Cause & Effect/Human Action & Reaction
[Thanks to Виталий Смолыгин]
Why is a catalyst needed? Or why does it work? Ex: It was, for a long time, my deep desire to travel to Europe one day. This desire simmered below the surface until one day, at a bargain book sale, I saw a book with a title somewhere along the lines of “Work Abroad in Europe”. The book was tantalizing, it was cheap, so I bought it and took it home. The book ended up not helping me at all. But I ended up going to Europe anyway. It was the smallest of things!, but that’s what did me in.
Now here’s something for you! In ecology, they have what you call keystone species. We’ve all seen those food chain webs in our school text books, right? Well, they get very, very complicated, but it turns out that not all the species in the web are as important for the survival of the whole ecosystem as others. That’s huge! These keystone species are the ones that are important. Most species can be killed out and the ecosystem will continue, ho hum, as usual. But kill out the keystone species and it all falls apart, like a domino effect, but in all directions. The thing is, this keystone species isn’t necessarily obvious to figure out. (That’s where it gets interesting for the ecologists.) My point here is that in this world, which is a huge web of cause and effect, maybe things are like in ecosystems – there’s some “keystone” cause that affects everything else. Some causes may be negligible, but these keystone causes could be the huge ones. So the question is – is it like this, and how do we identify them? Can we predict them, or only in hindsight? Further research needed: Can ecologists figure out what the keystone species is through prediction, or only in hindsight? (Check it out! Super cool!
http://www.ted.com/talks/eric_berlow_how_complexity_leads_to_simplicity.html)
Here’s another point to think about from ecology – destruction as a form of preservation. (You know, how they say forest fires are needed for new growth.) I guess that’s the way this world is, too. Kingdoms rise and fall, huge companies go in and out of business, there’s a Chinese saying that a family can’t stay rich for more than 3 generations. If things are going to change, if there’s going to be variety, and for things to be fair and to allow everyone and everything to have its time in the sun, you have to clear out the old to make way for the new. (Also listed under The Problem of Evil and Theodicy)
Stalin and shared murder, which are opposites of each other. Stalin was one man who killed many. How will he be punished? He was responsible for millions of deaths, so he has millions of lives to pay for. What about the opposite – many people partake in the murder of one person? Is the penalty for the murder of one person split between the group? But somehow that doesn’t seem right. They all committed murder and should all bear the penalty for murder. In court, for example, I don’t think the judge will split the penalty among the defendants. Let’s carry this argument to the extreme. Let’s say a group of 100 murders 1 person. Is the penalty for a life taken split into 100 parts, so that the punishment becomes negligible for each? Clearly, that’s not fair. That’s basically the same as punishing none of them, when they are all murderers. So it seems that each receives the penalty for one life taken. Even though only 1 person was killed, 100 are punished for that one life. So we see that they are not being punished for the effect of their action – a dead life, but for the sin itself. This leads to a strange paradox – on one hand, one murder leads to a punishment heavier by 100x, while the murder of millions leads to it’s equivalent in weight – millions of penalties all born by one man, Stalin. Does this have something to do with the difference between effort and results? Because the reason the action is a sin is because of the result – a dead life. (This might also be classified under The Spiritual & Physical)
Can people who die for good deeds die in vain? I read about a girl in Half the Sky who was defiant and resisted being forced to be made a prostitute and was stabbed to death in the stomach in front of all the other girls to be made an example of. The girl’s death didn’t change anything. It did not free the girls or encourage them to rebel, it did not cause any of the evil-doers to repent, it did not get the authorities to take action. She just died. Lost her life forever. So what good was her death?
Being an effective causative agent as a reason to vote -- when an election is won, what was the cause? How much of the victory can be attributed to each individual voter?
Now here’s something for you! In ecology, they have what you call keystone species. We’ve all seen those food chain webs in our school text books, right? Well, they get very, very complicated, but it turns out that not all the species in the web are as important for the survival of the whole ecosystem as others. That’s huge! These keystone species are the ones that are important. Most species can be killed out and the ecosystem will continue, ho hum, as usual. But kill out the keystone species and it all falls apart, like a domino effect, but in all directions. The thing is, this keystone species isn’t necessarily obvious to figure out. (That’s where it gets interesting for the ecologists.) My point here is that in this world, which is a huge web of cause and effect, maybe things are like in ecosystems – there’s some “keystone” cause that affects everything else. Some causes may be negligible, but these keystone causes could be the huge ones. So the question is – is it like this, and how do we identify them? Can we predict them, or only in hindsight? Further research needed: Can ecologists figure out what the keystone species is through prediction, or only in hindsight? (Check it out! Super cool!
http://www.ted.com/talks/eric_berlow_how_complexity_leads_to_simplicity.html)
Here’s another point to think about from ecology – destruction as a form of preservation. (You know, how they say forest fires are needed for new growth.) I guess that’s the way this world is, too. Kingdoms rise and fall, huge companies go in and out of business, there’s a Chinese saying that a family can’t stay rich for more than 3 generations. If things are going to change, if there’s going to be variety, and for things to be fair and to allow everyone and everything to have its time in the sun, you have to clear out the old to make way for the new. (Also listed under The Problem of Evil and Theodicy)
Stalin and shared murder, which are opposites of each other. Stalin was one man who killed many. How will he be punished? He was responsible for millions of deaths, so he has millions of lives to pay for. What about the opposite – many people partake in the murder of one person? Is the penalty for the murder of one person split between the group? But somehow that doesn’t seem right. They all committed murder and should all bear the penalty for murder. In court, for example, I don’t think the judge will split the penalty among the defendants. Let’s carry this argument to the extreme. Let’s say a group of 100 murders 1 person. Is the penalty for a life taken split into 100 parts, so that the punishment becomes negligible for each? Clearly, that’s not fair. That’s basically the same as punishing none of them, when they are all murderers. So it seems that each receives the penalty for one life taken. Even though only 1 person was killed, 100 are punished for that one life. So we see that they are not being punished for the effect of their action – a dead life, but for the sin itself. This leads to a strange paradox – on one hand, one murder leads to a punishment heavier by 100x, while the murder of millions leads to it’s equivalent in weight – millions of penalties all born by one man, Stalin. Does this have something to do with the difference between effort and results? Because the reason the action is a sin is because of the result – a dead life. (This might also be classified under The Spiritual & Physical)
Can people who die for good deeds die in vain? I read about a girl in Half the Sky who was defiant and resisted being forced to be made a prostitute and was stabbed to death in the stomach in front of all the other girls to be made an example of. The girl’s death didn’t change anything. It did not free the girls or encourage them to rebel, it did not cause any of the evil-doers to repent, it did not get the authorities to take action. She just died. Lost her life forever. So what good was her death?
Being an effective causative agent as a reason to vote -- when an election is won, what was the cause? How much of the victory can be attributed to each individual voter?
