Once upon a time--yeah, the "good old days" that we old people are always remembering--a car had two names. Ford Fairlane. Buick Roadmaster. Plymouth Belvidere.
Now they have maybe four: Jeep Grand Cherokee Laredo 4x4, Jeep Wrangler Unlimited Sahara.
Of course it's not only Jeep, and it's not only automobiles. Everything now comes in multiple colors, flavors, scents, etc. While it may seem like a good thing to offer more choices to the consumer, I sympathize with the retailer--for example the supermarket--who has to find the shelf space for five versions of Golgate Total toothpaste of six or seven versions of Tide laundry detergent or Cheerios cereal.
I wonder about the motives of the manufacturers. It has to cost them more to do this. Maybe they have multiple production lines running in parallel. If not, they have to stop the line and make some adjustments to start producing a different product. They must feel that if they offer more varieties of a product, that may attract more customers and give them an advantage over their competitors.
And I haven't even mentioned what all this does for people who have a problem making decisions and choices!
Copyright (c) 2013 by Richard Stein
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Friday, March 22, 2013
The Problem of Evil
The problem of the existence of evil in the world has troubled philosophers for thousands of years. And, like most philosophical questions, an answer has never been proposed that will satisfy everyone. (And you may take that to imply my general opinion of Philosophy.)
The English poet William Blake gave us a partial answer. Or, more accurately perhaps, he showed that part of the question is a non-question. In his poem "The Tyger" (as I interpret it), he tells us that if the tiger attacks and eats us, he is just doing his tiger thing. He does not have it in for us (to continue to put it in pretty contemporary language), he has nothing against us, it is not personal. Therefore, this is not evil.
It can be a theological problem. The Biblical Book of Job addresses it. In "J.B.," Archibald MacLeish's dramatic retelling of the Job story, his character who represents Job says, "If God is good, God is not God. If God is God, God is not good." In other words—here again I paraphrase according to my own understanding—God cannot be both benevolent and omnipotent. If He were both, He would not allow evil in the world.
Certainly this idea has been a problem for the Jewish people who have believed that they are God's Chosen People. They ask, "Why did God permit the Holocaust?" And this difficult question has in fact made some Jews lose their faith.
Some theological views explain it all quite simply and handily by postulating the existence of a Devil. But possibly nowadays many people no longer believe in a (or the) Devil and find that too simplistic an explanation. There is also the doctrine in Christianity of Original Sin which holds that there is an evil core in all of us because we have inherited Adam and Eve's sin.
Personally, I have doubted that some people are evil; but I think I'm changing my mind on that. People who kill one or two or three people with no apparent motive—not to mention those who have recently committed mass killings with guns, or those who have committed genocide against tens or hundreds of thousands of people—might look like they are evil. (I hope that a more sophisticated view would not simply try to say, Well he has the Devil in him. I don't think it's been a successful defense in court to say, The Devil made me do it.)
There are all degrees of wrong, ranging from inconsiderateness through injustice to torture and killing and other sorts of violence that humans have committed upon others. And there's no shortage of examples. But if there's a spectrum of kinds of wrong, from mild to very severe, where do we say is the line beyond which we've got evil?
To take a comparatively banal example: Why do people write computer viruses? These viruses can cause enormous mischief and, at the very least, force you and me to spend time, trouble, and money scanning our computers for viruses.
Those who write computer viruses, we say, are mischievous. Is that the same as being evil? Is this brand of mischief a kind of evil, or some other sort of animal? I'm not sure.
Personally, I find it very difficult to believe in a god who involves himself in human affairs. I would think it would shake people's faith when lightning strikes a church and burns it down, or when a church is destroyed by an earthquake. Surely a god who can intervene is the physical laws and processes of the world would keep his own house from being destroyed. At least, that's what I think. I'm sure that many people have managed to dismiss, if not answer, that question.
Update. I write this shortly after the terrible explosions at the Boston Marathon. Of course once a suspect is arrested we will want to know his or her (or their) motivation. It certainly seems evil to kill and maim innocent people; but, if it was an act of domestic terrorism like the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City in the '90s, it was someone feeling he could "get back at" or "punish" someone for something he felt was wrong; so maybe such persons think they are doing a necessary or even good thing. Then we may say they are crazy rather than evil.
Copyright © 2013 by Richard Stein
The English poet William Blake gave us a partial answer. Or, more accurately perhaps, he showed that part of the question is a non-question. In his poem "The Tyger" (as I interpret it), he tells us that if the tiger attacks and eats us, he is just doing his tiger thing. He does not have it in for us (to continue to put it in pretty contemporary language), he has nothing against us, it is not personal. Therefore, this is not evil.
It can be a theological problem. The Biblical Book of Job addresses it. In "J.B.," Archibald MacLeish's dramatic retelling of the Job story, his character who represents Job says, "If God is good, God is not God. If God is God, God is not good." In other words—here again I paraphrase according to my own understanding—God cannot be both benevolent and omnipotent. If He were both, He would not allow evil in the world.
Certainly this idea has been a problem for the Jewish people who have believed that they are God's Chosen People. They ask, "Why did God permit the Holocaust?" And this difficult question has in fact made some Jews lose their faith.
Some theological views explain it all quite simply and handily by postulating the existence of a Devil. But possibly nowadays many people no longer believe in a (or the) Devil and find that too simplistic an explanation. There is also the doctrine in Christianity of Original Sin which holds that there is an evil core in all of us because we have inherited Adam and Eve's sin.
Personally, I have doubted that some people are evil; but I think I'm changing my mind on that. People who kill one or two or three people with no apparent motive—not to mention those who have recently committed mass killings with guns, or those who have committed genocide against tens or hundreds of thousands of people—might look like they are evil. (I hope that a more sophisticated view would not simply try to say, Well he has the Devil in him. I don't think it's been a successful defense in court to say, The Devil made me do it.)
There are all degrees of wrong, ranging from inconsiderateness through injustice to torture and killing and other sorts of violence that humans have committed upon others. And there's no shortage of examples. But if there's a spectrum of kinds of wrong, from mild to very severe, where do we say is the line beyond which we've got evil?
To take a comparatively banal example: Why do people write computer viruses? These viruses can cause enormous mischief and, at the very least, force you and me to spend time, trouble, and money scanning our computers for viruses.
Those who write computer viruses, we say, are mischievous. Is that the same as being evil? Is this brand of mischief a kind of evil, or some other sort of animal? I'm not sure.
Personally, I find it very difficult to believe in a god who involves himself in human affairs. I would think it would shake people's faith when lightning strikes a church and burns it down, or when a church is destroyed by an earthquake. Surely a god who can intervene is the physical laws and processes of the world would keep his own house from being destroyed. At least, that's what I think. I'm sure that many people have managed to dismiss, if not answer, that question.
Update. I write this shortly after the terrible explosions at the Boston Marathon. Of course once a suspect is arrested we will want to know his or her (or their) motivation. It certainly seems evil to kill and maim innocent people; but, if it was an act of domestic terrorism like the bombing of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City in the '90s, it was someone feeling he could "get back at" or "punish" someone for something he felt was wrong; so maybe such persons think they are doing a necessary or even good thing. Then we may say they are crazy rather than evil.
Copyright © 2013 by Richard Stein
Thursday, March 21, 2013
The Myth of SUV Safety
I believe many people own and drive SUVs because they believe they are safer. I think that is especially likely to be the case when I see a woman driving a very large SUV. (If she's the sole occupant of the vehicle, as often is the case, I think she's not driving such a vehicle for its carrying capacity in persons or cargo.)
I believe that large SUVs in particular contribute to global warming because more fuel consumed = more greenhouse gases emitted out the tailpipe. But I'll focus here on safety.
A driver who believes that four-wheel drive is necessary—perhaps for driving in snow—should be aware that now many sedans are available with four-wheel drive. Second, I recently learned that four-wheel drive confers an advantage of better adhesion only when traveling in a straight line. It is no help in cornering.
Further, SUVs actually have a safety disadvantage because they are top-heavy and thus more likely to overturn. Twice within two or three days the TV news has shown a picture of an SUV lying on its roof after an accident (this may be coincidental—I don't want to imply otherwise—but they were Jeeps in both cases). Anyone who pays attention to TV news coverage of auto accidents has seen enough photos of SUVs which skidded off the road because of a winter storm or after an accident, and ended up lying in a ditch or lying on their roofs, to be disabused of the idea that they are safer than other types of vehicles.
Update, April 5, 2013. This morning there was an accident in Chicago where a school bus hit one or more other vehicles. One was a Jeep Wrangler, of which the driver was killed. Another Jeep vehicle was involved and I am not certain how the occupants of that vehicle fared.
Update, May 5, 2013. Again today--for the umpteenth time, it would seem--the news included a story of an accident in which an SUV suffered a tire blow-out and overturned. The driver was ejected and killed. Three passengers in the vehicle were injured but not killed.
Copyright © 2013 by Richard Stein
I believe that large SUVs in particular contribute to global warming because more fuel consumed = more greenhouse gases emitted out the tailpipe. But I'll focus here on safety.
A driver who believes that four-wheel drive is necessary—perhaps for driving in snow—should be aware that now many sedans are available with four-wheel drive. Second, I recently learned that four-wheel drive confers an advantage of better adhesion only when traveling in a straight line. It is no help in cornering.
Further, SUVs actually have a safety disadvantage because they are top-heavy and thus more likely to overturn. Twice within two or three days the TV news has shown a picture of an SUV lying on its roof after an accident (this may be coincidental—I don't want to imply otherwise—but they were Jeeps in both cases). Anyone who pays attention to TV news coverage of auto accidents has seen enough photos of SUVs which skidded off the road because of a winter storm or after an accident, and ended up lying in a ditch or lying on their roofs, to be disabused of the idea that they are safer than other types of vehicles.
Update, April 5, 2013. This morning there was an accident in Chicago where a school bus hit one or more other vehicles. One was a Jeep Wrangler, of which the driver was killed. Another Jeep vehicle was involved and I am not certain how the occupants of that vehicle fared.
Update, May 5, 2013. Again today--for the umpteenth time, it would seem--the news included a story of an accident in which an SUV suffered a tire blow-out and overturned. The driver was ejected and killed. Three passengers in the vehicle were injured but not killed.
Copyright © 2013 by Richard Stein
Tuesday, March 5, 2013
More on Guns
Chicago, as an example of a major American city, has a high rate of killings by means of guns—on the order of 500 or 600 a year—a number that is, or should be, shocking.
These killings occur mainly in certain areas of the city, areas that have a gang problem, and are associated with gangs warring for turf or for control of the drug trade.
Also, these numerous and almost daily gun killings are committed with hand guns. These guns are cheap and are easy to carry inconspicuously. Interestingly, guns are not sold legally in Chicago, and there are no gun stores within the city limits. However, as has been observed, borders are "permeable." Guns can be bought in suburban communities or across state lines (which, in the case of Chicago, are not far away).
However, the mass gun killings are quite another phenomenon. Recent killings such as in Newtown, Connecticut, or Aurora, Colorado, are composed of two elements: a mentally unstable person, and easy access to "assault" weapons. (I put the word assault in quotation marks because I don't know a lot about—and don't want to get involved in the controversy over—types of guns. There is the distinction between automatic and semi-automatic guns, and even hand guns can be "automatic," that is, able to fire shots in rapid succession.)
So of course, if there are the two elements involved in these horrendous occurrences—which have been getting more frequent, it must be pointed out—either element can be looked at, thought about, and perhaps somehow remedied.
The first element, unstable individuals, would require identifying individuals who might be or become dangerous. However, this is difficult. Countless adolescents would show personality traits that are part of whatever profile of the gunman or potential gunman that could be constructed. But of course nothing can be "done about" these individuals until they can be identified. ("Doing something about" them is also problematic. Should they be isolated from society? Have medications prescribed, which they might not take faithfully?)
But if the people who committed the mass killings had not had easy access to the very effective and deadly weapons that they used? The Newtown shooter, Adam Lanza, used a gun that his mother owned. The shooter at Virginia Tech was able to purchase his weapons over the Internet.
Certainly it is reasonable to think about making access to these guns more difficult. Maybe they should not be freely and easily purveyed at your nearest Walmart. Where they can be bought, and by whom, and how easily: all these things should be looked at.
Copyright © 2013 by Richard Stein
These killings occur mainly in certain areas of the city, areas that have a gang problem, and are associated with gangs warring for turf or for control of the drug trade.
Also, these numerous and almost daily gun killings are committed with hand guns. These guns are cheap and are easy to carry inconspicuously. Interestingly, guns are not sold legally in Chicago, and there are no gun stores within the city limits. However, as has been observed, borders are "permeable." Guns can be bought in suburban communities or across state lines (which, in the case of Chicago, are not far away).
However, the mass gun killings are quite another phenomenon. Recent killings such as in Newtown, Connecticut, or Aurora, Colorado, are composed of two elements: a mentally unstable person, and easy access to "assault" weapons. (I put the word assault in quotation marks because I don't know a lot about—and don't want to get involved in the controversy over—types of guns. There is the distinction between automatic and semi-automatic guns, and even hand guns can be "automatic," that is, able to fire shots in rapid succession.)
So of course, if there are the two elements involved in these horrendous occurrences—which have been getting more frequent, it must be pointed out—either element can be looked at, thought about, and perhaps somehow remedied.
The first element, unstable individuals, would require identifying individuals who might be or become dangerous. However, this is difficult. Countless adolescents would show personality traits that are part of whatever profile of the gunman or potential gunman that could be constructed. But of course nothing can be "done about" these individuals until they can be identified. ("Doing something about" them is also problematic. Should they be isolated from society? Have medications prescribed, which they might not take faithfully?)
But if the people who committed the mass killings had not had easy access to the very effective and deadly weapons that they used? The Newtown shooter, Adam Lanza, used a gun that his mother owned. The shooter at Virginia Tech was able to purchase his weapons over the Internet.
Certainly it is reasonable to think about making access to these guns more difficult. Maybe they should not be freely and easily purveyed at your nearest Walmart. Where they can be bought, and by whom, and how easily: all these things should be looked at.
Copyright © 2013 by Richard Stein
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
