CNR Post, March 17, 2008. Assembling Life: The Dualist's Dilemma

Assembling Life: The Dualist’s Dilemma

Consider the train of thought of a mind-body dualist who is pondering on the implications of a synthetic being capable of complex human behavior; something put together part by part, made to order. Let us call this new synthetic human, “numan”. Here are some questions that may occur to our dualist. Does the numan have any feelings? Does the numan have a soul? Should I use him/her when referring to the numan, or should I use the inanimate personal-pronoun “it”. This thought experiment takes us to the very core of the philosophical conflict between supernatural beliefs and naturalistic science. The mind-body duality concept is one of the last of a long tradition of supernatural ideas that have dominated human culture over thousands of years. In this post, I propose that this is one area of thought that must undergo a transformation over the next century as the philosophical implications of naturalistic science come in conflict with traditionally held beliefs.

The Synthetic Cell:

On January 24^th, 2008, a small group of scientists working at the J. Craig Venter center in Maryland announced that they had synthesized the genome of a commonly found bacterial species from scratch. With this accomplishment, humanity has moved a step closer to the complete synthesis of an entire functional cell. This is an immensely important landmark in the story of life on earth. Non-directional physical forces that led to the evolution of intelligence have brought biology back full circle, and intelligence has now created new life. It is only a matter of time before we are capable of de-novo synthesis of entire organisms. Philosophically speaking, this is a major victory for the reductionist view of reality. The concept of a biological machine that is “created” of purely physical elements, will present a strong case for scientific materialism. Purely physical parts can, it will seem, function in a way indistinguishable from such biological elements that are of natural origin.

The Cyborg Numan:

There is a way to re-define the mind-body debate-using the concept of the cyborg. This concept was, in modern times, born in Mary Shelly’s fertile imagination as Dr. Frankenstein’s monster; sewn together of the inanimate parts of the dead. The term cyborg itself was coined by two research scientists in the 1960s in a paper proposing a solution to the biological problems associated with space travel. Over the years, many variations of the cyborg idea have entered popular discourse, the most common of which almost always involved mechanical machinery incorporated into biological tissue. Many of us are living cyborgs today, in some way a hybrid of human and machine. Philosophers such as Donna Haraway have contributed to this modern acceptance of the cyborg tag being applied to some among us.

One of the philosophical implications of the development of cyborgs is that the question of monism vs. dualism can be analyzed in a new light. In essence, the idea is this: If mechanical structures can work in conjunction with biological structures, does it damage the idea of a dualistic “soul” existing outside of the physical body? In the near future it is likely that, with new developments in neurophysiology, nanotechnology and cybernetics, we will have cyborgs possessing artificial components that modify thinking and behavior. However, arguments for naturalistic monism in such cyborgs are still not very convincing to a dualist. The question then becomes, will it be possible to create a cyborg using purely biological materials? Let us consider a hypothetical case. Consider a synthetic embryo that has the potential to develop into an adult. Let us call this adult “numan”. If the DNA present in the embryo from which the numan develops is synthesized from scratch, that individual is a product of artificial creation. No supernatural forces go into the making of this embryo. Since the DNA in the embryo is copied and present in every cell of the numan and the brain of the numan is the function of purely physical factors resulting from the synthesized DNA, the mind-body distinction cannot be justified here. Numan is a dualist’s conundrum.

The Shrinking Soul:

It is rare, these days, for one to come across someone who believes in an animate earth or an animate sun although these ideas were once very common. In fact, many ancient cultures have myths that involve such beliefs. Over the centuries a new way of studying reality, called science, has replaced most of these beliefs. Science makes use of a set of methods that help to objectively analyze the natural world, thus invalidating accusations of subjective cultural bias. It has been observed using these methods that there are laws that govern inanimate matter and it has been proposed that these laws are universal in their influence.

The idea of a “soul” is a relic of our past penchant for a living universe. The lack of material understanding that permeated primitive cultures, combined with the curiosity and the need for understanding that all humans possess, led our ancestors to propose that there was some force that lay beyond the physical; a force that made these entities perform seemingly animate functions. It is this relic from the past that refuses to allow that a purely physical universe can function in the complex way that biological life does. This concept of a supernatural “soul” is the last refuge of the animists. Many religious scholars have adopted a diluted version of the philosophical implications of science by conceding the functional aspects of the brain while maintaining the supernatural concept of the “soul”. However, this position is increasingly coming to be regarded as logically flawed. Scientists such as Daniel Dennett have labeled this idea an epiphenomenon, rendering it rationally indefensible. The “soul”, in modern intellectualism, is dying, and bio-technology is hastening the process.

An Altered Mindset:

The projected demise of the “soul” may indeed be a premature supposition, but there can be no room for such dualistic constructs in a future cultural tradition based on science. It is imperative that we propose and adopt alternatives to the old traditions because without new cultural concepts to ensure the functionality of human society, living becomes a purpose-less ordeal punctuated by one insignificant event after another. Specifically, this involves identifying and replacing culturally relevant ideas that are traditionally symbolized by the intangible “soul”. One of the most powerful of these ideas is that of the continuation of life beyond the physical body. Various religious schools have used the metaphysical idea of the “soul” to placate their flock by providing alternately comforting and distressing scenarios. The concept of heaven and hell in Christianity and the idea of infinite re-incarnation in Hinduism are examples of this. Although these concepts may have been used by these dogmatic belief systems to exert a degree of control over the actions of their believers, they also played an important role in providing a comforting ignorance to those who followed them.

Moving from a culture based on supernatural belief to one based on a natural understanding of reality may indeed be a hard pill for many to swallow. This is a commonly heard argument made by many who themselves do not subscribe to the supernatural. However, there are many among us who have adopted just such a change in perspective and who find their lives enriched by the new naturalistic philosophy. Many elated minds have claimed that the knowledge that comes with being released from traditional superstition can lead to a more fulfilling existence than before. In any case, conceiving of a natural purpose for ourselves based on an elevated understanding of the wonder of the natural universe is its own reward.

CNR Post, January 23, 2008. Big Business Biology

Big Business Biology

Economic Injustice

An often discussed issue among social thinkers these days is the vast disparity in wealth between the highest and lowest economic classes. It is common knowledge that this disparity is increasing, despite all technological and political achievements. In fact, many people who lived thousands of years ago in scientifically unenlightened times had better standards of living than the many today that live in abject poverty.

The first impulse is to blame the population increase that we have seen over the last century, for the continued existence of poverty. On closer scrutiny however, it becomes obvious that this is not the case. Population growth, while being a major cause for concern for various reasons, is not responsible in itself for the great disparity in wealth. Something is going on in our social evolution that negates the ability of knowledge and innovation towards uplifting everyone. Is it possible that as our human population exploded and our knowledge grew, we preserved certain evolved behaviors that today tend to maintain the disparity between classes? To what extent does the system itself direct this polarization of people?

Natural Economics

In looking for biological factors that could be influencing socio-economic wealth distribution, it is useful to adopt an evolutionary approach. I will discuss two factors here, group size and inter-group communication, and describe how innate human tendencies may be driving this economic polarization.

Humans, for a large part of our evolutionary development, lived in small groups. These tribal groups, usually consisting of a few individuals/families, had social lives that involved some basic social rules. In these circumstances, everyone in the group would have been part of the team, contributing to the common effort towards survival. For hundreds of thousands of years as humans and for millions of years before that, our ancestors were being wired for interacting within (and between) small groups.

Take the little Gaulish village portrayed in the comic book series Asterix. For all the major trades there were one or two people who were in charge. There was Obelix, the quarryman who carried his menhir with him everywhere he went. Then there was Unhygenix, the fish monger who stank to the high heavens. There was Cacophonix, the tone-deaf bard who whipped out his harp at the suggestion of a gathering. In general, there was little remembering to do if you wanted to be a consumer in Asterix’s village. Say you wanted fish; you knew everyone went to Unhygenix to buy his putrid offerings. It was a no-brainer.

Global Societies

Since the origin of large post-agricultural societies many systemic changes have taken place, creating infinite new kinds of groups and social divisions, resulting in a heterogeneous cacophony of cultural identities. We now form super-groups with hundreds of millions of members. However, in many aspects humans still function socially by utilizing behaviors that evolved while living in small groups. In essence, practically the entire human population is one large fish market for the modern day Unhygenix.

The increase in human group size goes hand in hand with the explosion in communication technology. It is possible today to communicate ideas across cultures like never before. This is the age of brand image and product identity, where an entire infrastructure exists to support the constant barraging of people’s minds with names and catch phrases. Unhygenix, as long as his name is culturally identified with fish, can, with the help of modern communication technology, sell his fish to the entire Roman Empire and become the richest man in all of Gaul. In the process he will destroy all the small fish mongers.

Now, Unhygenix may indeed have the best fish delivery system in the state, but what really matters is how many people THINK he does. Say there are two or three fish mongers in Gaul. The people may then compare the products and choose based on the quality of service. Suppose there were 500 fish mongers; the one who advertises the most, wins. Why? Well, because people have better things to do than sit around and compare fish, so they go with what they perceive to be the most popular brand. Unhygenix didn’t create a new market; he stole the markets of every other fish monger in the Empire by playing on the human tendency towards homogenization. This is how behaviors that evolved in a very different social setting are adversely influencing modern society.

Fair World Order

I have briefed upon how evolutionary traits functioning in a modified social environment are leading to the wealth spread that we see in the industrialized world. It is obvious that there have been tremendous achievements in technology that would have only been possible with such wealth consolidation as we have witnessed. Modern corporations set high standards on efficiency, although how much overall efficiency can be measured across the economic spectrum may be debatable. However, it is also clear that such a society is highly unfair because of the innate value that capital and brand name popularity can possess. In modern society, fame is its own virtue.

Laissez-faire economists would profess (usually not blatently) that the biased spread in wealth is essential for economic growth. Can this assertion be challenged by an alternate economic system? Is it possible to create a post-industrialist society where wealth distribution is not as skewed as in modern capitalist societies? How would such a society attend to and tap into the social traits that we humans evolved when living in much smaller groups? That is something worth thinking about……….

CNR post, August 09, 2007, Brave New Tomorrow

Brave New Tomorrow

Stem-cell research and abortion rights are two moral dilemmas of our times that are highly controversial. Proponents and detractors of these ideas are often either for both or against both. Upon consideration, it is evident that there are some underlying moral commonalities that could shape the public reaction to the two concepts. In this post, I will try to understand these moral commonalities and the reasons for them. Finally, I will try to present a naturalistic view of the issues, and present a moral solution based on the information available to science.

Commonalities between the issues

The most obvious underlying commonality between the two issues is that they both deal with prenatal vs. postnatal ‘supremacy’. Whose rights are more important; the undifferentiated cell in a Petri dish or the accident-victim paraplegic with thoughts and feelings; the unborn fetus or the rape-victim teen mother? This is obviously an oversimplification of the possible benefits/ problems of abortion and stem cell research, but the prenatal vs. postnatal division holds for most cases. For convenience, I will call the anti-abortion/ anti-stem-cell camp the prenates, and their opponents, the postnates.

There are some areas of belief that these two groups may diverge on. For one, prenates are more often religious minded than not. Although many postnates can be religious as well, there is a significantly large divergence between the two groups on this issue. At the bottom and as a result of this division is a differential understanding of the concepts of consciousness, suffering and the source and nature of morality.

Survival before consciousness

Richard Dawkins was once asked about why, even with all the scientific knowledge we have, we cannot help being scared of death. The questioner was a perplexed audience member on a British TV show. Dawkins replied saying how we are all descended from a long line of survivors who had the will to survive. Dawkins phrased his answer to reflect the questioner’s fears and outlook on mortality. However, at the heart of the question is the issue of consciousness.

It is intuitive to think of the will to survive as a product of consciousness. But is this really so?

To answer this question, let us first consider the mind. Daniel C. Dennett, head of the philosophy department at Tufts University, calls the mind an epiphenomenon. The term was first used by T.H. Huxley to propose that the mind is a product of the brain and cannot itself have any influence on the brain. At any moment consciousness can be said to be the interaction of sensation and memory and the experience and reaction that is evoked by this interaction. According to Dennett, only one set of thought events reign supreme over the infinite events possible in the brain, at any one moment. It is this that we call consciousness; the ghost in the machine. It is this that creates the illusion of the self existing beyond the physical.

So let us ask the question, when does consciousness begin in a human being? To explain this, I shall borrow an analogy from the middle-way school of Buddhist philosophy. Consider a pile of sticks. Now take out one stick and then another and so on until you are left with none. Now, at which point did the pile cease to be a pile? This exercise demonstrates how we use abstract concepts for convenience sake. A person is one such concept. Strip away little bits of a person and you will reach a point where one can say with confidence that there is no person left, and yet there was no point at which the person ceased to be a person.

The same is, no doubt, true of consciousness. The birth of the ego is not a single event but a drawn out process of experience, discovery and thought.

The first living things had nothing more than the ability to replicate. With every evolutionary step towards complexity, this ability survived until natural selection produced cells that could differentiate and eventually some cells differentiated into control cells and sensory cells and primitive brains. Thus, human consciousness is in fact a later product of this strong will to survive that is intrinsic to life. To put it in romantic terms, the only true consciousness is the capacity to replicate. Everything else is structure and illusion constructed by this true consciousness.

In primitive brains, the will to survive is highly instinctual, as is the urgency to ensure the safety of the next generation that will continue the species. The typical mammalian mother has a strong instinct to protect her offspring, and in many cases, those of other members of her species. In complex culture-oriented brains such as ours, such moral instincts have been integrated into moral belief systems such as religion. Thus, in human societies, there is a complex interplay of instinctual and rational morality. This, in essence, is the line along which the prenates and postnates divide.

Instinct vs. rationality

Some moral belief systems of humans, such as those based on traditional religion, are immutable and rely on an a priori concept of objective good, usually determined by a benevolent giver of life. This cultural mode of enforcing morality is likely to have evolved over thousands of years of interaction between instinct and culture. Codes in our genes programmed by millions of years of pro-survival selection lead us to value fresh new life as a precious commodity worth protecting. It is, thus, instinctual to consider a potential offspring more important than an adult past reproductive age. What is very often believed to be divine morality is but a cultural reinforcement of instinctual conditioning.

Through most of our past, humans have survived by directly incorporating instinctual morality into cultural tradition. In modern times, this strategy creates social discontent, as can be observed by the growing divisions in the public about certain moral issues. An important reason for this is an increased awareness about the nature of things. This knowledge forces one to challenge ideas of morality that are based on a primitive and unenlightened existence.

Survival is not a question of producing large numbers of offspring, anymore.

The revelations about the nature of consciousness and sentience leads one towards a more rational view of morality that often derides traditional values that seem instinctive, and directs one towards more “humane” ideals that are more appropriate for civilized existence. The key to this understanding lies in realizing the suffering experienced by other sentient beings than oneself. Philosophers have elucidated several variants of this idea of a morality based on reducing suffering. The foremost ethicist along these lines is Peter Singer.

Brave New Tomorrow

The rationalist scheme of morality is not as immutable as more traditional ones. The ideas are deliberately disconcerting and are open to constant debate and change. That is the challenge that the new philosophers face before them. The new philosophy of morality is highly utilitarian in nature. Throughout our past humans have always used reason and compromise to co-operate with one another. According to Singer, this understanding and consideration of the interests of others must be central to the exploration of new moral principles. Only the knowledge of the interests of other beings can be the catalyst to this transition.

Naturalistic science tells us that consciousness is a product of the will to survive, and this knowledge frees the conscious from the shackles of instinctual action on survival mode. Postnates are aware of the true interests of entities in the abortion/ stem-cell issues. As Sam Harris has suggested many times, the interests of a nine year old girl with diabetes trump those of a few undifferentiated cells. We know that undifferentiated cells have no interests because they have no thoughts of feelings. Naturalistic science also tells us (and so does Peter Singer) that a fetus has much less brain and practically no consciousness and thus experiences enormously less suffering than a grown woman with thoughts, feelings and interests. Thus, as in these cases, the rationally-moral answer is often different from the instinctively-moral one.

Rules made up to rein in the free minds of humans are inferior to a culture of rational thinkers with genuine concern for the interests of all others in this naturalistic reality. In Aldous Huxley’s novel Brave New World, humanity is brainwashed and conditioned to follow a set of rules, without the options of understanding or compassion. If Huxley’s vision of a world without free thoughts is to be avoided, the debate about what the moral solution is must continue on even as we expand our understanding of new truths. There may come a day when we can say, “It is done. Here is the solution to every moral dilemma”. I doubt it. Nevertheless, it is a worthy quest for the cultural naturalist.

CNR post, April 24, 2007, The Great Human Story

The Great Human Story

One of the biggest discrepancies between science and cultural tradition is in the history of our human past. At first glance, this seems like an inconsequential subject, and there is nothing explicitly menacing about a culture celebrating its unique heritage of oral and/or written tradition. However, when looked at from the perspective of the entire human species, the fantastic contradictions in the different stories act as divisive barriers between cultural groups. These myths also tend to stifle the curiosity of the naturalistically inclined and prevent billions of people from realizing the great human story, one that all humans share. This great human story is a saga that is more than a hundred thousand years old and is far more enthralling than any mythological construct. It is a story that has the potential to bring the human race together and to discard the superficial differences that we judge each other by. Most important of all, it is a story that can influence public policy to be based on truth rather than on the whims of religious groups that are concerned with protecting their own version of fantasy, often in conflict with that of others.

Political Implications

There have been numerous creation myths in history, some of which survive today. When dealing with the political implications of cultural mythology, it is those myths that offer a distortion of human history that truly affect us the most. The predominant creation myth of our time is the one found in the Christian, Islamic, and Jewish traditions. There are many political events in the past few hundred years that have been influenced by the belief in the Biblical story of the holy land and the creation of the human race. The most well known of these are the crusades that took place during the Middle Ages and the century-old conflict in the Middle East that continues today. In today’s lobbyist dominated political arena, policy decisions are the product of a complex interplay between public opinion and corporate power, and usually cultural misconceptions are played upon to achieve political ends. Ayodhya in India has been a region of intense rivalry between Hindu and Muslim forces because of the Hindu belief that a 16^th century Mosque, now destroyed, stood on the site where a mythological figure was born over a million years ago. This dispute has been highly politicized and has flared into a major point of contention between the two religions, resulting in thousands of deaths. These are just two examples where differences in cultural history lead to disastrous political consequences. History is, of course, full of such political misadventures.

Cultural Implications

Humans, like most social species, are colonial in nature, tending to group themselves into factions. In the pre-civilizational past, groups were probably divided along genealogical lines, with kinship being the major factor, although sometimes non kin-based group structures may have also been forged in order to ally together against others. However, unlike other species that show this trait, we are the only species to possess a great deal of cultural knowledge that has been passed down the years, and in modern times this cultural knowledge is what is used most often to divide ourselves into factions. As with most oral traditions, cultural knowledge is constantly being modified, with the result that over the time it has taken humanity to spread around the globe we have developed highly differentiated and localized cultural traits. In many cases, these ideas are immensely useful on a local scale in dealing with the environmental and social aspects of human life.

In recent times, cultural advancement has grown parallel with rational and technological knowledge, creating this global amalgamation of the human species that is evident today. This has finally brought the international rational community to a head with cultural forces throughout the world. More importantly, it has brought together cultural ideas that are contradictory, often with unpleasant outcomes. It is a pitiable state of affairs when people in the same community are opposed to each other’s view of our human past. This creates a dysfunctional society that is superficially placid, but seething with discontent underneath. This is to say that we are a homogenous society only in appearance, and in fact may be more discontent communally because of the inherent heterogeneity in the belief systems of the members that make up the community. Political and legal systems are in place to regulate living conditions of such societies. However, when it comes to our beliefs about our human past, we are more divided at the local scale than ever before.

The Rational Solution

The scientific community has uncovered a wonderful story of the human species. There is sufficient consensus internationally among the member of this group to reject all creation myths as containing no objective truth. Instead, we are presented with a story of human history which points to a common origin and evolutionary development. This scientific story tells us that the human species developed over millions of years in Africa, where at one point the total number of the entire species, our ancestors, was less than 5000, before some members undertook a global migration, crossing continents and even oceans, to reach far off lands that humanity had never known before. There is some debate as to the exact paths that different groups took on this journey, but the molecular and fossil evidence shows that the theory of a common evolution is as immutable a fact as science will allow. Knowing this story, it is easy to see how many of the creation myths may have originated and evolved over the thousands of years that it took for humans to adapt to strange, foreign environments.

The rational solution involves a dissociation of myth from fact. Culture, as we have always known it, comprises elements of both these qualities. In general, culture is a complicated system of tradition steeped in ritual, that combines the two elements of myth and fact in order to enable social living. Traditional forms of attire, language, food and social norms are facts that form attributes of culture that do not in general cause social conflict; not unless they are associated with the mythology that often surrounds these traditions. Modernization requires that these facts be separated from the myths that are propagated along with them, and the historical purpose of the myths understood in clear terms.

It must be made clear that culture is not something that ever dies, but is a phenomenon that constantly evolves and adapts. For it to be suitable for today’s modern society, the proper place of mythology must be recognized. Mythology's role in human art will always be celebrated, but it can no longer possess much explanatory power over the history of our species. We can always enjoy the influence of myth in human art and culture, while replacing the evolutionary role of these stories with scientific reason. It can be argued that the truth is vastly more enthralling than all the stories of creation that primitive man invented to stifle his sense of mystery. It is certainly possible to celebrate the vast and amazing diversity of human culture without the baggage of mythological untruths. Maybe some day our art and literature will tell of the great human story, instead of isolating people and destroying community with falsehoods. Maybe some day, flights of imagination will be appreciated for being just that.

http://www.magictails.com/creationlinks.html

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/ep/Paleoanthropology.html

CNR Post, March 17, 2007. Sethusamudram Project

The Sethusamudram Project.

The shallow sand banks that stretch between India and Srilanka, known as Adam’s bridge, are a hot topic these days because of the proposed dredging of a narrow strip of the natural formation to allow for ships to cut across the Palk straits and the Gulf of Mannar. Although the proposal to construct this canal has been around for almost 150 years, the debate has taken on a new fervor in modern times. In India, the political process has tended to sway in opposing directions, as can be expected. Things came to a head in 2005 when the government green lighted the project.

There are three major factions that are interested in the proposed project.

1. Economic profiteers

2. Environmentalists, and

3. ………..Hindus??

A few years ago a rumor was started on the internet by Vaishnava News Network. The web site claimed that aerial pictures NASA had made public a couple of years previous to then was conclusive evidence that Adam’s bridge is the mythical bridge mentioned in the Ramayana and believed to have been built by a Hindu mythological figure ‘approximately’ 1.75 million years ago. No real effort was made to support the claim and NASA quickly distanced itself from the story. It was believed back then that this feeble attempt to corroborate superstition with science would die out. The story flared briefly and has since spread to a number of apologist web sites.

The drilling of the bridge began amidst intense protests organized by Hinduvta forces, environmentalists and local fishermen. The opposition to the project was observed by the popular media. However, the media chose to focus almost entirely on the most irrelevant point of debate, the religious concerns, and thus prevented real concerns from getting their due attention. Scientific opinion was sought of independent sources regarding the ‘authenticity’ of the bridge. And true to fact, all the credible news sources quoted geologists, historians and even an astrophysicist as saying that there was no evidence for the obviously ridiculous claim that the bridge was ‘man made’. This was a major failure on the part of the media because they chose to treat the issue like a real debate when in fact there was no debate among the experts in each discipline. Meanwhile the real issue that mattered, the environmental damage that would result from the construction of a navigation canal, was mostly ignored. The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) work was assigned by the government to the National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) which cleared the project in record time. Geoscientists and environmentalists came together to criticize the EIA report. The report itself appears to be a hastily put together work based on mostly older data and falls short of acceptable standards on many levels. There appears to have been strong pressure from political groups to Ok the project. The finance minister of India, P. Chidambram, announced during the inauguration that the project had the full support of the people of peninsular India. Later more than 600 environmentalists and fishermen were arrested during protests. P. Chidambram is a free-market economist. In essence this position endorses the use of public funds to make it easier for big business to keep getting richer. The plight of the local fishermen and the environment is not a factor in his ‘larger’ picture of economic well being.

Meanwhile, here’s what is at stake. The Gulf of Mannar is recognized to be one of the biologically richest regions of Indian coastal waters. The area is designated as the Gulf of Mannar Marine Reserve (GMMR). It is home to more than 3600 species of flora and fauna, with higher diversity along the Srilankan coast. There are numerous coral species, more than a hundred on the Indian side alone and much more on the Srilankan side. The coral reefs provide the basis for a complex marine ecosystem that could be easily upset by pollution, invasive species, altered marine currents, not to mention larger environmental hazards such as oil spills and other accidents. The waters are also home to other important marine life such as sea cucumbers, Indian chank and oysters. The sea grass found in abundance in this region makes it a hangout for the endangered dugong. The region is among the largest feeding grounds for this globally disappearing species. Other mammals such as dolphins and sperm whales also abound in the Gulf. Numerous mollusk and crustacean species can also be found in these waters. The Gulf of Mannar and the adjacent seas are home to five species of endangered marine turtles. The loss of this region would truly be a major blow to sea turtle conservation efforts.

There is no doubt that the Sethusamudram project will be among the greatest disasters to befall the marine ecology of Indian coastal waters. The damage to the environment far outweighs any economic incentive to carry on with this project. It is unfortunate that while the real issues are being swept under the rug by the government and its corporate interests, the popular media deceives the public by presenting false debates as legitimate concerns.

CNR post, March 13, 2007. Mission Statement

Cultural Naturalism Report

Cultural Naturalism: A social philosophy based on naturalistic and rational cultural alternatives to religious tradition.

Has science reached a stage in its development that it must determine its own course? Is it possible that science can best provide a model society, one that is the most ethical and just? Is naturalistic thinking a practical solution to the dilemma of cultural conflict? Most important of all, how does naturalistic science address the fundamental questions that were once thought to lie exclusively in the realm of the metaphysical? Such issues will be tackled in the Cultural Naturalism Report, a web log that attempts to entwine scientific naturalism- an evidence based belief system, and the human culture that is the vehicle of all social behavior.

The main objective of the Cultural Naturalism movement is to create a conscious awareness of naturalistic reality and its moral and cultural implications. At the core of this movement is a belief that morality is naturalistic in origin. Although this is a very well supported position and an entire scientific discipline, sociobiology, is devoted to the study of human social behavior* from an evolutionary perspective, the implications of this understanding are not reflected in public policy decisions and are hardly discussed in the media in general. The Cultural Naturalism movement asserts that, because the scientific method provides the best understanding of the natural world, social policy and cultural development must be centered around naturalistic solutions to problems. New scientific developments will be explored in the context of Cultural Naturalism throughout subsequent posts. A significant portion of the blog will consist of posts debunking specific pseudo-scientific claims that are perpetuated by the commercial media.

*(note: Sociobiologists usually talk about behavior. However, from a naturalistic perspective, ethical behavior is a subset of all social behavior)

Transfer Statement, March 01, 2008

Hello all,

Welcome to the new home of the Cultural Naturalism Report. After blogging at Yahoo360 for a year, I have just learned that they are getting rid of 360 and will be integrating into Yahoo. I have decided that the best course ahead for me is to move CNR to blogger.
The posts that were transfered here from 360 will carry the original date stamp in the title. The posts are still available at http://360.yahoo.com/evolvender, for now.

Cheers!