Humans aren't animals?

Let me get this straight... in order to protect animals, they're going to hurt humans. Does anyone else see the hypocrisy in this?

"Britain's Oxford University won a legal battle on Friday to increase the restrictions placed on animal rights activists who regularly demonstrate against its new research laboratory.

"The university went to the High Court last week to extend an exclusion zone round the 20-million-pound ($37 million) biomedical center to keep demonstrators away.

"Some animal rights extremists, opposed to vivisection, have widened the protest by threatening violence against anyone involved with the university."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060526/sc_nm/britain_oxford_dc_4

Objectivism diffused

For one of my classes, we're reading Roger's classic "Diffusion of Innovations". In it, he describes the history of innovation diffusion research and the key findings from that research. What struck me as interesting was the brief discussion on how innovations can mean more than just new technologies, but can include ideas and philosophies (he uses Marxism as one example). That got me to thinking about how Objectivism could be diffused throughout society. While I haven't study diffusion of innovation research enough to argue for or against the validity of the theory itself, there are certain parts of it that may be useful in discussing diffusion of Objectivism throughout society.

In the first part of this series, I want to discuss the attributes of innovations and their relation to rate of adoption. These attributes are relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, triability, and observability.

Relative advantage - This is the degree to which an innovation is perceived as being better than the idea that preceeds it. In the case of philosophy, it would be the perceived advantage Objectivism has over the ideas an individual already holds. It may seem obvious to those of us who understand Objectivism what the relative advantages are to adopting a comprehensive, integrated, reality based philosophy. But is it obvious to others? If not, is there a way to better present the philosophy that demonstrates its relative advantage.

Compatibility - This can be viewed from several points of view, but basically says that individuals will be more likely to adopt an innovation if it is compatible with societies expectations and values. Now obviously, Objectivism rejects this implication explicitly. However, many Objectivists still celebrate Christmas, not in a religious or even pagan way, but for the sheer joy of gift giving, party going, and celebration with fellow people. Why? Probably because adopting a traditional societal holiday allows us to remain connected with others that also celebrate Christmas. If Objectivism is presented in a way that alienates individuals from society, its diffusion will be extremely slow if not altogether impossible. I'm by no means suggesting Objectivism should be watered down for the masses. But by the same token, the masses will only accept Objectivism if it does not alienate them from their traditions.

Complexity - Not much to say about this one. Objectivism is complex, but is easier to understand than most philosophies. There are certain common sense things about it that people can understand, but as a fully integrated philosophy, it would require significant study to fully understand. This will slow its adoption, but is unavoidable.

Triability - This is the degree to which an innovation can be tested. Again, not much to say. You can't try Objectivism out for a day. Either you accept it and believe it or you don't. There may be instances where you challenge an individual to "try" being honest for one entire day and see the results of their own actions. You can also suggest that individuals participate in thought experiments. But at best, you show that individual one small aspect of the philosophy. Not the whole thing. But these small steps may be all that is necessary to convince a person to study the rest of Objectivism and apply it to their lives.

Observability - Perhaps the greatest observable aspect of Objectivism is Ayn Rands novels. Nothing concertizes Rand's philosophy better. Readers of her novels usually know quite quickly whether or not they want to adopt her philosophy.

Observability is where Objectivist groups have been focusing their efforts. Both ARI and TOC/TAS have been trying to make Objectivism more visible with differing degrees of success (I'll leave it those in favor of one organization or another to offer they're conclusions).

But more than just op ed pieces, observability should really be focused as much on individual Objectivists living principled, ethical lives in such a way that others cannot help but see the effects of Objectivism. Those interested in Objectivism will eventually find message boards such as solopassion.com and rebirthofreason.com. What will they observe about Objectivism when they go there? Will they see Galt's gulch with many productive, rational men, or will they see a malevolent universe of bickering and irrationality? Every statement we say and do online is observable. Are what we saying and doing projecting the type of universe we want to live in? Are we directing our energies to promoting the good or attacking the bad? There is a proper time and place for both, but every Objectivist needs to ask themselves where their energies can be best served. If anyone has any desire for Objectivism to spread through society, how can their actions on these message boards promote or hinder that spread?

Justice

I learned an important lesson recently. And that is not to let anyone attack the things you value without setting it straight immediately. Below is an email I sent to a former friend (name's have been changed to protect those I value):

"Since you have been a friend of mine for so long, you at least deserve an explanation about why I'm pissed. The proverbial straw that broke the camels back was your insult of Sam a couple months back. While you have always been respectful to me, at least to my face, you have demeaned virtually all the people I hold dear. And that is something I should I have never allowed.

"From something as simple as a movie review, you found a way to (first) insult another one of my friends. Sam's insults were a reaction to yours. If this were an isolated experience I would certainly be more supportive, especially considering the stress you were under, but its not. I don't think I have single friend left that you haven't insulted in some form or fashion, even if you don't remember doing so.
Besides labeling Sam a closed-minded liberal (he is neither), you have insulted Brian by refusing to go camping with us because he's gay. As if his character was somehow compromised by his gayness. In an argument with Sandra, you called her naive. If you think Sam questioned your intelligence, what does calling Sandra naive mean? I laughed about it at the time, but in hindsight, I don't think its very funny. In fact I'm disappointed with myself for not doing something about it at the time. You've claimed all of my philosophy club friends are 'elitist' for believing that our education system is seriously flawed and has tons of room for improvement. As I agree 100% with them, I can only assume that title applies to me as well. I nearly told you to go "f" yourself after that incident. And to top it off, you insulted Isaac by refusing to go to Todd's wedding after Isaac offered to pay your way. Yet oddly enough your main beef with Isaac and Todd was that they were too cheap to buy you any gifts or (as I believe you said) pay for your way to the wedding. I can understand being broke, but to tell me you were unhappy with them for being cheap and not wanting to make an effort to go because of that, yet then turn down a gift from them too go, smacks of hypocrisy.

"Beyond the insults, lately you cast everything I say or do in the worst light. I feel like I have to watch everything I say around you or else I might offend. Its not
something I enjoy. I don't have this feeling with any of my other friends. After my trip home last January, you immediately assumed I had the worst intentions when we were unable to hook up. And then, with our argument over Sam, you say I was playing favorites because you think I apologized for your behavior when I did not. How quickly you forget I was defending/explaining your statement about moral/political movies just a few days earlier. You jumped to conclusions about my motives and never asked if your impressions or judgments were correct. In all our years of arguments, it's rare if ever that you try to understand my point of view.
I've put more effort into maintaining a friendship with you than any other friend. Why? Because I believed there was still some value in maintaining a relationship, even if it was limited to just a gaming buddy.

"Perhaps I've become less tolerant lately, but you've shown a pattern of behavior that pains me down to my soul. Insulting my friends and treating me as if I'm guilty until proven innocent is not something I can stand. I have spent so many years as your friend that this was not an easy realization to accept, but the facts are what they are and I cannot ignore them. You may not agree with everything I have said, or even remember saying them, but that doesn't change the effective result. And
that is a disappointment so deep, I'm not sure it can ever be fixed.

"For better or worse, I decided to wait to tell you this until after your wedding and after you recovered from your surgery. I had to say my piece or say nothing at all. "

Coming to this conclusion was by no means easy emotionally, but necessary intellectually. I had been friends with him since junior high and had spent a great deal of time playing games, talking politics, and just hanging out. Yet, I could not escape the fact that his behavior was unjust. The insults listed above are insults because they were untrue. Yet he felt he was entitled to his opinion without consequences. Therefore he could say anything he wanted. Well, when you attack people and things that are of value to me, then you attack me. What and who I value is a large part of who I am. I cannot sit back and say nothing while my friends are unjustly insulted.

At least I have gained a much deeper understanding and appreciation of justice due to this unfortunate loss of a friend.

Indecon in the future

Upon first hearing about Camp Indecon, I've greatly desired to see the camp continue to flourish until my own children could attend. I remember the joy I had attending various camps and wanted my children to experience the same, but in an environment conducive to developing their independence. Every now and then I ruminate about how I would like to see the camp grow. These are some of my thoughts.

1. Once Camp Indecon can find a campground of its own, it will be able to expand its summer offerings significantly. As attendance grows, camp should be split into multiple weeks. Lorie, the camp founder, wanted to extend camp to two weeks. While I agree that the curriculum could easy stretch that long and still be valuable to the campers, I think the additional price tag could place the camp out of reach of many families. Instead, I believe camp should be split into multiple 1 week sessions, with different curriculum emphases in different weeks. So for parents that can afford two weeks of camp, the campers will experience different curriculum. But for parents that can't afford more than 1 week, their children can still attend.

2. Along the lines of the suggestion above, one week could emphasize business and finance, another decision making, another science, another art, another life planning, etc. In addition, a generalized curriculum week, that hits the basics of all the above could appeal to children as it does today. But the focused weeks can will be geared toward specific competencies that parents or children want to achieve.

3. Another idea about expanding Indecon's reach is to extend the camp to individual cities throughout the U.S. (and world eventually). Because the curriculum has been developed to be turn-key, new instructors should be able to quickly ramp up on the lessons and apply them at any location. This obviously creates a number of different logistic hurdles, but may make Indecon more well known.

4. Once Indecon has its own facility, an adult curriculum could be developed to further the appeal of the camp. Weekend retreats and seminars for working adults could induce a tighter bond with the camp, perpetuating the growth and commitment to its future. Parents (and potential parents) that are pleased with the curriculum will likely want their children to attend.

5. By renting the facilities, more groups will be knowledgeable about the camp, which will ultimately lead to increased supply of campers (besides helping to pay the bills).