Category: books

Author

Richard Dawkins

The God Delusion is a good book. It is a bit too hostile for me at some points but Richard Dawkins [wikipedia.org] spends a chapter of the book on why he is so hostile and his position is well thought out and researched (the opposite of religion, which is what he is arguing against)

Being an Atheist I agree with almost everything Dawkins says in the book, even if some of his conclusions make me uncomfortable. Mostly I feel uncomfortable with is idea that society and we as individuals should not respect others religion and religious customs. His logic as to why we should not respect others religious beliefs and practices and his evidence to support this is convincing to me but I have a lot of good friends who have various religious beliefs and I don’t find it hard or inconvenient to respect those beliefs.

I think there are two reasons I am uncomfortable with this central point made by Dawkins in the book:

One is that I am non-confrontational in nature (people who I disagree with at work might find this a shock but it is true.) I respect other peoples irrational beliefs just as I respect other peoples sexual practices (in so far as they don’t harm other, unwilling people, like children or non-consenting adults.)

My second objection to Dawkins’ lack of respect of peoples religion is that as a vegetarian I want others to respect my choice not to eat meat and not to use leather or other animal products. I am happy to debate this point with others, but I don’t want to force my beliefs on others. I prefer Ghandi’s ideal that ‘you must be the change you wish to see in the world.’

Dawkins does point out that (western, liberal) society has a special ‘respect’ for religion outside of how it deals with other personal choices and that this is wrong because many of the choices people are vocally disrespectful of they disagree with because of their religious choice. We allow these people their ravings not because of our belief in free speech but because of our belief that it is automatically wrong to criticize a religious belief. This point, backed up by examples in the book makes it difficult to disagree with the idea we should challenge and be hostile to religious belief. This all scares me that there is some sort of Secular Inquisition or Anti-religious Revolution (descended from the French Revolution) foreshadowed in Dawkins’s book. If the western, liberal world embraces Dawkins’s ideas there will be no debating a clash of civilizations. It would be a fact of dealing with any group that defined itself by it’s religion.

I learned a good deal from the book and found it well written and engaging. The fact that the conclusions make me uncomfortable does not imply the book has a problem but that I need to consider my own stance more so I can be comfortable either agreeing or disagreeing. A good book that should be read by a great number or people both those inclined to agree and those who reject it’s basic assumptions outright.

Author

Joseph E. Stiglitz

I picked up Joseph Stiglitz book in the same purchase I got Naomi Klien’s No Logo and Peter Singer’s One World. Obviously there is an interest in globalization in that recipe. I’ve been reading The Economist [economist.com] for some years and been mildly informed on globalization and the backlash against it evident in the protests against the IMF, World Bank, G7/G8, WTO and other multinational bodies associated with it. I didn’t really develop an interest in globalization until I read The Best Democracy Money can Buy by Greg Palast.

Palast’s book wet my appetite but Stiglitz, who was President Clinton’s economic adviser before joining the World Bank, really lays on the blame. He places most of the blame for the Asian Financial Crisis, the Russian collapse, and Argentina’s Defaulting, on the IMF. More specifically he claims that a shift away from the Keynesian ideas that the IMF and World Bank were founded on is to blame. What caused the shift? The introduction of Thatcherism and Ragantonian ideals, the ousting of experienced economist and the promotion of free market fundamentalist at the IMF.

To support his accusations Stiglitz roams around the globe from one crisis to another pointing out the faults in the blind, ideological, one-size-fits-all prescriptions the IMF doled out to country after country in the past 25 years. Time and again the IMF’s blind belief in the Market becomes a vehicle for greed and capitalist hegemony. To back up the point that the IMF refused to learn from it’s mistakes and the experience of others Stiglitz points out several countries that refused to follow the IMF plan, and shows that while their development has not been as smooth as could be desired and they have not developed as fast as the IMF says they could, they have avoided the painful problems of many of the IMFs poster child countries: Thailand, Argentina, Russia. And stand better today than many of the countries who followed the IMF plans.

I found the section of the Asian Financial Crisis the most poignant because shortly after I finished the book I traveled to Bangkok, the epicenter of the crisis. The problems that began in Bangkok when Thailand opened it’s market to ‘hot money‘ [wikipedia.org] are always recalled as something that happened ‘over night.’ How true those statements are really became apparent when I was in Bangkok. The skyline is filled with half completed skyscrapers and rusting cranes that have sat empty since 1997. Many construction sights literal closed the doors one night and never opened them again, putting hundreds of workers on the street over night.

After nearly a decade Bangkok is just beginning to recover from it’s nightmare. If Stiglitz is to be believed the IMF leadership, which shares a large part of the blame because it pushed questionable policies faster than was advisable and without tailoring them for local conditions, has not learned its lesson. Stiglitz acknowledges that the goals of the IMF, the goals of Globalization, are not inherently bad, and need not lead to the problems that we have seen. Rather it is the way the IMF uses it’s political power and money to force these ideas on countries that are not ready for them that has lead to so much suffering and poverty.

Globalization is not a new movement, it is the as old as civilization. It is the force that sent caravans down the Silk Road and the wind that launched the Niña, the Pinta and the Santa Maria across the Atlantic. The goal now should be to move forward in a way that does not destroy entire societies so that a few rich people can get richer. Modern globalization was sold to the world as a way to bring the worlds poor into a better world. It has, to a large extent, made many of their lives worse while being hijacked to make the rich richer.

On Amazon

Author

Peter Singer

Animal Liberation is credited with launching the animal rights movement in the industrialized world when it was first published in 1975 by the then relatively unknown, Peter Singer [wikipedia.org]. You can blame all of the illogical stupidity of PETA [peta.org] on this book. But PETA’s antics tend to blind people to any logical discussion of the real points in Animal Liberation. Singer does not support the animal rights movement epitomized by PETA but holds many of the same views, referred to as speciesism [wikipedia.org], based on a logical examination of the practices of the industrialized societies in their use of animals. The examination is based on Utilitarian morals and ethics and you have to read the book with that frame of mind, even if you don’t agree you have to be open to utilitarian ideas, to understand some of what Singer is talking about.

Most people in the industrial world are far removed from how their food is produced and how their beauty products or drugs are tested and approved. This blinds many people to the true magnitude of the use of animals in sustaining or modern standard of living. Animal liberation strips off the blinders and exposes the realities of our system of animal exploitation. Animal Liberation is an academic book on ethics but is also in-your-face and readable.

I first read Animal Liberation when I worked in the fish store back in C’ville. One of our regular customers was a post-doc biologist at the university. She came in one day to buy 100 Zebra Danios to be used in an experiment. I’m not sure now what the exact nature of the experiment was but J████ argued with her and said he would not sell them to her if she was going to ‘cut their heads open and stick electrodes in their brains.’ J████ continues to argue by asking her ‘have you even read Animal Liberation?’ to which she responded, ‘yes, have you?’ The only thing J████ could say was, ‘um. No, actually.’

Even though J████, J███ and myself had, for a time, been vegetarian neither J████ or I had read Animal Liberation yet and I’m not sure if J███ had finished it yet. We’d become vegetarians based on discussion of the principles in Animal Liberation with several of our customers and friends, including a ethics teacher at the university. This was when I picked up my first copy of the book, figuring that I could not speak intelligently about the decision I had made, could not even justify the decision unless I had actually read the book. I’m glad it was J████ and not me that got caught on the soap box without being prepared.

If it’s hard to imagine going vegetarian or vegan read Animal Liberation and then think about it. It’s hard for anyone I’ve meet to read Animal Liberation and not change their lifestyle in some way. Not everyone goes vegetarian or vegan but they all change some, the arguments are compelling and the images and examples of humans use of non-humans are graphic and disturbing.

On Amazon

Author

Frank Herbert

I first read Dune one summer sitting in an old arm chair in the basement of my grandparents house in rural Minnesota. I found a copy of Dune on the book shelf next to Louis Lamour western and Readers Digest Condensed Books when I was 14 or so. A battered musty original print run version that had belonged to my uncle. I read it in 3 days sitting in the basement in a chair that is probably older than me.

I still have that copy of Dune — it’s held together by a strip of Duck Tape along the spine. Has that lovely quality of curling into the palm of your hand naturally when you read it but still manages to close flat. The well used nature was hard won by repeated readings over the years.

I think I have read Dune 10 times, give or take. I read it in high school on the bus. I read it in college late at night and in the student union. I read it on planes on my way to business meetings. I keep reading it because it blew my mind the first time.

There are so many interweaving topics in Dune: It deals in ecology, psychology, philosophy, politics, physics, and a myriad of other subjects. Most good Sci-Fi and Fantasy books have politics and religion but only at a very shallow level. A ‘look, back-story! Now over here…’ level. Frank Herbert weaves them into the core of the story in a mostly coherent way that is missing from most Sci-Fi and Fantasy, J. R. R. Tolkien excepted..

Maybe it appeals to me because I like complected, epic stories. I know that each time I re-read Dune it looses a bit of it’s magic. The story is not high fiction and it doesn’t grow up like I do. But it’s still a good story, and one of my favorite. Dune is one of the books I would want with me if I was lost on an island or, lost in space.

Author

Peter Singer

Practical Ethics is the one book I know that can, without fail start a heated argument in any company. You just open to any page read a paragraph out loud. Instant debate.

Peter Singer makes a habit of bait-and-switching the reader. Starting with what (usually) sound like simple, easy to agree with axioms he builds up easy to follow example. Then proceeds to explain why, if you agree with the example, which most people do, you have agreed to something that most people would find unacceptable.

Using this process Singer explores the consequences of applying a Utilitarian ethical system to many of the toughest questions; abortion, euthanasia, animal rights, the environment. Even if you have a utilitarian ethic when you start reading Practical Ethics, you may find yourself, apparently, agreeing to statements you would reject normally.

The one issue with this book is that Singer moves quickly. Maybe to avoid overly verbose and academic discussions, trying to be more “layman”, but the book does sometimes jump to a conclusion that leaves you feeling that you need more to really swallow the pill.

I’m a naturally liberal and logical person and Practical Ethics is probably the single most influential book I have read. I think having, and understanding, a ethical system is a good thing. Too many people never think about their ethics and why they make the decisions they do. They just repeat decisions they don’t really understand.

I was a utilitarian before I read Practical Ethics, but it forced me to examine what that means in the extreme. Taking all the basic utilitarian axioms and pushing them to their logical limits.