happen, maybe before 2020. My preference is of course the Aussie dollar, but the chances are quite remote.

Enough with the sneaker net already!

2011-09-27T19:27:00.002+10:00

I don't really know where I was going with this link but I thought it about time that I mentioned where I felt communications were up to in Australia. I have this feeling that so much of our effort of day to day life is working an elaborate sneaker net of information. All too often it isn't enough to send a picture, sound or video, and one must bring the object to the person or vice versa, just as in the old days we needed to save something to disk to move it to another computer. The more everything gets connected, the less this has to happen, although I think that shirts that can be screen printed by remote are a long way away yet.

There appears to be a fierce level of competition between carriers in the mobile Internet arena, and a bit of a lack of service in the adsl+ department. The NBN seems to have progressed to a level where even a sudden change of Government would find it hard to reverse the general gist of the new structure being formed in the industry. I believe that not only the current wireless competitive environment, but the future fixed broadband environment will also be fiercely competitive. The main scope for future differentiation between brands will be overall service, how plans will combine with other related comms, and total monthly data plans as before. Speed will be even less of an issue than it is now. There is virtually no chance that either the NBN co. will struggle to make ends meet, nor that the investment made by taxpayers will cause Australia to approach European US or Japanese levels of public debt levels.

Nice Hung Parliament

2011-09-20T14:23:00.003+10:00

It appears to me that rather than the country independents having the balance of power and being the most important block of votes, it seems that every single person in parliament has been elevated in importance to the point of being almost as important as the Prime Minister or Opposition leader. One strand of evidence is that no matter how egregious Wassisname's usage of a Union credit card was, he has been afforded a sort of cabinet protection from dismissal as strong as it would be for the PM.

Something similar is happening to the Liberals in that every sitting member has been more obliged than ever to take a disciplined part in the voting process to take advantage of any slip-ups by the government to try to force an early election or embarassing backflip on policy.

With the Boat people issue, I feel that the populist "tough" approach has shown itself to be completely dependent on context. When boat-people are imagined as a *group* the populist notion is that they are undeserving and cheating the system. As soon as they are individualised and humanised (for instance, unaccompanied children), the populist notion flips to an assumption of innocence ie. that they should be processed *TO* decide whether they are deserving of refugee status. These are contradicting views, and a large section of the population holds them simultaneously. No law can preemptively and correctly act under these expectations. Constantly changing the laws, or even talking seriously about changing the laws keeps people smugglers on their toes without necessarily prejudicing the individual cases - Therefore a series of backflips on policy is the perfect policy in itself - especially if the overall refugee intake is allowed to increase from our dismally low quotas.

As far as the Carbon Tax is concerned, I am glad it is going through in spite it being one of the least popular policies I could ever imagine making it through *ANY* parliament. I think once it is in there it will be shown to be no more distorting or painful than the GST, with a lot less red tape for the average individual or business.

I do think it unfortunate that the Carbon Tax will get the blame for electricity price increases, when the reality is that it is the fault of exorbitant feed-in tariffs combined with the uncertainty of infrastructure expenditure that will be incurred due to the revised architecture of energy transfers required.

Tennis dates

2011-09-12T10:16:00.004+10:00

Can anyone tell me the last two times and cities an Australian has won a Grand slam singles title?

September 11th 2011, New York.
September 9th 2001, New York.

No-one in the news has mentioned the irony in this.

Stuff I may not have published about my experience of 11/9/01

2011-09-11T07:53:00.004+10:00

- In August of that year I had suffered a nervous breakdown which became completely reset after 911.
- I was in complete denial and I tried to go back to bed to try to convince myself it was all a bad dream.
- I was jealous of those who slept through it and got many hours extra of the world being a nicer place. In hindsight, it was probably a moot point.
- I remember taking my two oldest children to swimming very early the next morning. They were 8 and 5 at the time and I would take them to the local pool where my brother would give them swimming lessons for an hour or so, while I dropped in to work. I asked him if he listened to the radio, which he didn't (who doesn't listen to the radio in the car???), so instead of telling him about 911 I thought my gift to him would be another couple of hours of not knowing. He has not forgiven me for it.
-Sandor was also angry at me for not ringing him when it happened.
-I made various predictions about the future of the world, none of which I wrote down. However, one of those was that the next megaterrorist attack would be timed for the 10th anniversary. I figured it wouldn't be in Washington nor in New York, and perhaps not even in the US at all, but I figured a multitude of sleeper cells and plots globally, where it would be virtually impossible to discover them all before they came to fruition.
- What I felt was the aim of the terrorist organization was to provoke an over-reaction by the US, which would in turn make the US look like the evil terrorists. I felt that the US should avoid this as best as possible, but I think in this sense, the terrorists won.

For off-grid PV solar, we have reached and exceeded fridge parity!

2011-09-06T12:14:00.002+10:00

My father has a house at west point, and since the electricity grid (nor the water grid) does not reach there, a combination of power alternatives does the job for off grid. Just a few years ago, the most economical off grid fridge alternative was a gas fridge. A twelve volt power system with four Lead acid batteries for storage and one solar panel (80 W) was enough for a tiny (all 12V) bar fridge, lighting, tv and charging of phones. Now with just 2 80W solar panels and a few extra batteries for good measure, there is enough power for a full size 12V fridge freezer! Being that the house is not always occupied, the fridge can stay on and neither drain money nor waste food. Air conditioners are still most economical with diesel generators run as needed, and gas cannot really be beaten for cooking, but I believe this is a very important milestone for solar over fossil fuels for off-grid purposes. This has required *NO SUBSIDIES*. It is prohibitively expensive to convert a system optimised for greed feed-in to a system optimised for off-grid purposes. This is why greed feed-in is useless in power blackouts - no storage - no internal power regulation - inefficient upconversion from 12V to 240V.

All subsisidies reek of the sulfurous stench of Hades

2011-09-03T07:48:00.003+10:00

All other things being equal, (food production, installed PV systems) doing well is a sign that policies are on a good path. The problem is, as soon as you start subsidizing same, things are no longer equal, and the rule no longer applies. To get a quantitative analysis on what I am saying is that the theoretical test that there is a net positive is to calculate the effects of removing the subsidy and seeing if future taxes on the industry can repay the sum cost of the subsidy over the period it operated over. To be fair, one can include taxes intrinsic to the industry during and after the subsidy period.
Quantitatively, to measure the net effect of the subsidy, consider it like an investment, the return on investment being how much extra tax can be extracted from industry for the amount of subsidy spent. It is clear that on this count, that virtually all subsidies ever devised are loss making black holes. It is highly unfair to assume illeffects of taxes on commerce, when the root cause is the black hole of subsidies.

Anthropogenic Global Warming

2011-08-29T12:36:00.005+10:00

I have so much in my head at the moment, and a great desire to write it down, but it is completely incoherent.

For the global warming debate, I feel it is important to demonstrate my non-partisan take on it. One easy way to do this is to show an example of a policy belief of mine usually associated with the far left (Green party or left wing of the Labour Party) and a contrasting belief that is associated near the other extreme (National party or One Nation or Right wing of the Liberal Party).

This is not because I want to present myself in the middle ground, but that what I believe to be true takes up a point in idea space far away from the political left-right line that at the moment takes up all the discussion space in virtually every forum I visit.

For instance, I am vehemently against solar PV tarriffs above the wholesale market rate for electricity.

I am also very in favour of a Carbon Tax.

I steer away from arguments that question whether global warming is "real" or not. To me it is like a question of whether I believe in God or not. I perceive both these questions to be a device to flatten my beliefs and squeeze them down onto the political continuum line from their proper place in multiple dimensions - with an aim to push me with denial or acceptance of various assertions one way or another to the correlated viewpoints of (in this case) the left or right of politics.

There is no "references" I can point to in regards to this basic philosophical idea, but it should be simple enough for the casual reader to understand.

The question remains as to how I can convince someone to my same viewpoint. It is much easier to convince someone that solar PV tarriffs are bad because Global Warming is bunk than it is because it makes the energy market dysfunctional. It is also easier to convince people that we should have a Carbon Tax because AGW is real and a threat, than it is because it moves tax reform down a sensible direction (broad based, flat, easy to administer, can replace messier taxes or even carbon trading)

Another question may be why I think minor structural detail of the laws which underpin the energy market are more important than the global risks of catastrophe or conversely wasting our time, money and energy on a non-catastrophe.

The answer is to me, that the underpinning structural detail is absolutely vital both to succeed in whatever aims that voters think is important with regards to energy usage, and to not waste any time, money or energy in that achievement. Laws which make markets act in functional ways are a net profit to society, laws which don't, are a net loss - pure and simple.

They should have built fibre to the premises

2011-08-08T11:33:00.002+10:00

I think that The US's experience of wireless broadband demonstrates the dangers in relying on private enterprise capital and regulation to deliver a functional long term backbone of infrastructure. The article I've linked to demonstrates the pernicious effects of selling responsibility of infrastructure onto the private sector. The value of a spectrum increases if more can be done with it, and therefore there is an perverse incentive for government regulators to relax spectrums and rules, independently of the original reasons to have the rule there in the first place. It isn't just a "fibre is better than wireless tradeoff". Wireless is always going to be chosen by private enterprise because a return can be made in a reasonable timeframe. The issue of fibre vs wireless is separate, and I would be just as happy with the NBN plan if it went something like 10% FTTP, 50% FTTN, and the remaining 40% the newer version of next G wireless, as long as the government could take control of the infrastructure.

However both for practicalities in taking over the infrastructure and being able to think long term, 93% FTTH is entirely reasonable in getting country areas onto the grid. The more important point to note is that Australia's transmission spectrum will remain functional and unencumbered by huge data loads and conflict of interest, while the US's will lose way more than the $1500 per household or whatever it is within a decade in its dysfunctional spectrum allocations and congestion.

US - Politics and Game theory. It doesn't get any simpler than this.

2011-07-28T10:29:00.004+10:00

For anyone who has any doubts about the merits of considering politics in terms of game theory should look at the debt ceiling negotiations. If one or the other political side backs down on their demands, the opposite side gets a considerable "win". If neither side backs down in time, everybody loses.

Classic Game of chicken.

The most important thing to consider is why people play this silly game when the livelihoods of millions of people are at stake? The first question is why do people play chicken when their own life is at stake?

Obviously the perceived political rewards are so huge in having the opposition back down in humiliation.

My hope is that if one side or the other backs down, that they get rewarded at the ballot box rather than punished - Hopefully changing the political perceptions for next time. I don't hold out much hope.

Wow. "Unpopular" tax reform with a hung parliament

2011-07-17T11:08:00.002+10:00

One thing that tends to characterise hung parliaments or even non-traditional coalitions in most countries is their ability to only pass popular spending sprees and not the unpopular new taxes (or more correctly, tax reform) that are possible with clear parliamentary majorities.

This is clearly not the case in Australia. Whether for or against a Carbon tax, one has to admit that it is bold, given the popular opinion of the moment.

The thing is, that the idea is to reduce CO2 at the *lowest* cost, which is still putatively an aspiration of a reduced majority. The Europeans have active policies that don't work, and the US has failed to pass legislation that wouldn't work anyway.

Arguments against my arguments against feed-in tarriffs

2011-06-01T13:55:00.001+10:00

Since my goal is not really to try to convince people of my point of view as much as measure it against my own logic, I think it is time to look at it from the opposite angle for a little while.

Valid points made against me:

- Take up has been at a higher percentage in the country than the city - This does not mean that more actual generation capacity or instalments are in the country than the city, but it still is counter-intuitive and thus an important counterpoint against my arguments. It means more money disproportionately to the country than the city, which makes a nice change.

- It is development of "power stations" by stealth, avoiding the red tape, delays and NIMBYISM associated in building bigger more efficient (even renewable) ones. If we are looking at generation capacity added per day, with this surge it is quite reasonable amount but spread quite thinly accross the grid.

The biggest Marconomic counter-argument (so far unmentioned) is that this "subsidy" is more similar to the Brazilian ethanol subsidy, and even in some ways similar to the incentives that built the railways in the US and the Managed Investment Schemes (MIS) in Australia that enabled mass planting of a plethora of long term crops such as olives and timber.

The thing that works about these subsidies (whereas European agricultural ones don't) is that the subsidies have leaked a great deal to what would pass as infrastructure. Whereas if the government said they were going to spend $32 Billion over 10 years on solar electric base power stations around the country, it would be voted down, while if we spend the equivalent of $100 billion extra (compared to what we would have with the status quo) Neatly packaged and spread across various risk profiles, REC's and individual investments, people would go along with it.

The Brazilian ethanol subsidy money leaked through to private companies which built efficient ethanol generation and trading infrastructure. The Companies that funded the railway booms became bankrupt, but the railways are still there. The MIS funds are much maligned but they have generated a large "infrastructure" of trees closer to generating income. The German feed-in tarriffs have been incredibly expensive for what they have achieved, and completely distorted the market. However, the result appears to be a semblance of infrastructure. Australia is not repeating the mistakes of Germany, by having a honeymoon period of high tariffs rapidly reducing over a few years, the subsidy portion *may* be temporary, and the constant shifting of the goalposts mean that any tariff regime will not breed dependence on the tariffs from solar panel owners. They already know that they can't count on them being that generous for more than a couple of years.

With all these "infrastructures" built from subsidy money rather than directly, it still is somewhat controlled by the Government(indirectly through the actions of the subsidies), and can possibly fit into the rule of thumb that Governments should own infrastructure, but it usually is a very tenuous control.

Amartya Sen and all that

2011-05-18T16:44:00.005+10:00

Amartya Sen did a lot of research on the causes of famine and the gist of the conclusions was that lack of food was not a factor at all, and that various market failures were evident (including hoarding, purchases by the British military, price gouging etc.) which explains most of it. This perhaps contradicts Adam Smiths conclusion about bakers, bread and "the hidden hand" that means we can all get fed without benevolent bakers.

I don't disagree with the gist of that, and my belief is that Destitution, not Dearth is what causes famines (there is an Economist article of a few years ago that I could look up but I don't need it to make my point)

India became democratic after about that point, and the Government of India has, ever since, had a program of purchasing and distributing food for the poor, including subsidising food in good times and in bad. I like to call this system a "brute force" way of solving the problem. The "hidden hand" of commerce gets replaced by a very visible hand of the Government. However, is this brute force method foolproof? How expensive is it? Why does Australia not embrace or need something similar?

My assertion is that the policy of the Government of India has got the credit for avoiding famines when in reality, a policy concentrating on social welfare rather than food purchases would have both avoided famine more cheaply, and would have resulted in far higher economic growth meaning it would have been considered "first world" well before the turn of the century.

I completely disagree with the policy conclusion that Governments becoming buyers and sellers in the market is a good way to avoid the market failures that cause famines. Certainly there must be enough storage capacity for store levels to increase when prices are low, and drawn upon when prices are high, if only to buy enough time for suppliers to ramp up/down production/imports (panic buyers are profitable, if supply can be ramped up) . Social welfare to avoid destitution should be done with money or food vouchers rather than the food itself, so that market signals still function at the farm level (small farms will not ramp up production if the Government doesn't offer a higher purchase price). Governments are just as capable as individuals of hoarding, price gouging etc. when it comes to/from other countries, so what may be of benefit for a country in isolation may still be a complete disaster to an inoccent other country which has become destitute.

This is to say there is still a dearth of situations where Governments should involve themselves in consumables. Nor any situations where private interests should own infrastructure. That is not necessarily about whether an outcome is an aim of a policy, but whether the policy is equipped to give the desired result.

Feed-In Tarriffs are the opposite of the answer

2011-05-01T19:24:00.003+10:00

As the following article, Solar Scam Article, PV solar schemes can easily burn through hundreds of millions of dollars before anyone even notices. Not only that, they fail in the most basic of stated aims - that of more quickly getting PV systems (or rather, any renewable) to substantially contribute to our energy needs.

Most people, even experts, think that at worst, it is neutral to our efforts in replacing renewables, but due to the competing interests for a finite number of available renewable energy certificates it is considerably worse than the Government spending nothing on it(*).

An infinite number of REC's implies an infinite budget so cannot be considered - and what is plainly happening is that the REC's are being lapped up by the most generous policy (in this case PV subsidy + feed-in tarrif guarantees), crowding out significantly more efficient and cost effective (even speedily built) large scale projects, that given no tariffs, could have been built by private enterprise for profit.

There are plenty of wind farm projects, large scale PV and solar thermal, as well as Geothermal which are being starved of funds. Private money is chasing the most generous public money rather than profitable energy enterprises.

(*) By which I mean alternative policies that do not favour small, inefficient installations, that are either revenue neutral or have more tax income than expenditure (eg carbon tax)

Grid based access vs grid independent systems

2011-04-19T11:30:00.004+10:00

I started thinking about this entry ages ago when I had an epiphany and I felt that it could be proven that a speed/price/throughput advantage would exist for "fibre" over "wireless". (Conversely, a flexibility and ability to function when the grid is "down", advantage would always exist the other way).

The basis of the proof is basically that any imaginable technology that improves speed over wireless electromagnetic radiation, would be applicable to wired electromagnetic radiation in the same proportion of improvement.

In the case of broadband, at one extreme is Fibre to the Home and the other extreme is Satellite broadband. Wi-Fi is closer to the FTTH side, then there is 3G style wireless broadband that relies on the mobile network which is connected via mainly fibre, and satellite, which can work even if the whole countries internet is down, theoretically. This doesn't really prove that FTTH is worth pursuing, because it is a tenable argument (although I would dispute it) that wireless will improve to the point that it is fast and cheap enough for everything we find important.

Back in Uni, it was proposed that solid state storage improvements were happening faster than hard drive improvements and could overtake them, and although a USB stick is enough for most things, portable hard drives still hold more and are used a lot, the storage advantage of hard drives is constant, due to the solid state improvements being equally applicable to hard drive storage.

Similar grid vs grid independent comparisons are common - road vs helicopter, grid power vs home generators, rail vs aeroplane, piped gas vs cylinders, water tanks vs dam & pipes, private dam storages vs large scale dams for irrigation.

With this in mind, simple goal based arithmetic could decide the balance between grid based and grid independent systems.

For Photo Voltaic electricity generation, I think we have got it backwards, which is why grid parity is not served well with thousands (or millions) of individual installations. If a household is after energy independence, a PV system with a significant amount of battery storage (batteries suitable for an electric car?) is actually very useful and would be a boon for extended power outages (like after Yasi). Because home PV installations are optimised to feed power back into the grid, they are quite useless as independent power sources, compared to diesel generators.

However, if we want PV power to compete with Coal or Gas, we need economies of scale of large scale PV based power stations.

Dick Smith living up to his name

2011-04-02T15:18:00.004+10:00

(re Dick Smith's opinion that Australians should be limited, Chinese style, to two children)

Dick smith has got a point. If we want to limit population to any amount at all, we may want to have a target no of children per family. However, putting an individual limit and fines analogously to what the Chinese (RMP) do, risks overshooting considerably and also sets a fuse for a deadly demographic time bomb, as well as relying heavily on abortion as a means of enforcement of these policies. What is required is a target for an average(say 2) children per family, and a way to trade fertility allocations with those that do not want any children, analogously to water trading. Personally, I would find it easy to trawl my FB friends to find enough who would be willing to sell theirs to me. At any rate, our average in Aus is already at about 2, so further limiting people's reproductive rights would dangerously undershoot, eventually, when it is too late to rectify.

However, as good as this (fertility cap and trade) sounds, it is not quite ambitious enough. There is still the dual issues of many children being unwanted to the point of being aborted, while many that want to adopt a child are thwarted by a lack of children to adopt and a heap of red tape - which leads to most adoptions being "soft immigration" ie. from other countries.

I am not suggesting the prepurchase of babies from females pregnant with unwanted babies by couples desperate to adopt, mediated and encouraged by the government. That would be the barbaric purchase of children akin to the economics of slavery and other barbaric uses of people trade and smuggling.

What I am suggesting will be viewed as a legitimate alternative to abortion - At a family planning clinic, pregnant teenagers (or other age groups) would be given the option of the fetus being carried to be made a ward of the state while in utero. The medical costs, as well as the loss of employment opportunities, stress and a range of other emotional and actual "costs" current and future, would be reimbursed financially by the state (including the fertility right trade).

At birth a pre-arranged adoption would take place. Rather than a prospective Adopter being limbo (and the baby being in limbo in foster care), there have been at least 6 months to arrange the details and documentation for the adoption to take place.

For the prospective adopter it will be a legitimate alternative to overseas adoption. Of course they would have to reimburse the Government for costs associated with the transfer of care, but this would likely be less than the costs associated with overseas adoption.

A couple of questions remain. Would a prospective birth parent rather get a whole heap of money for letting their baby live, albeit with someone else than making it die and it costing her? Would a prospective adopter prefer to live in the same country as the birth parents rather than on the other side of the world?

I don't know - I guess only people in that position could answer surveys to get a feel for whether this whole idea is bunkim or not.

Quote of the week

2011-03-28T20:34:00.002+10:00

"They think we should wait for some science fiction fantasy to jump out from behind a bush, (but) we've got an offer on the table, and we're going to take it."

Bob Katter criticising the opposition (essentially crossing the floor) regarding amendments to NBN legislation put forward by the opposition.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/labor-claims-nbn-milestone-in-marathon-day/story-e6frfku0-1226029637347#ixzz1HtBKgPVh

No Flea Zone

2011-03-21T15:55:00.002+10:00

It appears that the quickest way to enforce a no fly zone and to "protect civilians" in Lybia is to kill the leader and to destroy their front line troops.

Oh Yes - about the Arab thing

2011-02-28T20:55:00.002+10:00

I have been meaning to say something about the Arab uprising thing - My spin was that it is exciting and unpredictable, and that the "dictators dillemma" is definitely in play in those Arab countries that have dictators (most of them?).

This article explains to me at any rate the relationship of modern technology with why the uprisings have gotten so much momentum.

My view is that at this point, international "judgement" is quite moot, especially as there is no such thing as international law, at least that can be enforced. All there is is a kind of multilateral pragmatism, with perhaps some belated justice being meted out by citizens on their former oppressors, and perhaps sanctioned in hindsight by various countries and groupings. There is absolutely no point in supporting a tyrant when they look like they are going to lose no matter what. It is in a sense "victor's justice"

Chris Fellows says:
(BTW Marco, if you mind me posting an off-topic diatribe, just delete it and tell me to get my own blog already!)

Too bad - Until you get a new blog I'll keep the conversation going here.

It leaves a sour taste in my mouth that the one time the UN can get together it is to kick a man when he's down...surely the time for sanctions against Qaddafi was when he invaded Chad, or blew up that passenger plane, or fomented Tuareg rebellions in neigbouring countries, or killed thousands of unarmed prisoners, or had Sadat assassinated for making peace with Israel (the last not proven, but as proven as some of the allegations being used as justification now)?

If I was part of a mob burning down a police station and calling for the violent overthrow of the government, I would consider that I had crossed some red line between being a 'civilian' and an 'insurgent' and that it would be pretty much justifiable self-defence if the government used deadly force against me. And if there were people all over the country burning down police stations, I would think the government was pretty much justified in imposing a curfew and shooting me if I broke it. And if my whole town was in the control of police-station-burning hooligans, I would think the government would have a pretty good case for sending the air force against us. The hypocrisy of the UN condemning Qaddafi for doing what almost every UN member state would do if they were in his shoe is kind of icky

Not many journalists have taken this line at all. "Groupthink" seems to have taken over and the new good guys can do what they need to do to extinguish the bad guys, who have been happily doing bad things for decades. The double standards argument makes no sense to the groupthink.

NBN vs alternatives, again

2011-02-21T06:35:00.003+10:00

I don't really want to offer a counter anecdote at this stage, because there is something more fundamental about the NBN plan than the simple "Cost for Cost - speed for speed" rationalisations of the argument between the plans broadly outlined by the Government and opposition.

The fundamental thing for me is the experience Australia had with the privatisation of Telstra in the first place, and whether the mistakes made then can be made up with a new plan.
The rationalisation of privatisation at that point and generally was that investments formerly provided by the Government would be made by private enterprise, and that costs would be borne by the end consumers who were most willing to pay for the services provided.
The main unexpected downsides was that voters even in cities were not happy with the disparity between country and city services, so a regimen of regulation was built up so high, Government became a virtual "owner" of Telstra's minimum service, but in a much more inefficient way than *actually* owning the associated infrastructure.

A second downside was the inefficient duplication of things like mobile phone towers, which provided neither more coverage, nor extra reliability.

A third issue can be illustrated with an anecdote. When a *Telstra* Fibre cable was accidentally cut, all services *other* than Telstra, including mobile phones stopped working for huge swathes of regional areas, including many which ostensibly should not have even relied on that connection. Ironically many Telstra services continued working at a slightly lowered reliability.

The ownership structure of the NBN is the real key to why it will resolve the failures of privatisation without harming its successes.

4G and new technologies a serious threat to fibre broadband

2011-02-17T09:17:00.002+10:00

If you are not already convinced that wireless is the new future and that FTTP broadband is a white elephant you MUST read this.

Not only will 4G kill NBN but as an added bonus will boost personal insect repellant sprays in this country :-O

Ok. I admit it . the Economist is privatisation biased

2011-02-12T16:59:00.001+10:00

Having read the Economist Intelligence Unit's brief accessible summary on broadband plans compared among dozens of countries, it has become obvious to me. Australia's broadband plans have been scored low because of the high comparative cost and mediocre quoted speed.

The issue I have (as I had with their take on university privatisation) is how the length of term of investment is never even considered as an issue. Wireless (Next G as oposed to Wi-Fi) has excellent returns on investment in the short term, but is in no way future-proof.

The real crux of the issue - Who should pay for and/or own infrastructure as opposed to running costs and retail sale of bandwidth etc, is never mentioned. It wouldn't be an issue to me, if the alternative suggestion was the government owning and spending money on a much reduced infrastructure - That would be a reasonable alternative, but in the long run, it wouldn't actually be cheaper. To me it is like Mr Windsor said - "You do it once, and you do it with fibre".

The biggest returns will happen once Moore's law catches up with the capacity of the network. Memory capacity still doubles every 18 months, but data generation and traffic on the internet is doubling quicker than that, about every 12 months. Therefore, given that if you build it, the traffic will eventually fill it - it makes sense to optimise the cost of the end-point infrastructure, rather than requiring a shorter timeframe to gain a payoff with something that will need to be upgraded again, duplicating a lot of the initial work.

Post Yasi De-brief

2011-02-11T13:50:00.002+10:00

Quite a few interesting points to make on the wash-up with regards to this monster cyclone. It is quite amazing how many people went into such a panic that they flew or drove out of Townsville at great personal expense, on Wednesday (3/2/11) at which point we were ruled out of both very destructive winds and the worst of the tidal surges. Fear is contagious, and most of my time on Wednesday was spent calming friends and family down and busting the various rumours circling around - like these Some of the major problem was that uncertainty of where the cyclone was going to land as of Monday and early Tuesday was passed on by word of mouth, and gave the wholly wrong impression to a lot of people that Armageddon in Townsville was still possible when they were making decisions early Wednesday. This was contradicted by the facts, and it is a tribute to Anna Bligh and her team that each press conference had the utmost up to date facts and correct specific instructions to everyone concerned. It appears several important lessons were learned from each recent cyclone to the effect that I couldn't fault the "official" response in any way whatsoever.

The aftermath response is a little bit the other way. The same sort of people that had their families unnecessarily huddled inside wardrobes overnight, were out there the next day thinking it had been way overblown. Bitter disappointment and resentment about power being out for so long gave way to surprise about how much monetary assistance would come their way. So much money has been doled out by Centrelink that Townsville is under a stimulus induced spending spree. One-offs like disaster relief have little of the economic ill-effects of other kinds of government spending, as the money filters back as taxes from those companies that did well servicing peoples needs in this area. The net result might even be more growth for Australia.

(EX) Tropical cyclone Anthony

2011-01-28T13:17:00.004+10:00

The lack of a three day forecast track map for this system from the BOM seems to have confused everybody, especially since it is likely to cross the NQ coast within the next three days! There is method to this madness and this system is more chaotic than normal, so they don't want to send even more mixed messages than that.
This link shows the best guess of what rainfall and barometric pressure will ensue in the following few days, so I suggest it is the more useful "warning".

Lessons from flooding

2011-01-17T15:31:00.003+10:00

I fear that lessons from the Brisbane catchment flooding may not be heeded for the Murray Darling basin at the moment.

The main thing I have seen is that, for the Brisbane River at least, it is enough to refine procedures (or the rule book, as I have heard it called in the media) to have made the catastrophic major flood of the lower Brisbane river a moderate flood (albeit a longer lived moderate flood). The rule book seems to have been written at the time the Wivenhoe was built, and it essentially awaits for upstream data of inflows to enable releases in advance to allow room for incoming floods. This was fine when weather predictions days in advance were highly unreliable (as they were in the eighties) or for inflows of a volume that is not several times the capacity of the dam, nor when "La Nina" conditions point to aggressive early releases being more "conservative", than a wait and see what runoffs eventuate policy.

This lesson, which I am sure will be heeded for the Brisbane River catchment because catastrophic floods make it obvious, seems to be being ignored for the Murray-Darling. At the moment, the calculations are quite similar - with the Menindee lakes at over 100% and three major floods on their way in the next few months.

In 1956, another La Nina year, catastrophic floods hit the lower Murray when floods of the Darling and Upper Murray converged at the same time - Similarly a reaction was to build flood mitigation storages (in that case the Menindee lakes). They really should be emptied at a much faster rate right now, not just to absorb the peaks coming down already, but to have enough capacity to hold back the flood such that it doesn't coincide with possible autumn upper murray floods. The analogy with the Brisbane catchment is that the Wivenhoe may have been able to actually slow down the outflow as the Bremer and Lockyer floods peaked through, mitigating them rather than exacerbating them (If enough pre-emptive releases were made).

Of course, the bigger the flood, the less dams can feasibly hold them back, regardless of strategy.

Two non-rhetorical questions

2011-01-08T17:42:00.003+10:00

Given the current flood on the Mary River I have two serious questions:

1: Would the Traveston Dam have been ableto mitigate this flood in a meaningful way?

2: Is a major flood any LESS a threat than a dam is to the lungfish or any other endangered species of the river?

I suspect the answer to the first is possibly yes, even though the premise of it needing to be built was predicated on mitigating drought, the shallow nature of the valley it would have flooded would tend to at the absolute least flatten the peak of floods, and with a bit of luck and timing could have absorbed most of it.

With the second question, I suspect the flood would have done the lung fish little damage, but I am not aware of how it copes with floods. Most fish use it as an opportunity to spread. Endangered land animals already marginalised by drought and the encroaching humanity might have been better off with a mitigated flood, however.

What we need is more "lakes" in the not so wild west

2010-12-28T18:25:00.004+10:00

There is quite an eerie duality between the lakes of the "wild" west-flowing rivers (in general they flow to wards Lake Eyre) and the "tamed" west flowing rivers. A series of lakes in the "wild rivers" (eg Lake Yamma Yamma, Diamantina lakes, Coongie lakes, etc.) Considerably slows the flow to the treeless salty pit in the end point (Lake Eyre). On the way, these storages are the lifeblood of both wilderness in these catchments(waterholes, trees, wildlife), and for human resources in those same catchments (mainly sheep/cattle grazing).

If you compare this with the Murray/Darling basin, all the human endeavour that has toiled to tame it has merely expanded on this natural system of floods being trapped. Both for the environment and human uses, it is an amazing extension, as the facts remain that floods and drought are as damaging to the natural environment's inhabitants as they are to human habitation. The remaining floods and droughts in the system are still primarily in the gaps where there is no suitable "lake" to absorb floods and make the water available through some of the following drought. I am estimating that by the end of this La Nina year, as much as all the water capacity of all of the Murray Darling water storages will have flowed out through the barrages of Lake Alexandrina. It is an open question as to whether the floods have nicely "reversed" the whole of the environmental damage done through the 10 or so years of it being a closed system (in drought, as it were). Although climate scientists have deemed the last 10 or 20 years as the new normal - I would suggest that it is a very brave call to BET that there will be similar droughts within our lifetime, as opposed to the usual contrived predictions.

If we could have harnessed even half of that water flowing away to the sea, the floods would have been even more controlled. At least we should have generated some osmotic energy from it at Lake Alexandrina, instead of just talking desalination. In the next few years of relatively plentiful water (even if we have a drought immediately after this La Nina) It makes no economic sense to buy (at a high price) water allocations from farmers who would use it to make a profit, for the environment which doesn't need it at that moment because of the soil storage from this recent series of flood events. Just feel grateful that we have got so much flexibility due to large natural and artificial storages, and perhaps plan some more future bountiful lakes that can be huge long term environmental assets for a relatively small environmental and human adjustment upfront price in drowned valleys.

Disaster for International Diplomacy?

2010-12-19T16:14:00.002+10:00

The ability for high level diplomats to say one thing *on the record* to each other, and say completely different things in public or to their citizens has been completely compromised - To put it another way, our governments ability to lie to us has been hampered considerably. Oh, what a terrible world it is where the people who's job it is to lie to us can't do that convincingly anymore. If you look at it closely, it is the same with lawyers as it is with politicians. How can lawyers (and prosecutors) successfully lie anymore if forensics and bugging of their priveleged conversations keep getting better and more common?

After all there is a grain of truth in the saying that a politician (and lawyer) is lying if their lips are moving. It is their job to do that, and the job of the "free" press to believe them (otherwise come election campaign they lose all their advertising revenue)

It really appears to be the unfortunate result of better technologies - and scientific systems that seem to find truth and rule out lies.

country qld

2010-12-11T12:13:00.002+10:00

From article

''I grew up in a Queensland country town, where people spoke their minds bluntly,'' he wrote. ''They distrusted big government as something that could be corrupted if not watched carefully. The dark days of corruption in the Queensland government before the Fitzgerald Inquiry are testimony to what happens when the politicians gag the media from reporting the truth.''

''These things have stayed with me through the years. WikiLeaks was created around these core values.''

Cyberwarfare Begins

2010-12-09T22:57:00.002+10:00

It appears WWI of cyberwars has begun. It seems to be a fair fight, with weapons of choice being Distributed Denial of service attacks. The main casualties will be financial in nature, but will deeply affect how the world will operate in the future. The expectation of "complete" privacy has been eroding considerably, and can only be considered a transient phenomena (this conversation is secure for now - if I don't record it, it loses usefulness. If I do record it, there is an unknown probability that it may be leaked somewhere in the future - hopefully it won't bite us too hard, and will fall in the hands of our friends and not get exclusively sold to our enemies without our knowledge)

This is also the dillemma I (or anyone) has with their own private and intimate emails to friends. I have got into the habit of self-censorship just as much with my private emails as I do with FB or this Blog. There are still a few things I say and talk about verbally that I would not put into writing.

Julian Assange - Hero or villain?

2010-12-07T14:04:00.002+10:00

It seems most reputable sites and countries are trying to cut the information off but,
It's not realistic that the information is going to be stopped

Note from the following linked site that he was born in Townsville and spent a lot of his childhood on Magnetic Island.

The "knowledge" that he has uncovered and disseminated is raw, extensive and does not "take sides" in terms of censorship - It's all there and available for anyone to read and make their own judgement.

He has been successfully demonised, especially by the USA, but I am unwilling to make any judgement at all except for that which I check on specifically.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange

http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/wikileaks-goes-underground--in-a-bunker-deep-in-sweden-20101206-18mii.html

Murray River - Not enough water.... or is that too much?

2010-10-16T21:04:00.002+10:00

Is it just me, or does anyone else see the contradictions in the news articles in regards to the Murray River? If you google "Murray" in the news you get articles on the one hand about the grandiose plans to reduce water usage by reducing water allocations, and how State leaders and farmers are grandstanding about the disaster this would cause in communities where water buy backs take place.

On the other hand you get articles about this massive flood (the latest in a series of floods to hit the Murray-Darling System over the last year), how storages are starting to reach capacity and overflow and how even with high tech dam gates and good advance warning of floods, this still is a big potential headache and potential whole of system flood once they all actually fill.

Three books I read in 1978

2010-09-27T14:03:00.002+10:00

These were - The population bomb - in English, it might have been a 1977 Christmas present from my parents who were in Australia at the time. Then there was Space - a book in italian about space - the solar system, Earth Moon and a quick rundown on Stellar evolution and the Big Bang theory. Then there was a Bible - In Italian, that was given to me by my "Nonna Dafne" (my father's mother) whom I stayed with by myself for a couple of weeks during some school holidays. I remember that I had these books in my hand luggage so that I could read them on the plane, travelling with my brother to Australia from Italy to be reunited with our parents (Arriving 1st April). I also had some tobacco? or something like that for my father.

Now my parents were quite horrified to hear that I had spent time with my very religious catholic grandmother, and that I was reading the scriptures that she had given me and taking it as the Gospel truth as it were. They lectured me about believing things just because someone in authority had written them down. The gist of it was that people write things down for other reasons than to promote the truth, and that you should be equally skeptical of any book (fiction OR non-fiction).

I agreed then and I agree now. I applied this to the other two books I was reading at the time, and ever since, I have had a skeptical view about doomsday predictions in regards to the Earth's population, I am equally skeptical about the Big Bang theory, and I am skeptical about practically all historical detail about the old testament (see, I hadn't even got to the new testament as yet).

How can one live a life not being certain of anything that is written? Should I have even trusted my parents when they lectured me about it in the first place? This explains a lot about my agnosticism and my current attitudes to population debate, and debates that surround theoretical physics.

I do Believe in a Big Australia

2010-09-24T16:16:00.002+10:00

I don't necessarily believe in a big China, Europe, America etc. On balance, them shrinking would leave a nice vacuum for us to fill. I have absolutely no doubts about "sustainability" in an Australia specific sense. If there is an upper limit on our population, it would be near the population density of Europe or the US, which means I believe we can sustain a population of 200 Million as easily (or as difficultly) as Europe or The US sustains its current population. Within a couple of decades, there may well be several developed countries with a fairly rapid decline in population. They will not, on average be doing particularly well and citizens of those countries with ambition, will very likely try to move somewhere like Australia.

FTTH Broadband was the key after all!

2010-09-07T21:29:00.003+10:00

It appears that Fibre To The Home was what sold the Labor party plan to the New England independent representative Tony Windsor. I don't know if my blog made any difference to that decision, but I do feel vindicated nonetheless. There are two striking things that I've noticed about similarly balanced (hung) parliaments in other countries - There is a tendency for

1) Policy sclerosis - it is often easier to get a majority opposing a new policy than a majority to be in favour.

2) More deficits than otherwise - It is way easier to push policies through that *spend* more money than ones which *save* or *tax* more money.

3) Balance of power bias - The independents (and greens in the senate) will have a policy say disproportionate to the number of electorates/seats they hold. This will be especially good for environmental programs which also benefit rural Australia, reasonably good for rural policies which don't particularly rile the Greens and policy inertia (unchanged policies) will tend to be the way with practically everything else.

The Election and the NBN

2010-08-15T17:22:00.002+10:00

I have been following the progress on the Governments negotiations with Telstra and the other powers that be over the new plan for Fibre to the home. All along, if they'd bothered to follow Marconomic principles they'd know full well that the idea is to separate infrastructure elements from the applications, data plans, and the selling of the information itself. The infrastructure would then be owned by the federal government and the rest would be allowed to have market forces at play and essentially be privately run. It appears that the Labor Government had finally achieved this with the go ahead, budgeting and rollout starting - The NBN would be a government run company that would own the new fibre. Private organisations, including Telstra would then pay for capacity on these to sell plans to consumers and to run new applications on etc. This, once built would fix the constant conflict of interest of Telstra owning infrastructure that competitors need to compete with Telstra. There is just no way of making it fair without separating infrastructure from the marketable aspects of the capacity of the infrastructure.

What the Labor Government had come up with should have always been bipartisan. This would have neutralised the issue in voters such as me. Having seen the alternative plan of the Liberals, which although vague in specific ownership details, gives the impression that government investment will be more wasteful than private investment, regardless of whether it is long term or short term investment.

Telstra and land developers can not be trusted to have appropriate cabling in place even in new suburbs. So often (our suburb included) developers have opted for the cheapest possible cabling because to them it is a cost without any visible gain in land prices. Concern that the whole suburb has to be inefficiently dug up again to upgrade the lines down the track is not on their radar or their balance sheet.

It is less efficient to regulate standards of cable (fibre) speed that has to be laid, then for the Government to own it in the first place, and their shouldn't be the pressure on geting a short term return on the investment either. As it is with roads, power cables, railways, airports and sewerage pipes it should be with data transmission - the Government should own the infrastructure - pure and simple.

Top ten reasons why I (we) are having six children.

2010-08-14T07:45:00.001+10:00

1) We has done some naughty stuff and deserve to get punished.

2) 6 is a perfect number (ie. the sum of its factors other than itself {1,2,3} add up to itself). The next one after 6 is 28.

3) With all these boat people coming in, we have to even the odds by having as many home grown children ourselves- to try our best to balance the numbers.

4) We need to have children in the age group to bridge the gap between our children and future grandchildren - so there will be always slightly older children to help one, and slightly younger children to help down the track.

5) We are going to keep having children until we get one that we like.

6) We wanted to make complete a grand experiment to see whether it is better to raise children early (20's) later (30's) or really later (40's)

7) We want a play mate for our 5th quite close in age.

8) We are sick of having a family with a respectable number of children.

9) The couple who gets to menopause with the greatest number of well-adjusted children wins!

10) They are soooo... cute!

Let me introduce myself

2010-08-01T15:58:00.002+10:00

Hi, My name is Marco - I have five children, three dogs, a worm farm and a pregnant wife - And I've just turned forty. So much is happening in my day to day life that is interesting, but I have absolutely no time to reflect. I am quite tempted to switch to posting updates to facebook, because Ironically, when I post to my blog that can be accessed globally by anyone... no-one reads it, but when little odd tidbits get posted on facebook, many strangers as well as most of my friends find out one way or another.

Why my chidren have ended up at a private school

2010-06-17T21:11:00.006+10:00

As promised I would like to explain that I don't perceive "brands" of schools and my way of valuing schools to send my children to has, if anything, an anti-brand bias. Having gone to public schools most of my life, and having found them adequate, but variable, I had no reason to suppose that I would pay more money to send my children to a private school. Annandale was a new public school when it first opened, was the closest public primary school, and had a "catchment area" that was quite well off. All factors that made for an easy choice of school for my first three children - a total of 18 child years. The closest public High school had been ruled out for consistent word of mouth criticism for lack of a suitable bullying policy. Not content with hearsay associated with these kind of criticisms, I counted as most reliable data points students and parents that I knew, that had direct experience. All of the data pointed to the principal being the key to the issue. Had the principal left before our eldest had finished grade 5 or 6 - we could well have changed our mind.

From that point, the primary motivation became a fear of our kids being zoned into an unacceptable school, or being in limbo on a waiting list not knowing until too close to the starting date. A second motivation came in the form of our 4th, who was due to start prep the year after our first moved to high school. We were scrambling to see which school had better programs for autistic children. A third motivation was the struggle of doing pickups and drop-offs to geographically distant schools. A fourth was being able to get our children into instrumental programs, which were free but oversubscribed in Annandale.

Private schools, especially Catholic ones, have early enrolment deadlines, which means early acceptance of a place there. Informal surveys of all the special needs childrens' parents that we knew noted that Annandale was not catering well for special needs children. Ryan Catholic has a large primary and high school close together which made pickups/dropoffs easier. Instrumental programs at Ryan were also a lot more accessible, although more expensive. A clinching factor for doing the entire switch was the catering for large families. Fees for four children at the school was less than double what it would be for a single child (which makes it about one fifth the price of the Grammar/Cathedral brands) AND the large catholic population of the school doesn't give you stares if you have any more than a couple of children.

So although we are spending a little more money than we would with public schools, the difference is much smaller than most people imagine.

I had a line-ball decision after grade eight and grade nine because my oldest wanted to change to Pimlico. The clincher was that the motivation was primarily to be with friends than any particular academic or otherwise benefit. I am really not sure if the decision was right, but the balance of various risks was better to stick with the school she had been in.

Actually, six is a perfect number

2010-06-15T13:56:00.002+10:00

I am traditionally coy about revealing intentions on increasing my family size. Don't feel bad - it's just a Parigi tradition. I figure I've left it long enough now, and I'm really chuffed at having a baby (due Dec 24th 2010) in the same year as two of my blogosphere friends. As usual, my family has given their traditionally negative perspective - so, in your comments, if you don't berate me in an argumentative fashion, I will not consider you family :)

Miners aren't as important as they think they are

2010-06-12T07:23:00.002+10:00

Bring on the mining tax! I can't believe the amount of traction miners are getting with their campaign against the super profits tax. Australia is not strong because of mining - the economy is flexible enough to take advantage of whatever boom is going. I have to give credit for the Government "socialising the gains" in this way. It is even a safety net for the miners if conditions go sour, the reduced tax if profits disappear is really a safety net - that is how progressive taxation works.

On the flip side of the coin, on our second biggest earner (correct me if I'm wrong) - higher education, the government has slammed on the brakes for foreign student intakes. I still can't comprehend why we are paranoid enough to think that young immigrants paying through the nose to get into our country, but still being subject to long term assessment should be slowed. When I compare the amount of money the Government "invest" in my children to get them through until they are employable, and compare it to how much they spend on a foreign student immigrant (negative money) - there is no question. Other countries are making the investment, we are getting their taxes. Once the governments in India and China realise this, it is they who will put up the barriers.

I'm having my six children before the government realises that imports are cheaper.

Plutoed

2010-05-06T15:57:00.002+10:00

I am so proud of my 7 year old son. He is learning about space at the moment and, jokingly, his teacher aide has been threatening to send him on a rocket to Pluto if he doesn't do his work. He sniggers every time she makes this threat for several times until she begs to know what he is sniggering about. Then he tells her that Pluto isn't even a real planet (it's a dwarf planet, don't you know) which makes her threat quite silly.

Must BLOG

2010-05-05T16:12:00.004+10:00

There is no way around it - Facebook is a poor substitute for just saying what I want to say about whatever is on my mind (without distraction).

- Water - I feel somewhat vindicated in my thought that reduced allocations, water buybacks, desalination plants, compulsory water tanks were not going to "fix" the Murray-Darling: All we needed was just a good sequence of floods, which incidentally make some or most of those fixes look foolish in hindsight. However, trading of water, infrastructure for transmission and efficiency, and even dams/water storages help both in drought and to manage the bounty of floods.

As far as the Lake Eyre basin is concerned, There is such an inland sea of evaporative ponds (lake Yamma-Yamma, Coongie Lakes, Bulloo lakes, lake hope, Goyder's lagoon, Warburton Lakes, Diamantina lakes, lake Blanche, Lake frome, as well ase now Lake Eyre South and North) that in the medium term, it should be considered that it would generate "coastal showers" for the inland basins of Australia, hopefully extending a run of higher runoffs.See: Lake Eyre Status and

Latest satellite images for images and data on water in the deserts.

After an epic trip... lack of focus

2010-04-23T16:48:00.002+10:00

For probably months now, our family-Easter-Tasmania road trip (+band contest) has been my main focus. It culminated in trying to squeeze a few tourist stops on the grand journey back, cold and fatigue becoming greater factors. I would really like to draw all our stops on a map, but I'll just leave that as an excercise to the reader, and perhaps just list the dates and stopover points.

27/3 - Rockhampton
28/3 - Coonabarabran
29/3 - Seymour
30/3 - Spirit of Tasmania II overnight, Bass Strait
31/3 to 9/4 - Hobart
10/4 - Spirit of Tasmania II overnight, Bass Strait
11/4 - Cooma
12/4 - Canberra
13/4 - Canberra
14/4 - Kempsey
15/4 - Rockhampton

A few times during our trip, strangers would tell us how crazy we were, but it was quite amazing to have an adventure and be able to share it with the whole family. I would like to say that we will do it again, but I think it will take another few years to save up for it.

Send us your young..... rich.... intelligent....

2010-01-14T12:04:00.003+10:00

I have thought about this long and hard, but the development that the Higher education system (including private universities) is being transformed into a vehicle for "filtered" immigration (see previous entry is one which we should be finding positives for. It has not happened by design, but I couldn't have thought of a better way to both have a large immigration intake and have it roughly filtered - by youth, finances and intelligence. If we take a holistic approach to the higher education system, rather than pigeonholing on what form a "good" university should take, the advantages of encouraging and utilising this trend should be obvious - especially to someone with a commitment to open borders.

I feel that there is only a few tweaks required, and the Higher education system can be a model of how immigration can be regulated such that it is fully funded, reasonably inclusive of the different source nations, and allows a good amount of time for the would be immigrant to be "tested" - with University exams and the whole Australian experience being a test as to whether they really want to stay here, and whether their peers who help them with their red tape etc. really want them to stay here.

Out-back-yard Water Fight

2010-01-08T13:19:00.004+10:00

SA: Hey; Nice flood, Newy*. Can we have some of that?

NSW: Get your beady eyes off it Southa**. That's OUR flood. Get your own flood! We saw it first; We had to suffer the damage and inconvenience. Now we get to store it up for our next drought.

SA: OK here you go. Ten million bucks. Will that cover it?

NSW: HAHAHAHAHAHA... Do you think this is about money?

Penny Wong: Do I get a say in this?

SA & NSW in unison: SHUT UP.

* Newy = NSW

** Southa = SA

My friends need to speak up about what they think I am doing wrong in my life!

2009-12-20T07:38:00.003+10:00

I find it a commonly occuring theme that people blame themselves for not speaking up when a friend or relative acts in a way that is obvious to an outside observer to be ruinous to their own well-being. If your friends/family are too afraid to speak up, then who will?

In balance, I find it an equally occuring theme that one believes their friends are blaming one for ruining their own lives without offering anywhere near enough support and loving advice.

In my view, life is a balancing act for all of these types of issues, but I find it is very obvious to an outside observer where ones life is dangerously out of balance, while one is often too busy or too obsessed with other aspects (which are not out of balance) to notice.

Truth be told, I am not really sure where my life is out of balance, and the only "advice" I have been getting is that I have too many children to adequately meet their needs (to achieve excellence?) - That my autistic boy, is in part that way due to a lack of time devoted talking/interacting with him - that my work/family balance is tilted too far one way or the other (depending who I'm talking to)

If the viewpoint is framed as "loving advice" rather than "blame for what went wrong" I am encouraging more friends/family to give me advice, and equally, that I am not showing enough care if I don't mention something that is obvious to me about them, if it is framed properly. Email is the best avenue to mention these things.

Supporting one type of people smuggler whilst frowning on another

2009-11-12T22:28:00.003+10:00

A few years back I read about an interesting idea to tackle people smugglers. Rather than deterrence, the idea was to actively compete with them for money from the type of potential migrant/refugee that would be tempted to pay a person smuggler. A new type of entry visa would be created (undocumented economic migrant?), and it would be an industry rather than an expense for the receiving country.

It appears that Australias foreign student intake see Article, is more about this burgeoning immigration industry than it is about the higher education industry, at least for Chinese and Indian potential immigrants. I am not sure what percentage students are of our current net migration intake, but it is a very high proportion.

Tools not Rules!

2009-11-10T20:50:00.003+10:00

This was a motto pasted on our Computer Science tutors' computer back at uni. It is also the sentiment in some of the chapters of Superfreakonomics. It reminds me of the arguments of privatisation from the Economist. Of course I agree that our democratic instincts to demand that there ought to be a law (or to demand that the government own stuff) is generally too dismissive of solutions or widgets that fix the problem (or too dismissive of privatisation programs). This does not mean that I think there should be as few laws as possible/ nor do I think that everything should be privatised.

The issue is that for widgets or solutions to be thought of, tested, funded and implemented requires a societal structure which includes the strong rule of law. No "failed" state (ie state with no laws) has ever had anyone have a good idea that has managed to go through to implementation.

Freakonomics held back from proscribing any kind of philosophy. Superfreakonomics has gone a bit further, by proscribing the idea that "laws don't work", but "good technology" does. I would adjust this by saying " Laws have a place, but only with well researched social engineering :- good technology sells itself"

Happy 9/11 day

2009-11-09T11:30:00.003+10:00

Funny how bad turning points make us forget good ones. German Media almost exclusively used Schicksalstag 9/11 as their day of fate in 1989. I was amazed that googling "Schicksalstag" under google images got zero images of the wall falling down, but plenty of the twin towers falling down.

I read through many articles commemorating the twentieth anniversary, but very little mention of the 9/11 duality of the date nor a comparison of the two events as global turning points.

This day of joy and relief should be remembered and commemorated. After all, the date is so easy to remember!

Superfreakonomics vs Realclimate vs THE Economist

2009-11-04T16:34:00.002+10:00

My recent ideas on Climate Change have been challenged from two different directions. A Superfreakonomics chapter championing geo-engineering and Realclimates attack of it.

Geo-engineering as a "Fix" or even a quick-fix didn't particularly appeal to me in the past because it comes up against the same Geopolitical issues of responsibility and duty that reductions of carbon has.

However, I have had a great respect for freakonomics in teasing out facts and relationships that are counterintuitive, because they demonstrate something new, interesting and almost always useful knowledge.

What I really liked about the chapter was that Levitt & Dubner definitely showed the nuanced nature of their convictions, because they steered away from cliched views and had plenty of solid scientific foundation to their arguments.

Although western societies do not have a tradition of scientific weather-making, the RMP (of China) have that tradition. For instance in the Beijing games they used rockets to prevent storms from interrupting events. It is not much of a stretch to imagine that they will be the first to try some of these geo-engineering feats - perhaps under the guise of something else.

Levitt and Dubner, I believe use the axiom that modifying behaviour will not work. For this they are hammered.

I actually believe the near impenetrable issues with global agreements to reduce GHG's are equivalent to the near impenetrable issues of agreements to use (or agreements not to scupper unilateral efforts) to use geo-engineering.

In a big way changing behaviour is a type of Geo-engineering. Realclimate authors use the axiom that it is better to try to reverse back to a recent known state than to move quickly to a totally new regime that optimises, say average temperature.

I think the point is probably moot, as for both behavioural geo-engineering and the standard sort, way more "metering" of all relevant GHG's is a prerequisite for internalising the externality of warming, whether the overall rise in temperature or whatever is found to be insignificant or not. All engineering is reliant on absolutely rock-solid repeatable scientific foundation. "metering" as well as actual weather/climate numerically predictive science is a prerequisite for humans' incentive programs to help humanity. The science is decades away from that. Both Realclimate and superfreakonomics is in some way guessing and perhaps betting on what the future helpful programs will be.

As for which "side" I am taking in this case : I am siding somewhat with Superfreakonomics because at least it has something new to say and not as Cliched as the Realclimates riposte.

As far as the Economist is concerned, it seems to have sided with RealClimate.

High Dollar - Manifest Destiny

2009-10-26T11:57:00.002+10:00

Article about the falling US $, and our exceptional acceptance of such leads me to believe that the OZ may actually be a good candidate for a future reserve currency.

I think perhaps we could purchase bankrupt far north eastern states rather than expecting them to secede from the US, to make our country's size commensurate with its stability and superior political and financial systems.

Regarding Afghanistan

2009-10-13T11:48:00.002+10:00

...commenting on recent political developments regarding ... Afghanistan.

If the West can live with one nuclear Islamist state (Iran), surely it can live with two (a Talibanised Pakistan). Thus there is no need to keep spending blood and treasure in Afghanistan.

I think this is the forming establishment paradigm, we shall see how successful it turns out to be! The West will probably muddle through but various democratic fellow travellers starting with the letter 'I' which are closer to the action may have a less comfortable time of it.

What got me thinking about AfPak was the linear political argument regarding the risk differential between a continuing surge (without explicit timeframe bounds) and an Exit strategy timetable.

My considered view is that we have got to look more at how the blood and treasure is being spent, the effects at the grass roots, and ignore the strategic outcomes for the moment to concentrate on value to the civilian population.

I, for one, think that if the time in Afghanistan's history this current heavy international involvement is seen by the future civilian population as "the good times" that is still a worthy achievement regardless of strategic outcome.

Veterans of Iraq and other global nation building will do better at this than the rough and ready gung-ho soldier of old. My opinion is that we should err on the side of longer deployments of the best possible people and avoid sending in inexperienced platoons just to make up the numbers.

Another Thought

2009-10-07T13:06:00.002+10:00

Another thought that had been going through my head in all that time that I wasn't blogging was regarding a vision I had of the future. One was regarding EDR (event data recorders or Black Boxes) for cars. These are starting to become readily available, but really need to be mandated for all new cars to make a considerable improvement in safety and blame attribution in serious accidents. They also ought to be hard to turn off/remove to further improve effectiveness.

Then I had this thought that humans also ought to have black boxes installed.

Potential features:
1) recording vitals before death.
2) recording conversations before death
3) Alerting of body location and time of death (or forced removal of device)

I recommend that this device not be installed on the wrist.
I also recommend that the numerals 666 not be stamped anywhere externally.
And any company with a beast as part of its logo should not develop them.

Pricing Signals

2009-10-05T22:22:00.003+10:00

There are really not enough of these in the world. Consider these situations:

1) Person who is on a phone plan does not have a direct cost feedback even if the bill goes up to alarming 6 figure sums.

2) A farmer gets their bill for water, but doesn't know how much their neighbours could have gained by buying it, nor if he could have gained more money selling it than keeping it.

3) Consumers cannot gauge how much petrol is costing them for the car air-conditioner or to get to the petrol station with the cheaper petrol.

4) Polluting coal burning power stations don't know how much local residents would be willing to pay to shut it down or modernise it. Nor how long they would be willing to put up with blackouts to achieve that.

5) Consumers considering whether to hang up their worn clothes or put them in the wash + dryer + ironing. What is the cost/benefit analysis.

At what resolution do pricing signals benefit cost/benefit analysis the most. Would a computer that could make calculations about every single activity throughout your day and have an indicator go off regarding your most inefficient activity be useful?

Would it tell me that (buying and) drinking a can of orange softdrink is the most inefficient because a) it costs a fair amount per calorie
b) They are empty calories that could actually reduce your life expectancy.
c) Sugars will stick to and damage your teeth leading to much higher dental bills.
d) contains preservative 211 which is dodgy at the best of times.
e) contains no caffeine so is ineffective at improving concentration.
f) actually dehydrates you to some extent.
g) is energy intensive to create, can, store and refrigerate, compared to alternatives such as coffee or water.

Suffice to say that any improved pricing signals about anything we care about is a net benefit to resource allocation. Whether it is the environmental cost of the ghg's associated with activity or the amount of money an STD call costs, if there is an efficient market to generate a price which reflects all known information and demand, resources WILL be allocated better. Thus money spent on strategic pre-fire season burn-offs in the outback of Australia may be way, way more efficient than investing the same amount in solar panels or planting trees. Being that people will spend the money anyway, pricing signals cut the wastage for everyone's benefit.

The main danger is not that we will be less efficient ignoring/underutilising cheap fossil fuels, but that we will completely ignore cost/benefit analysis and spend the money in a way which makes us feel good, or which buys our vote without even being in line with the goal central to what the money is being spent on. Thus European countries may use the money on pointless subsidies, Americans may give tax breaks on hand-picked industries. Thus, without even giving themselves a chance at meeting self-imposed targets, they are busy regulating in a way which will reduce their growth prospects.

Various Thoughts

2009-10-05T21:44:00.003+10:00

Have had a few different ideas on what to blog on, but no time to knuckle down and actually do it.

* - Putting forth an argument as to why a solid reductions in ghg's via cap and trade will be a boon for those countries exempt due to being underdeveloped.

* - Demonstrating why water allocation trading has great benefits even if it doesn't lead to lower usage - and how this may apply to ghg allocation trading.

* - Expanding on my marconomic stubs to justify panspermia and pre-adaptive evolution.

* - commenting on recent political developments regarding the environment, or Afghanistan.

* - Defining multiple levels of price signals that can make us allocate resources ever more efficiently.

My latest Environmental turn-around

2009-08-24T16:08:00.004+10:00

My current global warming/climate change opinion can be summed up as the opposite of what I had summed up previously as my opinion, although in truth there is no facts previously accepted that I no longer hold true nor visa versa.

To sum up: Previously I believed this: Anthropogenic Global Warming is a fact but we shouldn't do anything about it.

Now - I believe that Global Warming is a scientific assertion with little predictive value. However, it has high *proscriptive* value ie. there is value of various kinds in acting against Green House Gases.

The issue to me is that the value of science to predict is that you can adjust what you do to optimise for that prediction. If you know a cyclone is heading your way, you can batten down the hatches - the three to ten day forecasts of cyclones is very valuable. The prediction that my house might be threatened by a storm surge in ten years time is valueless both in a future discounting sense, and in a probability sense.

The idea that there is proscriptive "value" in what climate scientists say comes from the fact that there is benefit in being able to say, "all other things being equal, it is unequivocally better to reduce ghg's!"
This is the same proscriptive value as economists saying "We should reduce trade barriers" among the many correctly proscriptive things experts say in their fields without being able to valuably predict the future (eg. what stocks will go up.)
We do not know how many generations it will take to see the benefits of doing so. It is entirely possible that the next several generations will suffer more by attempting, or even succeeding in a large way to reduce ghg's. It is not a thing that can be predicted. Nor can things that actually make a significant difference - costs associated with actual extreme wheather events. We will be lucky to even have right the most basic easiest question of the next 40 years - will global average temperatures go up steadily, go down steadily, go up and down like a yo-yo or what? Most bets are that it will go up but with several peaks and troughs on the way to confuse things and correctly make a mockery of experts' authority on the matter.

Cursed Pigs

2009-08-16T22:46:00.002+10:00

Early this year I met my daughter's Maths teacher at the normal grade 11 parent-teacher meeting (with my daughter). I remember the meeting fondly, as we chatted about family, comparing number of children and ages. Making it easier was the fact that all teachers at this school are referred to by their first names, which makes the meetings more personable. Then we went on and actually talked about Maths, which for me is friendly small-talk conversation much less awkward than family matters. What I remember the most was the colour of her eyes. They were so bright, and must have been green or hazel, but to me they looked bright yellow. Here was someone so full of life and energy and was enthusiastically going through a maths equation. This was many months ago, but last Monday, I got a call from my wife and through my daughter relayed the message that the teacher, 34yo, was in an induced coma due to complications of the AH1N1 flu virus and was in grave danger. Friday came the dreaded confirmation that she had passed away, and suddenly, with a rare death from the disease with absolutely no underlying initial risk factors; the pandemic has finally hit home to me. My daughter said it best as there is no point being angry at any one thing or person - that might be unfair - she is angry at the pigs who first harboured it and passed it on to humans.
Even though there is incredible differences with how different individuals react to the disease, eternal vigilance and accurate updated knowledge of everything about the virus is important to even the most healthy of us.

Marco's Razor & Marcomony

2009-07-10T07:18:00.008+10:00

Occam's Razor states that "entities should not be multiplied uneccessarily".When competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selection of the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities while still sufficiently answering the question.

In science, parsimony is preference for the least complex explanation for an observation. This is generally regarded as good when judging hypotheses.

Marco's razor states that in cases of imperfect and only circumstantial evidence, entities should be added/multiplied to obtain hypotheses that explain the most unusual aspects of the limited circumstantial evidence available.

Marcomony is a preference for explanations which explain the most about the variability of observations, even if the observations fit within a simpler explanation.

These rules of thumb are ideal for game theory in the analysis of geopolitics. These are the reasons:
1) There really are more entities in these situations. By introducing "representative" entities one at a time to the simplest models, more of the circumstancial evidence can make a best fit.

2)With some entities actively keeping secrets and there being interdependencies more of the information is partial/uncertain.

For game theory in the analysis of geopolitics eg. the Israel-Palestine conflict is simplified to a two entity game in game theory and most arm-chair strategy discussions. A simple addition of a third entity keeps the overall strategy simple enough for the layperson to examine and analyse while explaining better the unusual aspects of the conflict (in this case, the multi-generational longevity of the conflict, the lack of success from mediators)

In evolutionary science occam's razor seems to have been liberally used to simplify explanation of evolution. These have evolved to a raft of "rules", such as the Weismann Barrier, Central Dogma of evolution etc. which are taken as gospel within scientific papers. Challenges to these "rules" are taken as challenges to the overall theory of evolution, which they need not be.

The main motivation with these improved rules of thumb is to:
a) Avoid cliched science such that researchers do not truthify the oversimplifications that are the norm in the reporting of science.
b) Avoid the human instinct to extend the presumption of innocence/truth-telling to dicussions irrelevant to the enforcement or judgement of law.

Another example is the choice between exogenesis and geogenesis theories. All we have as evidence that pertains to this is circumstancial and imperfect. The usual rules of thumb dictate that geogenesis is the least complex explanation. There is no real "data" to fit into a model, but exogenesis explains more of the unusual aspects of the properties of dna based life.

Light of Other Days read

2009-07-06T16:56:00.005+10:00

Rather than review this book formally, now that I've read it, I'll just ramble on various thoughts I have until they become coherent to me.

Arthur Clarke and co-author, more than a novel, seem to have sketched a kind of Utopian vision - where technology and circumstance conspire to result in a radically altered World, free of crime, violence and treachery in the face of impending doom. The basic precept can be summed up by the clamly phrase thus "Good information = Increased crime... Perfect information = No crime".

Although I have reservations about the simplicity of this concept, evidence about the effects of good information on crime and war are encouraging. The rise of the internet and video phones everywhere has considerable curtailed certain types of crime/war. New crimes that rely on this new technology have risen as well, but arguably, these new crimes have less scope to be as organised to be destructive to society as the old ones were.

My two objections existing from before I read the novel remain even given the assumptions of possibility within the book:
1) Perfect information is impossible. At the margin the limit of the speed of light will mean that one person will be able to know and react to something before another, and "first-mover advantage" will always be relevant and a source of moral hazard. Even the amazing technology of perfect vision of past and current events evident in the novel doesn't meet, say, the perfection of knowledge attributable to a higher being. The utopian vision, however, makes this point moot, as the available information becomes as good as it needs to be.
2) Both commerce and organised crime rely on an imbalance of information to some extent. If a customer knows as much as a supplier of a product, suppliers will not be able to make a reliable profit. At the margins, this could be considered criminal exploitation, but practically all profitable commerce relies heavily on trade secrets if not outright intellectual property. Not to mention the issue of electronic commerce if secure keys cannot be kept secure enough for people to trust it as a store of value.

Iran democratic pincer movement results

2009-06-24T14:10:00.001+10:00

I had described the US's strategy of entrenching democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq as a strategy to squeeze the political system in Iran to breaking point. This appears to be happening. Together with the demographics of Iran (very high proportion of restless youth), this makes for a country ripe for revolution. I can see that the revolution will be repressed, at least for this electoral cycle, but the next few years will be characterised by:
a) Continually deteriorating economy.
b) Continually defiant hardline leadership.
c) Gradually increasing exodus of population to neighbouring democracies.

These sorts of things will continue to make the current theocracy decreasingly tenable, in the medium term.

Possible long term results are a failed/failing state, or a transfer to a fully fledged democracy or dictatorship/permanent state of emergency.

Light of other days 2

2009-06-14T16:49:00.005+10:00

Just a few quick notes as I pass the half way stage of the book....

- Clarke is still a genius both as a visionary and a writer. Predictions such as a financial meltdown in London at the end of this decade, and the prediction that the model of journalism would be almost completely compromised by citizen journalism over the internet - have come true pretty well as described in the novel written in 2000.

- There is a lot of liberal use of what I would call "cliched predictions" regarding catastrophic results of global warming for instance and wars labelled as "resource wars". I am giving Clarke the benefit of the doubt with these as pretty much any and all conceivable future weather disasters, and wars will be tenably describable as results of global warming and resource disputes respectively. Being that a complete lack of wars and weather disasters is extremely unlikely, the cliches are likely to stick anyway regardless of other probable causes.

- I keep comparing the scale and timing of technology predictions in this novel to those of the Colour Mars series of Kim Stanley Robinson. Interestingly, Mars becomes Terra-formed in the colour-mars series in a timescale in which put to the "light of other days"(LOOD) would allow humanity to have large scale migration in time to escape Armageddon of the Wormwood - something which is ruled out as a possibility in LOOD's. I have to read and see if this changes by the end of the book.

- On the one hand I fear that the wormhole technology as described with seeming easy extensibility in distance, time, minitiuarization, resolution, cost effectiveness, verifiability and unfakeability is unrealistic as all good technologies have limitations or meet up with diminishing returns in some of these directions due to one or another inconvenient law of physics/economics.

- On the other hand my basic beliefs about information and its relation to crime game theory leads me to believe that even at the most complete imaginable level of information accessibility (as is approaching in this book) by anyone, there will be moral hazard ie. potential for damaging/serious crime.

- I cannot adequately demonstrate this.

Funding of Universities

2009-06-05T17:05:00.000+10:00

Chris Fellows writes in the Australian:

I KEEP reading reports ("UNE legal bill rises to $1.3 million", HES online, May 29) that the University of New England receives a larger proportion of its income from the federal Government than any other Australian university as if this were a bad thing.

A public university should be accountable to the public and align its activities with the public interest. This is most likely to happen if it is funded by the citizens of Australia through our federal Government because he who pays the piper calls the tune. Every week I read in the HES stories about universities in trouble because their investments have tanked, or overseas student numbers have dropped, or a sweet deal with industry has led to a conflict of interest.

It would not be in the national interest if the federal Government provided 50 per cent of the navy's funding and forced it to obtain the rest by offering cruises and hiring ships out to foreign countries. Equally, it is not in Australia's interest to make public tertiary education - a critical part of our national infrastructure - dependent on narrow sectors of the community, or overseas customers, whose goals may not align with those of the nation.

Marconomically speaking, of course, I disagree with the specifics of the assertion, that universities are better for the country if they are run by the public purse, while at the same time agreeing with the gist that "Infrastructure" should be publicly funded.

The question is, which aspects of a university are "infrastructure" (Long term investments which benefits a lot of people, with no easy way to charge the people that benefit), and which aspects are products and service that people need and/or desire at an individual level, are willing to pay for, and private enterprises can make money from it by providing it the best way?

The infrastructure aspect of a University (Buildings, utilities, roads, long term equipment, general research projects etc.) ought to be funded publicly, and the Product/service aspects( gaining qualifications suitable for employment, industry specific research and development etc.) ought to be funded privately.

The private enterprises ought to be charged a rental and or tax for the infrastructure aspects which they use to sell the products or services which they charge for.

This issue screams that Universities should split off private arms, and look at divesting the aspects that are better handled by private enterprise.

Light of Other Days

2009-05-27T09:07:00.000+10:00

Have started to read this book by Arthur C Clarke and some other guy. Like with "The God Delusion", I had some preconceived ideas regarding its main gist, as outlined by reviews on Wikipedia etc.

For instance this assertion: "Crime would cease to exist with the availability of "worm-cams", because no-one could avoid being watched"
is one which I would like to poke holes through.

But I must admit, Clarke, unlike Dawkins, is a visionary even in my strictest Marconomic sense, and his assertions are unfalsifiable in the way they are laid out as part of a science fiction novel anyway; so as much as I am preparing arguments that demonstrate the holes in his, I am being swayed in equal measure by other aspects of the novel.

Sydney Thoughts

2009-04-11T19:15:00.002+10:00

Here I am in Sydney, glad that I don't live here. Townsville Brass is doing quite well here at the Nationals and you can see the results after sunday afternoon.

I was going to pick the post that I have mulled over the most that had not got any comments and my New year stuff was the most recent. I will have to look further afield for more.

08/08/08 still marks for me the end of the good times in the same way the stockmarket crash of October 1929 marked the end of the roaring twenties, and the start of the slide into deep recession/deflation/increasing instability.

Democracy - a counterexample

2009-03-23T16:39:00.003+10:00

Back a few entries where I was discussing democracy, the general assumption is that many people who are able to independently check policy before voting on it will more likely get the right decision than a particular individual or expert could.

The corollary is that the more democracy and the more direct the democracy, the better general decisions will be made.

A counter-example to this corollary is immigration and trade policy. Democracies have a notorious habit of restricting immigration and trade when the economy deteriorates. Even though the concept is that as citizens, we have the right to make bad choices, and pay for them, democracies continue to make the wrong call due to the primacy of perception over facts in the political game. The causal relationship between restricting trade/immigration and a worsening economy is ignored over a very strong human instict to blame externalities over any systemic internal cause.

Thus people continue to promote fallacies such as "reducing immigration helps our unemployment rate" and "restricting imports helps our unemployment rate".

Maybe I am wrong. Maybe democratic countries will leave tariffs and immigration quotas untouched, while autocratic countries will clamp down on trade/immigration during the current downturn. I would be surprised.

A democratised stimulus

2009-03-20T15:39:00.002+10:00

The latest payments as part of the stimulus, which as far as I can tell are indiscriminate cash quantities for just about everyone registered with the Govern-mint, have an appeal to me even as it mindbogglingly blows my mind thinking about future taxes required to pay it back eventually.

Essentially, instead of bailing out whatever, or dictating prices for bread, etc. it empowers the individuals acting independently. If they deposit it in the bank, it strengthens that bank's capital in a way that bailouts couldn't. We will have more that we can decide to donate for disaster relief, improve our individual bottom line such that fear of destitution is allayed, without it being enough to feel that we are rich and can be reckless. Of course fools and their moneys are soon parted, which means the money should eventually concentrate in the hands of the less foolish. Eventually it should filter through to profits or income to someone who will then pay tax.

It neither attempts to save those that have lost everything in the crunch, nor does it punish those that profited from payouts from entities requiring bail-outs. WE decide who is deserving of our measured piece of this stimulus.

As a counter-cyclical plan from a government that has been very conservative through a boom, it is almost masterful. To get the impression that this sort of thing can be done at any other time for any other reason, is foolishness.

Global warming - just polite conversation while we are waiting for real news

2009-03-18T11:36:00.002+10:00

From: business spectator article

Perhaps it’s all just different ways of politicians who are under pressure from rising unemployment trying to appear to be doing something about global warming, while not doing anything at all.Europe’s method is to have a cap and trade scheme that doesn’t work. Australia’s method is to propose one that does not happen.

Back in 2007, I said:
When there are no "World" wars to talk about, no "great depressions" happening, the conversation will almost always turn to the weather :).

Maybe this slide into deep recession worldwide is just a symptom that the world has nothing interesting left to discuss other than the weather.

Perhaps I was a bit harsh on Miranda Devine

2009-03-02T22:59:00.006+10:00

Back in 2006 I derided her for trivialising the effects of Cyclone Larry.

But now after a pointed attack on greenies, I am starting to come round to her style.

Individual action and carbon emmissions

2009-02-26T16:33:00.003+10:00

From getup

Dear friend,

We thought long and hard about sending you this email, because we like to promote the idea that our individual actions make a difference. But we have to be honest about the Government's current climate policy.

Under their current proposal, action you take at home to reduce energy - like changing to efficient light bulbs and appliances or installing solar hot water - will not reduce Australia's total greenhouse emissions further than the Government's weak target of 5-15%. It will even make it cheaper for industry to increase their own emissions.

I may have got into this in detail in my other posts, but I think I am hearing the penny drop for climate activists. I reiterate what I said in other posts, that individual actions, even without the Rudd proposal mentioned above, do not proportionally reduce overall emmissions, because of the rebound effect and that individual actions tend to absolve guilt without being optimised for a nation-wide reduction of any amount.

However, like with water allocations, reducing carbon emmissions further comes down to a simple buying of emmission allocations, and then not using them. It actually sounds simpler than worrying about whether your net emmissions are going up because you use the money you saved on electricity to buy toys for your kids (WHICH ONE IS MORE CARBON INTENSIVE???) I think that in a decade, if the Murray floods again, and the Government has bought all these water allocations, it could make a mint selling them again.

Collective Political Decisions

2009-02-15T08:55:00.003+10:00

I am still trying to make a reply to Anonymous's comment

A much more robust and satsifying system than American or Australian 'democracy' with a proven ability to function in a multicultural environment. referring to the very democratic Swiss model.

There is some things we can learn by How animals make collective decisions, and the point I was trying to make was that I judge collective systems by how regularly they come up with the "right" decision over how regularly they reflect majority opinion.

The recent Australian stimulus package wrangle was a case in point. With the Swiss model they would be wrangling longer, and come up with a worse "populist" decision in the end anyway. The Australian senate is unequalled in both investigating policy and in coming up with appropriate amendments quickly.

It is not enough to grow trees one must also sequester!

2009-02-13T22:10:00.003+10:00

The trouble with letting wilderness grow untouched by humankind is that sooner or later, it is going to burn (Not if you are in a rainforest). What is the point of growing trees to capture carbon, wilderness areas to encourage wildlife when it's going to eventually burn, sending uncontrolled black carbon and carbon dioxide into the air and killing vast swathes of native wildlife. Why not graze away the underbush with suitable farm animals, sequester large swathes of trees (eg. turn it into furniture, etc.) to make fire breaks, and contract Australia's army to make choices on various risk-reduction controls to take it out of the hands of NIMBY-minded councils and state governments.

Nick Xenophon is RIGHT

2009-02-13T07:16:00.003+10:00

What better time is there than RIGHT NOW to buy off (by buying their water allocations) farmers in the Murray-Darling. The most likely thing that they will do with their windfall is to move to somewhere more sensible, like the Burdekin, Atherton Tablelands or N.T. farming areas, bringing their farming experience, and getting cheaper water allocations, and lower fire risks.

Two's and Nines

2009-02-09T19:09:00.007+10:00

Pretty ordinary day, other than delivering your own child in the delivery-ward shower before breakfast.

Some Photos:
Dry and warm at last

Name: Abigail Talia
Date: 09/02/2009
Time: 08:15 am
Weight: 3540g
Hair: Dark

Video:

Pro ? part two

2009-01-26T18:46:00.005+10:00

My first elaborate post on the future of abortion predictably only garnered comments from Dr. Clam, but that is ok. I know there are a couple of other interested readers (eg Lexifab???), but I really wanted to knuckle down on breaking down the discrepancies between our future visions (which we believe to be realistic within our lifetimes). These seem to be:
1) The plausibility of the commoditisation of surrogacy/adoption/fostering such that it impacts on the demand for abortions.

2) The plausibility of artificial wombs as a way to replace abortions with transfers of the fetus to be incubated, then brought up by interested NGO's or government organisations.

Obviously from my posts and comments I believe 1) to be plausible and 2) not to be plausible, and I guess these were implied axioms in my argument that contradict Dr. Clams'. These points deserve more attention a they are fairly definitive points of difference.

As for the first one, there is a tension between very strong instincts to favour bringing up ones own genetic offspring rather than an adopted child. For example, the amount parents are willing to pay for an IVF surrogacy of their own DNA ($100,000) over the cost of an overseas adoption ($20,000) demonstrates both that there is already a nascent (or limited) market for babies, and that there is a distinct tension between what buyers expect, and what sellers can readily deliver. I believe that gradual increased scope of these markets, combined with reduced natural fertility from couples that desire a baby will erode that tension. ie. as it gets harder and harder to fall pregnant (compared to the whims of the individual), naturally and then via IVF etc., domestic paid-for adoption will become more attractive. As the demand for babies goes up, so will the price, changing the economic calculus of those who would otherwise have an abortion. There is obviously more to it than just that, but the cost of BRINGING UP a baby is usually the primary concern more than the cost of bringing the baby to term. The choice at the moment is mainly economic. If the choice is between abort and adopt, abort brings the better individual outcome (for the parent). If it was between abort and sell, it would depend on the price, and the imagined future for the child.

To point 2: I strongly believe that breakthrough artificial womb technologies will be irrelevant to replacing abortion. My objections are two fold -
a) I don't believe it to be technically feasible.
and
b)It presumes a certain societal dynamic which contradicts the societal dynamic that I perceive.

To start with, I don't believe that just because neonatal units can keep babies alive if born at 24 weeks, that an "unwanted" pregnancy that reaches that point ought to be terminated by caesarian section and the baby fostered out. Increased survival rates for premature babies does not translate to earlier separation of mother and child being a good idea under any imaginable circumstance.

The societal dynamic of abortion that is ignored is that for an aborting mother the concept is of a reversal of the pregnancy. The early removal of the live fetus is not the same thing, and if it was the mothers decision, the perceived effectiveness of the receiving entity to deal with children would be the deciding factor. In a society where pregnancies were automatically registered at conception, sexual norms would radically alter depending on various laws, changing the whole spectrum of who's pregnancies would become unwanted in ways dependent on a number of independent variables. In itself the extra option of early live removal of a fetus will not be perceived as a replacement for abortion by women with undesired pregnancies any more than adoption is now.

Geopolitical game theory rules

2009-01-09T15:20:00.002+10:00

I have often mentioned game theory, rules, and the UN in the same sentence. Do not mistake this for a belief that the UN is of any relevance at all as a lawmaker in itself. Not only that, Australia would be my first choice as a world government, followed by the USA. The UN as a "government" is a toothless paper tiger and not capable of governing.

The set of treaties that have been signed by countries *does* determine the structure of the game and the moves each country can reasonably make. Thus, no matter what in theory the UN "decides", for instance on Iraq - the US being a security council veto member could not be stopped by the UN itself, but only by the domestic voting public that cared about what the UN decided.

Similarly with Russia in Georgia, China in Tibet, and in some way - Israel in Lebanon and now Gaza. The UN is important only in the sense of the importance of the individual treaties to the actions of various countries.

Thus several theoretically sensible annexations or merging of countries are very very unlikely due to the dynamics associated with how those treaties associated with the UN manifest themselves in Geopolitics.

Thus to consider entertaining possibilities like Australia annexing Pacific states etc., a new post-UN world order would have to be assumed first.

New Year Stuff

2009-01-01T19:55:00.003+10:00

At this time of year, I tend to look back and try to think what historical turning points have happened. The one that comes to mind is dated 08/08/08 - the Georgian conflict. To me it marks the end of the relatively short historical period which I would characterise as "Unipolar", with the US as the only global police with teeth and some level of morality. It is back to a relative free-for-all in warfare, and in trade.

As far as domestic politics goes, I am not too impressed with the changes to the baby bonus system, even though personally I still get the same amount of money albeit at a considerably later date. My preference was for family payments to start *When a pregnancy is registered* both for the practical reason that you need to buy stuff for the baby before it is born, and that it moves more towards vision X by considering the unborn baby as a person, at the time that the mother considers it to be at the least. This is one of the most win-win of the steps towards vision X, and a new years resolution is to put it to the public somehow in 2009.

News of the Day

2008-12-29T07:51:00.002+10:00

Blah blah Israel-Palestine conflict.... Blah blah India-Pakistan tensions....

Brett Lee out for summer!? NNNooooooooo.......

Beware the technology/science/intelligence wish myth

2008-12-23T22:19:00.003+10:00

Often in arguments about the future resolutions of apparently intractable problems, vague references to science or human intelligence to solve problems, or specific technological fixes are invoked that would neatly resolve said intractable problem.

Too many times the fix is chosen in a way that most closes the argument rather than being the most likely path that technology (or other aspects of humanity) will take in the resolving the problem or the opposite. Technology, science and intelligence are just as capable of enabling "problems" to be extended in time. What can be imagined to be solved by an improbable specific technology, could more likely be attacked by a sequence of more probable ones.

So when someone says that a space vehicle engine will be found that can take us directly from earth to Mars, or that peoples intelligence will be put to eradicating wars forever, or that we could live cheaply as brains in tanks, I would like a believable sequence of events or pathway that has a finite possibility.

Energy Positive Feedback

2008-12-19T20:55:00.005+10:00

One of the "fundamentals" of oil prices (and other commodities) is the thought that the cost of extraction ought to be fixed or stable for a given geography, related to how difficult or involved the process. Changes in cost due to demand and supply is explained away to profit margin over fixed costs, costs of exploration and costs of increasing capacity etc.

The truth is, with such increasing automation of providing supplies, one of the larger marginal cost of energy supply is the cost of the energy used to provide that supply. Thus as the expectation of costs incease, prices will increase in a magnified way, as the feedback of energy costs increasing will increase the associated cost of extraction. There will be correlation between increases in one energy commodity and a range of other energy commodities and commodities that require a lot of energy to produce( eg. Aluminium, Iron), or that can produce alternative fuels (eg. silicon for solar panels, or sugar for ethanol etc.).

Similarly if expectations of prices start to decrease, and there was a considerable margin to start with, there can be a positive feedback which reduces the price and also the baseline cost of extraction as well through the correlated energy rich commodities. This snowballing downward will still leave some producers with profit margin, even if there would have been a considerable loss at those prices with input costs the way they were.

12 week slide

2008-12-17T06:54:00.002+10:00

in Townsville petrol prices

Long slide in oil prices.

Marco's Blog

Comets, astrobiology, the origin of life

Comet Origins II

Comet origins

Marconomic evolution 102 - identify some razors and make them disposable.

Marconomics on Life origins and evolution 101 - Reject Ockham's Razor

First of the Believers of intelligent beings in comets

Chapter 5 Lennox Dissection

Dissecting God's Undertaker, by Lennox via FB

2011 - bad year for being a dictator

Murray Darling bets

What are you looking here for?

Europe's Problems Summed Up:

The Day of the opposites

What is it with pears?

Solar power: My views are in line with Sobek, the crocodile God

I'm Changing my Qld Government vote to LNP because the Industrial Relations minister is a Dick

Getting a return on NBN battery backup = Marconomic solar PV plan

Still water flowing down the Murray Darling and out the mouth

Yuan for the money?

Enough with the sneaker net already!

Nice Hung Parliament

Tennis dates

Stuff I may not have published about my experience of 11/9/01

For *off-grid* PV solar, we have reached and exceeded fridge parity!

All subsisidies reek of the sulfurous stench of Hades

Anthropogenic Global Warming

They should have built fibre to the premises

US - Politics and Game theory. It doesn't get any simpler than this.

Wow. "Unpopular" tax reform with a hung parliament

Arguments against my arguments against feed-in tarriffs

Amartya Sen and all that

Feed-In Tarriffs are the opposite of the answer

Grid based access vs grid independent systems

Dick Smith living up to his name

Quote of the week

No Flea Zone

Oh Yes - about the Arab thing

NBN vs alternatives, again

4G and new technologies a serious threat to fibre broadband

Ok. I admit it . the Economist is privatisation biased

Post Yasi De-brief

(EX) Tropical cyclone Anthony

Lessons from flooding

Two non-rhetorical questions

What we need is more "lakes" in the not so wild west

Disaster for International Diplomacy?

country qld

Cyberwarfare Begins

Julian Assange - Hero or villain?

Murray River - Not enough water.... or is that too much?

Three books I read in 1978

I do Believe in a Big Australia

FTTH Broadband was the key after all!

The Election and the NBN

Top ten reasons why I (we) are having six children.

Let me introduce myself

Why my chidren have ended up at a private school

Actually, six is a perfect number

Miners aren't as important as they think they are

Plutoed

Must BLOG

After an epic trip... lack of focus

More than a month without posting - yikes

Send us your young..... rich.... intelligent....

Out-back-yard Water Fight

My friends need to speak up about what they think I am doing wrong in my life!

Supporting one type of people smuggler whilst frowning on another

Tools not Rules!

Happy 9/11 day

Superfreakonomics vs Realclimate vs THE Economist

High Dollar - Manifest Destiny

Regarding Afghanistan

Another Thought

Pricing Signals

Various Thoughts

My latest Environmental turn-around

Cursed Pigs

Marco's Razor & Marcomony

Light of Other Days read

For off-grid PV solar, we have reached and exceeded fridge parity!