Sunday, February 26, 2006

To be, that is the answer

This is only here because the text recognition thing is (temporarily, I hope) preventing me from posting comments on my own blog.

The article mentions the models, but doesn't describe them except in vague emotive terms, so I can't tell you which one I subscribe to! Put me down for whatever the Guatemalans are doing.

Quoth Marco: Let me try another tack. This other article Cupidity mentions four competing yet incompatible models for the economy of the baby "industry". Which do you subscribe to and how would the caliphate fit into a world with other models in play? Could desparate parent wannabe's travel there to buy a spare to make profit for the Mahdi? Could desparately poor parents sell their babies for cash they need to feed their macadamia nut habits? Could parents whose children are in the mujahideen's army change their mind and get them back? Could youngsters have unprotected sex with gay abandon because the fedayeen would foot the bills for any resulting children and forced sterilisations? What happens if the burden of dependants overwhelms the system? Or the opposite - if youngsters become risk averse and birth rate drops through the floor? What cracks first?

To answer your questions: Yes, yes, yes, and no. Remember, these are supposed to be good Muslims, or good members of traditional dhimmi religions with decent values. The burden of dependents won't become too great because they will be supported by the productive labour of the older generation of dependents- this is not quantitative, but it would definitely be an improvement on the situation where both the young unwanted underclass *and* the working-age unwanted underclass form a welfare burden on society.
The birth rate is unlikely to fall through the floor, because the prevailing ideology of the society is optimistic and philoprogentive- it is societies without such ideologies, overcome by mindless nihilism and despair, like Europe in the 3rd and 21st centuries, that suffer such calamities.

Saturday, February 18, 2006

One step foward, two steps back

First, the good news. There is no stem cell debate. The whole thing is an exercise in barrow pushing and button pushing. This I learned recently when I was lucky enough to hear a talk by a chap named Graham Parker who is on the board of the journal ‘Stem Cell Research’ and works at a research hospital in Michigan.

*The more differentiated a stem cell is when you start messing around with it, the more effective it is. This is why we still need blood transfusions, and don’t culture haemotopoetic stem cells. Inner-cell-mass-derived (aka embryonic) stem cells are less differentiated than somatic (aka adult) stem cells and appear much more likely to turn into invasive cancers when you inject them into mice.

*Nobody has a clue how stem cells really work clinically. It does not look like they just move in and turn into the sort of cells that are around them. They do other weird things that nobody understands yet. No responsible government would license their use on a general basis.

*The chaps who first discovered inner-cell-mass-derived stem cells never claimed they had clinical uses. They still don’t. They are of fundamental importance in understanding developmental biology, which is important fundamental research and will eventually lead to all sorts of innovations- but they won’t involve injecting people with stem cells. 97+% of this fundamental research could be done with stem cells of the other mammals that we share so much of our DNA with.

So this is what I learned: Stem cells are not going to cure every known disease. ‘Adult’ stem cells are going to be better than ‘embryonic’ stem cells at curing stuff. There is never going to be any industrial scale production of inner-cell-mass-derived stem cells. There is not much point arguing about them, one way or another.

Second, the bad news. I sort of suspected this for a while, given that they adhere to the vitalist ‘ensoulment’ model that I have previously maligned, but Muslim scholars are not reliable on abortion.

Of the four main Sunni legal schools:
* The Hanbali allow abortion up to 40 days.
* The Shafi’i allow abortion up to 80 days, or sometimes 120.
* The Halafi- which are dominant in Central Asia, the Indian Subcontinent, and the former Ottoman Empire and include those pathetic liberal pansies, the Taliban- allow abortion up to 4 months after conception.
* Only the Maliki- dominant in North and West Africa, including about 25% of the world’s Muslims- show a glimmer of sense, saying that life begins at implantation.

The Shi’a of Iran, like their neighbours in Turkey and Central Asia, say ensoulment happens at 4 months – or sometimes 4 and a half. In fact, the abortion laws of Iran were ‘liberalised’ after the Islamic revolution. They were stricter under the Shah!

So there doesn’t seem to be any point in working towards a global caliphate. Depressed now.

Wednesday, February 15, 2006

Hijacked by Winstoninabox

Quoth winstoninabox: "Back in Yesterday's Men, Dr. Clam, you felt there was some incongruity between Points 9 and 12. Would you like to paraphrase it?"

You might recall that points nine and twelve were:

NINTH: The separation of church and state and the separation of ideology and state are imperatives. The state should encourage maximum freedom for different moral, political, religious, and social values in society. It should not favor any particular religious bodies through the use of public monies, nor espouse a single ideology and function thereby as an instrument of propaganda or oppression, particularly against dissenters.

TWELFTH: We deplore the division of humankind on nationalistic grounds. We have reached a turning point in human history where the best option is to transcend the limits of national sovereignty and to move toward the building of a world community in which all sectors of the human family can participate. Thus we look to the development of a system of world law and a world order based upon transnational federal government. This would appreciate cultural pluralism and diversity. It would not exclude pride in national origins and accomplishments nor the handling of regional problems on a regional basis. Human progress, however, can no longer be achieved by focusing on one section of the world, Western or Eastern, developed or underdeveloped. For the first time in human history, no part of humankind can be isolated from any other. Each person's future is in some way linked to all. We thus reaffirm a commitment to the building of world community, at the same time recognizing that this commits us to some hard choices.

Perhaps this is not really a contradiction, just an indication of how the axioms should be nested! Historically, systems of federal government draw more and more power to themselves until- if you are in the UK- 60% of all legislation is initiated from Brussels or – if you are in Australia- people start talking about abolishing the states. Where there is one system of world law, and one transnational federal government, the government cannot really ‘encourage maximum freedom for different moral, political, religious, and social values in society.’ The claim is made in the humanist manifesto that governments should be free of ideology, but this is not possible. In truth, these different ‘moral, political, religious, and social values’ will tend be expressed in quite different systems of law and government and the way to encourage maximum freedom is to have many different nations with different governmental ideologies, and allow free movement of people across national borders.
Thus these two points seem to imply that 1>2: ‘We are all the same’ is more important than ‘We should be able to do what we want’, so ensuring that all people have the same choices is more important than ensuring that the widest possible range of choices is theoretically available. This seems consistent with the traditional association- or anecdotal association, anyway- of secular humanism with socialism.

Sunday, February 12, 2006

Yet More Secular Humanism

Quoth winstoninabox:
‘I’m living in Japanese culture, and moral absolutes handed down from a higher being are not a big part of it. Yet it seems to be bungling along just fine. You’d be surprised in the power of societal restraints on behavior.’

Herein lies the rub: there is no problem in having an ideology that is not internally consistent, so long as dissent is squashed. If everyone around you follows the same code of behaviour and expresses the same publicly acceptable opinions, it is difficult not to conform. I haven’t seen this in Japan, but I have seen these powerful societal restraints in action among the academic community, for instance. But, secular humanism quite explicitly sets out to be a contender in the marketplace of ideas, while explicitly rejecting the idea of quashing dissent. Hence internal consistency should be of paramount importance. From the manifestoes I have read, rather than seek a self-consistent set of core axioms, secular humanism claims to be a ‘meta-ideology’ that should be taught in all schools while all other ideologies should not be- thus enthusiastically, if implicitly, embracing the suppression of dissent!

Secular Humanism, as Defined by Dr Clam

Preliminary Definition:‘We’ are defined as those people who can say, at the present time, ‘please don’t hurt me’, with certain ad hoc extensions in the directions of youth and mental and physical incapacity.

1: All persons comprising ‘we’ are considered to be of equivalent value.

2: We ought to be able to do whatever we like without anyone telling us what do.

1>2: Thus restrictions on our freedom should be accepted only in so far as they increase our overall capacity to do what we like.

(1>2): Nevertheless, we will make overblown statements rejecting all restrictions on freedom in some spheres, while making others that imply severe restrictions on economic freedom, the freedom to adopt different political systems, and on the propagation of competing ideologies.

3: ‘Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal’

1,2>3: The results of experiments contradicting axioms 1 and 2 are to be rejected. Where there is no experimental data, the true state of affairs must be assumed to be such that axioms 1 and 2 are not contradicted.

(A) Proponents of this ideology should seek to form a more robust and logically defensible definition of 'we'.
(B) Proponents of this ideology should seek to harmonise the contradictory material (1+2).
(B.1) For self-consistency, all (1+2) statements should be removed. (B.2)Alternatively, (1+2) statements could be retained and this ideology could aim towards demonstrating that all competing ideologies are opposed to core axiom 1- and thus should be rigorously suppressed by 1+2. This would strengthen the 'only this belief is true' component necessary in most successful memees.

Secular humanism will then have an excellent chance to propagate in the marketplace of ideas, due to the inherent popularity of core axiom 1.

Saturday, February 11, 2006

All I Intend to Says About the Cartoons

THREEPIO: He made a fair move. Screaming about it won't help you.

HAN: (interrupting) Let him have it. It's not wise to upset a Wookiee.

THREEPIO: But sir, nobody worries about upsetting a droid.

HAN: That's 'cause droids don't pull people's arms out of their socket
when they lose. Wookiees are known to do that.

THREEPIO: I see your point, sir. I suggest a new strategy, Artoo. Let
the Wookiee win.

Pleasure and Pain

I have been thinking of reductios ad absurdum* of Utilitarian ethics.
If pleasure and pain are to be put on a single axis, can an entity experience more of one than the other? If pain outweighs pleasure, then we should destroy everything, as painlessly as possible. If pleasure outweighs pain, then one would think that the more things that can experience pleasure, the better. We should thus convert the entire universe into the smallest entities possible that can live their lives in continual ecstasy. I thought of a silly story about a Utilitarian alien invasion, where the Earth is converted into grey ‘happygoo’ of cheerful nanobots, but in such a way that everyone is wildly happy about it all stages of the process. Maybe something like this has already happened, and all the fundamental particles of our universe are really, really, happy.
It seems to me also that if either ‘pleasure’ or ‘fulfilling your potential’ are really seen as ‘good’ by secular humanists, they should be as down on birth control as any Mormon. Unless, pleasure is not seen as additive good: our pleasure will be *better* than that of those other people, if they are not here. Maybe, it is the *quality* of the pleasure that is important, and they are working towards a future where there is only one being, but that one is capable of a Godlike degree of happiness and has harnessed all the energies of the universe towards achieving it. Hmm, this is also the conclusion given- with no argument for it, just a kind of a sermon- by the mad ex-clergyman Straik in ‘That Hideous Strength.’

This utilitarian idea has clarified something for me that never made sense before. Harlan Ellison et al.'s theory that we need to have evil so we can know what good is makes absolutely no sense in a Judaeo-Christian-Islamic way, but if we have ‘good’ equated with ‘pleasure’ and ‘evil’ with ‘pain’ it is self-evident. We all know that the best pleasure is frequently the stopping of pain. The first sitting down, after a long walk in inappropriate shoes: the first drink of icy lemonade, after ditto...

*Hmm, is there any plural of ‘reductio ad absurdum’?

Wednesday, February 01, 2006

Yesterday's Men

A happy day for single-issue voters, as 4-5 becomes 5-4 in the US Supreme Court, and the shiny happy dawn of the 21st century continues to brighten.

Here is the 1973 Humanist manifesto:

It is forty years since Humanist Manifesto I (1933) appeared. Events since then make that earlier statement seem far too optimistic. Nazism has shown the depths of brutality of which humanity is capable. Other totalitarian regimes have suppressed human rights without ending poverty. Science has sometimes brought evil as well as good. Recent decades have shown that inhuman wars can be made in the name of peace. The beginnings of police states, even in democratic societies, widespread government espionage, and other abuses of power by military, political, and industrial elites, and the continuance of unyielding racism, all present a different and difficult social outlook. In various societies, the demands of women and minority groups for equal rights effectively challenge our generation.

As we approach the twenty-first century, however, an affirmative and hopeful vision is needed. Faith, commensurate with advancing knowledge, is also necessary. In the choice between despair and hope, humanists respond in this Humanist Manifesto II with a positive declaration for times of uncertainty.

As in 1933, humanists still believe that traditional theism, especially faith in the prayer-hearing God, assumed to live and care for persons, to hear and understand their prayers, and to be able to do something about them, is an unproved and outmoded faith. Salvationism, based on mere affirmation, still appears as harmful, diverting people with false hopes of heaven hereafter. Reasonable minds look to other means for survival.

Those who sign Humanist Manifesto II disclaim that they are setting forth a binding credo; their individual views would be stated in widely varying ways. This statement is, however, reaching for vision in a time that needs direction. It is social analysis in an effort at consensus. New statements should be developed to supersede this, but for today it is our conviction that humanism offers an alternative that can serve present-day needs and guide humankind toward the future.

— Paul Kurtz and Edwin H. Wilson (1973)

The next century can be and should be the humanistic century. Dramatic scientific, technological, and ever-accelerating social and political changes crowd our awareness. We have virtually conquered the planet, explored the moon, overcome the natural limits of travel and communication; we stand at the dawn of a new age, ready to move farther into space and perhaps inhabit other planets. Using technology wisely, we can control our environment, conquer poverty, markedly reduce disease, extend our life-span, significantly modify our behavior, alter the course of human evolution and cultural development, unlock vast new powers, and provide humankind with unparalleled opportunity for achieving an abundant and meaningful life.

The future is, however, filled with dangers. In learning to apply the scientific method to nature and human life, we have opened the door to ecological damage, over-population, dehumanizing institutions, totalitarian repression, and nuclear and bio-chemical disaster. Faced with apocalyptic prophesies and doomsday scenarios, many flee in despair from reason and embrace irrational cults and theologies of withdrawal and retreat.

Traditional moral codes and newer irrational cults both fail to meet the pressing needs of today and tomorrow. False "theologies of hope" and messianic ideologies, substituting new dogmas for old, cannot cope with existing world realities. They separate rather than unite peoples.

Humanity, to survive, requires bold and daring measures. We need to extend the uses of scientific method, not renounce them, to fuse reason with compassion in order to build constructive social and moral values. Confronted by many possible futures, we must decide which to pursue. The ultimate goal should be the fulfillment of the potential for growth in each human personality — not for the favored few, but for all of humankind. Only a shared world and global measures will suffice.

A humanist outlook will tap the creativity of each human being and provide the vision and courage for us to work together. This outlook emphasizes the role human beings can play in their own spheres of action. The decades ahead call for dedicated, clear-minded men and women able to marshal the will, intelligence, and cooperative skills for shaping a desirable future. Humanism can provide the purpose and inspiration that so many seek; it can give personal meaning and significance to human life.

Many kinds of humanism exist in the contemporary world. The varieties and emphases of naturalistic humanism include "scientific," "ethical," "democratic," "religious," and "Marxist" humanism. Free thought, atheism, agnosticism, skepticism, deism, rationalism, ethical culture, and liberal religion all claim to be heir to the humanist tradition. Humanism traces its roots from ancient China, classical Greece and Rome, through the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, to the scientific revolution of the modern world. But views that merely reject theism are not equivalent to humanism. They lack commitment to the positive belief in the possibilities of human progress and to the values central to it. Many within religious groups, believing in the future of humanism, now claim humanist credentials. Humanism is an ethical process through which we all can move, above and beyond the divisive particulars, heroic personalities, dogmatic creeds, and ritual customs of past religions or their mere negation.

We affirm a set of common principles that can serve as a basis for united action — positive principles relevant to the present human condition. They are a design for a secular society on a planetary scale.

For these reasons, we submit this new Humanist Manifesto for the future of humankind; for us, it is a vision of hope, a direction for satisfying survival.

FIRST: In the best sense, religion may inspire dedication to the highest ethical ideals. The cultivation of moral devotion and creative imagination is an expression of genuine "spiritual" experience and aspiration.
We believe, however, that traditional dogmatic or authoritarian religions that place revelation, God, ritual, or creed above human needs and experience do a disservice to the human species. Any account of nature should pass the tests of scientific evidence; in our judgment, the dogmas and myths of traditional religions do not do so. Even at this late date in human history, certain elementary facts based upon the critical use of scientific reason have to be restated. We find insufficient evidence for belief in the existence of a supernatural; it is either meaningless or irrelevant to the question of survival and fulfillment of the human race. As nontheists, we begin with humans not God, nature not deity. Nature may indeed be broader and deeper than we now know; any new discoveries, however, will but enlarge our knowledge of the natural.
< ‘it is either meaningless or irrelevant to the question of survival and fulfillment of the human race’ is a dogmatic statement unsupported by the evidence... otherwise, I am in agreement.>

Some humanists believe we should reinterpret traditional religions and reinvest them with meanings appropriate to the current situation. Such redefinitions, however, often perpetuate old dependencies and escapisms; they easily become obscurantist, impeding the free use of the intellect. We need, instead, radically new human purposes and goals.
< nah.>

We appreciate the need to preserve the best ethical teachings in the religious traditions of humankind, many of which we share in common. But we reject those features of traditional religious morality that deny humans a full appreciation of their own potentialities and responsibilities. Traditional religions often offer solace to humans, but, as often, they inhibit humans from helping themselves or experiencing their full potentialities. Such institutions, creeds, and rituals often impede the will to serve others. Too often traditional faiths encourage dependence rather than independence, obedience rather than affirmation, fear rather than courage. More recently they have generated concerned social action, with many signs of relevance appearing in the wake of the "God Is Dead" theologies.
< yup.>

But we can discover no divine purpose or providence for the human species.
While there is much that we do not know, humans are responsible for what we are or will become. No deity will save us; we must save ourselves.
< nah.>

SECOND: Promises of immortal salvation or fear of eternal damnation are both illusory and harmful. They distract humans from present concerns, from self-actualization, and from rectifying social injustices. Modern science discredits such historic concepts as the "ghost in the machine" and the "separable soul." Rather, science affirms that the human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forces. As far as we know, the total personality is a function of the biological organism transacting in a social and cultural context. There is no credible evidence that life survives the death of the body. We continue to exist in our progeny and in the way that our lives have influenced others in our culture.
< ‘are’ should be ‘can be’ and ‘distract’ should be ‘can distract’: I don’t have any trouble with this paragraph otherwise.>

Traditional religions are surely not the only obstacles to human progress. Other ideologies also impede human advance. Some forms of political doctrine, for instance, function religiously, reflecting the worst features of orthodoxy and authoritarianism, especially when they sacrifice individuals on the altar of Utopian promises. Purely economic and political viewpoints, whether capitalist or communist, often function as religious and ideological dogma. Although humans undoubtedly need economic and political goals, they also need creative values by which to live.
< yup.>

THIRD: We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is autonomous and situational needing no theological or ideological sanction. Ethics stems from human need and interest. To deny this distorts the whole basis of life. Human life has meaning because we create and develop our futures. Happiness and the creative realization of human needs and desires, individually and in shared enjoyment, are continuous themes of humanism. We strive for the good life, here and now. The goal is to pursue life's enrichment despite debasing forces of vulgarization, commercialization, and dehumanization.
< I consider the statement ‘ethics stems from human need and interest’ to be dangerously narrow. While some of the other formulations of secular humanism claim that objective standards can be determined empirically, this one seems to reject such a claim: if ethics stems from human need and interest and needs no ideological sanction, it is subjective, and therefore tosh fit only for landlubbers. Arrrr!>

FOURTH: Reason and intelligence are the most effective instruments that humankind possesses. There is no substitute: neither faith nor passion suffices in itself. The controlled use of scientific methods, which have transformed the natural and social sciences since the Renaissance, must be extended further in the solution of human problems. But reason must be tempered by humility, since no group has a monopoly of wisdom or virtue. Nor is there any guarantee that all problems can be solved or all questions answered. Yet critical intelligence, infused by a sense of human caring, is the best method that humanity has for resolving problems. Reason should be balanced with compassion and empathy and the whole person fulfilled. Thus, we are not advocating the use of scientific intelligence independent of or in opposition to emotion, for we believe in the cultivation of feeling and love. As science pushes back the boundary of the known, humankind's sense of wonder is continually renewed, and art, poetry, and music find their places, along with religion and ethics.
< yup.>

The Individual
FIFTH: The preciousness and dignity of the individual person is a central humanist value. Individuals should be encouraged to realize their own creative talents and desires. We reject all religious, ideological, or moral codes that denigrate the individual, suppress freedom, dull intellect, dehumanize personality. We believe in maximum individual autonomy consonant with social responsibility. Although science can account for the causes of behavior, the possibilities of individual freedom of choice exist in human life and should be increased.
< yup.>

SIXTH: In the area of sexuality, we believe that intolerant attitudes, often cultivated by orthodox religions and puritanical cultures, unduly repress sexual conduct. The right to birth control, abortion, and divorce should be recognized. While we do not approve of exploitive, denigrating forms of sexual expression, neither do we wish to prohibit, by law or social sanction, sexual behavior between consenting adults. The many varieties of sexual exploration should not in themselves be considered "evil." Without countenancing mindless permissiveness or unbridled promiscuity, a civilized society should be a tolerant one. Short of harming others or compelling them to do likewise, individuals should be permitted to express their sexual proclivities and pursue their lifestyles as they desire. We wish to cultivate the development of a responsible attitude toward sexuality, in which humans are not exploited as sexual objects, and in which intimacy, sensitivity, respect, and honesty in interpersonal relations are encouraged. Moral education for children and adults is an important way of developing awareness and sexual maturity.
< ‘The right to birth control, abortion, and divorce should be recognized,’ is a non sequitur that is inconsistent with the Fifth Point and the statement ‘Short of harming others or compelling them to do likewise...’ >

Democratic Society
SEVENTH: To enhance freedom and dignity the individual must experience a full range of civil liberties in all societies. This includes freedom of speech and the press, political democracy, the legal right of opposition to governmental policies, fair judicial process, religious liberty, freedom of association, and artistic, scientific, and cultural freedom. It also includes a recognition of an individual's right to die with dignity, euthanasia, and the right to suicide. We oppose the increasing invasion of privacy, by whatever means, in both totalitarian and democratic societies. We would safeguard, extend, and implement the principles of human freedom evolved from the Magna Carta to the Bill of Rights, the Rights of Man, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
< I reject both euthanasia, as demonstrably open to abuse by the medical profession, and privacy, as it is inconsistent with an open and democratic society.>

EIGHTH: We are committed to an open and democratic society. We must extend participatory democracy in its true sense to the economy, the school, the family, the workplace, and voluntary associations. Decision-making must be decentralized to include widespread involvement of people at all levels — social, political, and economic. All persons should have a voice in developing the values and goals that determine their lives. Institutions should be responsive to expressed desires and needs. The conditions of work, education, devotion, and play should be humanized. Alienating forces should be modified or eradicated and bureaucratic structures should be held to a minimum. People are more important than decalogues, rules, proscriptions, or regulations.
< er, okay.>

NINTH: The separation of church and state and the separation of ideology and state are imperatives. The state should encourage maximum freedom for different moral, political, religious, and social values in society. It should not favor any particular religious bodies through the use of public monies, nor espouse a single ideology and function thereby as an instrument of propaganda or oppression, particularly against dissenters.
< The state must espouse some ideology by default, and cannot survive if it encourages maximum freedom in political and social values. The direction of the state should be determined democratically (I guess, unless the people are moral dwarves)which can lead to a tighter or looser connection between ideology and the state, but they can never be separated entirely.>

TENTH: Humane societies should evaluate economic systems not by rhetoric or ideology, but by whether or not they increase economic well-being for all individuals and groups, minimize poverty and hardship, increase the sum of human satisfaction, and enhance the quality of life. Hence the door is open to alternative economic systems. We need to democratize the economy and judge it by its responsiveness to human needs, testing results in terms of the common good.
< amen!>

ELEVENTH: The principle of moral equality must be furthered through elimination of all discrimination based upon race, religion, sex, age, or national origin. This means equality of opportunity and recognition of talent and merit. Individuals should be encouraged to contribute to their own betterment. If unable, then society should provide means to satisfy their basic economic, health, and cultural needs, including, wherever resources make possible, a minimum guaranteed annual income. We are concerned for the welfare of the aged, the infirm, the disadvantaged, and also for the outcasts — the mentally retarded, abandoned, or abused children, the handicapped, prisoners, and addicts — for all who are neglected or ignored by society. Practicing humanists should make it their vocation to humanize personal relations.
< yup. The definition of human employed is very arbitrary, however. What logic unites a complete unconcern for the welfare of the unborn with a concern for the welfare of the mentally retarded?>

We believe in the right to universal education. Everyone has a right to the cultural opportunity to fulfill his or her unique capacities and talents. The schools should foster satisfying and productive living. They should be open at all levels to any and all; the achievement of excellence should be encouraged. Innovative and experimental forms of education are to be welcomed. The energy and idealism of the young deserve to be appreciated and channeled to constructive purposes.
< yup.>

We deplore racial, religious, ethnic, or class antagonisms. Although we believe in cultural diversity and encourage racial and ethnic pride, we reject separations which promote alienation and set people and groups against each other; we envision an integrated community where people have a maximum opportunity for free and voluntary association.
< yup.>

We are critical of sexism or sexual chauvinism — male or female. We believe in equal rights for both women and men to fulfill their unique careers and potentialities as they see fit, free of invidious discrimination.
< yup.>

World Community
TWELFTH: We deplore the division of humankind on nationalistic grounds. We have reached a turning point in human history where the best option is to transcend the limits of national sovereignty and to move toward the building of a world community in which all sectors of the human family can participate. Thus we look to the development of a system of world law and a world order based upon transnational federal government. This would appreciate cultural pluralism and diversity. It would not exclude pride in national origins and accomplishments nor the handling of regional problems on a regional basis. Human progress, however, can no longer be achieved by focusing on one section of the world, Western or Eastern, developed or underdeveloped. For the first time in human history, no part of humankind can be isolated from any other. Each person's future is in some way linked to all. We thus reaffirm a commitment to the building of world community, at the same time recognizing that this commits us to some hard choices.
< The cause of freedom is better served without world law and a world order. There will necessarily be a more limited range of social environments for people to reach their potentialities if all nations are shoehorned into one system- if you accept by criticism of the Ninth Point- and hence this point would seem to be inconsistent with the stated aims of humanism.>

THIRTEENTH: This world community must renounce the resort to violence and force as a method of solving international disputes. We believe in the peaceful adjudication of differences by international courts and by the development of the arts of negotiation and compromise. War is obsolete. So is the use of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. It is a planetary imperative to reduce the level of military expenditures and turn these savings to peaceful and people-oriented uses.
< ‘We believe in the peaceful adjudication of differences...’ can mean two things.
(1) We think it is the preferred way to go, and could be greatly improved to make it more effective.
(2) We think it will work .
(1) is almost self-evident, and I agree wholeheartedly. Sadly, (2) is rarely true. War is not obsolete.>

FOURTEENTH: The world community must engage in cooperative planning concerning the use of rapidly depleting resources. The planet earth must be considered a single ecosystem. Ecological damage, resource depletion, and excessive population growth must be checked by international concord. The cultivation and conservation of nature is a moral value; we should perceive ourselves as integral to the sources of our being in nature. We must free our world from needless pollution and waste, responsibly guarding and creating wealth, both natural and human. Exploitation of natural resources, uncurbed by social conscience, must end.
< I am worried ‘by international concord’ will mean ‘through coercive legislation’.>

FIFTEENTH: The problems of economic growth and development can no longer be resolved by one nation alone; they are worldwide in scope. It is the moral obligation of the developed nations to provide — through an international authority that safeguards human rights — massive technical, agricultural, medical, and economic assistance, including birth control techniques, to the developing portions of the globe. World poverty must cease. Hence extreme disproportions in wealth, income, and economic growth should be reduced on a worldwide basis.
< I would say it is the moral obligation of the developed nations to follow policies that are directed towards the end of world poverty. Aid is part of this, thought not the most important, and I am uneasy if it is provided in a coercive ‘Neoimperialist’ way that demands developing nations adopt particular policies.>

SIXTEENTH: Technology is a vital key to human progress and development. We deplore any neo-romantic efforts to condemn indiscriminately all technology and science or to counsel retreat from its further extension and use for the good of humankind. We would resist any moves to censor basic scientific research on moral, political, or social grounds. Technology must, however, be carefully judged by the consequences of its use; harmful and destructive changes should be avoided. We are particularly disturbed when technology and bureaucracy control, manipulate, or modify human beings without their consent. Technological feasibility does not imply social or cultural desirability.
< ‘Resist any moves to censor basic scientific research’? I am sure they would do no such thing when my proposals for vivisection of orphans or putting hallucinogens in the water supplies of key marginal seats are quashed.>

SEVENTEENTH: We must expand communication and transportation across frontiers. Travel restrictions must cease. The world must be open to diverse political, ideological, and moral viewpoints and evolve a worldwide system of television and radio for information and education. We thus call for full international cooperation in culture, science, the arts, and technology across ideological borders. We must learn to live openly together or we shall perish together.
< yup.>

Humanity As a Whole
IN CLOSING: The world cannot wait for a reconciliation of competing political or economic systems to solve its problems. These are the times for men and women of goodwill to further the building of a peaceful and prosperous world. We urge that parochial loyalties and inflexible moral and religious ideologies be transcended. We urge recognition of the common humanity of all people. We further urge the use of reason and compassion to produce the kind of world we want — a world in which peace, prosperity, freedom, and happiness are widely shared. Let us not abandon that vision in despair or cowardice. We are responsible for what we are or will be. Let us work together for a humane world by means commensurate with humane ends. Destructive ideological differences among communism, capitalism, socialism, conservatism, liberalism, and radicalism should be overcome. Let us call for an end to terror and hatred. We will survive and prosper only in a world of shared humane values. We can initiate new directions for humankind; ancient rivalries can be superseded by broad-based cooperative efforts. The commitment to tolerance, understanding, and peaceful negotiation does not necessitate acquiescence to the status quo nor the damming up of dynamic and revolutionary forces. The true revolution is occurring and can continue in countless nonviolent adjustments. But this entails the willingness to step forward onto new and expanding plateaus. At the present juncture of history, commitment to all humankind is the highest commitment of which we are capable; it transcends the narrow allegiances of church, state, party, class, or race in moving toward a wider vision of human potentiality. What more daring a goal for humankind than for each person to become, in ideal as well as practice, a citizen of a world community. It is a classical vision; we can now give it new vitality. Humanism thus interpreted is a moral force that has time on its side. We believe that humankind has the potential, intelligence, goodwill, and cooperative skill to implement this commitment in the decades ahead.