Weekend Newsletter

I just wanted to say that I just read the post that you referenced "Circumcision: It's Dumb." I thought that the article wasn't as well researched as it ought to be, though interesting. I recommended that the author read "How Sex Works" in order to understand the types of scientific research studies and facts/figures that are available on the topic. I used to think that circumscision was cruel, until I read up on the role of the foreskin. Thanks for keeping me thinking!

Very interesting worm article. Esther Duflo, an MIT-based economist, recently spoke at TED about poverty action from an economist's POV, and mentioned that de-worming programs for school-age children 'buy' more hours in the classroom per dollar spent than practically any other intervention.

Definitely an interesting case of balancing a many-spoked wheel, definitely in line with your new post about the paradigm shift of demographic transition.

Keep up the awesome!

I don't believe in animal rights, but that link is a poor essay. As a purely empirical matter, we do not in fact extend rights based on the ability to participate: there are plenty of categories of people who cannot participate in moral communities (the mentally ill, the sleeping...) who we consider to have rights. The question is why not include an animal when we include people with mental capabilities similar to animals.

The fact of the matter is that rights are granted on the basis of the total nexus of power and ideology in society at any given time, not on the narrow basis of "correct" moral reasoning about rights.

The current conundrum of animal rights arises from the fact that the vast majority of Americans today have internalized (viz. Foucault) an unjustified view of equality's importance secondary to progressive dominance in the establishments of education, law, and politics.

Thus, you get Peter Singer, whose views are laughable unless you start from certain shared assumptions about egalitarianism itself. There is nothing particularly original in Singer's style of thought. The reason he has a post at Princeton today is that society changed, and he found himself placed in just the right dynamic in relation to the profession of philosophy and the ongoing revision of concensus views within that profession.

Take something like your interview with Rhys Southan: Rhys didn't get out of veganism through pure reason, he had a breakthrough that leaves one more with the impression of some total psychology/emotional change. What I mean is that he didn't think himself into being a better person (in fact, I find his inability to get upset over a video of a kitten being stomped to death to be reprehensible and immature). What he did do is give up on the categorical mental hygiene necessary to maintain his worldview. He looked into that bowl of rice and lentils and had a moment of satori.

I would say the same is true of you. It's like the response you and Rhys have to vegetarianism isn't to argue but to smile and say "now where did I put that delicious drumstick."

Thanks for the links! Good reads.