Been feeling a little more religious these days as I have been attending Confirmation Preparation with my son.
Its interesting how spending a little bit more time listening about God can re-introduce some new concepts and thoughts about the role of religion in your life.
Any way, this week it was all about the 7 gifts that God gives you (via the Holy Spirit( when you are confirmed that produce the 9 fruits.
The 7 gifts are
Wisdom (Intellect) - Application of Understanding over time
Counsel (Intellect) - Making the right choices
Fortitude (Will) - Being courageous
Understanding (Intellect) - Application of Knowledge to a particular issue
Piety (Will) - Respecting the relationship with God
Fear of the Lord (Will) - Awe of the God
Knowledge (Intellect) - See things through Gods eyes.
The 7 gifts are then supposed to manifest themselves in ourselves by changing our behaviours. The behaviours are called the 9 fruits...I have tried to match up the gifts with the fruits, but I think in actuality all of them have some role to play in each fruit.
Love - Fortitude/Knowledge
Joy - Knowledge
Peace -Piety/Fear of the Lord/Wisdom
Patience - Fortitude/Knowledge
Kindness - Understanding
Goodness - Counsel/Knowledge/Fear of the Lord
Faithfulness - Fear of the Lord/Knowledge
Gentleness - Understanding
Self Control - Wisdom/Fortitude/Fear of the Lord
Not a bad way to live your life really...Just goes to show that in today's secular world with relativism on the rise, there is still a reason for religion...to try and give a definition of living a good and moral life, and a reason to do so, even if such decision making can come at a cost. Science, and its theories of single origin and natural selection from Darwin, resulting in behaviour that benefits the group doesn't quite answer those questions.
Monday, September 23, 2019
Dealing with Difference - A few thoughts
Been pondering the great mysteries again, this time on difference. Difference in thought, appearance, sexuality, religion etc.
You look at the world today, and it seems like there is less tolerance of difference due to all social media posts and claims of de platforming, censorship etc.
But I wonder if that is really true. There has always been difference throughout history. Slavery, Civil War, Religion, world wars, politics, economics...i mean the examples are legion about how society has been split about big issues. So I don't think we are living in times when there is more change.
In regards to de-platforming, again, I'm not sure. If anything, the media has less of a role in being the thought Gatekeepers than they used to be. Now anyone can post and attract followers, from all over the world.
I think its more that social media and the internet has the power to create debates immediately, and have them published whereas previously these issues would take years to be addressed.
In regards to the big issues being debated at the moment, it is clear that Climate Change and Trans-sexism are the two topics of note. Lots of debate going on because these issues are relatively new. But again, its no different to the civil rights debates of the 60's.
I think the big difference today is that thought has been democratized. Social media has made opinions more equal. There is less reliance and acceptance of experts and insiders to be the arbitrators of what is "right and just" than there used to be. Other opinions, like religious views, social justice views and political views are also being aired. I think that might be the case in regards to Climate Change, where appeals to scientific authority are being met by appeals to political authority (i.e the election of Trump and Morrison who ran on neutral climate change policies). And its a danger that the Trans movement might have to be wary of. There is a lot of appeal to the medical authority in these cases about medical interventions, yet those authorities are often trans themselves, so are hardly unbiased in their view.
And just on the trans movement, I think there is a war going on at the moment between the trans movement, feminist movement and same sex movement. Gender dysphoria in the young is effectively early onset homosexuality and the idea that lesbianism is effectively being replaced by the trans movement is going to give the same sex movement some issues after their hard fought gains. And the triviality of people moving genders at a whim will impact the feminists as we have seen already through Germaine Greer's attacks on the trans movement.
So it will be interesting to see where these two issues end up. But talking and debating about issues is the answer to everything. More dialogue, even if it is unpleasant, is far better than less.
You look at the world today, and it seems like there is less tolerance of difference due to all social media posts and claims of de platforming, censorship etc.
But I wonder if that is really true. There has always been difference throughout history. Slavery, Civil War, Religion, world wars, politics, economics...i mean the examples are legion about how society has been split about big issues. So I don't think we are living in times when there is more change.
In regards to de-platforming, again, I'm not sure. If anything, the media has less of a role in being the thought Gatekeepers than they used to be. Now anyone can post and attract followers, from all over the world.
I think its more that social media and the internet has the power to create debates immediately, and have them published whereas previously these issues would take years to be addressed.
In regards to the big issues being debated at the moment, it is clear that Climate Change and Trans-sexism are the two topics of note. Lots of debate going on because these issues are relatively new. But again, its no different to the civil rights debates of the 60's.
I think the big difference today is that thought has been democratized. Social media has made opinions more equal. There is less reliance and acceptance of experts and insiders to be the arbitrators of what is "right and just" than there used to be. Other opinions, like religious views, social justice views and political views are also being aired. I think that might be the case in regards to Climate Change, where appeals to scientific authority are being met by appeals to political authority (i.e the election of Trump and Morrison who ran on neutral climate change policies). And its a danger that the Trans movement might have to be wary of. There is a lot of appeal to the medical authority in these cases about medical interventions, yet those authorities are often trans themselves, so are hardly unbiased in their view.
And just on the trans movement, I think there is a war going on at the moment between the trans movement, feminist movement and same sex movement. Gender dysphoria in the young is effectively early onset homosexuality and the idea that lesbianism is effectively being replaced by the trans movement is going to give the same sex movement some issues after their hard fought gains. And the triviality of people moving genders at a whim will impact the feminists as we have seen already through Germaine Greer's attacks on the trans movement.
So it will be interesting to see where these two issues end up. But talking and debating about issues is the answer to everything. More dialogue, even if it is unpleasant, is far better than less.
Monday, September 16, 2019
NRL Contenders - Recap from Final Rounds
Well it is the first week of the finals and basically all the finals went the way they should (apart from Melbourne)
Roosters VS Rabbits - Roosters have the 4 "1's (So they have the Attack, Defence, Win Percentage and the Z-Score of contendors). Rabbits have the 3 "1's (missing the Attack). So it was inevitable that the Roosters would win that one (and they did)
Storm VS Canberra - This was the upset. Storm have the 4 "1"s. Canberra have the 3 "1"s (again missing the attack). But they were lucky to win that one by 2 in the last few minutes. Storm will win next week.
Manly Vs Sharks - While everyone was talking the Sharks, realistically it was Manly. Sharks haven't won at Lottoland much at all. And the Manly was 2 wins better than the Sharks
Eels Vs Broncos - Broncos Z-score was in the negatives and Parramatta has a serious attack (better than everyone except Melbourne and Roosters.
So for the next 2 games of
Melbourne Vs Parramatta - Melbourne should win easily.
Souths Vs Manly - Souths again should get over the line.
Which will lead to
Roosters VS Melbourne (that will be match of the round...Melbourne in a tight one)
Raiders Vs Souths (Raiders in a tight one)
Melbourne VS Raiders for the grand final....Melbourne to win.
Roosters VS Rabbits - Roosters have the 4 "1's (So they have the Attack, Defence, Win Percentage and the Z-Score of contendors). Rabbits have the 3 "1's (missing the Attack). So it was inevitable that the Roosters would win that one (and they did)
Storm VS Canberra - This was the upset. Storm have the 4 "1"s. Canberra have the 3 "1"s (again missing the attack). But they were lucky to win that one by 2 in the last few minutes. Storm will win next week.
Manly Vs Sharks - While everyone was talking the Sharks, realistically it was Manly. Sharks haven't won at Lottoland much at all. And the Manly was 2 wins better than the Sharks
Eels Vs Broncos - Broncos Z-score was in the negatives and Parramatta has a serious attack (better than everyone except Melbourne and Roosters.
So for the next 2 games of
Melbourne Vs Parramatta - Melbourne should win easily.
Souths Vs Manly - Souths again should get over the line.
Which will lead to
Roosters VS Melbourne (that will be match of the round...Melbourne in a tight one)
Raiders Vs Souths (Raiders in a tight one)
Melbourne VS Raiders for the grand final....Melbourne to win.
Friday, September 6, 2019
Thoughts on intergenerational equality
A new concept in thought has come up recently, mainly around Climate change and it is this concept of inter generational equity....the idea that the present generation owes some sort of benefit to generations coming through and potentially generations unborn.
It is often used as a justification to combat Climate Change. I understand the reasoning because climate change really isn't having any adverse affects on society at the moment. The current generation is probably as rich, healthy and educated as any in human history. So from strictly a cost benefit analysis it makes no sense to do anything about climate change at the moment.
It is only when you employ the "survival of the species" and "think of the grand children" into the mix, that a justification can be employed. We have seen this through the celebration of Greta Thunberg, a child who advocates action on Climate Change based on this "You owe the children" theory.
And we have seen this through most of the economic analysis around Climate Change. Discount rates of 0% (or very low rates) have been employed to make the costs of action today more palatable, even though most economic analysis would employ at least 3% discount rates to future cash flows (as is usually the case).
But both the Stern report and the Australian equivalent (the Gaurnat report) both use Intergeneration Equity arguments to keep the costs of action today low (yet in economic valuation, a dollar spent today is always more expensive than a dollar spent in the future.)
So obviously this theory is worthy of discusions as it does impact policies today.
So I was thinking of the history of Intergational equity and when it appeared on the scene. For much of human history, not much emphasis was put on future generations. In law and finance, inheritance is seen as much as passing on both the positives and negatives, rather than just trying to ensure the negatives are minimised.
For example, my Grandad dies and passes on a house to me. But the mortgage also is passed to me. Is this a net positive or a net negative. By far it is a positive. I have a house to live in that protects me from the elements. And I can sell it if required. Sure, I have to pay off the loan, but still ahead.
And so it is with Climate change. One could argue that the benefits of humanity, with all the advancement based on industrialization are also passed onto future generations, not just the costs. So if ensuring that the world is as rich and advanced today is passed on, shouldn't that also be a priority, rather that just making sure the world is clean?
That's why i don't necessarily agree that rich nations should be doing the heavy lifting on climate change. Countries like India and China have benefited massively through industrialized nations, those same countries that pumped out the Greenhouse gases long ago. Everyone has won so everyone should either keep pumping out the gases or give it up.
Another argument would also be, if we are talking equity, why aren't more priorities placed on the generations before ours, not just the generations coming through. Making sure the elderly are provided for in their dotage is just as relevant as preserving the future generations. So increased power prices doesn't help them.
From a legal perspective, children do have rights, but not as many as adults. And the unborn do not have any rights. Legally we owe nothing to the future generations.
And lastly there is a certain degree of arrogance in Generations today dictating what Generations tomorrow will or wont be able to achieve. I mean, the world tomorrow might be a far colder place, and might require climate change to combat that. Or the world tomorrow may be far wealthier than today so why should be spend sparse resources looking after a Generation that may be far wealthier and more able to adapt to a hotter world.
Interesting times.
It is often used as a justification to combat Climate Change. I understand the reasoning because climate change really isn't having any adverse affects on society at the moment. The current generation is probably as rich, healthy and educated as any in human history. So from strictly a cost benefit analysis it makes no sense to do anything about climate change at the moment.
It is only when you employ the "survival of the species" and "think of the grand children" into the mix, that a justification can be employed. We have seen this through the celebration of Greta Thunberg, a child who advocates action on Climate Change based on this "You owe the children" theory.
And we have seen this through most of the economic analysis around Climate Change. Discount rates of 0% (or very low rates) have been employed to make the costs of action today more palatable, even though most economic analysis would employ at least 3% discount rates to future cash flows (as is usually the case).
But both the Stern report and the Australian equivalent (the Gaurnat report) both use Intergeneration Equity arguments to keep the costs of action today low (yet in economic valuation, a dollar spent today is always more expensive than a dollar spent in the future.)
So obviously this theory is worthy of discusions as it does impact policies today.
So I was thinking of the history of Intergational equity and when it appeared on the scene. For much of human history, not much emphasis was put on future generations. In law and finance, inheritance is seen as much as passing on both the positives and negatives, rather than just trying to ensure the negatives are minimised.
For example, my Grandad dies and passes on a house to me. But the mortgage also is passed to me. Is this a net positive or a net negative. By far it is a positive. I have a house to live in that protects me from the elements. And I can sell it if required. Sure, I have to pay off the loan, but still ahead.
And so it is with Climate change. One could argue that the benefits of humanity, with all the advancement based on industrialization are also passed onto future generations, not just the costs. So if ensuring that the world is as rich and advanced today is passed on, shouldn't that also be a priority, rather that just making sure the world is clean?
That's why i don't necessarily agree that rich nations should be doing the heavy lifting on climate change. Countries like India and China have benefited massively through industrialized nations, those same countries that pumped out the Greenhouse gases long ago. Everyone has won so everyone should either keep pumping out the gases or give it up.
Another argument would also be, if we are talking equity, why aren't more priorities placed on the generations before ours, not just the generations coming through. Making sure the elderly are provided for in their dotage is just as relevant as preserving the future generations. So increased power prices doesn't help them.
From a legal perspective, children do have rights, but not as many as adults. And the unborn do not have any rights. Legally we owe nothing to the future generations.
And lastly there is a certain degree of arrogance in Generations today dictating what Generations tomorrow will or wont be able to achieve. I mean, the world tomorrow might be a far colder place, and might require climate change to combat that. Or the world tomorrow may be far wealthier than today so why should be spend sparse resources looking after a Generation that may be far wealthier and more able to adapt to a hotter world.
Interesting times.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)