(EMAILWIRE.COM, November 01, 2024 ) The Europe Wireless Headphones market is experiencing substantial growth, driven by rising consumer preference for high-quality audio and seamless mobility. With advancements in noise-canceling technology, battery life, and Bluetooth connectivity, wireless headphones...

(EMAILWIRE.COM, November 01, 2024 ) Artificial Intelligence Chipset Market size was valued US$ 20.76 Bn in 2023 and the total revenue is expected to grow at 40% from 2024 to 2030, reaching US$ 218.85 Bn. by 2030. The AI chipset market is experiencing rapid growth, driven by increasing adoption...

(EMAILWIRE.COM, November 01, 2024 ) Automotive Microcontrollers Market is expected to reach US$ 22.93 Bn. by 2030, at a CAGR of 8.2% during the forecast period. The automotive microcontroller market is experiencing significant growth, driven by the increasing integration of electronics in vehicles....

(EMAILWIRE.COM, November 03, 2024 ) Aliphatic Amines Market are substances created through displacement reaction within an ammonia molecule. Monovalent hydrocarbon radicals replaced the hydrogen atoms in ammonia in Aliphatic Amines. The analysis in the report examines how the COVID-19 pandemic...

(EMAILWIRE.COM, November 03, 2024 ) The Global 23 Butanediol Market is experiencing growth due to its rising demand in the chemical and industrial sectors. Used widely as an intermediate in the production of plastics, textiles, and pharmaceuticals, 23 Butanediol is essential in high-performance material...

(EMAILWIRE.COM, November 03, 2024 ) The Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing Market is experiencing growth due to rising concerns over antibiotic resistance and infection control. AST systems help healthcare providers determine the most effective treatments for infections, improving patient outcomes....

(EMAILWIRE.COM, November 04, 2024 ) The Aluminum Flat Rolled Products Market is set for expansion as demand rises in automotive, construction, and packaging industries. Aluminum’s lightweight and corrosion-resistant properties make it ideal for use in energy-efficient vehicles and sustainable buildings....

(EMAILWIRE.COM, November 04, 2024 ) The Global Agricultural Tractors Market is growing, fueled by a demand for precision farming and advanced agricultural machinery. Modern tractors equipped with GPS, AI, and automation technology are transforming farm efficiency, reducing labor, and increasing yield....

(EMAILWIRE.COM, November 04, 2024 ) The Global Apron Bus Market is expanding, supported by the growth in air travel and the need for efficient airport ground operations. Apron buses transport passengers between terminals and aircraft, ensuring smooth and timely boarding. Key manufacturers are innovating...

(EMAILWIRE.COM, November 05, 2024 ) The Global AI in Fashion Market is expanding rapidly, with brands leveraging AI to enhance design, personalization, and inventory management. From predictive analytics to virtual try-ons, AI is revolutionizing consumer engagement and operational efficiency. Fashion...

(EMAILWIRE.COM, November 05, 2024 ) An Aerostat Systems Market is an aircraft lighter than air that achieves lift with the help of a buoyant gas. Aerostat systems consist of unpowered balloons as well as powered airships. A balloon can fly freely or be anchored. Request For Free Sample Report...

(EMAILWIRE.COM, November 05, 2024 ) The Exoskeleton Market is projected to grow rapidly, driven by applications in healthcare rehabilitation and industrial productivity. Exoskeletons enhance mobility for those with disabilities and improve worker efficiency and safety in industries such as manufacturing...

(EMAILWIRE.COM, November 06, 2024 ) The global AI in finance market is on a rapid growth trajectory, projected to surge from USD 38.36 billion in 2024 to an impressive USD 190.33 billion by 2030, with a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 30.6%. According to a MarketsandMarkets report, this growth...

(EMAILWIRE.COM, November 07, 2024 ) According to MarketsandMarkets' latest research, the Edge Computing Market is projected to grow from USD 60.0 billion in 2024 to USD 110.6 billion by 2029, achieving a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 13.0%. As the Internet of Things (IoT) continues its rapid...

(EMAILWIRE.COM, November 08, 2024 ) Orthopedic Devices Market in terms of revenue was estimated to be worth $36.3 billion in 2022 and is poised to reach $48.1 billion by 2028, growing at a CAGR of 4.8% from 2022 to 2028 according to a latest report published by MarketsandMarkets™. Increasing cases...

(EMAILWIRE.COM, November 13, 2024 ) The Security Service Edge Market is expected to reach USD 2.8 billion by 2028 from USD 0.8 billion in 2023, at a CAGR of 25.4 % during 2023–2028. The evolving cybersecurity landscape and the dynamic digital transformation of organizations are driving the adoption...

Prime Air, LLC, founded in 1995, has grown to become one of the foremost suppliers of ... This includes but is not limited to brakes, wheels, heat packs and complete anti ...

Oceania Aviation Ltd - bases in Ardmore Airport Auckland & Queenstown Airport NZ. ... Josh C chatting with the Prime Minister of NZ last night.

PAS is one of the leading Aviation management company. We provide one stop solution for all type of flight services globally

WELCOME TO PRIME PROPERTY CONSULTANCY. Based in Birchwood Warrington, Prime Property Consultancy Ltd are Asset Managers with a substantial portfolio of industrial and ...

* While we strive to keep this information correct and up-to-date, it is not the primary source, and the company registry (see source, above) should always be referred to for definitive information

Prime Aviation Limited 222 DON MUEANG INT L AIRPORT AAS HANGAR VIBHAVADI RANSIT RD BANKOK 10210 TH 66.87900405

We are aviation specialists with a proven track record as an Operator, and we manage one the largest fleets of widebody aircraft. The Company; Our Services; Our Fleet; Job Openings; Contact Us; We are an Aircraft Management Company. Learn About Us View Our Fleet. How we can help you ? Business Jet Management. Your aircraft is your asset. We’ll manage it like one. Charter and Jet cards ...

Prime Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd. airlines/aviation. Company Details. Employee Charts. View Prime Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd.'s full profile. Prime Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd. Details. Since 1996 Prime Aviation is engaged in providing quality Aviation Services for all type of aircraft operating to or through Indian Airspace by obtaining Civil permissions from Director General of Civil Aviatio ...

australia qantas airways limited qantas airways limited casa.aoc.0001 aus-0004 australia revesco aviation pty ltd revesco aviation pty ltd casa.aoc.0043 aus-0008 australia skytraders pty ltd n/a casa.taaoc.0182 aus-0015 azerbaijan "asg business aviation" llc n/a aoc-002 aze-0003 azerbaijan national air carrier: "azerbaijan airlines"

The information available via this page is to support aircraft operators and their State Authorities ensure that RVSM monitoring targets are being achieved. For further information on the context of the information please visit the EURRMA homepage . Measurement period from 01 Jan 2021 to 01 Jan 2023 Last update: 08 Jan 2023

Article 250 permits issued. Summary of Foreign Carrier Permits granted by the CAA in the last four weeks for charter and scheduled commercial flight operations, in pursuance of Article 250 of the Air Navigation Order 2016.

Mach Aviation provides private Jets for sale as well as specialized Jet & Helicopter purchase and consulting services for both individuals and corporate clients globally. Call: +353 1 8138817. ... Mach Aviation Ltd. Co. Dublin Ireland. Tel: +353 (0)1 8138817 Email: jmccarthy@mach.ie.

 Third Country Operators (UK- Part TCO) Requirement Regulation 452/2014 requires all Third Country Operators to hold a 'UK -Part-TCO', from the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) prior to undertaking any commercial flight to, from or within the United Kingdom and associated areas.

The Pete Holmes Show: “We’re Not Here to Tell You How Much the World Sucks” The one thing late-night TV needed was another tall comedian on TBS, so Conan O’Brien has called upon podcaster excellente Pete Holmes (You Made it...

Best vehicle I have ever owned!!!

Very reliable and an awesome ride!

Keep the Party Going – A Tribute to Jimmy Buffett featuring The Coral Reefer Band. Thrilled to be able to announce that the The Coral Reefer Band will be playing at the Hard Rock Hotel’s …

from Instagram https://instagr.am/p/DB48I-gSloZ/ via IFTTT

In 2016 the morning after the election I went to work early. Looking back at my camera roll from that day, here’s Batman, with a reminder. DON’T BELIEVE THOSE CRACKPOT LIES ABOUT PEOPLE WHO WORSHIP DIFFERENTLY, OR WHOSE SKIN IS OF A DIFFERENT COLOR, OR WHOSE PARENTS COME FROM ANOTHER COUNTRY. REMEMBER OUR AMERICAN HERITAGE...

Video: Spring Silver – “It’s Imperative”

From Don’t You Think It’s Strange?, out now.

I don’t know anything about this artist but I somehow stumbled across this song and it’s too great to keep it to myself. Their little bandcamp bio says they’re from Silver Spring, Maryland and that the album was “written, performed, produced, and mixed by K Nkanza.” Well alright. What more do you need to know? They also offer thanks “to Mom for letting me record at her house.” It’s nice to see kids be grateful to their parents!

I see you all
Etched in the vertical tiles of an office building
I see you all
Trapped in the virtual squares of an application.

Sounds like somebody’s sick of zoom meetings!

Spring Silver: web, bandcamp, amazon, apple, spotify, wiki.

Read more at Glorious Noise...

The European Union on Tuesday took the debate about genetically modified crops to the public with a survey asking citizens to share their thoughts on organic farming, reports Phys.org in a recent article titled EU asks citizens to join debate on GM food Image credit: americanoverkill.com The article continues ... The bloc's 500 million consumers are invited to complete an anonymous online questionnaire on the European Commission's Agriculture and Rural Development website (ec.europa.eu/agriculture/consultations/organic/2013_en.htm). The consultation, which ends on April 10, is part of a review of European policy on organic agriculture. The survey is available in all official EU languages. English is the one linked here, but other languages are available from a drop-down menu at the top of the page. The Phys.org article, putting emphasis on the GM angle, goes on to say......

After conducting "one of the most comprehensive risk assessments of aspartame ever undertaken", the European Food Safety Authority has released its verdict on 10 December 2013. The agency came to the conclusion that aspartame and its breakdown products are "safe for human consumption at current levels of exposure". The EFSA press release says that this was an important step forward in "strengthening consumer confidence in the scientific underpinning of the EU food safety system and the regulation of food additives". So the message seems to be that we should all just move on to other things. Leave aspartame alone and better yet - drink some of that "diet" Coke. But should we really? Could perhaps the power of money and influence behind big food have had a determining effect on that decision? We cannot be certain what exactly caused the EU regulator to give aspartame a clean bill of health rather than to acknowledge the sweetener's widely known dangers. Fact is - they disregarded every single study that showed aspartame to have adverse effects. Prof. Erik Millstone of the University of Sussex Science and Technology Policy Research Unit believes that EFSA has arrived at its conclusion by opportunistic interpretation of the studies that were reviewed. Most of the industry funded studies were given straight A's, while independent studies were - without exception - given an 'F' rating. Millstone says that "The EFSA Panel opportunistically accepted at face value almost all of the studies suggesting that aspartame is harmless, while entirely discounting every single study indicating that aspartame may be harmful, even though the quality, power and sensitivity of many of the studies that were discounted were markedly superior to those of the contrary studies deemed reliable."...

I may have bored everyone to death about this topic, but I have my last exam tomorrow, so here is my final thought about what distinguishes science. Most of the descriptions of science that I know of don’t really explain how science progresses without falling into a quaint mythology about approaching some metaphysical truth. Kuhn doesn’t, Popper doesn’t, Pierre Duhem doesn’t, and I myself have neglected to account for it to some extent.

I think the key is that science, at least experimental science, is essentially concerned with predicting the future. Every hypothesis, in essence, is a prediction about the future. What distinguishes science from other forms of prediction is the emphasis on verification, the insistence on framing predictions in such a way that when they are tested they can be decisively answered positively or negatively. In other, the goal is not to not be wrong but to achieve a definitive positive answer. Even a definite negative answer is preferable to none at all.

Some philosophers, like Duhem, claim that individual hypotheses can neither be verified nor falsified, because a whole body of theories and assumptions lies behind, and is implicated in, every hypothesis, and thus one can never be sure just what has been validated or failed. While that’s true, it is also nonetheless true that when the result of an experiment does not match a hypothetical prediction the hypothesis has been proven invalid as it stands. In other words, no matter what went wrong, the body of theories and assumptions that led to the hypothesis do not work as they now stand. Thus, things will have to be changed until they produce accurate predictions. Conversely, if a hypotheis is corroborated with a positive answer, the theories behind it stand validated until a hypothesis receives a negative answer.

In other words, experimentation does not serve to lead by induction to new theories, but rather theories serve to make possible specific predictions about the future which can be verified decisively. This at least is the goal. The goal is not a description which is true or corresponds to the truth, or at least that is not the immediate goal. When the facts or events are given, anyone can interpret them, and the fact that these events are known can mask the relative merits of the theory which interprets them. The idea that theories are validated by their correspondence to experimental results is tautological: the first condition of any theory is that it accounts for the experimental results that gave rise to it. But the only way to determine whether it is simply a theory to fit the facts or whether it is truly generalizable is to test it against unknown facts via prediction. Of course, predictions are almost always only approximately true, so the specific point of acceptability is not provided for by the general concept, but, at least in theory, decisive verification of predictions provides a simple, clear, and immensely useful criterion by which to evaluate theories. In my opinion, this explains much of the evolutionary capacity of science (I mean evolution in the more contemporary sense of diversification and selection rather than the old idea of teleological perfectibility).

If experimental prediction is the mark of science, this leaves the question of whether purely descriptive disciplines like zoology and areas like quantum theory where predictions are inherently statistical and ambiguous are scientific. Zoology and the like I think are, because hypothetical prediction inherently implies classification. In other words, by saying “under these conditions, such an event will happen,” one classifies, in other words sets parameters. The goal of zoology seems to be not simply to describe members of a group but to describe all the characteristics which define the group, set the parameters of the group, which is the first step towards making predictions about the group. So it is an element of science, but incomplete. As for quantum, I avow my profound ignorance of it, so let my opinion be taken in that light. As far as I understand, the stastical laws in that realm allow predictions in aggregate, so I am inclined to view it as still within the domain of science, at least in spirit, but of course the lack of decisiveness of statistical predictions gravely weakens the predictive power of science in this area, and I have already suggested that the rise of relativity and quantum in my view are intimately tied to the waning of the scientific age. Finally, it should be noted that while making correct predictions is the goal of science, that should be qualified by saying that the predictions are intended to answer general questions concerning the nature of things and establish specific knowledge. Optics or engineering, for example, are not science, although they once were, because all the major questions have been answered, and they no longer concern gaining further knowledge of the future and the universe, but rather in applying that knowledge to constructing specific objects.

So the goal and value of science is in predicting, and thus establishing knowledge of, the future, and the scientific method is the means of arriving at correct predictions. This is not to discard my earlier contention about the ideological basis of science, because the efficacy of prediction is based on the relative value of induction, and successful induction relies on the essential regularity and stability of the universe. In other words, in order to draw a general theory from a specific experimental result and vice versa, the universe must be considered as basically the same everywhere and at every time, which in turn implies that it be material, matter being defined as that which cannot change itself and is therefore static. It seems to me that if in quantum theory, for example, phenomena become genuinely dependent on the observeer in ways that are neither generalizable nor predicatable, it cannot continue to remain truly a science. It would seem to me that the branches of physics which are entirely theoretical are for practical purposes basically metaphysics.

This model depends on a linear notion of time. It might seem the opposite, that if the physical laws are eternal and universal time is actually opposed to this insofar as it represents dynamism, change. But in reality the sameness of the universe upon which science is predicated is not a a sameness at any particular moment, but rather a sameness of behavior. In other words, a view of the universe from a materialist perspective at any given moment shows that everything in the univese is different in the sense of being distinct. However, the idea is that under the same conditions all matter (or whatever you call the fundamental substances) will act in the same way. Without the steady march of time, this unity of behavior disappears, and there are simply a million disparate entities. Thus, space (and time) as properties of the universe are essential to science.

As for what the value of science is, I’m afraid I can’t generalize about that. From reading my recent posts one can most likely guess at my views, but I will simply say that one’s view of the efficacy of science in making the universe understandable will probably depend on entirely on whether one a) believes that linear time is a real property of the universe and b) if so, whether true induction is possible.

p.s. I should note that Henri Poincaré anticipates me in seeing the epistemological value of science as consisting mainly of its ability to make predictions rather than its descriptive correspondence to reality. However, he also thinks that theories are conventions and definitions of concepts, not true descriptions of physical phenomena based necessarily on experimental results. He thinks the conjunction of these two make theories relatively independent of their experimental bases, which he regards as a good thing because it creates a body of stable principles in which we can trust. I think that that is neither true nor a good value. The emphasis is on predicting correctly, not creating stable beliefs (if you want unchanging beliefs, what not join the Church?), and if generating true predictions is the goal, theories should be more rather than less sensitive to their experimental roots.

p.p.s. Since my exam was about scientific laws and causality, I should add that while scientific activity depends on a belief in time, not all scientific theories do: the law of conservation of energy, for example, I believe is essentially atemporal.

At the conjunction of this critique of reductionism in physics and this interview with Benoit Mandelbrot I think one sees the same basic dynamic at work: a devaluation of simplicity and generalization in math and science, what I suppose Mandelbrot might call “smoothness,” and a preference for the complex and the multifarious. To some extent this seems to cut against the basic scientific impulse to simplify, to generalize, which is what a law or an equation generally does. In Laughlin I think there is even a certain disillusionment with realism perhaps not totally dissimilar from that in the analysis of language by dear friend Wittgenstein. Although, by encouraging investigation of the specifics and intricacies of phenomena which seem to be superficially covered by the most general and basic laws and to give up idle speculation about the far nether regions of the universe in space and time which cannot in any way be corroborated, he seems to be trying to bring physics back into the solid world of relative certainties and reasonable evidence, it seems to me that this is a tacit admission that the theories which seem to cover and explain adequately all phenomena except for those extreme edges are in actuality insufficient to represent the richness of even the most mundane levels of reality.

Just as in the case of the over-heated discoveries of Wittgeinstein and Cambridge group, this sudden realization that the broad and universal physical laws established and the abstract shapes used to represent them don’t really reflect the full multiplicity of reality seems a little phony to me. I mean, isn’t that the entire point? Isn’t that abstractness and simplicity supposed to yoke all of that complexity within a reasonable level of comprehensibility sufficient to possibly predict other phenomena, or at least relate them to what we have already seen? Now maybe we see a revision in the valuation of these ideals, and in both Laughlin and Mandelbrot a movement away from final solutions, formulations and summations. Seemingly nothing out-of-the-ordinary about that, but if one ceases to regard oneself as capturing the essence of a phenomenon in an equation or image describing it, then that necessarily leads to a re-evaluation of the type of work one is doing and the standard by which it is judged. Let’s put it this way: although there are many rules which often govern both the form and content of a form (some, granted, quite idiosyncratic and individual), it would be quite ludicrous to suggest that a listing of those rules would be an adequate reflection or description of the poem, let alone itself be a poem, or equivalent to the poem.

Philosophically, I’m not troubled by this as many scientists seem to be. Despite the many declarations that Newton had discovered the very mechanism by which God controlled the universe, he himself complained famously that he felt like a dilettante on the shoreline picking up stones and shells that amused him while neglecting the vast ocean before him. This seems unnecessary if one regards theorems as essentially creations, not mirrors of nature, and hence judge the cathedral of scientific knowledge by its height above the ground rather than as an incomplete ladder to the heavens.

It’s almost comforting that such invidious fluffy-minded sludge as this is floating around, as it seems, like religion, to keep the middle-brows hypnotized by “beautiful sentiments” which are so vague as to keep them from actually getting together and doing anything. It’s sort of weird to hear this weakly Marxist social-democratic pap which used to be shouted from the rooftops now being whispered in a low monotonous whine. The author avows his fealty to Jeremy Bentham, not Marx, and calls it utilitarianism not Marxism, but there are many illegitimate fathers along this line of thought.

The root of the idea is that, now that neuroscience has supposedly made it possible to actually identify what makes us happy, the idea of happiness has become quantifiable, and hence a program of providing the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people has become objectively possible. However, the author does not make the slightest effort to apply these wonders of modern science to actually determining what the alleged sources of human happiness are. The neuroscience tack is really just a defensive ploy to ward off the eternal charges that utilitarinism is simply a euphemism for an authoritarian imposition of values. As for espousing his positive program for what constitutes human happiness, it is simply the usual liberal middle-class canards, with not surprisingly a socialist edge: more time to spend with family, a decent wage for everyone, blah blah blah. But he seems to make two pretty criminally unsubstantiated assumptions: one is these sources are essentially the same for everyone, or at least could be under certain conditions, and the other is that they do not inherently conflict with anyone else’s.

I say under certain conditions could be, because in evaluating our current society he seems to privilege envy of other’s material well-being as the principal determinant of happiness. His theory is that above a certain level of material subsistence people are motivated primarily by status-seeking and the desire for a high rank within their social group. Therefore, the increasing wealth of the society will not increase happiness because people measure their well-being relative to the group, not by their absolute prosperity. This is always been a flaw in the concept of the “war against poverty”; I’m not sure it’s much of an argument for socialist economic redistribution. But actually if you read his section on the value of income taxes carefully, he doesn’t even seem to be arguing that they are useful insofar as they can be redirected to the less prosperous, although he does evidently believe that a certain amount of money contributes more to the happiness of a poor person than to a rich one’s. Rather, he seems to think that taking money away from the properous is valuable in and of itself, because it will supposedly make them less focused on the “rat race,” more family-oriented, etc., etc. In short he seems to be advocating a net impoverishment of society.

All of which may be consistent with the program of a good little socialist, but does not necessarily accord marvelously with his own evidence about the supposedly quantified happiness of humanity. The research that he cites non-specifically supposedly indicates that people’s feeling of happiness has not risen in the last half-century, but he does not cite anything which indicates that it has necessarily declined. He cites rising rates of depression and crime as presumably implicit indicators of greater unhappiness, but he does not seem to acknowledge the possibility that in our hyper-medicated and surveillance-based society perhaps people simply report depression and crime more. In any event, if roughly similar numbers of people today as in the ‘50’s report themselves happy (and we believe them), despite the increase in prosperity, that might perhaps indicate that happiness is not fixed to material well-being. Which may be consistent with his general point, but not with his idea of increasing happiness by manipulating income levels.

And even if it did, it seems rather difficult to countenance any social program predicated upon appealing to one of humanity’s most depraved instincts, namely envy. The author acknowledges that his ideal of taxation is mainly motivated by the desire to pander to people’s envy, but he seems to think that their envy will be sated by the loss of prosperity of those around them and that after that point there will be no more. So the envy of the less prosperous will be satisfied by the losses accrued by the more prosperous, which will somehow not be counter-balanced by the chagrin of the more prosperous at the prospect of seeing their status diminished. Very logical.

One of the more egregious presumptions of utilitarians is that non-utilitarian social systems somehow aren’t concerned with seeking the greatest good for the greatest number of people. On the contrary, that’s the defining problem of practically every social and political theory I can think of, and they all either seek or claim to have found the answer—whether such a solution exists, I have my doubts, but that’s why I’m a skeptic about politics. This is a handy trick by utilitarians: they say “I believe in the greatest good for the greatest number of people.” Which is practically begging the question: “As opposed to whom?” It’s useful because it tends to conceal the fact that their real agenda is generally somewhat more specific, and tends to consist in the autocratic notion that one or two measures of social living can be authoritatively determined to be the sources of happiness, and then divided up in a centralized fashion. Those that are the most insistent on the idea of liberty are generally those that are the most skeptical about the possibility of the notion of happiness being either quantitatively defined or generalizable. In other words, only indviduals can determine their own sources of happiness.

For the author, on the other hand, the fact that certain stimuli trigger certain areas of the brain at the times when test subjects profess pleasure has solved the problem of determining happiness. Of course, as mentioned, he never really bothers with the results that those studies have yielded. Somehow the fact that he considers envy to be a principal element of human happiness does not place very severe limits on the harmoniousness of individual happiness. Nor does it constitute a tyranny of the majority, because he claims that in an ideal utilitarian society the happiness of the most unhappy would be considered of pre-eminent importance. Of course, at the beginning of the article he cited the equal importance of each individual’s happiness as the fouding tenet of his theory, but I’m sure it all sorts out in the end.

Among social factors responsible for unhappiness, he cites divorce and unemployment as of pre-eminent importance. Of course, rates of both divorce and unemployment in the crassly materialistic and religious United States are much lower than in the much more overtly utilitarian-embracing Europe, but it would be a bit embarassing for him to admit this after avowing that all traditional value-systems outside of utilitarianism and “individualism” are dead.

Personally the question of the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people doesn’t exactly compel me constantly, although the issue of personal happiness tends to impose itself intransigently. I would have thought that evolutionary biology would have provided an adequate explanation of this, as well as the recurrence of what we call altruism. But such an idea of course suggests that happiness, whatever that is, is not really the point of our little existences, and that the more imperious competitiveness of life will ultimately subvert all of these little trifles of pleasure and pain. But in the meantime, we have these debased statistical notions of happiness to amuse us in an idle hour.

It seems to me that if one’s “objective” measure of happiness is electrical stimulation in the cerebral cortex, the most efficient utilitarian solution to the problem of human happiness would be strap everyone onto hospital gurneys and stimulate the “happiness” part of their brain all day long. If one does not wish to be this deterministic about it, perhaps one should allow more latitute to individuals to discover their own conception of happiness. Personally, I have found happiness generally to be an idea for the unhappy and something rarely spoken of by the happiness; mention of practically guarantees that it is not present in the environment where it is uttered. I don’t deny that what you might call love is the real bridge between personal happiness and moral obligations, and the only true means by which the desires of oneself and of others are united, but such a sentiment can never be mandated; it is entirely resistant to intellectual compulsion. Utilitarianism, which sometimes does a decent job of faking morality, is nevertheless ultimately predicated on the pleasure principle, and hence is wholly inadequate to uniting the moral and the pleasurable except when love truly pertains. In that case, of course, political theory is entirely superfluous, which is why this is all a waste of time.

p.s. I don’t claim that people’s behavior necessarily reflects what really would make them happy, but presumably it does at least reflect what they consciously value. Hence, if I were the author I would have been a bit skeptical of using the results of “surveys” of what people claim to value when the results don’t correlate with their behavior, i.e. they claim that spending time with family is most important, but they spend a disproportiante amount of time working (at least according to him). So either people are not really being forthright (consciously or unconsciously) in responding to surveys, or there is not actually a problem of priorities. In either case, he’s way over-valuing surveys as a guide to what will make people happy.

PerformanceTest enables you to benchmark your computer and compare it to a variety of baseline systems that are included in the database. You can select one or more computer mod....

JPEXS Free Flash Decompiler enables you to decompile and edit the content of SWF Flash files, including .swf, .gfx and .swc. You can view and extract resources (shapes, sprites, fonts, buttons...), c....

Skype is a user friendly video and text messaging software, that allows you to make free Internet phone and HD video calls to any Skype user, anywhere in the world. The sound quality is as good or ev....