Only Stupid People Win The Lottery

BACKGROUND:

The NYTimes philosophy blog has a piece called Philosophy and Faith, offering the following as a "philosophical argument" for the validity of faith:  "An answer may lie in work by philosophers as different as David Hume, Ludwig Wittgenstein, and Alvin Plantinga.  In various ways, they have shown that everyday life is based on “basic” beliefs for which we have no good arguments. There are, for example, no more basic truths from which we can prove that the past is often a good guide to the future, that our memories are reliable, or that other people have a conscious inner life."

SUBSTANCE:

Comparing religious faith to other commonly held faiths, such as faith in one's wife, or faith in humanity, doesn't show that it's rational to believe in God; it simply demonstrates the near universality of irrational thinking, meaning religion is no stupider than the other bullshit around which people base their lives.  This means that the most intellectually sophisticated comeback against an agnostic is, "well I think you're stupid too" - a statement that, while usually true, is a bit of an ad hominem non sequitur.  Sort of like when you have a couple of hideous gorgons arguing by calling each other ugly:  the fact that the one is disgusting doesn't make the other more attractive, and seeing the two of them together, debating as though it does, might actually compound the laughable heinousness of their appearance.

As a devout agnostic in all things, I have no absolute faith in humanity, in inductive reason, or in any sort of God.  However, I'm willing to go through the motions, pretending I believe wholeheartedly in the goodness of man and acting as though the laws of physics will undoubtedly hold, just because they're the best percentage bets available.  When you do the same thing with God, it's called Pascal's Wager, but I've heard He doesn't honor your winnings when you make that play.  As is often the case, the first step is to lie to yourself, so that you're being "honest" with everyone else; for some, this is easier said than done.

More Dirty Apes

BACKGROUND:
This article in Wired talks about how controlling soot might be an easy, effective way to curtail a significant amount of global warming.  Supposedly, the unforgivable blackness of soot causes it to absorb the sun's rays, heating up the atmosphere.  When soot falls onto glaciers, the increased absorption melts the snow, exposing the darker colored ground, causing a vicious cycle of increasing warmth.  Some estimates said that soot accounts for a quarter of the warming trend.

Soot only stays in the atmosphere for a few weeks, so theoretically, if we could get everyone to curtail their soot emissions (which is supposedly feasible using filters and the like), the trend could begin reversing very quickly, possibly dropping temperatures by a full degree Fahrenheit within 15 years.  That would erase half the warming that's occurred since the Industrial Revolution.

SUBSTANCE:
It's hard to get any one country to agree to limit CO2 because CO2 is almost entirely an externality:  the benefits of emitting it are enjoyed primarily by the polluting country, while the destructive costs are shared equally by people all around the world.  Soot, while contributing to global warming, also shits up the polluting country by making everything look like Pittsburgh. This means a given country will be more willing to acquiesce on soot than CO2.  No one really wants to live in Pittsburgh, so common selfishness will save the day.   But seriously, quit shitting up the planet with your motherfucking soot.

The Pittsburgh skyline, like Pittsburgh women, is best viewed in a haze.