Pests in the natural world

The southern part of New Zealand is a unique blend of natural forest and farmland. Farmers have, over the decades, transformed large parts of the land into vast grassy sheep farms. But much natural forest remains and I was told that it is at risk due to the action of exotic pests such as possums and deer.

A farmer I dialogued with explained that the deer population is growing and this is a problem because they destroy native forests. He, therefore, goes on hunting trips with friends. They shoot deer. It seems that maintaining the natural forest necessitates the killing of deer. For clarity, I asked my friend if this applies to any non-native animal that threatens the natural forest. He said yes. Indeed, they shoot many different types of animal. The argument runs as follows:

P1. (premise) Because the natural forest must be maintained, any non-native animal that threatens the forest must be killed.

P2. (premise) Deer is a non-native animal that threatens the forest.

C. (conclusion) Deer must be killed.

We can insert any pest into this argument. Premise one is of most interest to me. I confirmed with my friend again that this applies to any non-native animal, and he again made this confirmation. By Zeus, I said, are people not non-native animals? And do people not destroy natural forests to make farmland? We don't condone shooting people, so it seems that the argument does not apply to at least one non-native animal. Conveniently for us, that non-native exception is people.

My friend laughed as if I was most foolish and explained that of course people don't count. We have to destroy forest to make farms because we need to survive. I reminded him that the deer have to destroy forest because they also need to survive. I very much want to know why people are granted an exception.

My question has not yet been answered. I suppose we have given ourselves the god-like right to decide which animals live and die, and which animals are allowed to destroy the natural forests and which ones are not. It is good to be human.

-- Socrates

Happiness - The Lost Gypsy

During a recent tour of the magnificent southern island of New Zealand, I came across a small village named Papatowai. In the heart of the village sits a caravan named "The Lost Gypsy". It is run by a fine fellow by the name Blair, who seems to me to have found the key to happiness.

I have often argued that happiness is not to be found in material wealth and I have claimed that my own happiness is due, in part, to not desiring material possessions. One needs food, shelter, and friends, but beyond this, additional accumulation is unnecessary.

The Lost Gypsy lives a peaceful life. He tinkers with recycled material, turning them into curious works of art. As far as I can see, he has little need for material wealth and is content to make art and converse with passers by. It is a life of little stress.

People may argue that this is not a happy life because he has no money for the things we desire in these modern times, such as large televisions, sophisticated computers, big cars, and fashionable clothing. However, I think the desire for these luxuries steer us away from happiness. I shall present my meditation on this subject in syllogistic form:

P1. (premise) I believe that I need luxuries to attain happiness

P2. (premise) Because I believe I need luxuries to attain happiness, I am driven to obtain luxuries

P3. (premise) Because I am driven to obtain luxuries, I am upset when I don't obtain luxuries

P4. (premise) Because I am driven to obtain luxuries, I am anxious to obtain luxuries

P5. (premise) A luxury is only a luxury until a greater luxury is available

P6. (premise) Because I am driven to obtain luxuries and because luxuries are only luxuries until a greater luxury is available, I am constantly pushed forward to acquire greater luxuries

P7. (premise) Because I am constantly pushed forward to acquire greater luxuries, I experience anxiety and disappointment with what I have

P8. (premise) If I am anxious to obtain luxuries, or if I am upset about not obtaining luxuries, or if I am disappointed with what I have, then I am not happy

C1. (conclusion) I am not happy

C2. (conclusion) My belief that I need luxuries to attain happiness is false 

This argument does not tell us what we need to be happy. But if it is sound, it shows us that the pursuit of luxury gets in the way of happiness. As far as I can tell, The Lost Gypsy has shed the common belief that one needs luxuries to attain happiness, and thus he has removed an impediment to happiness which has allowed him to focus on other things. These have resulted in his happiness.

Still, as a closing thought, I wonder if the constant desire to find recycled material to create new art works may get in the way of true happiness for the gypsy.

-- Socrates

National Standards testing in New Zealand schools

I have happily made the wise nation of New Zealand my temporary home. The government has recently changed and, as expected, the new government is making changes to the education system. It seems that the way in which young people learn is determined by the ideology of the current government. In my foolishness I thought the way in which young people learn would remain the same regardless of the ideology of government.

Still, I was happy to read that the new government is removing National Standards testing. For the last few years young people have been subjected to frequent tests to determine how they perform against "standards" in numeracy and literacy. I do not know who set the standards and how they were set. Why was I happy to see this come to an end? Because it seems to me that attempting to fit students to pre-determined standards assumes that they are products to be constructed, which I do not believe to be the case. I have also heard that this focus has reduced time dedicated to learning in other areas of human endeavor such as the arts, humanities, science, and rational thinking.

There are, of course, people who disagree with me. I found the following comment in a social media page. It is public, so I believe it is reasonable to reproduce it -- though I will omit the author's name.

"Actually kids deserve standards instead of wittering on about cultural issues that mean nothing to those who try and pay lip service to. Why not ensure standards of basic literacy and numeracy are taught is an interesting way? Kids are lost in a swamp of method and cannot bloody spell. Phonic is a dirty word and science is boring at the primary levels. It is time to stop wasting 2 years at immediate and teach a curriculum worthy of a new generation."

I decided to respond to this person by summarizing his argument in premise / conclusion form.

P1. (premise) Kids either deserve standardized testing in literacy and numeracy OR learning about cultural issues (implication that it is one or the other).

P2. (premise) Kids are being taught too much method and cannot spell;

P3. (premise) Phonics are not used, and science is boring in primary school

C1. (conclusion) Therefore, (from P2 and P3) we should teach intermediate level students a curriculum worthy of a new generation

P4. (premise) A curriculum worthy of a new generation involves teaching literacy and numeracy in interesting ways

C2. (conclusion) Therefore, we should keep national standard testing in literacy and numeracy

I believe this accurately captures the argument. When presented in this form, we can examine the logic. So, my friends, what do we see here? No doubt you have seen that this argument is invalid. Conclusion (C1) does not follow from the premises. Additional work would be needed to deduce this conclusion. The author needs to include a premise to indicate that the current style of teaching spelling and science is failing because it is not suitable for this generation. That premise would need further support, of course.

Conclusion (C2) also does not follow deductively from the line of reasoning. The mistake is in the move the author makes from teaching to testing. We may agree that creatively teaching a range of subjects is important, but it does not follow that we should keep National Standard testing in literacy and numeracy. I think this small argument represents a common mistake in reasoning about National Standards. The mistake is the conflation of teaching with testing.

Wise readers and will also see that premise #1 does not connect to the rest of the argument; unless, of course, the author was assuming the truth of a suppressed premise such as: learning about cultural issues is not worthy of a new generation. This may be seen as a value judgement or a testable claim about the world. Either way, it is currently unsupported and therefore leaves the argument unconvincing.

In an attempt to progress my examination, I outlined the above in a reply to the person who made the comment. He has not yet responded.

-- Socrates

Socrates on the Facebook

I have been enjoying dialogues with some worthy people. It reminds me of the Agora. You can join us if you so wish: Socrates on Facebook

The written word

I was never fond of the written word. Why? Because written thoughts are unable to be properly interrogated. Given my belief that the path to knowledge is through dialogue, the written word seems to me to represent something of a semblance of knowledge, but not knowledge itself.

I am also suspicious of people who pretend to have wisdom when they have read written thoughts. People are good at repeating what they have read. People may even give the appearance of great wisdom and knowledge where none exists.

Now, I may be accused of a hypocrisy in recording my thoughts in writing. But, dear reader, I think the manner in which I use the written word is different. With access to the author through this Internet, one can interrogate thoughts and ideas. Dialogue is possible. And this is what I have been enjoying today. I have been learning through dialogue.

Wisdom still eludes me, but I continue to seek it nonetheless.

-- Socrates

Is it better never to have been?

My friends, you may have read my recent meditation on David Benatar's book, Better Never To Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence. If you have not, please do so here. My meditation includes a link to an article by the wise Elizabeth Harman in which she refutes Benatar.

It is raining this evening and I again find myself meditating on Benatar's book. He argues that because of the harm people experience in life, it is better to not bring people into existence. I have been thinking about the joys and pleasure that people experience in life and I wonder if these outweigh the harms. If so, Benatar's main premise will be refuted.

Benatar addresses this thought himself. He thinks that the harms we experience are constant throughout life. We live a life of pain. However, he thinks that we downplay the pain and suffering we experience throughout our lives. He thinks our minds have been evolved such that we focus on the good and forget the bad. Effectively the joy of life is something of an illusion--or a lie. And why does this lie exist? To drive us to reproduce. It is connected to this theory of evolution that you moderns have developed.

It seems that Benatar is trying to tell us something like: despite what you think, life is painful. You think you're happy, but that feeling is a biological trick. You really live miserable lives and so will everyone you bring into existence. Because this is bad, you should not bring anyone into existence.

But I wonder if there is another way to look at this. If people feel happy and joyful, doesn't that show that somehow they manage to overcome pain, either through evolved behavior or careful thought and reflection. And if overcoming pain, no matter how, results in a happy life, is that not good? And is that not something that should be experienced? Perhaps people should be brought into existence so that they too can learn how to become happy.

-- Socrates

Is it just to kill animals for meat? (a short Socratic Dialogue)

I am most fortunate to be continuing to examine life. Here is a partial transcript of a recent dialogue in which we examined our treatment of animals. To my shame, this is something I never analyzed back in Athens.
-- Socrates

SOCRATES: Would a just person cause unnecessary pain?


MARY: No, of course not.


SOCRATES: As you are wise and knowledgeable, can you please tell me, is it true that people can live long healthy lives without eating meat?


MARY: Yes, this is true.


SOCRATES: Must it not follow that eating meat is unnecessary in terms of helping people live long and healthy lives?


MARY: Yes, that follows, Socrates.


SOCRATES: Can we therefore agree that if eating meat is unnecessary in terms of helping people live long and healthy lives, then killing animals for meat is unnecessary.


MARY: That is a reasonable conclusion.


SOCRATES: Now tell me, is it not true that killing animals causes them pain?


MARY: It seems to be true.


SOCRATES: Then it must follow that killing animals causes them unnecessary pain.


MARY: Yes.


SOCRATES: But we have agreed that a just person does not cause unnecessary pain, so it must follow that killing animals for meat is unjust.

Better Never To Have Been?

David Benatar has written a book called Better Never To Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence. In this remarkable book, Benatar argues that because bringing a person into existence causes them harm, we should not procreate.

Elizabeth Harman has written a wise response to Benatar. Her admirable paper can be read online here: Critical Study - David Benatar. Better Never To Have Been. I recommend that you read her work, my friends. Myself, I am eager to learn and will do so by examining Benatar's main argument directly.

Free education

By the gods, almost every day I find myself confused trying to understand the problems you moderns face. The wise country of New Zealand recently announced that students will receive a free year of university education. This, to me, is a triumph of modern society. To be able to offer its people free education surely is the sign of a successful country. But people are complaining about it. People think this is a big problem. Why? Because the free education will be paid for by the government, which means it is made possible through taxation. And many people don't want to be paying for other people's education. They think people who want an education should pay for it themselves.

Missing out on my promotion

Practical philosophy, my friends, is a worthy pursuit. By using the techniques of philosophical reasoning, practical philosophy can help people see their life problems in a different light. Yesterday I was conversing with someone who had missed out on a job promotion. My friend was feeling a mix of anger and depression. She had deduced that failing to gain her promotion meant that she, herself, was a failure. Her reasoning was straight forward and deductively valid, though unsound: