Crime at the Stopover

Today I was at a highway stopover somewhere near Seremban. As I emerged from KFC after taking my lunch, this VERY shady looking fellow sidled up to me, and made some vague sounds to attract my attention. He then produced an expensive-looking phone and offered it to me, presumably for sale.

I shook my head and quickly moved on. A few minutes later as I came out of the washroom, another younger guy came and made the same proposal. As I am pretty sure Samsung has not opened a new line of distribution, these guys had to be trying to sell stolen phones.

The first thought that struck me was that they were stealing them on the spot, so I quickly went back to the KFC to warn my sisters of the impending danger. But it struck me that had they obtained the phones here, they would not risk flogging them at the exact same place for fear of being discovered. They must have stolen it somewhere else, such as Seremban, then brought it out here for resale.

So yea if you want a cheap phone, go to highway stopovers.

Wasted food

Many of us have heard the reprimand from our parents: "Don't waste your food, kids are starving in Africa!"

As I grew older, the question came to my mind of whether if we stopped wasting food, famine in other countries be relieved. The first and most obvious thought is if we wasted less, we would have to buy less food, thus the surplus could be given to these countries to feed the poor.

However that ideal may not come to pass in real life. If we were to buy less food, would farmers continue to produce the same amount and give the extra bit to poor countries? Somehow I doubt it vastly, as they would have to bear the loss in profit. The logical thing would be that the price of food would drop as the demand decreases, causing less food to be produced.

One may then ask: perhaps the governments of advanced nations and rich corporations or people could buy up this excess and donate it to poorer regions? Unfortunately, it has been done before, but the donated food did not quite find its way to the starving people; instead much of it was siphoned off by corrupt officials in these starving nations, and sold to the black market instead.

Owing to this, large amounts of dairy products in Europe are destroyed each year, for fear that if they were donated to charity they would instead float over to the black market and contribute to drop dairy prices worldwide due to excess supply.

So, the logical circumstances of us wasting less food would not be that Ethopians starve no longer, but instead that farmers worldwide earn less money due to less demand for foodstuffs. This would not significantly impact those in rich countries I suppose, but poorer farmers would feel the pain. Maybe not finishing our rice might not be that bad after all.

Why food is said to be such an important facet of Malaysian culture

I have often heard radio DJ's wax lyrical about our Malaysian love for good food, and how it symbolizes our culture. Though I do agree that we have a lovely and varied cuisine, and our people do appreciate it, I hardly think this is unique to our country - China and Japan take great pride and enjoyment in their cooking too, and they are well justified. France does as well, and even the Americans brag about their burgers. As do many other nations.

(the only nationality that keeps quiet when food is mentioned is the British)

Therefore, what is it that makes us feel that food occupies such a significant role in our culture? Truth be told, I think it is because we lack any other distinguishing point to claim. We are not united by a single culture as we are a multicultural country. Japanese think of their Yamato spirit before their food when it comes to national identity, although sushi is not inferior to nasi lemak or roti canai at all in my opinion. Lacking a single culture to point to, the other choices to boast about should be the ideals on which the country was built upon and its achievements, as the United States does. We have unfortunately nothing notable in that regard.

So I feel that this constant reference to food is a product of some sort of floundering about to catch some sort of national identity, where none really exists strongly. Really not something to be proud about...

Why people dislike wannabes

The word "wannabe" is generally used as a pejorative term, referring to those who strive to be something they are not. This term is generally used on people who are trying to pretend to be cooler than they actually are, and is thrown with great distaste.

However, let us analyze the matter more carefully. Why is it intrinsically a bad thing to wish to be something one is currently not? If an average student aspires to be an outstanding one, or an ordinary athlete strives to become an Olympian, nobody looks down on them for that. There must be something more to our distaste than this.

Consider the fact - when people wish to improve themselves in manners which benefit society as a whole, such as studies, athletics or scientific and artistic research, the general attitude towards it is encouraging, even if they fall short of their mark we honor them for trying. The "wannabe" word is thrown when the manner of improvement does not benefit society as a whole. For instance, a guy trying to be a player in terms of getting girls (but not succeeding) is laughed at and regarded as a wannabe, as is a girl who tries to dress and act like the top cheerleaders (although she is not in that circle). In other words, they are fighting for social status, in a rather obvious way, and not quite making it.

Due to social status being a zero-sum affair, other people ascending naturally makes us descend, relatively speaking. This is especially true in more enclosed environments such as schools. Therefore, when people attempt to increase their status quickly in a short period of time, such as the wannabes as mentioned above, the instinctive reaction of everyone else is to fight against it. This causes a strong feeling of antipathy.

In the olden days where bloodline and aristocracy determined one's rank in society, the older families used to look down on those who had just risen to prominence, calling them derogatory terms such as "nouveau riche" (new money). The exact same psychology applies to the dislike towards the so-called "wannabes" of today.

An offer

I got an job offer recently. The pay was somewhat better, but not a whole lot better - so I rejected it. I will not budge unless I get a 50% increment!

To some extent, I feel I owe loyalty to my company as they gave me a start in a fairly good line when I was just a lowly fresh grad and knew nothing. Is this loyalty as ironclad as that of Japanese employees in the past? No, I have my price too and for the right price I will move, however this time I did not get the right price. Sorry.

Somehow I feel very comfortable with my workplace. Familiar faces, seniors to run to when I have no idea what to do, etc. I worry that this is the comfort zone people speak of, and that I have fallen into it, as every time I think of leaving the company for other opportunities I feel slightly reluctant.

I guess if one day I have to leave then I must think of the lousy coffee vending machines to give me impetus.

Waking up early

Many people associate waking up early with productivity, as we can see from "the early bird gets the worm" and other such assorted statements. Personally I have always felt that this was garbage, as I am more productive later in the day, why not wake later and work till later? If the total number of hours spent working is the same, and equal concentration is given during those hours, is not the aggregate productivity on par?

Having defended my tribe of late-wakers, I shall now attempt to analyze why people who wake up early are seen as more hardworking.

For most of human history, we have labored without the assistance of electrical lighting, hence people would rise at dawn to work and stop work at dusk. After-dusk hours were mainly for recreation. This strong historical inertia makes us feel that if one wakes up late, several hours of could-be productivity have been sacrificed in the morning, while sleeping later only means that one spends more time on enjoyment, e.g. clubbing or surfing the net or whatever.

This is why when I work late at night I make sure to send out emails to people so that they KNOW I am working.

Game of Thrones comments (1)

Remember how Ned found out that Joffrey wasn't Robert's son? Hair color - Robert's own bastard kids are all black-haired but the three produced by Cersei are all blonde. There, the cat is out of the bag.

But our dear Ned forgot one thing: among his own kids only Arya and Jon have hair like him (and the Stark features). All the others take after his wife Catelyn. So who could have produced them? If you think of it, Edmure is not married yet despite not being that young anymore... just like Jaime.

Holy shit Catelyn and Edmure...

God and the Devil

Christianity normally depicts Satan as a fallen angel, the fount of all evil, ruler of Hell and arch-enemy of God. Yet we are also told that he has absolutely no true power at all, except being extremely adept at lying and deceiving. This seems rather peculiar from a logical sense, for surely if God wanted to he could squash Satan like a man crushes a cockroach (in fact even more easily, cockroaches are surprisingly resilient). Surely then there is no war between Heaven and Hell, for how can a cockroach wage war on a man?

Let us recall the Book of Job. Job (no relation to Steve Jobs) was a righteous fellow who respected God greatly, whom the Almighty mentioned as a shining example of moral perfection to Satan when the later came visiting in Heaven. Satan countered by saying that Job was only so pious due to the fact that God have given him a pretty cushy life and if he faced some tribulations this piety might melt away quickly. Upon God's permission Satan handed out some tough times to Job, such as his children dying, his property being annihilated and himself contracting horrible illnesses. Job was still pious at the start but in the end his resolve cracked and he began to curse God, whereupon God talked to him and he realized that he should still have trusted in God, after which God gave him back a nice life.

Long version is here: http://ebible.org/kjv/Job.htm

Now let us examine the text. At the beginning:

1:6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them. 1:7 And the LORD said unto Satan, Whence comest thou? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it. 1:8 And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? 1:9 Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought? 1:10 Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land. 1:11 But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face. 1:12 And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD. 

So basically Satan, along with the other angels, went to say hi to God. God asked Satan where he had been, and whether he had seen Mr. Job, who was an exemplary man. Satan said yea sure but you have been protecting him all this time, if you let me do stuff to him I bet he will think differently, so God said ok you can do evil things to his property but not his person.

We can see that (a) Satan seems to have decent relations with God, and (b) he can't do anything to Job's person or property without God's permission. Does this seem the behavior of two adversaries? Of course not. It seems more as if Satan is working for God.

And in truth, in the Jewish tradition, Ha-satan, or "accuser" is not the devil, but instead the prosecuting lawyer of God. He is charged by God to tempt humans and to report back to God all who go against His decrees. Later in Abrahamic religions he was changed to be Satan, the prince of darkness. Having said that, how can there be a prince of evil who is essentially powerless, as the Bible admits?

So I think the Jewish explanation makes more sense to me.

My bed and I

When I was in college I had to share a room with my best friend. Now he was everything one could ask for in a roommate (and no we are not gay), but one thing just made me sad about having to share a room - I had to sleep on a single bed.

The sorrow of sleeping on a single bed is that when I sleep, I have to subconsciously confine my body and limbs to its rather limited borders. For someone with a free spirit like myself, this is akin to confining a nightingale in a golden cage, or a great conqueror to a land the size of Singapore. In truth, I think of my bed as a autonomous nation. This is why I maintain a large number of pillows and use them to build a wall around me, something like the great wall of China.

What scares me is in the future when I get married I shall have to share the bed with somebody of unknown size. To ward against the horror of my territory shrinking, what must be done is to acquire two king-sized beds and stack them together side by side. This would be the equivalent of the Mongol empire in terms of mattresses, and only such a region would be worthy of my rest.

By the way I shall also include a lovely song in hope of changing local musical tastes to be better (i.e. more like my own).

Makeup

One of the things I think guys are most hypocritical on is makeup, on girls of course. When asked whether they prefer a girl with makeup or not, most guys I've seen will go "no no no I prefer natural", but when actually put to the test, I see girls who use makeup acquire many more pursuers than those who go without. Surely if guys were telling the truth this would go the other way around.

So why do so many guys insist on saying they prefer girls who go natural? (by this I mean no makeup, not no clothes) I think there are a few reasons for this:

1. There are girls who look strikingly beautiful even without makeup. They are DEFINITELY in the minority and there is just not enough supply to go around for every guy to get one, but still I suppose some guys do aim for it. It's like if you ask me what car I like I would tell you a Ferrari, but I don't think the chances are high that I will get my hands on one, at least in the near future.

2. The guys are being fake and emphasizing that they prize character over superficial beauty. Okay, girls do this too so there is nothing much to say for this one.

3. Makeup is somehow associated in their minds with vice and debauchery, Jezebel and the fleshpots of Egypt, and loose women. Well... this attitude is probably more common among younger fellows, especially those still in school. Having said that I think it's pretty silly, for a sensible amount of attention to one's appearance hardly equates to sin.

4. When we say "makeup on girls" some guys get the wrong idea. Personally I think this is the most important reason. I knew a few girls who put on makeup so thick that bullets would have trouble penetrating it. To be sure, when I see them I have to control an urge to pat their back hard just to see how large a powder cloud I can generate. Perhaps when we mention makeup, the above images are evoked in one's mind instead of a suitable application of eyeliner and foundation. In fact, I suspect the girls who use the aforementioned two elements in light amounts are classified under the "natural" girls by many guys.

So yes I think girls should use makeup. Just don't become a tempura.

On Education

The Asian educational system has oft been criticized for placing too much emphasis on rote memorization and tight adherence to procedure. It is true that this system stifles original thought, which is one of the reasons why fewer Nobel prizes are won by Asians in Asia, despite our outstanding results on tests.

However this educational system is not all bad: it served an important purpose in the past, and to some extent today.

Consider the situation most Asian countries faced in the mid twentieth century. The West was much more advanced in science and technology, so our priority was to absorb this science and tech in order to build our countries on double quick time, so that the economy could grow quickly and everyone would enjoy a better life. In other words, we needed to do in thirty years what the West took over a hundred years to do.

Since the technology already existed, there was no pressing need for us to develop original thinkers, the more urgent thing was to train up a cadre of people who could grasp existing technology and use it to develop the country. As such, rote training is the most effective method for mass producing such people. This is also the reason why Asians have historically flocked to the more practical courses such as engineering and accountancy, while shying away from the arts, because we needed to modernize ASAP.

Only now do we have the breathing space to take a step back and consider the development of creativity and original thinking.

On Absinthe

Absinthe is, as legend goes, the drink that inspired Van Gogh to cut off his left ear and present it to a prostitute he liked. I had the chance to partake of it recently, though fortunately both my ears are still intact.

The drink itself comes in a shot, accompanied by a glass of ice and a sugar cube. This sugar cube is placed in a teaspoon balanced across the glass. Now, the purpose of this setup is to allow mixing of the three elements of ice, sugar and absinthe via fire.

My waiter tried to do it by setting the shot itself on fire. To his great dismay, once the shot was on fire, it was too hot for him to grasp and pour in. After a few attempts of this, he gave up and called another more experienced fellow, to avoid getting his fingers even more scalded.

As the second guy came along, he solved the problem admirably, with a deft flourish of the cup he poured a little of it onto the sugar cube, then set the cube itself on fire. With that touch of flame added in, the remainder of the drink could be poured over the half-melted cube to combine everything into one glorious concotion.

Now you too know how to enjoy this infamous drink.

Racial quotas in tertiary education

Many in Malaysia criticize the policy of reserving a certain percentage of university seats for each race, maintaining that admission should be purely on academic merit. While I feel the pain of students who are denied opportunities in favor of another with lesser results, I do think that there are also arguments in favor of the quota system as well.

In the United States, the quota system is alive and well too, especially in the top universities such as Harvard and Yale. It is already common knowledge that Asian students need better grades to get into a top university compared to African-American and Latino students, as Asians are already overrepresented in the Ivies while the other two races are underrepresented, admissions officers try to "re-balance" the student percentages. The proclaimed reason for doing so is to build a more diverse class.

Truth be told, the very reason that American universities base their admissions on a diverse, holistic set of criteria that includes much more than academic achievement was due to racial factors - in the 19th century Jews were attending the top universities in numbers far in excess to their proportion of the population, hence the administration had to do some "re-balancing".

This may strike many of us as unfair, and in a way it is, for shouldn't a student who works hard to score 90 marks be rewarded over another who scores 80, no matter the color of their skin?

If the sole purpose of the university system was to provide education and advance human knowledge, this would indeed be greatly unfair. Yet the top universities serve another purpose, which is to provide a pathway to participate in the top political and business circles. A huge number of America's elite come from the Ivies, thus to allow all ethnic groups to have a stake in the top, an effort to ensure diversity is necessary. The same predominance of alumni of prestigious universities can be seen in the ruling circles of many countries, many Chinese leaders come from Tsinghua university, while in Japan the University of Tokyo is the road to Parliament.

Does this apply in our country now? Due to the relative youth of our universities, many top leaders have been educated overseas, however in time I believe the influence of our top university alumni will be increasingly felt in political circles. Thus in principle, there is something to say for the quota system, despite its unfairness to individual students.

Of course, there are more deep-seated problems with politics as it is run in our nation, but those are separate from the theory I have expounded on above.

On Batman (and how he could do better)

Batman is basically a guy with no superpowers, but is very smart and well trained in fighting, and has the money to buy a ton of equipment. He uses his tough body (damn that sounds gay) to go around subduing outlandish villains and petty thugs with non-lethal force.

I will just post this pic to illustrate the trouble Christian Bale went through to get a body that can whack some bad guys.

The question is, if he has such intellect and money, why would he use hand to hand combat as the FIRST instead of the LAST resort? Someone said that if Batman was really smart, he'd be Ironman, and I find that quite true. Even without ascending to such heights of technological prowess, a simple tranquilizer gun would help him aplenty in taking down villains without killing them. Tasers would do fine too.

Instead he has to go and get himself hurt here and there. He isn't even that invincible, I remember a few common bad guys gave him some difficulty, as did the Joker's dogs. Surely tranquilizer darts, or a gun that fires nets would have helped him tremendously in both those scenarios.

Maybe the reason he uses his fists is that it makes him look cool. Since he is a billionaire, and they may not have much better things to do, it makes sense now. After all what do those rich people buy yachts for? To make them look glamorous, am I right?

The only answer that makes sense is that Batman spent a lot of money training to be a ninja, so now he doesn't want this training to go to waste, and wants to look impossibly cool in the bargain. So how does he beat up so many people without tiring out?

Easy. He pays them to pretend to be bad people. That's why villains in Batman all dress and behave in very eccentric ways - it's so that Batman looks even more awesome in comparison. The solution to everything is clear now.

Arranged Marriage

I was talking with this colleague of mine who hailed from India. He was telling me the story of how he met his lovely wife:

"So my mom summoned me one day after lunch. She opened a book with a few photographs and asked me to pick one."

"After I picked one, the girl I picked went out for a couple of meals with me. Both of us approved of the other side, and her family and my family were obviously alright with it or else her photo would not have been in the book."

"So we got married." He did not tell me how much the dowry was to my great disappointment.

All in all it sounded like a very convenient way of finding a life partner. But to our modern ears, it seems a bit unromantic, and one may wonder whether such a orchestrated approach can lead to romantic bliss or not. However from what I have read on the Internet, its proponents claim that couples produced through such means end up happier than the usual couple on average.

Is this true? I suppose the happiness that stems from an arrangement, especially where that is the norm, is due to the fact that one tends not to lament about unpicked choices, as the pool to pick from is small. In other words, a free-market dating society is akin to a large supermarket where you have twenty different types of bread to choose from and you have to pick one, while an arranged marriage society is more like a store where there are two or three brands only. So people spend less time thinking about the alternatives and tell themselves that "my current choice is the best".

Why I look down on (some) Girl gamers

I do not believe that girls should not play videogames. On the contrary, I believe that the right to play games is an inalienable human right, ranking on par with the rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. What I look down on is a certain behavioral trait among certain girl gamers.

Before I expound on this trait let me relate a tale: I used to play King of Fighters (a highly technical fighting game) in arcades. One fine day I saw this fellow who had a shrunken left arm, probably due to polio or something of the sort. He sat down, and since he could not grip the joystick with his left hand, he used his elbow to handle it. The other players fought him with respect, and he defeated countless numbers of them fair and square, till he earned the everlasting worship of all gamers present at that glorious occasion.

Did he ask for quarter because of his handicap? I'll bet the thought never once crossed his valiant soul.

Yet when I play Dota, I keep seeing girls type "hey don't go so hard on me, I'm a girl". To me this is an affront to the spirit of all gamers, an insult to the gods of gaming, for they admire those who revel in fighting against the strongest that others can throw at them.

If the girl said that she was a new player and asked for allowance due to that, I would grant it no matter what gender the player is. But asking on account of gender is simply disgraceful, unless one were to assume that the female gender is possessed of an inferior intellect, which I disagree with. In the physical realm I would cut girls some slack, yes, but not in the arena of the mind - which games belong to.

So if you are a girl gamer, and you do not say the aforementioned sentence, I congratulate you and welcome you to the realm of warriors. If you do, be inspired by the example of the handicapped guy I raised above, and swear off such cowardly statements for all time.

A small Psychological Insight

There was a woman who lived next door to a family with a noisy baby. Originally she never particularly liked the baby; in fact she felt the baby was rather annoying when it kept crying in the afternoon while she was trying to take a nap. Then one day, the house the baby was in caught fire, and the family was all out. The woman rushed in and managed to save the baby. From that day on, she liked the baby very much and did not dislike its afternoon crying any more. Someone asked her:"How come you like this baby so much more now?" The woman replied:"Oh, because I risked my life for it!"

So we can see that people like something more when they contribute towards it. This is because of two reasons. The first reason is because they feel that they have made "an investment" in it, whether the investment be of money, of time or of effort. This is why you see guys chasing after girls for years and spending tons of money to buy expensive gifts for them, they feel "it would be a great pity" to stop chasing, because of the sunken costs involved.

The second reason is because of the feeling of superiority. This is why you see older people feeling very happy when a younger person asks for their advice on anything; they feel that it shows respect, and it proves the greatness of their intellect and character to be asked for advice. If you don't believe me, go back and ask your boss for advice on your work (when he is in a good mood), and I bet he will like you more after that.

Looking at this, we can tell that if you want someone to like you, the idea is to make them invest in you. Girls often do this inadvertently by telling a guy about their sad moments or how their boyfriend doesn't treat them well, and the poor idiot immediately falls: "She must be confiding in me because I'm a manly man!" Idiot. The idea is to:

1. Make the party you are interested in care for you. Maybe tell a sad story or something, but don't reveal all in one go.
2. Make the other party help you in some way. If you can't achieve this straight out, maybe do an exchange, eg: you treat the other party to eat in exchange for him/her to do an assignment for you. At least both sides have a sunken cost then.

This works for both genders!

The Source of Moral Values

An argument often used to support the existence of a Creator is that there are certain absolute fundamental moral values which are common to every society, and that these values must come from a higher being. When these values are violated, our conscience feels pangs of disturbance, hence our conscience must be divinely given.

I feel this argument is not valid.

Are there really absolute moral values? Let us look at the first commandment: Thou shalt not kill.

For many ancient societies, the duty of a son to avenge his father's murder was sacrosanct - take Hamlet for example. The ancient Chinese felt just the same way. Yet today, we believe in the law taking its due process, and some societies believe that the death penalty should not be given out no matter what the situation is. Many nations impose capital punishment that would not have been imposed in another nation, for instance the mandatory death sentence for selling or transporting drugs where I stay.

Clearly there is no absolute moral value here.

Another touted "absolute value" is the prohibition against stealing. But if we look into folklore, Robin Hood is regarded as a hero. In an era where the rich lived large and the poor went hungry, a thief like him WAS a hero, but in a more egalitarian society he would not be one. Here again the idea of rules that always apply fail.

Therefore we can see that there are no absolute moral values, as they change to fit the situation in different times and places. If there are values that coincide between societies, that is because such values are those that help most societies survive and prosper.

Perception Bias

One day I was chatting with my friend. She was pinching her arm and lamenting how fat she had become; when in truth she wasn't fat at all, which I pointed out. "Compare me with X (a slim girl)," she exclaimed. I then said "But you are thinner than Y (a plumper girl)."

She then answered "hey don't compare me with fat girls." After we had finished laughing, I gave some thought to the matter. Surely if one wishes to determine one's level of fatness in society, one should compare to everyone, both the fat and the slim ones. But my friend only compared herself to slim people.

An analogous example is when one says that businessmen are rich. From my observation, the successful ones are rich, yes. But many are just surviving, and many have failed. Why do we not include them in our overall assessment? Obviously there is a bias here - we tend to observe the ones which we aspire to be like, thus skewing our perception of the average towards that direction.

In a way, this biased perception serves a purpose for society: it spurs us on to achieve more. Yet we should also maintain a sense of perspective, for if we keep shifting the line of comparison upwards, the level of stress in society will constantly increase as well.

Liberal vs Conservative Values

We often hear arguments about whether premarital sex is moral or not. I think this topic of argument is an interesting one to dissect; as it is a very good example of the clash between liberal and conservative values.

The liberal side of the argument cites the principle of freedom in supporting the legitimacy of sex before marriage, i.e. if both parties are adult and willing, and nobody is hurt by the act, why is it not moral? On the other hand the conservative side attacks on two fronts: the first being that religion and tradition forbid it, the second being that the risk of STDs, pregnancies, and distraction from study is a negative influence upon society.

If we analyze the conservative side carefully, the first reason can really be included under the second reason, for why does religion and tradition speak against premarital sex? Obviously because of the aforementioned practical risks of disease and unwanted babies. Religious doctrine is usually closely tied to practicality (in its time), for example the Jewish and Muslim edict against eating pork is due to the high risk of parasites in pig meat compared to other edible animals. We can see that most cultures traditionally place a higher value on female virginity compared to male; this is because if a woman had sex before or outside marriage, it is hard to ascertain the paternity of the baby she gives birth to, so the husband's family property might go to a genetic outsider. A man obviously cannot pass off a kid born outside as his wife's kid, so his virginity is of less importance. Therefore religion and tradition both speak from a practical viewpoint.

Let us generalize this to other points of dispute between liberal and conservative viewpoints:

A. Premarital sex - Liberals argue on the basis of freedom, conservatives argue on the risks of STDs, pregnancies, and historically the doubt of paternity.

B. Listening to parents - Liberals argue that children, once past the age of adulthood, should have complete freedom in deciding their future, as well as marriage partners, due to the fundamental right of liberty. Conservatives argue that parental opinion should be given more weight as parents have more experience and can often make better choices.

C. Gay marriage - Liberals argue that people are people regardless of gender, so everyone should have equal rights to get married. Conservatives argue that this is against religion and tradition, and that marriages are meant to be between men and women so that kids can be produced. I will elaborate on this later.

The common points between these three examples are that liberals argue based on absolute values such as freedom and equality, while conservatives argue based on practical points, probabilities. The probabilities are:

A. Higher chance of something bad happening. (STDs and pregnancies)
B. Same as above (if the kid pursues an art or musical career, it is statistically much more risky than pursuing a career in law or medicine)
C. A society which has more gay marriages will, on average, have fewer kids than one in which it is banned. In times where population growth is important, which was most of history, this is a negative.

Conservatives attempt to define a course which is "more likely to produce a stable outcome".

This is why liberals are stronger now than a hundred years ago: society is now much more prosperous and advanced, so we have more room to make mistakes. Two hundred years ago a women with a baby out of wedlock would be in a dreadful state with no man willing to marry and provide economically for her, but now women can work and support themselves, there is government welfare, and abortions can be obtained. With the modern economy, more economic opportunities abound so kids who do not listen to their parents and do something strange do not starve as easily, even without the support of the family. And lastly for gay marriage, with our current population levels we are not worrying about not having enough people to fight against bears or invading barbarians, hence the gradually relaxing attitude.

If we consider current attitudes towards homosexuality, it can be seen that urban areas tend to be more accepting of it that rural areas. This may not only reflect a more progressive mindset, but also that a higher population density affects our subconscious mind in the sense that for us city-dwellers, increasing population is fairly low down on our list of importance.

In other words, we now have more room to make mistakes, so the 'high probability of stability' path of conservatism can be increasingly forsaken for the 'absolute ideals' path of liberality. I predict that if times get tough, conservative values will again rise to greater importance.

My Religious Beliefs

Disclaimer: Please do not read further if you tend to feel insulted by unorthodox religious beliefs.

Personally my belief is somewhat close to Buddhism.

I think somewhere in the universe, probably in another dimension, there is a clearinghouse where souls wait to be assigned to different lifeforms. Each time we descend to enter a body, all memories of the past are locked so that we cannot access them, thus when we are born our mind is a blank slate. However when we return to the clearinghouse we can access all the memories of all our lives.

So coming to this world is really like starting a new game, one that restarts each time we are born. What would be the purpose of this then? At first glance it seems rather meaningless. But I think each time we come down we receive different experiences; we explore different facets of life. For instance, in past lives I could have been a pregnant mother, a king, a beggar, a great warrior, a victim of war, a scientist or a man of religion. When I go back to that clearinghouse all the memories mold together so that I can understand the universe and the true nature of life better.

The more diverse these experiences are, the faster we get to understand truth. If I had been an ordinary worker in every life, this would not help me attain wisdom very quickly as all my memories would be mundane ones, the most vivid might be banging a different girl in each life, but after a few lives that would feel the same as well. What would help would be something like being a conqueror that slays millions in one life, then a man whose family is killed in war in another.

As for karma, does it exist? I am inclined to doubt it. For compared to our true form as souls, life as flesh is truly insignificant. For us to hold on to grudges from these lives would be as foolish as two people fighting because one fellow killed the other in a computer game (not that I have not seen this happen before). So why should deeds from one "game" affect the starting conditions in the next round?

I think that the conditions which we are born under, whether rich or poor, healthy or sick, beautiful or ugly, smart or dumb do not reflect our deeds in the past, but instead represent different starting conditions in which we begin each round of gaming, and these variations paired with our actions bring us different life experiences. Just the same as you would play a hand of poker differently depending on whether the two cards that were dealt initially were a pair of aces or a three and an eight.

Then we may ask: is doing good of no consequence? Should we commit evil since this life is unimportant anyway? This is the question my philosophy cannot answer. My personal feeling is that although the actual impact of our actions are of no consequence on the cosmic scale, if we keep harboring negative intentions in every life it may impede our understanding of the universe, thus slowing down our ascension to divinity.

So when we finally understand everything and do not need to go into the cycle of life again, we merge with all the other souls that achieve enlightenment. This entity is the most powerful being in the universe. It would also be very very bored as there are no challenges, so its pasttime would be to contemplate within itself. Fortunately its members bring in a lot of experiences and perspectives. So for their sake, we must all strive to attain nirvana so we can join them and add our experiences into the pool.