TRUE ART

The bad: Jackson Pollock, No 5.

What is art? And why is that a difficult question?

Let's start off by looking at two paintings. The first one is "No. 5"  by Jackson Pollock. The second one is a painting by Veronique Meignaud. 

The good: Veronique Meignaud, Illusion token.

The first one is complete random mess of accidental splashes of paint. The second one shows detail, imagination, good composition. When you look at the first one you know you are looking at splashes of paint. But the second one might convince you that the painter has captured something from another world. Or opened some transdimensional portal.

The first painter is internationally recognized as a great painter, and the particular painting that I showed you has been auctioned off for $ 140.000.000. The second painter is much less known, and that painting is used on a card of the game Magic: The gathering.


This obvious discrepancy between the quality of the artists' work versus their renown makes me mad!

And I don't think this is just an exception to the rule. See the other examples below.

I have witnessed the mass production of unimaginative crap because of heavy government subsidizing. I have witnessed the deterioration in product quality when you walk in a museum from the classical pieces to the modern. I have witnessed the widespread praise in big museums, and television shows of robotic, color-blind Neanderthals with brain damage, while the true artists are hidden behind a nicely drawn avatar on DeviantArt. Here I try to convince you of using a different, less ambivalent definition of art. If only to give credit to the people that deserve it.

TRUE ART IS COMPLEX

The bad: Barnett Newman

I think I can argue that true art is defined by complexity. But first let me show you what merriam-webster dictionary says about art: "something that is created with imagination and skill and that is beautiful or that expresses important ideas or feelings". Superficially, this definition seems all right. But if you analyse it you will see that it's not.

The first part "created with imagination and skill" says more about the way it was created than it says about the work itself. For a forger might make an excellent copy of a painting, but didn't use any imagination to create it. So according to the definition, the copy would not be art, but the original would, even though the paintings themselves are identical. That cannot be right. The qualities of the product, not of the method should determine whether it is art or not.

The second part "that is beautiful, or that expresses important ideas or feelings" is equally weird. Being beautiful is important, because to me, that's what art is for. But it is also subjective. You cannot analyse the work and see whether it is beautiful or not, you have to ask people. And "expressing important ideas or feelings" is again not a quality of the product, but of the method. No matter what political views the artists has, or what emotions he felt during the production of the work. What matters is the result.

The good: Клим Новосельцев, In the land of dreams.

Never mind that the psychotic killer thought he was doing the right thing when committing murder. What matters is that he killed someone. It does not matter how the person feels when giving to charity, what matters is how that money is ultimately being spent. What ultimately matters to art is how it appears to the viewer. Never mind the artist. What matters is what characteristics the work posses. Nothing more.

The last thing art is not, is what the viewer sees in it. I have often heard art connoisseurs talking about all matters of things they see in some abstract painting. They credit the artist for making an imaginative painting, while it's obviously their own imagination that should get credit. I think I'm safe to say that most painters can see all matters of things in a blank canvas. That does not make the blank canvas a great piece of art.

The bad: K. Malevich, white on white.

I would say that all true art is complex. Complexity in this case means 'the degree by which it can be created by one accident'. Works of low complexity are easily created by chance. For example, in my neighbourhood there are a lot of pieces of rusty iron standing on the side of the road. The people that 'created' these things call them works of art, but I don't. When you start with a piece of metal you get from the junk-yard, perhaps cut away a piece, and then let it rust, you create something that can come into existence without your interventions. Similarly, one could get a floor covered in peanut butter, or a flipped urinal by accident. Likewise, you can imagine that a storm could create the Pollock's, when you provide it with opened paint tins and canvas. But the things I call art would not happen by accident in a million years.

Art is not the immediate product of a simple accident. Art is created very deliberately, consciously, accurately. The more complex a work is, the more it is art. Note that if art is only defined by complexity, then all manners of machines are also included, like automobiles, and computers. But I think this is fine.

The good: Xeeming, NecroVenus.

WHO TO CREDIT?

The last thing I want to say is that one should be very careful when determining the artist responsible for the work. For example, someone could make a photograph of a beautiful tree. The tree is considered art on basis of its complexity, and the artist is evolution. The camera is art, and the artists are the designers, the robots and factory workers, all combined. But when starting with a tree and camera, the photo could be easily a product of an accident. It's only the press of a button, after all. Therefore, the photographer is not an artist.

Nor are many people who repurpose common objects. Often such repurposing reduces complexity, and so these people might be better called hooligans than anything else.

INTELLIGENT CHIMPANZEES

I recently watched 'Rise of the Planet of the Apes' again, and decided to write about the errors the writers made about the science in it. I like the movie, and that's why I'm bothered by its faults so much. Let's go directly to the problems. (spoiler alert)

GENE THERAPY

The whole movie revolved around an experimental drug that was designed to combat Alzheimer's disease. The prime investigator explained that it was meant to increase the brain's ability to regenerate. This does make sense. Brain damage (caused by toxic build-up of amyloid beta peptides) underlies the symptoms of Alzheimer's, and our brain is currently not good at healing itself. In fact, virtually none of our organs and limbs can grow back, only certain tissues that need to be replaced fairly frequently (like blood and skin).

There is evidence that our ability to regenerate is somehow repressed. During development in the womb we possess much stronger ability to regenerate, and gradually lose this, possibly due to scar formation (ref1, ref2). So it may very well be possible to reactivate this system. Researchers have shown that brain regeneration in mice restores cognitive functions even if the toxic amyloid plaques are left intact (ref). Of course, regeneration of the brain cannot restore lost memories, so it is best to use such a therapy in an early stage of the disease.

In the movie, the man suffering from dementia was cured by the gene therapy. Huzzah!

However, the man needed regular administration of the drug to keep the dementia at bay. That would have been the case for drugs that function only as long as they remain in the patient's body. Most present-day drugs work like that, and that's probably why the writers have made this error. But the main researcher developing the therapy explained that it was a virus-mediated gene therapy. In such a therapy the drug is a DNA-modifying agent (a virus in this case). The DNA code underlies cellular functions, and when it is changed, cellular functions are changed. So when this agent does its job, and you see a positive response (i.e. the person is has regained lost functions), there is no reason to take it again. The cells are already fixed. It could only make things worse, by adding too many copies of a certain gene.

Only when the previous administration of the virus did not work because there was too little of it to affect all the target cells, only then would it make sense to administer the virus again. 

IMMUNE SYSTEM

Eventually the therapy failed. The man's dementia came back.

This is possible, because the gene-therapy only made the brain create new brain cells, not remove the harmful amyloid plaques. Or prevent future accumulation. A therapy to truly cure dementia should couple enhanced regeneration with the expression of some enzymes that can break down the harmful substances in smaller bits that are safe.

It is also possible that the altering of the genetic code caused some disregulation in the long term. Especially when a drug like that hasn't been properly tested, unexpected side-effects may occur. One thing might be the formation of brain tumors, due to the fact that the gene therapy made the brain cells more likely to divide. Or perhaps brain cells that have one function (e.g. creating images) are suddenly growing in areas with other functions (e.g. making your limbs move).

In the movie it was neither of the above. The therapy failed because the immune system fought the virus. This is possible, though less of a problem for real-world gene therapies where you don't have to keep using the drug.

The problem is how the creators of the movie presented the immune system. For example, the researchers tested the drug on chimpanzees, and found that it worked. They commented that it was only logical because chimpanzees where known for their good immune system. As opposed to humans like the guy with Alzheimer's. This demonstrates some fundamental problem in understanding how the immune system works.

I have noticed the same thing when people talk about 'the ice-man' Wim Hof. Together with a science team it was tested how some techniques he used (meditation, certain breathing techniques and exposure to cold) could influence the immune system. One group of people performed the techniques for 10 days prior to the test, and the other group didn't. During the test, both groups received a bacterial protein, and the researchers examined the bodily responses. It was observed that the 'trained' group showed significantly lower levels of immune response-related proteins, as well as less flu-like symptoms than in the non-trained group (ref). Laymen then conclude that those techniques can improve your immune system. But of course, it is the other way round. That technique somehow inhibited the immune response. If the researchers replaced the bacterial protein with the actual pathogenic bacterium, the trained people would suffer more damage, and have a higher chance of dying.


SPEECH

The apes that received the gene therapy became smarter. It is possible that a genetic modification increasing the size of (certain parts) of the brain would increase intelligence. On the other hand, there has to be room in the skull for brain expansion. Young mammals have soft skulls which can expand if the brain requires room. But skulls of grown-up mammals are not so flexible, though I wouldn't say it's impossible. Bones are dynamic tissues, and so skulls might grow if the process of brain expansion doesn't happen too fast. Inheriting the modification from your mother (like Caesar did) would have solved that problem, but then the pelvis of the mother might be too small for the big head of the smart baby chimpanzee, and so it might not be able to exit the womb.

So the heads of the hairy apes should have become bigger, and something would probably have to be changed in the pelvis. But this does not diminish the fact that the increase in intelligence through genetic modification is really possible. And if, through some rare mutations or carelessness of the researchers the virus's replication ability was restored, it is possible to transmit this characteristic horizontally.

Stranger, to me, is the fact that the smartest chimpanzees get the ability to speak like humans. Real-life chimpanzees can be taught sign-language to a limited degree (e.g. Washoe, Kanzi). So they have some ability to understand language. A larger brain would make it possible to understand more complicated linguistic matters, but it would not make them speak like us. The reason is that their vocal tract does not allow it (ref). It would be very unlikely that the brain-growing virus would change the vocal tract when it hasn't been designed to do so.


CONCLUSION

This is but one example of movies that could have been great if they got the science right. If only they consulted a (life) scientist to check the script for errors. It doesn't even have to cost anything, I know I'd do it free of charge. I'm sure others would do too.


Update 22-02-15: researchers identified the genetic change that makes our brains bigger compared to our chimpanzee cousins. It is a 16-letter change in an enhancer of the FZD8 gene. They inserted the human enhancer + FZD8 gene into mice using pronuclear injection, and saw that it made the mice brains bigger compared to the normal (wt) mice, and compared to mice that received the chimpanzee enhancer + FZD8 gene.  Awesome!

UNIVERSAL MORAL CODE

 These are the moral rules I came up with:


1. Do not damage that what is not among your private possessions, living or non-living.

2. Do not treat any sentient being other than yourself as your private property.

3. Do not appropriate anything without permission of its owners.

4. Do not commit logical fallacies.

5. Think first, act later.

6. Keep your mind open for new ideas, including those that challenge existing ones.

7. Be critical of all testimonies.

8. Understand the limitations of your human senses, and of your human mind.


Rule 1-3

A society where things can be privately owned (a capitalistic society) is better than a society where that isn't possible (a communistic society). In the capitalistic society people can accumulate things through hard work. They can improve their life, during their life. Extremely popular games like World of Warcraft and Magic the Gathering show that simply collecting stuff is rewarding. And it is even more rewarding when the items collected give you more options in life (like money does). In a communistic society, where work does not provide you with liberating collectables, you won't be motivated much to do your best. First it is lazy people that perform poorly. Then the industrious people will perform less well because they don't like the inequality. And the do-gooders that work hard despite the inequality can simply not deal with the increasing work load. People suffer more greatly in a society that does not respect private ownership, and that's why rules 1-3 exist.

These rules also prohibit physical assault and coercion. It is clear that such things increase suffering directly, but also indirectly by taking away freedom. Killing does not make the victim suffer, because the victim is dead. He cannot suffer anymore. That does not mean nobody suffers from a death. Friends of the victim suffer greatly, which is enough to prohibit killing. But other people will suffer too. Even when the victims of a terrorist attack are not people you know, you may still suffer from the fear of something similar happening to you or your friends. The more often people are killed in a society, the stronger that fear.


Rule 4

Usually, conflicts do not arise due to fundamental differences between people, but due to logical fallacies. That´s why we need rule 4. THIS WEBSITE presents common logical fallacies in a clear and concise way, please check it out.

One example of a logical fallacy is one I see on a daily basis. It is called 'appeal to nature'. For example, anti-GMO people have prevented the production of golden rice, which has been available since 2002 (and a improved version since 2005). This genetically engineered rice is exactly like regular rice, except for the fact that it produces a good amount of vitamin A and has a yellow/orange color. It is estimated that between 600000 and 1200000 children have unnecessarily gone blind (of vitamin A deficiency) because of the delayed approval of the golden rice (ref). All because "it isn't natural".

Another example is the growing popularity of "biological" food products. These products are made exclusively using low-tech methods, which serves only to decrease efficiency. The rise of the "biological" way of production reduces sustainability, because it requires more land and produces more green-house gasses than the modern methods. This leads to increased extinction, and ultimately to an impoverished world. And when the expensive "biological" food products are the only ones to choose from, our standard of living will be reduced to that of a third world country. Only because these products are "more natural".


Rule 5-6

Nobody knows everything. And most people possess some incorrect information. And even the smartest people will commit logical fallacies now and then. Chances are great that you are wrong about something, sometimes. Acting quickly and not having an open mind decreases the chance of catching your mistake before it's too late.

People usually rather defend their own faulty position than admit they're wrong. That's because admitting to a mistake can be painful. The deeper the error goes, the more pain it does. But waiting is even worse. Imagine someone building a house, and finds out that he has made a mistake when placing the foundations. What's better? To replace the foundations, or to continue building?

Open-mindedness is necessary if we want to improve the human condition.

Rule 7-8

You know that people lie, and that people make mistakes. And that a lot of people trust those that lie and make mistakes. However, trusting only yourself is not possible if you want a pleasant life, because you cannot experience everything yourself. You cannot constantly travel all over the world to confirm the things you hear on the news. You cannot perform every scientific experiment yourself because you lack the understanding (it's nearly impossible to be an expert in all scientific fields), as well as the means. When the system consists of people checking other people you can trust it to a certain degree. Especially if they employ good information-gathering methods. The chance that the people working in the same field are all lying or all making the same mistake is a lot smaller than one of them doing that. But you should always be critical, and careful to accept anything as a truth.

Not criticizing statements increases corruption, and eventually leads to a terrible dictatorship where any kind of advancement (technological, cultural) does not exist. That's because all advancement requires the criticism of current (flawed) ideas. Clearly such an un-free society causes more suffering than a society where criticism is allowed, or encouraged.

SUFFERING

In my last post I wrote that I would provide you with a universal moral code of my own creation. However, I feel I have to lay down its foundations first, lest you push it down with one finger.

Let me start with the master rule, the rule that underlies all other rules:

Minimize suffering for all those capable of suffering.

This rule is similar to the silver rule: do not do onto others what you would not have them do onto you. One difference with the silver rule is that the master rule clearly states suffering, which only the silver rule implicates. The silver rule could have been written thus: do not make other people suffer, because you don't want other people to make you suffer. Another difference is that the master rule does not stress the feelings of the person following the rule, because, of course, the feelings of the person upon which is acted matter too. And we cannot expect that everybody experiences everything the same.

WHAT IS SUFFERING?

The way this rule is interpreted depends very much on the definition of suffering. When I talk about suffering I don't mean the experience of "physical" pain, or nociception. Pain can cause suffering, though one can also suffer without pain. Think of what you feel when you fail a test, or when your love relationship has ended, or when a loved one dies. For this incorporeal negative feeling I will use the word aversion to avoid confusion. To suffer is to experience aversion.

Certain mutations in the SCN9A gene cause a disorder called channelopathy-associated insensitivity to pain. The pain sensors of the mutants do not send signals to the brain when tissue damage occurs. So when these people damage themselves, they fail to notice, and often continue with their auto-mutilating behaviour. Clearly nociception is useful.

Other mutations in the same gene can cause the opposite: sensing pain when there is no tissue damage. People with paroxysmal extreme pain disorder have regularly recurring episodes of burning pain typically in their eyes, their lower jaw, and their rectum, though the pain is not limited to these locations. Simply touching things may be severely painful, so it is clear that apart from the increased suffering, this condition also diminishes people's ability to sense tissue damage.

Furthermore, pain can be experienced without the incorporeal aversive feeling, a condition called pain asymbolia. It is caused by brain damage or certain drugs. In this case, the area that produces pain does not send signals to the area that creates the aversive feelings. When these people cut themselves they feel the pain, but they are not bothered by it.

So it's clear that pain and aversion are different things. The ability to sense aversion is useful in the evolutionary sense, for the same reason nociception is useful (because pain creates aversion). Aversion is our negative motivator. It is what makes us avoid things that diminish our survival and/or reproduction.

Imagine that the part that creates aversive feelings in your brain has received too little blood, and died (hypothetical situation, I don't know whether this has happened before). First, probably, you would get an incredible smile. You feel great. Nothing can break you. Suddenly, like you have pissed off lady Fortune, your partner in love gets hit by a speeding car right before your eyes. Do you cry? Does the earth crumble beneath your feet? No. You keep on smiling. Whatever happens, you will be happy. Because the part that makes you unhappy is gone. Without the ability to suffer, love does not exist. And to me love is the most valuable thing in existence. Therefore the ability to suffer is also pretty valuable to me. Not the (internal) ability to suffer is condemnable, but the (external) events that trigger suffering.

There is a movement that promotes the elimination of suffering (i.e. the ability to suffer) using biotechnology, confusingly called abolitionism, promoted by David Pearce. Obviously I cannot agree with him. If love is destroyed, what is there left to live for? Riches? Fame? Knowledge? Perfect health? When you can't suffer, you cannot emotionally attach to any of these things. Nothing that exists has any value to you. There might as well be nothing at all.

WHO SUFFERS?

The master rule could have been shorter, simply: minimize suffering. But many crimes are committed because people do not consider the feelings of other people outside their own family or gang. The addition: for all those capable of suffering, does demand an explanation. Who exactly are capable of suffering?

Some people only act morally to members within their own group (e.g. Nazis, strict Muslims). Other people apply their rules to all visible animal life (e.g. Jainists), and some even include non-living things like rocks (various shamanistic religions). It is obvious that all humans can suffer, and that no non-living thing can. But the grey area of living things that are not human?

Humans can speak about their feelings, which allows some indirect measurement of suffering. Non-human animals cannot, though of course there's no reason to assume that the inability to communicate with us reflects the inability to suffer. We cannot draw a clear line between species that can suffer and species that cannot. What we can do, is look at characteristics that greatly influence the ability to suffer.

First there's memory. When you have an extremely short memory, lasting only seconds, you do not have much ability to suffer. You might sense some aversion for a moment, and then it's gone. However, if painful memories last forever, one negative event may cause infinite suffering. Well, not literally infinite, because a creature dies at a certain moment. So life span is also important. If negative events are remembered indefinitely, then a creature that lives only 200 days can suffer much less than a creature that lives 200 years. In short, the better the memory, and the longer the life span, the stronger the ability to suffer.

Secondly, there's imagination. Memories may be accessed when encountering the thing that caused the negative experience in the first place. For example, you got attacked by geese when you were young, and experience distress each time you see a goose. But when you can imagine yourself encountering geese, you will also suffer. Or consider imagining your partner in love getting killed. That triggers suffering even though there's no suffering-inducing precedent. Therefore, the better an organism is at imagining things (that may happen in this reality), the more it is capable of suffering.

Intelligence (which includes the abilities to memorize and imagine) is correlated with brain size, but only when you compare it to the size of the body. Larger creatures have more motor neurons and sensory neurons, and so need larger brains to process all the outgoing and ingoing signals. Therefore, absolute brain size does not correlate with intelligent abilities. But if one compared the brain size for similarly big animals, one would see that those with larger brains are the smarter ones, those better at remembering and those better imagining. One can calculate the ratio between the actual brain mass, and the predicted brain mass for animals of a given size, as a strong indicator of the ability to memorize and imagine. This ratio is called the encephalization quotient (EQ). The higher the EQ, the higher the intelligent abilities, and the higher the capacity to suffer. 

So both brain size corrected for body size, and life expectancy (average life span of species) are strong indicators for the ability to suffer. Knowing these parameters, one can calculate a suffer-value. A high suffer value indicates strong ability to suffer, and a low value indicates a weak ability. When calculating this suffer-value for all animal species, one can make good decisions to minimize total suffering. Below I calculated a suffer-values using EQ and LE information from wikipedia. I used the following formula: suffer-value = EQ * EQ * LE. I decided to let the EQ count twice, because the EQ matters in both areas of memory and imagination, and life span only in memory. Note that this is only an example of how such a suffer-value could be calculated. Perhaps there are better ways.

EQ:

Human - 7,6

Bottlenose Dolphin -  4,1

Chimpanzee - 2,3

Dog - 1,2

House mouse - 0,5

Life Expectancy (LE; in protected environments):

Human - 70 years

Bottlenose Dolphin - 45 years

Chimpanzee - 55 years

Dog - 12 years

House mouse - 3 years

Example suffer-values (EQ * EQ * life expectancy; rounded to nearest integer):

Human - 4043

Bottlenose Dolphin - 756

Chimpanzee - 291

Dog - 17

House mouse -1

  

The suffer-value isn't perfect, and that's because the EQ isn't perfect. Firstly, the EQ does not account for brain surface increase by brain folding. It would be better if brain surface instead of brain mass was used in these calculations, though that is more difficult to measure. Additionally, the size of the cerebral cortex is better correlated with intelligence than the rest of the brain. Some species might have a bigger cerebellum for their size, but this makes them more dexterous and agile, not more intelligent. And when we do only use the size of the cerebrum, we cannot create an EQ for invertebrates because they don't have a cerebrum.

With these suffer-values, or with better ones created differently, one can make moral calculations. For instance, we can measure whether it is allright to use laboratory animals. From the values above it is clear that life-long suffering in multiple mice to save even one human from life-long suffering is good moral judgement. This means using laboratory animals to test cures for human diseases is usually fine (though of course suffering should be limited when possible). Less obvious is the routine use of laboratory animals to test new cosmetics, because most people do not suffer greatly from a lack of new products. Calculations can also be made when only humans are concerned. Consider for instance a situation where a Muslim fanatic is on his way to blow up a building with hundreds of people, and policemen have to decide whether or not to shoot him. Shooting him only hurts his friends, and not shooting him hurts his friends plus thousands of relatives of the people that die from the bomb explosion, and even more people out of fear for such attacks. In this case, shooting the Muslim fanatic is the right thing to do.

This last thing is important: the consequences of an action determine whether it is good or evil (consequentialism) rather than some actions being intrinsically evil, and others intrinsically good (moral absolutism). You cannot say "all killing is evil", simply because it depends on the context whether killing is good or evil. Furthermore, good and evil should also not be regarded as absolute. Torturing a house fly for 1 day is far less evil than torturing 1 human being for 10 years.

Also see the image above. Consider a system with a certain amount of beings capable of suffering. Its current suffering level is at the middle of the spectrum (it actually does not matter because we do not care about absolute amounts of suffering). By doing something that decreases the amount of suffering in the system we move to the right, indicating that we do good (red arrow in the middle). By doing something that increases the amount of suffering we move to the left, indicating that we do evil. The length of the arrow indicates how good or evil we act.

After the change of the suffering level, the new level becomes the new neutral point, as is shown in the image. This does not implicate that there is no difference between a high-suffering level or low-suffering level, or that it does not matter whether the level is high or low. No, the level of suffering in a system should be as low as possible. What I try to show with the image is that the same actions, with the same lengths of arrows, are equally good or evil, it does not matter what the current absolute suffering value is. Torturing 1 person for 10 days is equally evil in hell as it is in paradise. The image also shows that one cannot compensate for evil actions. Torturing 2 people is evil no matter how many people you save in the future (or have saved in the past). On the other hand, torturing 2 people in order to save 10 people is good.

This is all for now, in the next post I will come to the universal moral rules.

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

The aftermath of the recent terrorist attacks has made me realize that there are (at least) two wrong ways of dealing with freedom of expression:

1. Expressing thoughts and feelings whatever the means or consequences.

- The Kouachi brothers did not like certain drawings, and so they felt they had to kill the people who drew them.

- Certain people sent death threats to Peter R. de Vries, a famous Dutch investigative journalist, because he allegedly sympathised with the terrorist acts (he did not).

- The French comedian and idiot Dieudonné has been arrested after sympathizing with Amedy Coulibaly for shooting several Jewish people. He has also received punishments before for 'insulting people of Jewish origin'.

- Certain people are destroying mosques, or attacking random Muslims or other 'foreigners' in response to the shootings.

The first problem with this stance is hypocrisy. Either all people are allowed to express themselves (e.g. cartoonists and Muslim fundamentalists), or nobody. The second problem is that of violence. All people rather live in a system where violation of everybody's property (including their bodies) is prohibited, than a system where such violation is allowed.

2. Not expressing thoughts and feelings that may be disliked by other people.

- The moderate Muslims, and other politically correct people do not want people to picture the prophet Muhammed, or criticize any part of Islam, because people might be offended.

Usually these people are extremely hypocritical. Only certain groups have the right to be offended, others do not. But if you could make it fair - nobody is allowed to express themselves if that results in emotional disapproval - then it's still awful.

WHEN YOU CANNOT EXPRESS YOURSELF

Corruption greatly increases. When you cannot complain about how certain police officers misuse their power, they never get put to justice. Same goes for judges, and for ministers. The greater the power, the more important it is that people speak out about them.

Science ceases to exist. To criticize new or existing ideas is central to scientific progress. When criticism isn't allowed, science turns into religion. Even new ideas that complement old ones are not accepted by all, and so will not be allowed.

Art ceases to exist. Each piece of art, whether a book, or a song, or a painting, is bound to be disliked by someone. All museums, radio stations, and book stores would be closed. People would only be able to express their feelings and creativity in the secrecy of their own home.

Conflicts increase. In contrast with what the politically correct people think, limiting expression will not bring people closer together. People need to talk about their problems. When the thoughts and feelings are never vented, people will become dishonest time-bombs. And the explosion will be violent, not respectful.

CONCLUSION

Expressing your thoughts and feelings is important, and so it is obvious that everybody should have a certain degree of freedom to do so. But it is also clear that some restrictions are necessary.

It is the rest of morality that determines the boundaries of the freedom of expression. And there we have a problem, because different people follow different moral codes. In my opinion it is not hard to come up with one universal moral code, because humans (and even other non-human animals) share many characteristics that lie at the basis of happiness and suffering. In the next post I will show you my attempt to create this universal moral code.

EDUCATION FOR THE FUTURE

The Dutch government started a campaign to improve the Dutch education system: "onderwijs2032". It's a nice chance to write down some ideas that were crawling around in the back of my head, and it's also nice to know that some of them might be actually used. Or at least considered to be used.

The text below is mainly about the secondary education system VWO (preparatory scientific education), except for the last paragraph, which is about Dutch education in general.

LONGER CLASSES

In the current system, high school students get 1-hour classes and move from classroom to classroom up to 8 times a day. This is inefficient, as time is wasted by walking, installing yourself and your books at your seat, and trying to get into the right mindset. I would suggest to have only 2 subjects per day. This allows students to dig deeper into the subject, and gives teachers more freedom to switch between passive and active teaching methods.

Additionally, students usually receive an unreasonable high amount of assignments for the next day, which might be reduced with only 2 subjects per day. I have noticed that teachers overestimate the amount of time students have after school, or underestimate the time required for the assignments they give the students. Or perhaps they know it's too much, but have to give them so much in order to reach certain 'teaching' quota. Whatever the reason, the 8-fold work load causes over-working and sleep deprivation, or a lack of understanding for courses entirely revolved around doing assignments. I have noticed both happening to me and my former fellow students. For this reason I think it is valuable to only have 2 subjects each day, to reduce workload after school.

And if this isn't enough, there should be some rule limiting the mandatory home work. Children should not have to work for more than 8 hours per day on school assignments. Time after school should be reserved for people that are slow, to catch up. Working 12 hours each day should not be the baseline.

NO CULTURAL CLASSES

I do not despise culture. I am a great admirer of painted art, of stone reliefs and statues, and various music styles. And of course literature. However, I do not think that the cultural classes provided in the VWO contribute to a more cultural nation.

Musicians need to learn how to play, sure. Though this usually happens at special private musical schools, or at home, not at the high school. Visual artists are primarily trained at home, usually by themselves. And if they need outside help there is a lot of that on Youtube for free. Nevertheless, I would keep one or two classrooms available for creative purposes, for people that are short in means. In these classrooms children can try out different things, under supervision. It should not be mandatory, and after regular school hours. Apart from this there should be no more cultural courses (the Dutch names: drama, muziek, beeldende vorming, CKV, KCV). Writing stories or poetry should remain part of the language subjects, as it directly improves proficiency in those languages.

The only problem I can see is that a number of teachers will become jobless. But this cannot be a reason to continue with the time wasting classes. Instead, provide these people with government-funded re-schooling.

GYMNASTICS

Personally, I hated Gymnastics courses. I do not care one iota about soccer or basket ball or american football or whatever the sports teachers demanded us to do. Why would you need to learn these sports? There is no reason. The only reason why a sports course is valuable is because it demands physical exercise, and that is beneficial for your health. So let the children exercise, but let them choose what to do.

LANGUAGES

Dutch and English are the only languages that students need to be fluent in. Other languages like German, French, and Spanish are already a waste of time, and become increasingly wasteful. Most people either do not come into contact with foreigners, and most that do speak English with them. Some people might benefit from learning other foreign languages, sure, but one should look at the big picture. If it's a waste for most, than it's a waste. The few people that want to migrate, or study languages at the university can study a related language in their spare time.

Having said that, I do have an idea to make people generally more language-compatible. Latin and Ancient Greek are studied by a part of the students that are exceptionally good at learning, and I think learning about those languages is valuable. Only to a certain degree, though. Why are these languages handy? Firstly, because scientific terminology is usually derived from Latin or Ancient Greek in a fairly straight-forward manner. Secondly, knowledge of a mother language helps you learn daughter languages. Instead of Latin of Greek I therefore propose the class 'History of Language'. It will contain elements of Latin and Ancient Greek, but also various medieval languages that form the links between the modern languages and the classical (middle Dutch, middle English, Old Norse, Breton, Gothic, Yiddish). Also teach them about the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European language, the mother language to Latin, Ancient Greek, and Sanskrit. Make the students learn words and concepts, but do not try to make them fluent in those dead languages. The students have more important things to do.

ICT

Learning to work with computers is obvious, and many have already stated that children should also learn programming languages. I couldn't agree more. And put the focus on the internet. A great deal of our lives are already online, and that can only increase with time.

NATURE / SOCIETY

Current high school students have to decide between different profiles: culture and society, nature and health, economy and society, and nature and technique. The nature profiles are scientific, and the society profiles are less so. The people that want to become important decision makers would choose a society path, while I think that surely decision makers should have a good scientific understanding. See a RELATED POST. And I do not think that scientific people should have a reduced understanding of society. For they might also become advisors, or perhaps aspire to found a (technological) company. Furthermore, children at that age usually do not know that they want, or, because their brains are still very much developing, their desires might change in the course of some years. You should keep their options open; do not restrict them at that stage. Remove the profiles.

CLASS LIST

I propose that in the future VWO students have the following classses:

- Dutch Language

- English Language

- History of Language
- ICT

- Biology

- Chemistry

- Physics

- Mathematics

- History

- Geography

- Philosophy

I assume in this list that the 'nature' subjects: biology, chemistry, physics, mathematics are designed so that students have a clear idea about the practicability. Especially physics and mathematics can sometimes become quite 'academic', very disconnected with reality. Some courses ('Algemene natuurwetenschappen' and 'Natuur, leven en technologie') are designed to link the subjects with applications, but I do not like the idea of additional courses. With different courses you have different teachers, different classrooms, different books. Such a separate course may have been handy to test for it's usefulness. If that test succeeded, I suggest to integrate it with the main courses.

This list is compatible with the 2-course-a-day idea. Philosophy and ICT are smaller courses, as perhaps History of language is too. 8 full courses + 3 small courses = more or less 10 full courses.

NO RELIGION

Finally I want to address the obvious flaw in our education system in general: the presence of religious teachings. I wholeheartedly advocate the mandatory secularization of all religious educational institutions. It's the 21st century for goodness' sake!

Let me be clear: I want children to have free, inquiring, critical minds. These minds are the most adaptive because they are the most in touch with reality, and so these have the highest chance of succeeding in life. In general religious teachings increase susceptibility to quackery and aversion towards the scientific.

People are allowed to believe whatever they want. That's the whole point, because religious primary schools do not promote freedom of thinking in children, but limit them to the religious affiliation of their parents. Parents are also allowed to teach their children whatever they want. And are allowed to send them to the church, mosque, or whatever brainwashing place they want to send them. But please offer them some freedom, and provide secular primary education to all. Think about integration. Think about blunting of strong ideologies. When the children make contact with people outside of their parents religious circle, they will become better people. More tolerant.

Something about the law: the Dutch law is supposed to defend religious schools. I dare to disagree. The article 23 of the constitution clearly speaks about equal standards, about good education for all. Whether special or public education. The 'inspectie van het onderwijs' checks whether schools provide good education, and may punish the school when the national standard is not met. Still, religious subjects are not banned by this authority. Obviously, teaching children that angels and devils exist, or that people after their death will go to a place of fire and eternal suffering, is on equal footing with teaching them that lightning is created by a dwarven-forged hammer, that age-related death is inflicted by a bearded man with a scythe, and that newborns are delivered by storks. Yes, everybody is allowed to create an educational institutions. But that does not mean there's unlimited freedom. It never did. Religious education fails the quality criteria, and should not be allowed to exist any longer.

Secondly, article 6 of the constitution clearly demands freedom of religion, beliefs, convictions. To preserve this freedom, we cannot allow parents to send their children to a religious school. Christian parents send their children to a Christian school. Muslims send their offspring to a Islamic school. Et cetera. It's never a choice of the children. And that's because they cannot make that choice when they are 4 years old.

Finally I want to state that if it is morality you are concerned for, think about all the cases of immorality by the most religious people around. The protestant parents denying their children medical access, Catholic priests raping young boys, the civil war in Israel, the assault on the world trade centre and other locations in the western world, et cetera. These immoral acts do not exist despite the religious belief, but because of it. Morality is a subject of  philosophy and neurology. Teach children some basic elements of these scientific subjects. Give them thought games, so that moral rules are based on calculations of the children themselves, and not because the teacher says so. And show them that the world is not divided in good versus evil. And that death is not a punishment to the person that dies, but to the friends and family of that person. Things like that. Give them the tools so that they may make good moral decisions themselves in the future.

For the sake of the children I demand secularization.

PERFECT FOOD

Do you sometimes wonder whether you are getting all the nutrients your body needs? You require different kinds of minerals, vitamins and amino acids. You also need fats (triglycerides), carbohydrates, and fibres. The simple idea I present here can remove all your nutrition-related worries.

TOXICITY

Dosis sola venenum facit

But first, something about toxicity. Many people have a wrong idea about toxicity. They think that the world is divided into good, healthy substances, and bad, toxic substances. This is a wrong assumption. EVERY SUBSTANCE IS TOXIC. Or can be toxic, to be more precise. Every substance has a toxicity threshold of amount consumed per unit of time. Below that the substance is harmless, but above that it's damaging. Generally the higher you go, the more damaging it is. But the toxicity dynamics differ between substances. Some substances might be damaging in very low doses, but lethal only in extremely high doses. For others this 'zone' between the damaging and lethal doses might be very small. Things you regularly consume in large quantities (like water or starch) have a very high toxicity threshold.

So to call a substance a toxin or poison is misleading. To call a substance 'carcinogenic' is equally misleading. A lot of substances nowadays are called carcinogenic by ignorant popular science writers. You might have thought for yourself that you can't eat anything without eating cancer-inducing stuff. And you're right. But each of the so-called carcinogenics, has a carcinogenic threshold. Below that you're fine, above that you have a higher chance of getting cancer. Avoiding cancer is not possible anyway, because the things most commonly causing cancer are reactive oxygen species (superoxide, hydrogen peroxide), UV-radiation, and sugars (glycation), which are part of every day life.

ARTIFICIALITY

Soylent drink

Rob Rhinehart was on to something when he designed the drink Soylent. It contains everything you need, and is not expensive. You don't have to worry about cooking again. But the problem with Soylent is that it tastes like "homemade nontoxic Play-Doh". OK, I don't know whether that's true. I haven't tried it myself. But I sure would not like to eat the same thing 24/7/365. To most people food is not a necessity, food is fun. People like to eat all kinds of different tasty things, myself included. So logically, we need a variety of food that contains everything we need, but that also tastes good.

These food products have to contain all the things we need in the right relative amounts, in order to not get a deficiency, but also not be poisoned. On top of this we will need a large range of non-nutritious substances that alter the taste, texture, look, and smell. For example, if you want a very sweet food, you should not add a lot of sugar. This will disrupt the balance of all the nutrients. You will either get too much sugar, or too little of the rest. That's where artificial sweeteners come in handy. They provide a sweet flavour, but do not count towards the carbohydrate content. For example, aspartame is 200 times sweeter than sucrose (sugar), so you have to add 200 times less to the food. Aspartame is broken down in a few different substances, among which two amino acids. So you have to adjust the amino acid content a bit of the food you want to produce, though because of the small amount of aspartame needed, this difference will also be minimal.

Additives like aspartame have received a lot of unjustified negative attention. Because they are termed artificial, people get alarmed, and demand investigation of toxicity. When people find evidence of toxicity, even if it is 30.000 times higher than the amount you'd normally intake, ignorant people still label it as fundamentally toxic. And they are labelled artificial, as if these substances aren't made with the regular set of 118 chemical elements, but with elements from a different, evil universe. And as if all natural products can be consumed without negative consequences. Try eating a salad of belladonna, fox gloves, and monkshood leaves.

In fact, to produce these super-foods, I would consider not using natural products at all. Plant and animal matter contains many different substances, most of which have been never tested for food safety. It is well possible that people nowadays are slightly poisoned by some regularly consumed plant without their knowledge. To avoid such accidental poisonings, I would only use substances in the food that has been tested for safety.

LABELS

Chocolate cake

I hope to see upgraded versions of all kinds of food: pizzas, cakes, pies, pastas, you name it. These have to be modified so that you can eat whichever you like, without having to worry about deficiencies or toxicities. For example, a chocolate cake might have reduced sugar and fat content, and their flavours reproduced by non-nutritious additives. And we know that some things in chocolate are bad for you, if you eat it every day. These things can be removed, and a potential change in flavour can again be compensated by using artificial flavourers. And we can add things like vitamin C so that you don't suffer from scurvy on your cake-diet.

People also eat non-processed foods like fruits, seeds, and leaves. To enhance these we can genetically modify the plants, so that they stop producing the things we do not want (things that are toxic in low concentrations, and things that induce allergies), and add things they lack. Of course, making these things optimal for consumption is more difficult, because plants are living organisms. Adding or removing parts might result in lower disease resistance, or lower growth rate. We have to find a balance between plant health and human health here.

Pizza

Two problems remain, though they can be solved by proper labelling. First, when these super-foods are made, you can still eat too little or too much. The solution is to add labels that tell you how much to eat of it. For example, we might create an indicator similar to that for calories. Perhaps we set the daily intake level at 100, and each superfood gets a value showing how much it contributes to that number.

Second, all people are not the same. I expect most of the differences between people due to differences in size or activity, which are easily solved by eating more or less. If you feel a little weak when eating 100 food points, perhaps you should up that to 110 points per day. Other differences need to be solved differently. Some muscle-building activities might require extra protein. And climate has an effect too. Colder climates require a higher energy intake, and warmer climates a higher salt consumption. To solve this, we can make several versions of our products, and use a simple labelling system to distinguish them. Extra energy content may be indicated by lightning bolt symbol. Extra salt indicated by a sun symbol, and extra protein by a brick symbol.

You should be able to eat whatever you want. With perfect food you never again have to face the choice between living healthy and living comfortably.