self-ownership

I'm a graduate of the University of Alabama. I bring my coding skills to the marketing industry. I solve Rubik's Cubes.

I'm a voluntarist.

Recent Tweets @ajmorgan25
Posts tagged "science"

realpolitiks:

Reason: The Austrian school rejects the scientific method and empirical data.

Furthermore, the Austrian school rejects most of modern macroeconomics because it cannot be reduced to micro problems.

… The title “Sane Libertarians Cannot Exist” is also appropriate for this post. 

To clarify, the Austrian school doesn’t reject the scientific method per se. Austrians just don’t believe it is a sufficient means to analyze economic behavior. Economics is a social science studying human beings and humans act. This is a key point to understand.

We’re not atoms or chemicals. Economics is not like a science experiment where you combine two substances and arrive at the same result each and every time. Unless you alter the would-be actions of human beings, you cannot accurately apply the scientific method to economic behavior. The scientific method has its place and it’s much more suitable for the natural sciences than it is the social ones.

One example that Mises liked to use in his class to demonstrate the difference between two fundamental ways of approaching human behavior was in looking at Grand Central Station behavior during rush hour. The “objective” or “truly scientific” behaviorist, he pointed out, would observe the empirical events: e.g., people rushing back and forth, aimlessly at certain predictable times of day. And that is all he would know. But the true student of human action would start from the fact that all human behavior is purposive, and he would see the purpose is to get from home to the train to work in the morning, the opposite at night, etc. It is obvious which one would discover and know more about human behavior, and therefore which one would be the genuine “scientist”.
Murray N. Rothbard, Preface of Theory and History (via conza)

(via conza)

whakahekeheke:

 
Everything You Know About Nutrition is Wrong

(Well not “everything,” but a lot of the conventional wisdom is probably ass-backwards.)
I get bored with political economy sometimes because convincing people to adopt correct ideas probably won’t have much benefit for a long time. However, with nutrition science, determining correct ideas can have immediate and clear benefits… so it’s a little more quickly rewarding.

So, a brief and simplified overview of the science on human health:

0. Biologically modern humans have been living on Earth for at least 100,000 years. Our larger family of humans have been living on Earth for millions of years. For the vast majority of that time, we lived as hunter-gatherers. Evidence from anthropology, archaeology, and epidemiology strongly indicates that people in hunter-gatherer societies almost never experience:
obesity
diabetes
heart disease
high blood pressure
cancer
Alzheimer’s
acne
tooth decay
poor vision
and many other health problems associated with metabolic syndrome. Indeed, hunter-gatherers are usually lean, healthy, and have long lifespans without modern medicine.
It was not until the first Agricultural Revolution, when we began to eat a lot of grass seeds (a.k.a. “grains”), that we began to experience these health problems at high rates. And it only got worse from there (until the advent of modern medicine around 100 years ago when it started getting better—on the treatment side).
1. A logical starting point for determining what is healthy, therefore, is to look at what we typically ate as hunter-gatherers vs. what we didn’t typically eat. This logic gives some clear answers which have been further confirmed by biological science and clinical trials.
2. It makes no sense whatsoever to avoid meat for health reasons. (Especially not beef, lamb, game, or fish.) Meat is the most healthy food. Meat, including offal, contains bioavailable amounts of all the nutrients necessary for optimal human life and no significant anti-nutrients. Unlike vegetables, you can live well on meat alone. Our bodies evolved adaptations to eating significant quantities of meat, and significant amounts of saturated fat. Hell, we likely hunted big game almost to extinction on some continents. Being efficient hunters and eating more meat allowed us to grow more powerful brains and thus become the smart modern humans we all are and love.
3. Neither cholesterol nor saturated fat cause heart disease or any other significant health problems. The myth that consuming saturated fat causes heart disease has been thoroughly debunked by the last 50 years of clinical trials, scientific advances in physiology, and epidemiology. It persists only thanks to inertia and politics.
Cholesterol is a bit more complicated, but the evidence is unambiguous that neither dietary cholesterol nor total blood cholesterol cause heart disease or any other significant health problems. Cholesterol is a vital nutrient, necessary in significant quantities for good health. The only potentially “bad cholesterol” is that contained in small, very low-density lipoproteins (VLDL). And what increases VLDL? Not fat or cholesterol in the diet, but rather carbs in the diet. Want to reduce this potentially “bad cholesterol” in your blood? Eat more animal products, more fat, more protein, less carbs. All that crap (Cheerios, Quaker Oats, Cocoa Puffs, granola, low-fat yoghurt, etc.) government-approved as “heart-healthy” is exactly the opposite.
4. Refined carbs are unhealthy and fattening. That means bread, pasta, cereal, etc.—anything made with flour or sugar. To simplify things, refined carbs raise blood sugar and, eaten regularly, keep you hungry and your insulin high and thus keep your bodyfat cells full, growing, and reproducing.
5. To understand this, you have to understand that the conventional “it’s all about calories in vs. calories out” approach to bodyfat is backwards. If you get fatter, it’s not because you’re eating too many calories. You eat more calories because you’re getting fatter. And you’re getting fatter due to dysregulation of the bio-chemicals (like insulin) that control your bodyfat tissue, which is driving bodyfat accumulation, bodyfat retention, and hunger.
6. Fat is not fattening. Eat more fat if you want to be lean and healthy. Okay… so you can get energy from eating either carbs or fat. Your bodyfat is a buffer meant to be continuously consumed for energy when you’re not consuming food. However, if you’re eating carbs rather than fat, and thus have a defect in your fat metabolism, your body will be burning carbs for energy and not fat—including bodyfat. To lose bodyfat, you need to get your body burning fat for energy instead of snacking on refined carbs all day. There are two ways to do this:
semi-starve yourself (calorie restriction) or
eat fat instead of refined carbs
The latter is healthier… and it is the only method consistently demonstrated in clinical trials that actually works for statistically significant weight loss. If you want to lose body fat, eat more fat.
7. Wheat is especially unhealthy and fattening. Not only are wheat products made up of mostly fattening refined carbs, but they also contain the dangerous protein gluten and other anti-nutrients that inflame and penetrate your gut. An inflamed gut can’t absorb other nutrients properly, and allows toxic substances to leak into your system. Furthermore, there are molecules in wheat that bind to minerals in other foods and prevent them from being absorbed. Thirdly, certain wheat proteins can stimulate the immune system in a bad way, so that it begins attacking your own tissues (autoimmune disorders), making you sick not just in your gut but all over (like people with celiac disease but milder). And there is nothing good in wheat that you can’t get more efficiently from animal products, vegetables, fruits, or tubers. If there is one thing you should completely avoid eating, it is wheat.
8. Sugar is especially unhealthy and fattening. Fructose, found largely in table sugar and high-fructose corn syrup (and fruit juice), is seriously bad shit when consumed anywhere near the levels of the standard American diet. Fructose is very likely a trigger that causes the bodyfat tissue defect mentioned in point #5. If you want to lose weight or improve your health, and you’re drinking a lot of soda pop, that’s the first thing you should cut out. Now, thanks to government subsidies, high-fructose corn syrup is currently found in virtually all processed and sweetened food… including those “heart-healthy” cereals and “low-fat” yoghurts and all that other nasty stuff.
9. Vegetable oils are unhealthy due to high levels of omega-6 fats, which block omega-3; so use heart-healthy butter instead (or coconut oil or ghee). Also, for similar reasons, avoid nuts and legumes. Especially soy.
10. So for optimal health and weight management, based on good science and quality studies, what should people avoid eating? What should people eat?

Eat to satisfaction:
meat
fish
shellfish
eggs
butter
vegetables
coconut products
heavy cream
hard cheeses
cocoa
herbs, spices
In moderation (can eat more of these if you’re not trying to lose bodyfat):
fruit
tubers
good nuts (almond, macadamia, cashew)
whole milk
soft cheeses
full-fat greek yoghurt
rice
Minimize:
sugar
legumes, especially soy
vegetable oils
“low-fat” dairy
corn
oats
Avoid completely:
wheat and other gluten grains

Read this. Live this.

whakahekeheke:

Everything You Know About Nutrition is Wrong









(Well not “everything,” but a lot of the conventional wisdom is probably ass-backwards.)

I get bored with political economy sometimes because convincing people to adopt correct ideas probably won’t have much benefit for a long time. However, with nutrition science, determining correct ideas can have immediate and clear benefits… so it’s a little more quickly rewarding.



So, a brief and simplified overview of the science on human health:

0. Biologically modern humans have been living on Earth for at least 100,000 years. Our larger family of humans have been living on Earth for millions of years. For the vast majority of that time, we lived as hunter-gatherers. Evidence from anthropology, archaeology, and epidemiology strongly indicates that people in hunter-gatherer societies almost never experience:

  • obesity
  • diabetes
  • heart disease
  • high blood pressure
  • cancer
  • Alzheimer’s
  • acne
  • tooth decay
  • poor vision

and many other health problems associated with metabolic syndrome. Indeed, hunter-gatherers are usually lean, healthy, and have long lifespans without modern medicine.

It was not until the first Agricultural Revolution, when we began to eat a lot of grass seeds (a.k.a. “grains”), that we began to experience these health problems at high rates. And it only got worse from there (until the advent of modern medicine around 100 years ago when it started getting better—on the treatment side).

1. A logical starting point for determining what is healthy, therefore, is to look at what we typically ate as hunter-gatherers vs. what we didn’t typically eat. This logic gives some clear answers which have been further confirmed by biological science and clinical trials.

2. It makes no sense whatsoever to avoid meat for health reasons. (Especially not beef, lamb, game, or fish.) Meat is the most healthy food. Meat, including offal, contains bioavailable amounts of all the nutrients necessary for optimal human life and no significant anti-nutrients. Unlike vegetables, you can live well on meat alone. Our bodies evolved adaptations to eating significant quantities of meat, and significant amounts of saturated fat. Hell, we likely hunted big game almost to extinction on some continents. Being efficient hunters and eating more meat allowed us to grow more powerful brains and thus become the smart modern humans we all are and love.

3. Neither cholesterol nor saturated fat cause heart disease or any other significant health problems. The myth that consuming saturated fat causes heart disease has been thoroughly debunked by the last 50 years of clinical trials, scientific advances in physiology, and epidemiology. It persists only thanks to inertia and politics.

Cholesterol is a bit more complicated, but the evidence is unambiguous that neither dietary cholesterol nor total blood cholesterol cause heart disease or any other significant health problems. Cholesterol is a vital nutrient, necessary in significant quantities for good health. The only potentially “bad cholesterol” is that contained in small, very low-density lipoproteins (VLDL). And what increases VLDL? Not fat or cholesterol in the diet, but rather carbs in the diet. Want to reduce this potentially “bad cholesterol” in your blood? Eat more animal products, more fat, more protein, less carbs. All that crap (Cheerios, Quaker Oats, Cocoa Puffs, granola, low-fat yoghurt, etc.) government-approved as “heart-healthy” is exactly the opposite.

4. Refined carbs are unhealthy and fattening. That means bread, pasta, cereal, etc.—anything made with flour or sugar. To simplify things, refined carbs raise blood sugar and, eaten regularly, keep you hungry and your insulin high and thus keep your bodyfat cells full, growing, and reproducing.

5. To understand this, you have to understand that the conventional “it’s all about calories in vs. calories out” approach to bodyfat is backwardsIf you get fatter, it’s not because you’re eating too many calories. You eat more calories because you’re getting fatter. And you’re getting fatter due to dysregulation of the bio-chemicals (like insulin) that control your bodyfat tissue, which is driving bodyfat accumulation, bodyfat retention, and hunger.

6. Fat is not fattening. Eat more fat if you want to be lean and healthy. Okay… so you can get energy from eating either carbs or fat. Your bodyfat is a buffer meant to be continuously consumed for energy when you’re not consuming food. However, if you’re eating carbs rather than fat, and thus have a defect in your fat metabolism, your body will be burning carbs for energy and not fat—including bodyfat. To lose bodyfat, you need to get your body burning fat for energy instead of snacking on refined carbs all day. There are two ways to do this:

  1. semi-starve yourself (calorie restriction) or
  2. eat fat instead of refined carbs

The latter is healthier… and it is the only method consistently demonstrated in clinical trials that actually works for statistically significant weight loss. If you want to lose body fat, eat more fat.

7. Wheat is especially unhealthy and fattening. Not only are wheat products made up of mostly fattening refined carbs, but they also contain the dangerous protein gluten and other anti-nutrients that inflame and penetrate your gut. An inflamed gut can’t absorb other nutrients properly, and allows toxic substances to leak into your system. Furthermore, there are molecules in wheat that bind to minerals in other foods and prevent them from being absorbed. Thirdly, certain wheat proteins can stimulate the immune system in a bad way, so that it begins attacking your own tissues (autoimmune disorders), making you sick not just in your gut but all over (like people with celiac disease but milder). And there is nothing good in wheat that you can’t get more efficiently from animal products, vegetables, fruits, or tubers. If there is one thing you should completely avoid eating, it is wheat.

8. Sugar is especially unhealthy and fattening. Fructose, found largely in table sugar and high-fructose corn syrup (and fruit juice), is seriously bad shit when consumed anywhere near the levels of the standard American diet. Fructose is very likely a trigger that causes the bodyfat tissue defect mentioned in point #5. If you want to lose weight or improve your health, and you’re drinking a lot of soda pop, that’s the first thing you should cut out. Now, thanks to government subsidies, high-fructose corn syrup is currently found in virtually all processed and sweetened food… including those “heart-healthy” cereals and “low-fat” yoghurts and all that other nasty stuff.

9. Vegetable oils are unhealthy due to high levels of omega-6 fats, which block omega-3; so use heart-healthy butter instead (or coconut oil or ghee). Also, for similar reasons, avoid nuts and legumes. Especially soy.

10. So for optimal health and weight management, based on good science and quality studies, what should people avoid eating? What should people eat?

Eat to satisfaction:

  • meat
  • fish
  • shellfish
  • eggs
  • butter
  • vegetables
  • coconut products
  • heavy cream
  • hard cheeses
  • cocoa
  • herbs, spices

In moderation (can eat more of these if you’re not trying to lose bodyfat):

  • fruit
  • tubers
  • good nuts (almond, macadamia, cashew)
  • whole milk
  • soft cheeses
  • full-fat greek yoghurt
  • rice

Minimize:

  • sugar
  • legumes, especially soy
  • vegetable oils
  • “low-fat” dairy
  • corn
  • oats

Avoid completely:

  • wheat and other gluten grains

Read this. Live this.

Pick three. I’m an emergent dualistic epiphenomenalistic quantum mind.

I’m going to assume that you believe life hasn’t existed in its present form for only the past 6,000 - 10,000 years.

Evolution would be completely debunked if any trace of evidence was found to contradict the progression of life that is shown within Earth’s geological strata. If a German Shephard was found in the Ordovician Period, an elephant in the Triassic, or a rabbit in the Devonian, evolution would lose all of its scientific credibility. And unlike the devout religious who have to continually adapt the work of their god to accommodate the “shrinking gap”, evolutionary biologists openly admit that any trace of a lifeform outside of its geological strata would completely contradict the theory of evolution.

Now if you accept this geological timeline as a result of creationism and the work of god, exactly how many times has he created? With fossilized life forms that no longer exist today and with no trace of our current life forms outside of the immediate geological strata, exactly how many times has god descended upon Earth to create another generation or period of beings? 

Sorry, chadlossing. It takes me forever to write and if I tried writing one long, in-depth post about evolution like I’d originally planned, it’d be weeks before you’d read it. Also, I would fail out of college as a result of all the time I’d put into it. So, I’m going to post shorter thoughts, not necessarily proof at all times, about the bigger points I’ve learned concerning evolution over the past few years which eventually led to my acceptance of the theory. In case you didn’t see it before, there was a time when I didn’t accept the theory. I thought it was complete nonsense and I  thank the Alabama Department of Education for that one. Anyways, I hope that this will still be informative for you. The first part of this continuing discussion about evolution is below.

Many people I’ve encountered seem to accept the idea of microevolution while dismissing macroevolution completely. I attribute this partial acceptance of the theory to the overall lack of knowledge about evolution. Microevolution is a bit more intuitive while macroevolution takes just a little more maturity, exposure, and observation through evidence. What I mean is that you have to be able to accept an expansive, high-level idea and identify that after repeatedly proving itself to be true, the overall theory is true regardless of whether or not you can personally apply that knowledge and process to every known species on earth. This may sound a bit vague at the moment, but I’ll get back to the point shortly.

Concerning the microevolutionist, they are able to comprehend how a rose can change colors from red to pink or from red to white through repeated artificial selection, breeding the recessive traits over several generations until it eventually becomes a dominant trait. I believe this tends to be accepted by most people because while the rose may be changing colors, the flower looks generally the same. But how can you even begin to explain a transformation from Australopithecus to Homo habilis to Homo erectus? Well as Richard Dawkins explains it, you’re trying to climb “Mount Improbable”. Instead of looking at two ends and comparing their extreme differences, in an attempt to scale the mountain in one giant leap, you must slowly ascend the mountain slope by looking at the smaller, gradualchanges that had to occur to get to the final, seemingly drastic and counterintuitive change. I believe National Geographic said 80% of today’s dog breeds didn’t exist just 150 years ago. Within that small timeframe, desirable traits have been artificially selected and bred to produce the very distinct breeds we have today that range drastically in size, coats, and behavior.  

Sure, we may not be able to personally witness most macroevolution that occurs, but don’t we witness equally amazing and beautiful transformations within our own lifetime? We’ve become so accustomed to these changes, we forget that it’s really evolution before our very eyes. For example, we can all attest to the transformation of a tadpole to a frog, a caterpillar to a butterfly, and my personal favorite – the transformation of a zygote into a living, crying baby in just nine months!

Now back to my earlier point. Yes, I do accept the theory of evolution. Can I explain the evolutionary change of every single species on earth? No. Am I afraid to admit this? No. A lot of anti-evolutionists commonly use this as a case against evolution. After choosing a random animal or insect, they wonder how I can possibly accept a theory when I can’t even explain the evolutionary process for their specific case – although, I sometimes can. Well, aside from being nearly impossible due to the vast number of living beings on earth, it doesn’t need to be done. I understand how it works and have seen it beautifully explained in books enough times that I’m intelligent and honest enough to accept that even though I can’t apply to it to every single species I’ve encountered, someone out there probably can and it will make sense, just like it has for every other account I’ve heard in the past.

Think about a magic trick that you know how to perform. You know the basic sleight of hand or prior preparation that is required to successfully pull it off to create the illusion of magic. Being a relatively rational person, I’m sure you can also apply this same explanation, an illusion of varying degress of proficiency, to all other magic tricks. Penn and Teller perform a famous trick where both magicians walk into the crowd to have an audience member sign their initials onto a bullet. Without crossing a line that is dividing the stage, Penn and Teller each load their gun, aim it at each other, fire the gun, and catch the opposite bullet in their mouth. I honestly hope that you know neither Penn or Teller are physically capable of catching a bullet in their mouth. Since you probably don’t believe in magic and you know how to pull off at least one trick, should you be able to fully explain how their illusion is achieved? Of course not. But  since you have some level of knowledge about magic, you know that it isn’t truly magic and that it is simply an illusion that you are incapable of explaining. At the same time, the explanation of the illusion would make complete sense to all of us if Penn and Teller were willing to explain their secret. And as all magic tricks seem to do, it would also  leave us wondering how we never thought of the simple, yet creative, trick ourselves.

In closing, this post wasn’t meant to bombard you with information or links to references to explain the theory of evolution. Instead, I wanted to introduce you to the idea of macroevolution as repeated microevolution over an indefinite amount of time. No scientist or anti-evolutionist can determine when microevolution ends and when macroeovolution starts. That would be equivelent to handing my parents 7,875 self portraits, for every day since my conception, and telling them to pinpoint the exact day that I was no longer a zygote and became an infant or the day that I was no longer a teenager and became an adult because I can’t possibly believe that I was ever a zyogte or an infant. It would be an arbitrary, inaccurate, and pointless process. The change occurred – it was just a gradual change, almost 21 years in the making. Just because they are incapable of pinpointing the exact dates of my change doesn’t mean that I was never a zygote, toddler, or a teenager.

thinklauren:

Ronald Bailey from the February 2011 issue

This is what I keep trying to explain to people, but until now I haven’t had any really good “scientific” evidence. A FANTASTIC read. 

“Haidt and his colleagues eventually recognized that their Moral Foundations Questionnaire was blinkered by liberal academic bias, failing to include a sixth moral foundation, liberty.”

This is why science is amazing - these researchers were not too proud to admit that “liberal academic bias” may have been affecting their results, and may have been keeping them from truly understanding the morality of libertarianism. They adjusted for this, and so furthered scientific understanding. It is ignorance and stubbornness that holds science back.

I don’t want to summarize everything here (since the article is very well written and clear in its own right), but I really suggest reading this (especially if you have the puzzling notion that libertarians are immoral…)

The main thing to take away:

Libertarian morality, by rising above and rejecting primitive moralities embodied in the universalist collectivism of left-liberals and the tribalist collectivism of conservatives, made the rule of law, freedom of speech, religious tolerance, and modern prosperity possible. Liberals and conservatives may love people more than do libertarians, but love of liberty is what leads to true moral and economic progress.”

I can’t remember if I posted this before, but either way it’s an excellent article and definitely worth reading. It proved scientifically what I always thought to be true.

Imagine NASA offers you a free trip into space.  While you’re up there, you can do whatever you want.  You can relax in the space shuttle, play golf on the moon, anything.  In addition, you’re also allowed to stay for as long as you’d like.

Now here’s the catch.  Imagine that NASA can also calculate the exact probability of your death during the trip.  What is the highest probability or percentage of death that would still be acceptable for you to participate in the free trip to space?  In other words, 0.0000000000001% would likely be a risk that most people would be willing to take, but how far would you go?  3% … 5% … 10%?

</Adam Morgan>