An Open Question on Moral Legislation in Government

Like it or not, our government does legislate morality. Outlawing murder, rape, theft, and fraud are to varying degrees moral statements codified in law.

While I think we can agree that a purely religious backing for these moral statements is insufficient for justifying laws, I'm not entirely sure what we think should be a sufficient condition for legislating a moral principle.

Does the majority determine morality? Do we base our determinations in utilitarian, puritanical, or deontological ethics?

Can banning weed be justified on grounds of moral purity? How about banning meth and heroin for the moral conviction that we don't want people to be hurt or hurt others?

If you believe abortion is murder, that would justify banning it without exception (except perhaps life of the mother) using the same arguments for banning murder itself. Who determines what the moral stance of the country should be on the issue?

Should we keep gay marriage illegal because many people deem it to be immoral on religious grounds? Probably not; but what about for a moral appeal to purity?

I myself disagree with most of these hypothetical laws and justifications I've proposed, but I'm not entirely clear on what principles I'm appealing to other than my own convictions on morality in order to make that determination. That would seem to put us back to square one with majority rules on morality. I'm not entirely comfortable with that.

How else can we (or should we) collectively determine the moral stances our government should take?

If you have any suggestions please leave a comment, because I don't have an answer at the moment.

15+15 Things You Shouldn't Say To an Atheist

After having lots of conversations about religion, particularly with Christians, certain unfortunate trends have started to emerge. I started thinking there should be an atheism FAQ that should be required prior reading for anyone entering into conversation with an atheist.

While not strictly an FAQ, Hemant Mehta (The Friendly Atheist) has posted two videos along those lines.

Part 1 is a generic list of "15 things to NEVER say to an atheist."

For your convenience, I've compiled a text version of the list:

1. Where do you get your morality from?
2. Do you not believe in anything? Your life must be so EMPTY!
3. Why are you MAD at GOD!?
4. You can't prove God DOESN'T exist.
5. What if you're WRONG?
6. You just have to have FAITH!
7. Just OPEN your HEART to God.
8. You were never REALLY religious. (aka You were never a true Christian!) This one's a personal pet peeve of mine.
9. What happened in your CHILDHOOD to make you an atheist?
10. Have you read the BIBLE?
11. I'll PRAY for you.
12. Do you worship the DEVIL?
13. You aren't really an ATHEIST, you must be an AGNOSTIC.
14. Isn't atheism a RELIGION?
15. Why are you so ANGRY?

Part 2 is specifically for a Christian audience: "15 Things Christians Say to Atheists (And Shouldn't)"

Text version:

1. You don't believe in God because you just want to SIN!
2. You're an Atheist? You don't ACT like an Atheist.
3. When you are SUFFERING, you will call out to God!
4. [Atheism] is just a PHASE you're going through!
5. I don't have enough FAITH to be an Atheist!
6. Have you heard about JESUS? 
7. Where will you go when you DIE?
8. So we all came from MONKEYS?
9. Isn't evolution just a THEORY?
10. But where did the UNIVERSE come from?
11. Where did the MOUNTAINS[/ANIMALS/ANYTHING ELSE] come from?
12. A lot of SMART PEOPLE are Christians.
13. Why do you only PICK ON CHRISTIANS?
14. But what will you teach your CHILDREN?
15. Do you eat BABIES?

I didn't include any of the answers to these comments here because the videos have pretty good responses already. If you are even thinking about asking me these questions, watch the videos first. It will be 10 minutes  now that will save us both a lot of pain and suffering later.

Update on Penn Secular Society Banners

Just a quick update on the Penn Secular Society banner situation.

After collecting feedback from many of our members and some outside influences, we put together this banner for the week. I think it's a significant improvement in several respects.

First, it contains three quotes about the importance of diverse opinions from secular and religious thinkers alike. It simultaneously responds to our vandals and detractors while sending a positive message about freethought.

Second, it contains the info about our next meeting time front and center (though I wish it were a different color).

Finally, it includes a "statement of intent" which spells out the intended message of the banner more explicitly.

Thus far there has been only positive response to the banner. Everyone I've talked to has seen it as an improvement.

Also, our president Seth just published his editorial in response to Noah's last week. Check it out.

Read at your own Risk

Yesterday I ran into a street preacher of sorts in front of the UPenn bookstore. He didn't say a word, he just stood their with his sign handing out booklets:

"Benjamin Franklin said of America: 'Atheism is unknown there...'
GOD MADE YOU FOR HIS PURPOSE.
Atheism is sin. God teaches."

I couldn't resist and grabbed a copy of the booklet. From what I saw I may have been the only one to do so; he wasn't pushy.  Maybe I'll go through the claims later, or at least put together a greatest hits, but for now I just want to post the booklet in it's entirety for reference. Read on at your own risk.

Penn Secular Society Sign Vandalized

Running a secular group at an institution like the University of Pennsylvania has a few unique challenges. Unlike many schools across the US where secular groups are outcast and face opposition at every turn on religious grounds, at UPenn groups like the Christian Association, the interfaith group PRISM, and most of all the Chaplain's office have been our greatest outside supporters. Groups that would oppose us tend to keep to themselves. Penn has such a diverse religious life that most people have become extra accommodating to people of other beliefs, and I'm glad they've begun to include non-believers in that umbrella.

All of this love and support can be a burden as well when it comes time to ask the hard questions some of our members want to ask our classmates. Questions like "what good is faith?" Or "why do you put so much value on a book that supports slavery?"

This culture of interfaith cooperation is naturally resistant to any cross examination. Certain venues do exist for this type of discussion, but most are Christian organizations like InterVarsity, Cru, and Veritas Forum which have varying degrees of evangelistic missions.

Last week, the Penn Secular Society attempted to strike a balance by appealing to common ground. On the main campus walk, the PSS banner proudly displayed a partial list of "Gods you probably don't believe in."

On the right side in soft, non-pushy writing sat the lingering question: "so what's one more?"

We reasoned that this would be inoffensive enough to our religious classmates (seeing as we stuck with Gods no longer widely worshiped today), yet it would encourage people to think about their beliefs in a hopefully new way.

Apparently, not everyone felt that way.

It's hard to see in the picture, but by the end of the week someone had torn down page one and thrown coffee on the middle of the banner. The banner's fine, but very sticky.

When the vandalism came up at the next meeting, the unanimous decision amongst those present was to respond with something a little more provocative. We decided to go with some popular Abrahamic holy books' views on women. Three verses were selected and quoted without commentary, followed by a message:

"Do you dislike this display? Please don't deface our banner - find us on Facebook and tell us why."

Not 5 hours had gone by when we noticed someone hadn't read the instructions:

So in a new record for Penn Secular Society, someone has thrown soup on our 5 day long banner campaign less than 5 hours into the week.

We've decided to not clean the banner this time, in the hopes that passers by will take notice of the vandalism and hopefully learn something.

New Non-Discrimination Law is....Dangerous?

Most reactions to advances in LGBT equality don't surprise me. Many are even understandable. 

I can understand someone who has a fear of gay scout leaders when they've been taught that gay is the same as pedophile. 

I can understand when someone thinks marriage is a holy and special bond between people who wear different kinds of swimsuits. From that viewpoint, marriage equality makes no sense as gay marriage would never be the equivalent of "real" marriage.

I can understand the person who is worried about their religious beliefs being overridden by the state because they won't perform gay weddings in their place of worship.

These reactions are wrongheaded and usually based on misinformation and stereotypes, but I can at least comprehend their origins.

That being said, I cannot begin to understand this email from the Minnesota Family Council (emphasis mine):

ACTION ALERT!

Election Day & Dangerous ENDA Legislation

But select capable men from all the people--men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain--and appoint them as officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens ~ Exodus 18:21 

Good morning 
Unfortunately, on this Election Day I have some bad news to report. Last night, the U.S. Senate (with the help of our Senators--Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken) moved the Employment Nondiscrimination Act (ENDA), a dangerous piece of legislation granting special privileges based on "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" that also denies adequate religious liberty protection, towards its final vote on the Senate floor.  

ENDA is a dangerous piece of legislation that would cause serious harms by limiting employer and employee free speech and religious freedom rights, and by granting special privileges based on "sexual orientation" and "gender identity"--ambiguous terms that (unlike race, which is an immutable characteristic) are commonly understood to be subjective and inclusive of behaviors. 

Here are just a few examples of serious consequences that would likely arise if ENDA becomes law. First, as National Organization for Marriage noted, ENDA legislation can be used as a "Trojan horse" to further attack true marriage between one man and one woman across the nation. ENDA would prevent an employer from considering the concerns of female employees over having to share a bathroom with a biological male who claims to identify as female. Also, the Civil Rights Act allows employers to take sex into consideration if it's reasonable to do so for the job--like hiring a female camp counselor for a girls' camp. However, the ENDA bill contains NO such provision allowing employers to consider sexual orientation or gender identity, even when reasonable to do so for the job. 

The ENDA bill is dangerous, unfair, and needs to be stopped. Please, contact our Senators TODAY to urge them to oppose this harmful legislation. 

In what possible world is preventing employers from discriminating against employees not only wrong but DANGEROUS?! I simply cannot wrap my mind around that thought.

Also, since when is non-discrimination a "special privilege?"

And name me one job for which it would be "reasonable to [consider sexual orientation or gender identity]" for which it wouldn't also make sense to consider the applicant's gender at all.

I would hope that everything else wrong with this email is obvious enough that I need not insult your intelligence by outlining every one, but allow me to briefly expand on the religious freedom question. Currently, an employer could not tell a Jewish applicant "I'm sorry, but people who share your faith killed my savior so I'm not going to hire you." Nor could that same employer turn away a Muslim, atheist, Jain, or different type of Christian for that matter based solely on their religious profession (which is hardly an "immutable characteristic"). Perhaps the MN Family Council thinks this should not be the case, as "it tramples First Amendment rights and unnecessarily impinges on citizens’ right to run their businesses the way they choose." Still, that is the law.

Besides, your right to free speech is not being impeded in the least. You can scream about how terrified you are that LGBT people are becoming accepted as human beings until your lungs give out. The moment you do harm to someone else by making a discriminatory hiring decision based on characteristics completely irrelevant to the job, that's no longer free speech.

CUDA Raytracer Project

I just wanted to share what I've been working on this week. I've been slaving over this CUDA ray tracing engine for days and it looks BEAUTIFUL!

Check out the github project if you're interested in learning more: https://github.com/cboots/Project1-RayTracer

Arctic Sea Ice Increases by 60%, "Exxccellent" Say Climate Deniers

The past 24 hours have seen a slew of news reports trumpeted by climate change deniers indicating that sea ice cover in the Arctic increased by 60%. I first came across the story this morning when Craig Rucker of CFact.org sent out this info-graphic and accompanying message via email.

It seems not a day goes by without a new stunning fact emerging which contradicts the UN's global warming predictions.
The Daily Telegraph and others report that a cold Arctic summer has led to a record increase in the polar ice cap, leading some experts to now predict a period of 'global cooling.' 

Marc Morano has full details at CFACT's Climate Depot.  Click here to get the facts.
You'd think that with climate science being "settled" and all, that the global warming folks would be right at least half the time, wouldn't you?  

Would coin toss accuracy be too much to ask? -Craig Rucker, CFact.org 

The two most commonly sources are the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail, two UK papers known the world over for their great science reporting; the Daily Mail even got an award for it. But just to be safe, let's review the data ourselves again.

Statisticians have a saying: "torture the data enough and eventually it will confess." Climate denialists have transformed this into an art form. This graphic, created by Dana Nuccitelli at The Guardian, is the most wonderful demonstration of this technique I've ever seen. By reporting trends over small windows of 6 years to a decade, it is trivial to create a series of trendlines that all show global temperatures decreasing over time.

Checkmate scientists!

Average of NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4 monthly global surface temperature anomalies from January 1970 through November 2012 (green) with linear trends applied to the timeframes Jan '70 - Oct '77, Apr '77 - Dec '86, Sep '87 - Nov '96, Jun '97 - Dec '02, and Nov '02 - Nov '12. Via the Guardian

Dana put together another fun little chart with sea ice extent on a similar theme:

Arctic sea ice extent data, 1980–2012. Data from NSIDC Via the Guardian 

In accordance with the scientific method, I should be able to replicate these findings myself. So I went and downloaded the entire dataset from NSIDC myself and did a little number crunching. Here are just a few of the plots I created:

Side by side view of ice extent each month over time. Y-axis is a normalized index from the dataset. Notice the overall downward trend, especially in the summer months. Not a single month has an upward trend over the entire timespan.

It can be hard to see the trends in this 1000ft view of the data, so let's compare apples to apples and go month by month.

June Ice Extent over Time. Compare the "recovery" this year to the trend and previous recovery years (1985, 1990, 1995).

Even back in June we could see a clear recovery in ice sheet extent and area. The magnitude of the recovery is comparable what we will see in August, but expressed as a percentage it is only a 10% increase. As the ice continues to melt through the summer, the difference in ice coverage remains roughly the same but because there is less ice overall (and because we're comparing to an all time record shattering low in 2012) by the time we reach August the percentage has reached 50% by my math. Variation in data sets makes the reported 60% still a reasonable number because we're dealing with such small values.

July Ice Sheet over Time

August Ice Cover by Year including the reported recovery.

So yes, the fact is there is a larger ice sheet than last year (the 60% number even seems right), but remember that we are comparing it to a record low in 2012. 

Statisticians refer to this phenomenon as regression to the mean. A common example is the Sports Illustrated Cover Jinx, an urban legend that claims players and teams pictured on the cover of the magazine are doomed to fail in the near future. Given that the players featured on the cover are usually the ones that are already outperforming expectations at the time, it's reasonable to predict that in the near future their performance will drop back to their average.

Looking at the data we can see repeated cycles of recoveries which denialists have repeatedly pointed to as trendbreakers or evidence of global cooling. Once again the importance of zooming out on your data for context. Doing anything else is just irresponsible anomaly hunting.

Tabling Like a Pro

As we enter the Fall semester, secular student groups across the country will be pulling out their tables, chairs, and sunblock to entice new members into their ranks. In preparation for my own recruiting efforts for Penn Secular Society I re-watched a great session from SSA West this summer entitled "Tabling Like a Pro." Most of it seems obvious to veteran tablers, but it's always good to refresh your memory.

Robots at Tesla

I just came across this really cool video about the factory robots at our sister company Tesla Motors. I was especially impressed by the "smart carts" that carry the car frames throughout the factory using magnetic strips instead of guide rails or conveyors like most factories.

It's a Mad World

Yesterday was the 4th of July, a holiday during which we celebrate an act of treason to the King of England telling him they were fed up with a long list of governmental overreaches he had inflicted upon the colonies. And how do we celebrate such a holiday? By doing what we do best: blow stuff up.

But through the whole day, while people all around donned red and white striped tops, flag pins, and other American themed apparel, I sank into my chair as I took the holiday as a chance to catch up on national and international news. By the time fireworks began to fly into the low hanging clouds and disappear over the Pacific, I had lost all impetus for celebration.

I used to think that "godless America hating lefties" were a myth created by Fox News to scare old people out of their retirement savings, but now I fear I have become one of them. If America is, as supposed, the sum of our founding documents and constitutional principles, then I have very few grievances to levy against her. However, if we instead define America as the sum of actions taken in her name by her people, I find so much more objectionable material.

So, in deference to the Declaration we nearly deify this week, I want to air my list of grievances.

• The Supreme Court has decided that the Voting Rights Act is working so well that we should get rid of it, which is like cutting away your parachute because it's slowing you down.
• Within a day of SCOTUS gutting the VRA, the state of Texas implemented its Voter ID law, and they are not alone. GOP controlled legislatures in North Carolina, Virginia, Mississippi, and Alabama all have pending Voter ID legislation which collectively have the potential to disenfranchise millions of voters (primarily minority and poor voters who are more likely to vote Democrat). 
• Likewise, across the nation there has been a Republican Blitzkrieg on abortion rights. Ohio, North Carolina, and Texas have all tried to pass extreme anti-choice legislation in the past week with surprising speed, secrecy, and success. And even when attempts to sneak the legislation through in secret failed, the Texas GOP attempted to use FRAUD in full view of over 200,000 people to pass it illegally anyways. 
• Only 6 abortion clinics would likely remain open across all of Texas if the law goes into affect, and it's being done, so says the GOP, IN THE NAME OF WOMEN'S HEALTH! Yet if a law was passed that would close all but 6 gun shops in Texas the GOP would be crying "GOVERNMENT TYRANNY" left and right! What kind of country do we live in where our deadly weapons are valued more than women?

• Included in many of these anti-abortion bills are requirements for mandatory trans-vaginal ultrasounds that are medically unnecessary, often paid for by the woman, and incredibly painful. If I had my way, a corresponding law would be implemented mandating that every male contemplating passing such a bill have a catheter thrust up his penis so that he would have the "opportunity" to reconsider his decision.
• I'm angry about everything Greta Christina is angry about.
• We also seem to like getting involved in as many wars as possible but don't like be saddled with the consequences. Not content with our wars in Afghanistan and Iran or saber rattling with stealth bombers at North Korea, we have been arming Syrian rebels. The death toll in Syria is somewhere around 100,000 already and we've stepped in and picked a side. And who has stepped in and picked the other side? Russia. 
• There are only 46 countries that the US does not have standing armed forces, and that's 46 too few for some people. Let's face it, we love blowing stuff up. The US alone accounts for 39% of the world's military spending. That's more than the next 12 largest spenders combined and over 4 times the spending of the runner-up China. We still have over 45,000 troops in Germany, over 50,000 in Japan, and 28,500 in South Korea to name just a few.

• 90% of our citizens support universal background checks for gun purchases, but 46% of the US Senate decided that wasn't going to happen.
• It's no surprise then that we have declared a war on everything and completely strip mined the term war of all it's meaning. We're fighting a "War on women," a "War on drugs," a "War on terror," a "War on coal," and a "War on Christmas." We have been at war for all but 21 years since our founding over 200 years ago.
• While other countries discuss what we should do to combat global warming, we spend our time convincing our leaders that climate change isn't a conspiracy cooked up by 97% of climate scientists around the world. If that wasn't bad enough, we also have to fight people like GOP Congressman Joe Barton who said of the issue: "I would point out that if you’re a believer in in the Bible, one would have to say the Great Flood is an example of climate change and that certainly wasn’t because mankind had overdeveloped hydrocarbon energy."
• But climate science denial can't hold a candle to the reigning champion of professional ignorance: Creationism. A 2012 Gallup poll determined that 46% of Americans believed God created humans with no evolution at all and 32% believed that God guided the process of evolution. Neither number has changed much in 30 years. If that wasn't bad enough, 39% of Americans specifically stated they believed the Earth was under 10,000 years old.

Belief in Evolution by country. We're the one right above Turkey.

Another chart to drive home how odd we are

All of this also goes to another grievance: our debates are over facts not opinions. Instead of discussing differences in theory of governance or opinion on policy, we spend a vast portion of our public discourse disputing reality.

I could go on and on and on but I can't take writing this diatribe any longer.

Still, I feel I can't leave my computer without reminding myself that being able to write this post without any fear of reprisal from my government means that perhaps my country isn't that bad after all.

Why Go to Space?

In the depths of the recession, and even in fair economic weather, many people continue to raise their voices in protest to America's investment in space travel. Today, one of my coworkers forwarded a letter from Ernst Stuhlinger, former Associate Director for Science at NASA. Though written in 1970, the letter is equally as powerful today. For those who don't want to read the whole thing, xkcd summed up the sentiment admirably.

May 6, 1970

Dear Sister Mary Jucunda:

Your letter was one of many which are reaching me every day, but it has touched me more deeply than all the others because it came so much from the depths of a searching mind and a compassionate heart. I will try to answer your question as best as I possibly can.

First, however, I would like to express my great admiration for you, and for all your many brave sisters, because you are dedicating your lives to the noblest cause of man: help for his fellowmen who are in need.

You asked in your letter how I could suggest the expenditures of billions of dollars for a voyage to Mars, at a time when many children on this Earth are starving to death. I know that you do not expect an answer such as "Oh, I did not know that there are children dying from hunger, but from now on I will desist from any kind of space research until mankind has solved that problem!" In fact, I have known of famined children long before I knew that a voyage to the planet Mars is technically feasible. However, I believe, like many of my friends, that travelling to the Moon and eventually to Mars and to other planets is a venture which we should undertake now, and I even believe that this project, in the long run, will contribute more to the solution of these grave problems we are facing here on Earth than many other potential projects of help which are debated and discussed year after year, and which are so extremely slow in yielding tangible results.

Before trying to describe in more detail how our space program is contributing to the solution of our Earthly problems, I would like to relate briefly a supposedly true story, which may help support the argument. About 400 years ago, there lived a count in a small town in Germany. He was one of the benign counts, and he gave a large part of his income to the poor in his town. This was much appreciated, because poverty was abundant during medieval times, and there were epidemics of the plague which ravaged the country frequently. One day, the count met a strange man. He had a workbench and little laboratory in his house, and he labored hard during the daytime so that he could afford a few hours every evening to work in his laboratory. He ground small lenses from pieces of glass; he mounted the lenses in tubes, and he used these gadgets to look at very small objects. The count was particularly fascinated by the tiny creatures that could be observed with the strong magnification, and which he had never seen before. He invited the man to move with his laboratory to the castle, to become a member of the count's household, and to devote henceforth all his time to the development and perfection of his optical gadgets as a special employee of the count.

The townspeople, however, became angry when they realized that the count was wasting his money, as they thought, on a stunt without purpose. "We are suffering from this plague," they said, "while he is paying that man for a useless hobby!" But the count remained firm. "I give you as much as I can afford," he said, "but I will also support this man and his work, because I know that someday something will come out of it!"

Indeed, something very good came out of this work, and also out of similar work done by others at other places: the microscope. It is well known that the microscope has contributed more than any other invention to the progress of medicine, and that the elimination of the plague and many other contagious diseases from most parts of the world is largely a result of studies which the microscope made possible.

The count, by retaining some of his spending money for research and discovery, contributed far more to the relief of human suffering than he could have contributed by giving all he could possibly spare to his plague-ridden community.

The situation which we are facing today is similar in many respects. The President of the United States is spending about 200 billion dollars in his yearly budget. This money goes to health, education, welfare, urban renewal, highways, transportation, foreign aid, defense, conservation, science, agriculture and many installations inside and outside the country. About 1.6 percent of this national budget was allocated to space exploration this year. The space program includes Project Apollo, and many other smaller projects in space physics, space astronomy, space biology, planetary projects, Earth resources projects, and space engineering. To make this expenditure for the space program possible, the average American taxpayer with 10,000 dollars income per year is paying about 30 tax dollars for space. The rest of his income, 9,970 dollars, remains for his subsistence, his recreation, his savings, his other taxes, and all his other expenditures.

You will probably ask now: "Why don't you take 5 or 3 or 1 dollar out of the 30 space dollars which the average American taxpayer is paying, and send these dollars to the hungry children?" To answer this question, I have to explain briefly how the economy of this country works. The situation is very similar in other countries. The government consists of a number of departments (Interior, Justice, Health, Education and Welfare, Transportation, Defense, and others) and the bureaus (National Science Foundation, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and others). All of them prepare their yearly budgets according to their assigned missions, and each of them must defend its budget against extremely severe screening by congressional committees, and against heavy pressure for economy from the Bureau of the Budget and the President. When the funds are finally appropriated by Congress, they can be spent only for the line items specified and approved in the budget.

The budget of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, naturally, can contain only items directly related to aeronautics and space. If this budget were not approved by Congress, the funds proposed for it would not be available for something else; they would simply not be levied from the taxpayer, unless one of the other budgets had obtained approval for a specific increase which would then absorb the funds not spent for space. You realize from this brief discourse that support for hungry children, or rather a support in addition to what the United States is already contributing to this very worthy cause in the form of foreign aid, can be obtained only if the appropriate department submits a budget line item for this purpose, and if this line item is then approved by Congress.

You may ask now whether I personally would be in favor of such a move by our government. My answer is an emphatic yes. Indeed, I would not mind at all if my annual taxes were increased by a number of dollars for the purpose of feeding hungry children, wherever they may live.

I know that all of my friends feel the same way. However, we could not bring such a program to life merely by desisting from making plans for voyages to Mars. On the contrary, I even believe that by working for the space program I can make some contribution to the relief and eventual solution of such grave problems as poverty and hunger on Earth. Basic to the hunger problem are two functions: the production of food and the distribution of food. Food production by agriculture, cattle ranching, ocean fishing and other large-scale operations is efficient in some parts of the world, but drastically deficient in many others. For example, large areas of land could be utilized far better if efficient methods of watershed control, fertilizer use, weather forecasting, fertility assessment, plantation programming, field selection, planting habits, timing of cultivation, crop survey and harvest planning were applied.

The best tool for the improvement of all these functions, undoubtedly, is the artificial Earth satellite. Circling the globe at a high altitude, it can screen wide areas of land within a short time; it can observe and measure a large variety of factors indicating the status and condition of crops, soil, droughts, rainfall, snow cover, etc., and it can radio this information to ground stations for appropriate use. It has been estimated that even a modest system of Earth satellites equipped with Earth resources, sensors, working within a program for worldwide agricultural improvements, will increase the yearly crops by an equivalent of many billions of dollars.

The distribution of the food to the needy is a completely different problem. The question is not so much one of shipping volume, it is one of international cooperation. The ruler of a small nation may feel very uneasy about the prospect of having large quantities of food shipped into his country by a large nation, simply because he fears that along with the food there may also be an import of influence and foreign power. Efficient relief from hunger, I am afraid, will not come before the boundaries between nations have become less divisive than they are today. I do not believe that space flight will accomplish this miracle over night. However, the space program is certainly among the most promising and powerful agents working in this direction.

Let me only remind you of the recent near-tragedy of Apollo 13. When the time of the crucial reentry of the astronauts approached, the Soviet Union discontinued all Russian radio transmissions in the frequency bands used by the Apollo Project in order to avoid any possible interference, and Russian ships stationed themselves in the Pacific and the Atlantic Oceans in case an emergency rescue would become necessary. Had the astronaut capsule touched down near a Russian ship, the Russians would undoubtedly have expended as much care and effort in their rescue as if Russian cosmonauts had returned from a space trip. If Russian space travelers should ever be in a similar emergency situation, Americans would do the same without any doubt.

Higher food production through survey and assessment from orbit, and better food distribution through improved international relations, are only two examples of how profoundly the space program will impact life on Earth. I would like to quote two other examples: stimulation of technological development, and generation of scientific knowledge.

The requirements for high precision and for extreme reliability which must be imposed upon the components of a moon-travelling spacecraft are entirely unprecedented in the history of engineering. The development of systems which meet these severe requirements has provided us a unique opportunity to find new material and methods, to invent better technical systems, to manufacturing procedures, to lengthen the lifetimes of instruments, and even to discover new laws of nature.

All this newly acquired technical knowledge is also available for application to Earth-bound technologies. Every year, about a thousand technical innovations generated in the space program find their ways into our Earthly technology where they lead to better kitchen appliances and farm equipment, better sewing machines and radios, better ships and airplanes, better weather forecasting and storm warning, better communications, better medical instruments, better utensils and tools for everyday life. Presumably, you will ask now why we must develop first a life support system for our moon-travelling astronauts, before we can build a remote-reading sensor system for heart patients. The answer is simple: significant progress in the solutions of technical problems is frequently made not by a direct approach, but by first setting a goal of high challenge which offers a strong motivation for innovative work, which fires the imagination and spurs men to expend their best efforts, and which acts as a catalyst by including chains of other reactions.

Spaceflight without any doubt is playing exactly this role. The voyage to Mars will certainly not be a direct source of food for the hungry. However, it will lead to so many new technologies and capabilities that the spin-offs from this project alone will be worth many times the cost of its implementation.

Besides the need for new technologies, there is a continuing great need for new basic knowledge in the sciences if we wish to improve the conditions of human life on Earth. We need more knowledge in physics and chemistry, in biology and physiology, and very particularly in medicine to cope with all these problems which threaten man's life: hunger, disease, contamination of food and water, pollution of the environment.

We need more young men and women who choose science as a career and we need better support for those scientists who have the talent and the determination to engage in fruitful research work. Challenging research objectives must be available, and sufficient support for research projects must be provided. Again, the space program with its wonderful opportunities to engage in truly magnificent research studies of moons and planets, of physics and astronomy, of biology and medicine is an almost ideal catalyst which induces the reaction between the motivation for scientific work, opportunities to observe exciting phenomena of nature, and material support needed to carry out the research effort.

Among all the activities which are directed, controlled, and funded by the American government, the space program is certainly the most visible and probably the most debated activity, although it consumes only 1.6 percent of the total national budget, and 3 per mille (less than one-third of 1 percent) of the gross national product. As a stimulant and catalyst for the development of new technologies, and for research in the basic sciences, it is unparalleled by any other activity. In this respect, we may even say that the space program is taking over a function which for three or four thousand years has been the sad prerogative of wars.

How much human suffering can be avoided if nations, instead of competing with their bomb-dropping fleets of airplanes and rockets, compete with their moon-travelling space ships! This competition is full of promise for brilliant victories, but it leaves no room for the bitter fate of the vanquished, which breeds nothing but revenge and new wars.

Although our space program seems to lead us away from our Earth and out toward the moon, the sun, the planets, and the stars, I believe that none of these celestial objects will find as much attention and study by space scientists as our Earth. It will become a better Earth, not only because of all the new technological and scientific knowledge which we will apply to the betterment of life, but also because we are developing a far deeper appreciation of our Earth, of life, and of man.



The photograph which I enclose with this letter shows a view of our Earth as seen from Apollo 8 when it orbited the moon at Christmas, 1968. Of all the many wonderful results of the space program so far, this picture may be the most important one. It opened our eyes to the fact that our Earth is a beautiful and most precious island in an unlimited void, and that there is no other place for us to live but the thin surface layer of our planet, bordered by the bleak nothingness of space. Never before did so many people recognize how limited our Earth really is, and how perilous it would be to tamper with its ecological balance. Ever since this picture was first published, voices have become louder and louder warning of the grave problems that confront man in our times: pollution, hunger, poverty, urban living, food production, water control, overpopulation. It is certainly not by accident that we begin to see the tremendous tasks waiting for us at a time when the young space age has provided us the first good look at our own planet.

Very fortunately though, the space age not only holds out a mirror in which we can see ourselves, it also provides us with the technologies, the challenge, the motivation, and even with the optimism to attack these tasks with confidence. What we learn in our space program, I believe, is fully supporting what Albert Schweitzer had in mind when he said: "I am looking at the future with concern, but with good hope."

My very best wishes will always be with you, and with your children.

Very sincerely yours,

Ernst Stuhlinger

Associate Director for Science

Minnesota Family Council Reacts to Gay Marriage Rulings

I just wanted to quickly share this email I got from the Minnesota Family Council following the two SCOTUS rulings regarding gay marriage last week. I won't comment on it here other than to note they asked for money 4 times in the same email. At least Obama had the courtesy to send you three separate emails.

Dear Friends, As you already may have heard, the United States Supreme Court issued opinions on two marriage cases involving the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.  The Court struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act, (DOMA) and dismissed an appeal regarding a constitutional California marriage amendment called Proposition 8 which was passed by more than 7 million voters in 2008.

Many of you have asked: “What do the decisions mean and how will they affect our religious freedoms?

Proposition 8 Ruling
The Proposition 8 ruling is the most disturbing.  The Court chose not to rule on the merits of the case and instead ruled that the proponents of California’s Proposition 8 had no standing to appeal the case.

(After voters passed Prop 8 in 2008, a lawsuit was filed to challenge it. The California government refused to defend the law and the defense was conducted by private citizens.  Last week, the Supreme Court ruled that those private citizens who defended the law did not have the legal ability to do so.)

By not ruling on the merits of the case, the Court established a “terrible precedent, ruling that citizens who pass an initiative (Prop 8 or other Marriage Amendments) do not have the legal right or standing to defend that law when elected officials refuse to do their job and defend the duly enacted law in court.”

The effect of this ruling will play out in both the federal district court and in California state courts in the upcoming days and weeks, and the fate of CA’s Proposition 8 is still unknown. The ruling applies narrowly to California and has no effect on Minnesota.

Please consider making a generous financial contribution of $25, $50, $100 or even more to help MFC promote marriage as between one man and one woman and protect your religious liberties against the new same-sex “marriage” bill passed in May.

DOMA Ruling
The High Court struck down the portion of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that defines marriage as between one man and one woman for federal law purposes. This means that the same-sex “spouses” of federal employees will receive federal benefits as if they were spouses in a natural marriage in states that have redefined marriage.

The Court’s ruling on the DOMA case completely misinterprets the principles of federalism it purported to affirm. Federal government has the authority to make federal law for federal purposes, just as states have the authority to create state marriage laws for state purposes. The disappointing ruling declares that Congress does not have the right to maintain a federal definition of marriage.

More disturbing, the majority opinion written by Justice Kennedy implies that the members of Congress who passed DOMA were motivated in part due to “improper animus” towards gays and lesbians.  This is simply preposterous.  Please take the time to read Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent as he sounds a “chilling warning” that the DOMA ruling deliberately uses language and reasoning that will encourage future legal cases that will allow the Supreme Court to force same-sex marriage on all 50 states.

What Is The Bottom Line?
The good news is that the rulings demonstrate that there is no constitutional right to same-sex “marriage.”  The Court’s rulings affirm that the conversation about marriage can continue among citizens in the states. The Court found no constitutional right to same-sex "marriage.”

The decisions by the Supreme Court today affirm that the debate about marriage CAN and SHOULD continue…and it’s in YOUR hands.

As Minnesotans who understand the biological, historical, and transcendental reality of marriage, as well as the public purpose of God’s design for marriage, we now more than ever have the RIGHT, DUTY, and RESPONSIBILITY to stand in defense of 1 man-1 woman marriage. Promoting the good of marriage as an institution that uniquely encourages children to be raised by their mother and father if at all possible is GOOD policy and works to limit government’s involvement in our personal lives.

Here is what you can do.
Please make a generous financial contribution of $25, $50, $100 or even more to help MFC promote marriage as between one man and one woman and protect your religious liberties against the new same-sex “marriage” bill passed in May.

And, find out how your REPRESENTATIVE and SENATOR voted on Minnesota’s same-sex “marriage” bill and take action.  Contact them to thank them for voting against the bill or let them know that you are disappointed that they voted yes and you will be working to hold them accountable in the next election.

“Forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.”  (Philippians 3:13-14) Many of you have asked: “What do the decisions mean and how will they affect our religious freedoms? Proposition 8 RulingThe Proposition 8 ruling is the most disturbing.  The Court chose not to rule on the merits of the case and instead ruled that the proponents of California’s Proposition 8 had no standing to appeal the case.  (After voters passed Prop 8 in 2008, a lawsuit was filed to challenge it. The California government refused to defend the law and the defense was conducted by private citizens.  Last week, the Supreme Court ruled that those private citizens who defended the law did not have the legal ability to do so.) By not ruling on the merits of the case, the Court established a “terrible precedent, ruling that citizens who pass an initiative (Prop 8 or other Marriage Amendments) do not have the legal right or standing to defend that law when elected officials refuse to do their job and defend the duly enacted law in court.” The effect of this ruling will play out in both the federal district court and in California state courts in the upcoming days and weeks, and the fate of CA’s Proposition 8 is still unknown. The ruling applies narrowly to California and has no effect on Minnesota. Please consider making a generous financial contribution of $25, $50, $100 or even more to help MFC promote marriage as between one man and one woman and protect your religious liberties against the new same-sex “marriage” bill passed in May. DOMA RulingThe High Court struck down the portion of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that defines marriage as between one man and one woman for federal law purposes. This means that the same-sex “spouses” of federal employees will receive federal benefits as if they were spouses in a natural marriage in states that have redefined marriage. The Court’s ruling on the DOMA case completely misinterprets the principles of federalism it purported to affirm. Federal government has the authority to make federal law for federal purposes, just as states have the authority to create state marriage laws for state purposes. The disappointing ruling declares that Congress does not have the right to maintain a federal definition of marriage. More disturbing, the majority opinion written by Justice Kennedy implies that the members of Congress who passed DOMA were motivated in part due to “improper animus” towards gays and lesbians.  This is simply preposterous.  Please take the time to read Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent as he sounds a “chilling warning” that the DOMA ruling deliberately uses language and reasoning that will encourage future legal cases that will allow the Supreme Court to force same-sex marriage on all 50 states. What Is The Bottom Line?The good news is that the rulings demonstrate that there is no constitutional right to same-sex “marriage.”  The Court’s rulings affirm that the conversation about marriage can continue among citizens in the states. The Court found no constitutional right to same-sex "marriage.” The decisions by the Supreme Court today affirm that the debate about marriage CAN and SHOULD continue…and it’s in YOUR hands. As Minnesotans who understand the biological, historical, and transcendental reality of marriage, as well as the public purpose of God’s design for marriage, we now more than ever have the RIGHT, DUTY, and RESPONSIBILITY to stand in defense of 1 man-1 woman marriage. Promoting the good of marriage as an institution that uniquely encourages children to be raised by their mother and father if at all possible is GOOD policy and works to limit government’s involvement in our personal lives. Here is what you can do.Please make a generous financial contribution of $25, $50, $100 or even more to help MFC promote marriage as between one man and one woman and protect your religious liberties against the new same-sex “marriage” bill passed in May. And, find out how your REPRESENTATIVE and SENATOR voted on Minnesota’s same-sex “marriage” bill and take action.  Contact them to thank them for voting against the bill or let them know that you are disappointed that they voted yes and you will be working to hold them accountable in the next election.  “Forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.”  (Philippians 3:13-14)

Face to Face with Destiny

Some say the journey is a particular percentage of the reward. To get to the SSA conference yesterday, I took a bus from downtown LA to the Strip in Vegas for $25 bucks. A great money saver to be sure, but since I had no travelling companion the seating arrangement became a game of roulette.

So, what are the odds that when travelling to a skepticism or atheism related event that the person in the seat next to you holds some really reeaaally wacky beliefs? If I were going by empirical measurements, so far the odds are near 100%.

This trip was no exception, as a pretty 18 year old girl with a skateboard sat next to me on the very last pick-up point.  The first few minutes were uneventful as we awkwardly avoided eye contact, both internally deliberating whether or not we should make first contact. When I finally broached the silence to introduce myself, I had just unwittingly opened a Pandora's Box. I should have had my first clue that this girl was worthy of a Tim Minchin 9 minute beat poem when she said that her name was Destiny.

For a short time the conversation was lighthearted and innocent as we discussed our respective origins and destinations, families and friends, and other such introductory small talk. Then, just as I was starting to think I had lucked out with my seating companion, without warning a wild Zubatshit appears.

"So what do you think about the 'theory' that we landed on the moon?"-Destiny

Through some incredible act of willpower, I manged to keep my hand from impacting my face at high speed. Still, my heart sank as I considered that we still had 4 hours of bus ride ahead of us and no seat belts existed capable of keeping me secure in my seat during this wild ride.

After taking a few minutes to regain inner composure, I realized I was wearing my SpaceX swag so the question may not have been as random as I thought. So I delicately replied that I believed we did land on the moon. Scratch that, I'm nearly certain that we landed on the moon. I then went on to explain the retro-reflective mirrors left there by Apollo astronauts Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong, and how you can demonstrate that the mirrors are there by shooting a laser at the moon. Science rocks!

She seemed to think this was an interesting piece of trivia but promptly hypothesized that maybe they just sent the mirror there with robots or something.

But the fun was just getting started, as over the course of the next three hours I learned interesting things about our world that I never realized were facts, including but not limited to:

• Adam and Eve lived to by 930 years old. (Her Grandpa didn't believe this and tried to talk her out of it but she showed him where it was in the Bible and that obviously proved she was right).
• Evolution didn't happen because I don't believe we evolved from monkeys. God made each of us individually with great care. Even AIG takes issue with this argument. (It also took her a while to search for the word EVOLVE when she was trying to explain what "those scientists" believe).
• Red tides and the Yangtze river turning blood red are signs of the end times (seas and rivers turn to blood and all that right?).
• Obama's new healthcare law will require implanting RFID tags for insurance reasons in the hand, which was possibly the Mark of the Beast. Either that or the chips they're putting in our head is the mark..
• The rapture is going to happen and I feel sorry for anyone who will be alive for Satan's 1000 year reign. Sucks to be them!
• America is number 1...in MACHISMO! Ya we're badasses!! (China's number 2 BTW)
• We have a right to bear arms, and Obama is taking our guns because someone had an accident and shot up a bunch of people somewhere.
• Dragons are real! They found one frozen in ice that had some charred knights next to it. I saw it on Animal Planet. The government is also trying to cover it up because they want to feel superior to those pesky dragons.
• Animal Planet also explained how they found a Mermaid, cause they're real too. 

Aside to Animal Planet: I know your documentaries are really cool fictional "what-if" CGI fantasies and I sincerely hope you know that, but clearly that fact isn't as obvious to your audience as you might think. When people see a "documentary" on Animal Planet or History Channel or Discovery, they seem to be under the (mis)apprehension that they will contain actual facts.

We covered a lot more ground than this in our 4 hours together, but I don't want to strain my brain any more than I already have recalling the experience. For the first couple stories I attempted to put forth counter evidence if I was aware of any, but we so quickly descended into depths of conspiracy madness that I had never even heard of some of the details that she knew with such confidence to be true. 

At that point, I reverted to an "I've never heard of this, please point me to the evidence so I can investigate further" type responses. I simply stated my skepticism, a few reasons why I had doubts, and left it at that. 

Rule number one when strating an argument with a believer is have an exit strategy. If you know you will be unable to extradite yourself from the conversation (say by being stuck on a bus or plane for 4 hours), diplomacy must be your number one priority. I do regret not having the opportunity to mention that I'm an Atheist and on my way to a conference of like minded students, but to paraphrase Tim Minchin: may as well be 4 hours back in time for all the chance you'll change your mind.