carepov

Some aid is working and some is not. Since 1994 it has been working in Rwanda: http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/rwanda/overview

The point is that religion has and can have a positive impact by preventing or reducing the severity of some violations of human rights. This cannot be measured because we will never know about the wars, atrocities, massacres and crimes that did not happen. In sociology, technically anything is technically possible - but practically it is impossible for any crime to be worse than those commited by by the non-religious leaders of Germany, Russia, Cambodia and China in the 20th century. "equipment failure accounts for less than 5% of all motor vehicle accidents" http://www.smartmotorist.com/traffic-and-safety-guideline/what-causes-car-accidents.html On top of that, many equipment failures can be prevented by proper maintenance. I do not accept your definition of "True Islam". To me "True Islam" is defined by the adherents of Islam (Muslims). If Christianity can (mostly) change from a literal interpretation of the Bible to a figurative interpretation why can't Islam? Here is one interesting counter-example: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/29/progressive-muslims-launch-gay-friendly-women-led-mosques_n_1368460.html You are right, I do have a bias towards believing that societies become more moderate (tolerant, rational, better) over time. I recognize that progress is not a straight line and setbacks are the rule not the exception. You provide good examples of Islamic regression. Despite recent steps backwards are evident in Turkey, Indonesia, and as you pointed out in Malaysia, the overall trend in these countries is still positive. Cars, like ideologies, are designed, built, modified, and used by humans. Without humans (drivers, adherents) cars and ideologies would be powerless and would not exists. Ideologies have no beliefs it is the adherent that believes. Correct, cars that drive automatically or idle empty need no drivers - but they do require programmers and operators.

If religion was/could replaced by secular humanism then you and I would be on the karaoke machine singing a duet of "Imagine". My point is that there are benefits to religion. IMO the benefits outweigh the costs and religion has been a net benefit to humanity. Not really, but how can it get any worse than Mao/Stalin? Yes, I agree: "Muslims != Islam in the same way that Drivers != Cars". So then what causes accidents, bad drivers or bad cars? I hope that the moderate interpretations of Islam become the "true Islam". Moderate Muslims sure are convinced that it is they that are following "true Islam, no? You're knowledge of Islam and many other things is impressive and I appreciate that. I would not want to face off against you in a game of Jeopardy. However your argument about (true) Islam having inherent beliefs is week. Islam, like a car has no beliefs, it is Muslims, like drivers, that have beliefs. Without drivers, all cars are safe and do not pollute.

This is an interesting paper that seems to do a good job summarizing various studies that attempted to determine the cost/benefits of immigration. The results are mixed, some positive some negative, mostly neutral. The paper itself focuses on modeling the future impacts of immigration policy: CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS Our simulations indicate that additional immigration is likely to have a positive impact on the Canadian labour market and economy in general. This is the case with respect to such factors as real GDP and GDP per capita, aggregate demand, investment, productivity, and government expenditures, taxes and especially net government balances, with essentially no impact on unemployment. This is generally buttressed by conclusions reached in the existing literature; however, that literature is by no means in agreement. The real concern, however, is with respect to immigrants themselves in that they appear to be having an increasingly difficult time economically assimilating into the Canadian labour market, and new immigrants are increasingly falling into poverty. Furthermore, existing immigrants are likely to be adversely affected by expanding immigration since new and existing immigrants are likely substitutes. Improving the economic integration of immigrants into the Canadian labour market is likely to be beneficial not only for the immigrants themselves but also because such integration is also likely to enhance the generally positive impact that immigrants have on the Canadian economy. http://ftp.iza.org/dp6743.pdf On my first quick read, I agree with the study and it's conclusions. What do you think?

The Khmer Rouge was not religious. Had the influence of Buddhism in Cambodia been greater, the Khmer Rouge would have been less powerful. If there would have been more churches and believers in Germany - more Jews would have been given sanctuary and saved. If Mao/Stalin and their followers were religious perhaps they would have not allowed so many people to die of hunger etc... You could, but ten I could list those that were not motivated by religion and outnumber the deaths on your list 10 to 1. Then you would pick apart my list saying things like "the rape of Nanking was actually motivated by State Shintoism". I might then respond by saying some of your massacres were not actually religiously motivated but actually were principally politically motivated. Nah, I would rather not. Muslims do not equal Islam? Pardon me? The fact that tolerant Muslims exist means that there are adherents of Islam that are tolerant. Sure you can provide quotes from the Quran that are intolerant - I can then provide quotes that demand tolerance. We can then debate which texts supersede what and their interpretation. I would rather not. Islam in not inherently anything. It is no more inherently intolerant as it is inherently charitable. It is people's behaviour that matters and this is influenced by the interpretation and teaching of the Quran. The fact that there are tolerant Muslins means that it is possible to interpret the Quran in a tolerant fashion that respects human rights. If I undersatnd your definition of a rational person correctly, there is not a single human being that is rational. Again, the fact that there are Muslims (i.e. adherents of Islam) that do not promote, and in fact condemn, any and all of the violations of human rights above means that the problem lies with the (mis)interpretation of Islam - not Islam itself. When you condemn all Muslims as intolerant then you are lumping in the tolerant Muslims with the intolerant ones and are cutting off the most powerful voices for potential change and reformation within Islam. It is precisely these tolerant Muslims that are best positioned to change Islam from within. Please do not interpret my position as appeasement. The death penalty, discrimination, slavery, extortion, misogyny, torture, and all violations of human rights must be condemned and must stop. My point is that prejudice of Muslims is, at best, hindering the solution of these problems and, at worst, making the problem worse.

My opinion of Saudi Arabia is pretty low - but not that low. Well I'll definately take the time to look into your arguments and then reconsider my opinions - but for now I still say that if China, Japan (The #1 and #2 least religious countries in the world today) Russia, Germany and Cambodia had been more religious the crimes that they comitted in the 20th century would have been less attrocious - I cannnot imagine them being any worse. No, the point is that moderate, tollerant muslims exist and they co-exist in Western society. Little Mosque is just one example. Islam is not homogenious. You did, thanks, I will look into them. But again my point is that Islam can be tollerant and peaceful. hmmm... OK, then I agree that by these definitions, there are no rational religious people. Also, there are no rational people period. No - you are saying: Islam and religion is intollerant because of "x". I am arguing that the problem is with "x" not the religion.

It is difficult to imagine anything more evil than 20th century Japan, China, Russia, Germany, Cambodia. These societies were all relatively secular, no? The point is that Little Mosque writers, producers, and actors are real Muslims - this, and many other examples disprove your claims that Islam = intolerance. I was in Malaysia and Singapore - seemed pretty tolerant to me as I wandered from Mosque to Budhist Temple to Church to Hindu Temple to festivals and to the bar. This is quite the claim! What is your definition of a "religious person" and "rational person". I am all for criticism of any violations of human rights and "bad ideas" - weather religious or not. Why not just criticize specific violations/ideas?

In the West, I disagree. In most Islamic countries I tend to agree. Because I was responding to a post where you brought it up. Perhaps a society that lacks religion is more prone to evil ideologies - like filling a void? Perhaps more religious societies in 20th century Japan, China, Russia, Germany, Cambodia would not have been so evil? It's hard to list all the wars that didn't happen. Similar to nationalism, religions bring people, tribes, city states, etc... together. I did not mean to give this impression. I 100 % agree with you. The Islam practiced in the West and depicted on "Little Mosque on the Prairie" seems quite tolerant. The Islam in Singapore and Malaysia seems OK too. I agree however that a large part of the Islamic world is intolerant and backwards, however I disagree with anyone that says that these backwards countries cannot modernize and keep an Islamic tradition. I disagree - religion need not reduce critical thinking, but wait - do you want to talk about religion in general or not. Your last question is a fallacy. It would be like me asking, do you prefer a religious society or a Stalinist one? Back to Islam. I never wrote that it is like any other religion and do not think that it is. There are very valid criticism of many specific Islamic practices in specific societies (I'll add in misogyny to to your mention of death penalty for homosexuals and apostates). However, IMO it is you that you are over-generalizing by your sweeping criticism of over 1,000,000,000 people. Maybe there are 10, 50 or let's say even 90% of them that are crazy - that would still leave a minimum of 100,000,000 (3 x Canadas) of "rational Muslims" - these are potential allies of a potential movement to modernize and enlighten the backwards muslim societies. Sweeping criticism of Islam is counter-productive as it feeds into the power of the radicals.

There is no doubt that often religion is a major factor, or even the principle cause, of some wars and misery. To add to your good examples, consider Ireland, the break-up of British India, Iran vs. Iraq. Religion has a cost. What about the benefits to religion? 1. How much war and misery has resulted from a "lack of religion"? Would some of the 20th century atrocities have been diminished or even not happened at all if countries such as Japan, China, Russia, Germany, Cambodia had been more religious? 2. In addition to being a dividing force, religion is a unifying force. How many wars and crimes have been prevented by the unifying force of religion? In the end, a cost-benefit analysis of religion is purely academic, religion cannot be separated from humanity and IMO we can never quantify neither the costs nor benefits to religion. What is important is that we minimize the costs of religion (e.g. separate church from state, ostracize extremist views) and leverage the benefits of religion (eg. promote interfaith cooperation, tolerance, compassion and other virtues).

What do you think about all the candy that kids get at Halloween/Christmas/Easter?

You're right, I've given my opinion and - at this time - I have nothing further to add. I am genuinely interested in your opinions about Golden Rice, for example: Do you agree with the IRRI? Do you agree with HKI? If it were up to you, would you continue to develop Golden Rice and conduct further trials or would you cancel the entire Golden Rice project?

The point of my link was to show that the two positions are consistent and that I agree with both. Remember, you claimed that the "more recent" IRRI statement overrode the "dated" blog entry? IMO, if it were not for Greenpeace's opposition based on lies, Golden Rice would have been available and would have prevented VAD in millions of children. The longer that Golden Rice is delayed, the more children suffer and die. How about you waldo, do you agree with the IRRI? Do you agree with HKI? What is your opinion about Golden Rice? If it were up to you, would you continue to develop Golden Rice and allow further trials or would you cancel the entire Golden Rice project?

I agree, the blog is consistent with the statement. It was you that claimed otherwise. As I said, I completely agree with the IRRI position and their work. Do you?

Just in case some people still do not see this as a clear cut case of a crime against humanity: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6152/1320.full

IRRI official position statement: Thursday, 21 February 2013 16:28 http://www.irri.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=12483 IRRI Director General Robert Zeigler Blog: Thursday, 10 October 2013 00:15 http://irri.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=12682%3Aseeing-clearly-golden-rice-and-climate-science〈=en

I agree that "encourgaging" does not mean proven. At the same time "not yet determined" is very different from "disproven" or "failed". I have supported the "crime against humanity" charge many times.

We are dancing in circles. I am not ignoring the IRRI statement. I agree with it 100% and with everything I've read so far on the IRRI website. Do you? http://www.irri.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=12483 "It’s true that human nutrition research indicates that the beta carotene in Golden Rice is readily converted to vitamin A in the body, providing encouraging evidence that eating Golden Rice could help reduce vitamin A deficiency. However, it has not yet been determined whether daily consumption of Golden Rice does improve the vitamin A status of people who are vitamin A deficient and could therefore reduce related conditions such as night blindness. If Golden Rice is approved by national regulators, Helen Keller International and university partners will conduct a controlled community study to ascertain if eating Golden Rice every day improves vitamin A status. In short, Golden Rice will only be made available broadly to farmers and consumers in the Philippines if it is approved by national regulators and shown to reduce vitamin A deficiency in community conditions. This process may take another two years or more."

Would you care to provide some examples of other contentious issues where a "crime against humanity" label can be applied? This issue is clear-cut. Hundreds of thousands of children die every year due to VAD. Many of them eat rice. Were it not for opposition to Golden Rice, many of these children would have been getting sufficient VA.

The solutions proposed by Greenpeace are part of the work done by Helen Keller International (HKI) - they are not enough. http://www.hki.org/reducing-malnutrition/biofortification/golden-rice/ "Golden Rice offers a very unique opportunity to improve the nutrition of people—particularly of women and children in Asia—who are not reached by current interventions to reduce Vitamin A deficiency." http://irri.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=12654〈=en Greenpeace's stance lead to: http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/08/26/golden_rice_attack_in_philippines_anti_gmo_activists_lie_about_protest_and.html Like I said, there are already limitations to free dom of expression. For example, hate speach and slander is illegal. It is illegal to spread lies that result in peoiple dying - that is what Greenpeace is doing.

IMO, a significant percentage of those children blinded and dyeing each year would have been saved if it were not for Greenpeace's opposition to Golden Rice. *** If proved efficacious and once approved by the regulatory bodies, HKI would proceed to include Golden Rice in their VAD combatting toolbox. According to HKI 190 million pre-school children and 19 million pregnant women are currently vitamin A deficient. Each year, an estimated 670,000 children will die from VAD, and 350,000 will go blind. In the Philippines, approximately 1.7 million children aged 6 months to 5 years and an additional three out of every ten school-aged children have VAD, as do one out of every five pregnant and lactating mothers. http://www.goldenrice.org/ http://www.goldenrice.org/Content3-Why/why1_vad.php "The body converts beta carotene in Golden Rice to vitamin A as it is needed. According to research published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition in 2009, daily consumption of a very modest amount of Golden Rice – about a cup (or around 150 g uncooked weight) – could supply 50% of the Recommended Daily Allowance of vitamin A for an adult." http://irri.org/index.php?option=com_k2&view=item&id=10227〈=en "HKI firmly believes that there is no single magic bullet solution for vitamin A deficiency, and views Golden Rice as a potential additional intervention that could be used in combination with other existing proven vitamin A strategies, including the promotion of optimal breastfeeding, vitamin A supplementation, large-scale food fortification, home fortification with micronutrient powders, dietary diversity, and agricultural measures including homestead food production (HFP) and the cultivation and consumption of orange-fleshed sweet potatoes or other vitamin A rich crops." http://www.hki.org/reducing-malnutrition/biofortification/golden-rice/

While I have agreed all along that there were flaws in the study. You said: As per your own source, the technical conclusions are sound - β-carotene is converted to the vitamin once ingested. Do you agree with this conclusion?

It is more practical because it is simple and has a chance of sucess (Mexico) while a fat tax did not work in Denmark. There is a consensus that soft drinks are bad for health. There is probably already a category for "soft drinks" there would be no need to create arbitrary distinctions between high-fat/low-fat and high-sugar/low-sugar products. No, I wouldn't care if there was cross-border shopping. The goal is to reduce consumption - I think that the tax would work. When faced with a large problem, I like the idea or "starting small" and chipping away at the problem. Perhaps the tax on soft drinks would be just the beginning. Grandiose "solutions" are very rare.

The point is that we have choices. Even if we are doing some already, we can choose to do these things bigger, better and faster. I am in favour of a well-implemented carbon-tax - this would incentivize the choices. Revenue raised in the carbon tax should be used to reduce the payroll tax and personal income taxes.

1. A tax on soft drinks is more practical (easy to implement, less arbitrary) 2. Soft drinks have no health benefits and are therefore more comparable to alcohol and tobacco 3. Even Denmark could not make their fat tax work - it's a loosing battle

First of all, there is no debate regarding over-religious societies (fanatics/zealots etc...) - in these cases absolutely: the less religion the more rational. Overall the most rational societies are less religious. However, once the influence of religion reaches a certain low point (similar to what we have in the West), I would argue that it is no longer true that: "The less people identify as religious, and the less religious are the people that identify as religious, the closer we come to a rational world." Today, look at the least religious countries: http://www.therichest.com/expensive-lifestyle/location/top-10-countries-with-the-least-religious-people/ #1 is China. It is of course becoming more rational, however it has nothing to do with religion - China was not religious during the Cultural Revolution however it was certainly not rational. #2 is Japan. How can the level of sexism in Japanese society be explained? IMO, it shows a huge lack of reason. IMO, today and throughout history, the most irrational acts (mass violations of human rights) have nothing to do with religion. And of course in today's West, there are no: "shackles of religion".