Wednesday: Hili dialogue

June 17, 2015 • 5:32 am

It is Hump Day, and I have nothing except that I learned I am not supposed to refer to Canadians as “Americans,” although a reader once chewed me out for referring to US citizens as “Americans,” noting that that was exclusionary of other North Americans (like Canadians). Since then I’ve been careful about that, but now learn it was a postmodern ruse, and that USains, as they’re called, can properly be called “Americans” in Canada. Live and learn. Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, Hili is among the blossoms, ignoring Andrzej’s Biblical warning that “blessed are those who have not touched but have believed” (modified from scripture).

A: There are no roses without thorns.
Hili: Are you sure?

P1020952

In Polish:
Ja: Nie ma róży bez kolców.
Hili: Czy jesteś tego pewien?

 

How many species of tropical trees are there?

June 16, 2015 • 2:19 pm

I’m not going to get into the long-debated issue of why the tropics are so much richer in species than the temperate zones (theories include physical disturbance, coevolutionary pressures, higher temperature that accelerates evolution, and so on). There is no consensus, but let me just present some data showing the huge difference, data collected in a new paper,”An estimate of the number of tropical tree species,” in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by J. W. Ferry Silk et al. (and the et. al., as you’ll see, has a gazillion authors). Here are the data from the “nontechnical” abstract (my emphasis)

People are fascinated by the amazing diversity of tropical forests and will be surprised to learn that robust estimates of the number of tropical tree species are lacking. We show that there are at least 40,000, but possibly more than 53,000, tree species in the tropics, in contrast to only 124 across temperate Europe. Almost all tropical tree species are restricted to their respective continents, and the Indo-Pacific region appears to be as species-rich as tropical America, with each of these two regions being almost five times as rich in tree species as African tropical forests. Our study shows that most tree species are extremely rare, meaning that they may be under serious risk of extinction at current deforestation rates.

The technical abstract says the same thing more verbosely (why do scientists feel they have to write in turgid, third-person prose?), and adds this:

Contrary to common assumption, the Indo-Pacific region was found to be as species-rich as the Neotropics, with both regions having a minimum of ∼19,000–25,000 tree species. Continental Africa is relatively depauperate with a minimum of ∼4,500–6,000 tree species. Very few species are shared among the African, American, and the Indo-Pacific regions.

This pattern holds for most taxa, and knowledgeable readers can discuss the theories below. I just wanted to show you the huge difference, one that has now been well quantified for tropical trees, which are often hard to identify.

And here are the authors:

Screen Shot 2015-06-16 at 2.18.12 PMWell, someone had to count all those species!

More college triggering

June 16, 2015 • 11:45 am

As reader Lenny wrote when he emailed me this link to an Economist article, “Trigger-unhapy: student safety has become a real threat to free speech on campus”, a piece about the spread of calls for “trigger warnings” and “safe spaces” at U.S. colleges:

I don’t think there is anything particularly insightful.  Relevant only because the issue has made it to the general business community through The Economist.​

I suppose Lenny’s right, but the article also contains some other chilling cases of censorship of which I wasn’t aware. Here’s one:

FOR an hour or two on a foggy morning last December, some students at the University of Iowa (UI) mistook one of their professors, Serhat Tanyolacar, for a fan of the Ku Klux Klan. Mr Tanyolacar had placed a canvas effigy based on Klan robes, screen-printed with news cuttings about racial violence, on the Pentacrest, the university’s historic heart. The effigy had a camera in its hood to record public reactions.

The reaction among some black students was to fear for their safety, and that is not surprising. What is more of a puzzle—for anyone outside American academia, at least—is that students and UI bosses continued denouncing Mr Tanyolacar for threatening campus safety even after the misunderstanding was cleared up. In vain did the Turkish-born academic explain that he is a “social-political artist”, using Klan imagery to provoke debate about racism. Under pressure from angry students, university chiefs issued two separate apologies. The first expressed regret that students had been exposed to a “deeply offensive” artwork, adding that there is no room for “divisive” speech at UI. The second apologised for taking too long to remove a display which had “terrorised” black students and locals, thereby failing to ensure that all students, faculty, staff and visitors felt “respected and safe”. An unhappy Mr Tanyolacar feels abandoned by the university. He left Iowa earlier this month, when his visiting fellowship came to an end, and has suspended his teaching career.

Here’s the triggering image:

AR-141209860

The article adds this:

. . . Mr Tanyolacar’s troubles point to something new and alarming. A generation ago campus rows turned on what should be taught. Leftish students decried lessons about dead white men as acts of racist and sexist oppression. UI witnessed its own censorship battle, after a conservative student complained about gay sex scenes in a German film shown in class. But what Mr Tanyolacar was saying was not the problem: his work is explicitly anti-racist. His problem turned on who now has the authority to declare his art harmful, regardless of his intent.

And right there you have the problem: if we are to censor “hate speech,” who is the arbiter of what constitutes hate?

The only problem with this artwork is that it was erected without permission. But seriously, look at it! It’s the epitome of what should inspire dialogue, along the lines of Andres Serrano’s famous “Piss Christ” (a crucifix immersed in a beaker of the artist’s urine). Now I accept that black students might have felt uneasy at seeing that, but look at the headlines about racial violence that bedeck the figure. It’s pretty clear that this is not a racist image. What bothers me most about this is the college’s subsequent insistence that it has no truck with “divisive speech.” What speech that has promoted social progress, or political or religious discussion, isn’t divisive? Is all speech at the University of Iowa to be harmonious, loving, and accommodating—designed to make students feel “safe”?

These repeated calls for assurance of “safety” irritate me. It’s as if students want to walk through college swaddled in cotton and surrounded by armed guards who will ensure that their tender feelings remain unbruised. Where did this come from? “Safety” should refer to physical safety, not lack of offense, and “respect” should be afforded to people, not their ideas. Let us hope that this tide of snowflakery will melt soon—but I’m not holding my breath.

h/t: Lenny

Faith v. Fact: Audiobooks and recent broadcasts

June 16, 2015 • 10:45 am

I have four business items—the announcement of an audiobook and three broadcasts.

First, I’ve signed a contract that will make Faith Versus Fact into an audiobook. For those of you who prefer listening, you will eventually have it on CD (or however they do these things; I’ve never listened to an audiobook). Someone told me that most audiobooks are abridged; I have no idea whether that’s true, or whether mine will be.

Second, an audio transcript of my appearance on last Friday’s Brian Lehrer show is available here.  Lehrer did ask a rather invidious question at the end, but I deflected it.

Also, my 17-minute interview on Sunday’s Left Jab Radio is also archived here. The interviewer was remarkably sympathetic, though I see that I need to work on saying “you know” less often!

Finally, for Canadian readers, you can catch my television appearance on Steve Paikin’s The Agenda tonight on TVO; the show starts at 8 pm and is repeated at 11 pm (presumably Toronto time). I’m not sure when I come on, but our one-on-one chat lasted about 25 minutes. I’ll put up a link later when it’s archived.) One reader informs me that based on the ordering in the show’s schedule, I may go first.

As lagniappe (?), here are a few more photos of my trip to Canada.

First, here are the speakers and organizers of the INR5 conference in Vancouver. I won’t list the names; you’ll surely recognize some of them. I believe the photo was taken by Melissa Chen and circulated by Vyckie Garrison, who’s in the front row with a drink. I will point out the two main organizers: Bill and Kathy Ligertwood: Bill’s second from right in the front row, and Kathy is slightly crouched down in front of him, her hands on the shoulders of Tom Melchiorre, a key person in the meeting’s logistics. Lawrence Krauss and Seth Andrews had departed before the photo was taken.

1907489_10152510236198039_2017554103741322594_n

I chat with Eric Adriaans, the new head of the Centre for Inquiry, Canada, in the CfI offices (the two photos below are from Mark Taylor). He kindly gave me a copy of the Charlie Hebdo that came out after the terrorist attack—the issue with the weeping Muhammad on the cover. It’s a collector’s item now.

100_4147

Buy the damn book, already!

100_4155

Ex-Muslim’s letter to UC Berkeley student newspaper retracted because of “personal safety concerns”

June 16, 2015 • 9:45 am

Enough is damn enough, already! The threat of Islamic terrorism is cowing nearly everyone, including the editors of the Berkeley student newspaper The Daily Californian.

About two weeks ago, the paper published a really nice op-ed by an ex-Muslim from Pakistan, recounting how she (the author was obviously a woman) left Islam. At the time, the author’s name was appended to the piece. I’ve put that original letter at the bottom of this post, but have left out the author’s name. I’ve done that because the paper or author, apparently under threat, retracted the letter.

Here’s the paper’s retraction:

Screen Shot 2015-06-16 at 8.52.39 AM

As the Daily Caller reports,

The precise nature of these safety concerns, and whether they arose in reaction to direct threats levied against the author, is not clear. The Daily Caller News Foundations reached out to both the author and Veklerov for further details, but only Veklerov replied and she declined to comment.

If the paper was threatened, it would seem incumbent on Veklerov to report it, but we know how scared editors are.  I would think it seriously incumbent on the paper to write an editorial decrying these threats to free speech, especially since the original letter, which you’ll see below, was neither “strident” nor “shrill.” It was simply a personal tale of leaving faith behind. But of course we know that to many Muslims, apostasy = death.

But regardless of whether the retraction was requested by the author, or mandated by the paper, it shows how the thuggery of radical Islam is silencing free speech: in this case, a perfectly reasonable personal story about abandoning an oppressive faith. Clearly there were threats.

Finally, here’s the original letter, which was published (sans authorial name) on reddit:

If someone had told me six years ago that I would leave Islam and end up an atheist, I would never have believed him.

I was born and raised as a Muslim. I grew up in a Muslim country — Pakistan — surrounded by other Muslims who were convinced that their religion was the one true religion. My family, in particular, followed moderate Sunni Islam, which is a more liberal approach based on the “Sunnah,” or Prophet’s teachings. That was the path I set out on. But now, as a Muslim apostate and atheist, my journey couldn’t have led me any further from what I once knew to be true.

Until I was 14, I simply accepted everything I’d been told about Islam. I was taught that being born into a Muslim family is a blessing and is the greatest gift that Allah can bestow upon someone. I initially thought the Sunni path I followed was the one true path, just like my Shia, Bori and Ismaili friends adhered to the teachings of the sects their families followed. I noticed how everyone around me claimed to have a monopoly on the truth, which made me question who was actually right. I started to view Islam — and religion in general — as something dogmatic, irrational, unscientific and, most of all, completely sexist.

A feminist since age 10, it’s always been hard for me to reconcile my feminism with my faith. Even though the Pakistani society in which I grew up was sexist, my family has always been very progressive. As a result, I never accepted the male superiority and traditional gender roles that were part of my society. For most of my teen years, I felt torn apart by my contradictory beliefs. On one hand, I was a radical feminist who supported gay rights. But on the other hand, I was a practicing Muslim whose religion was clearly homophobic and placed men above women.

At that point, I still believed in an all-knowing God, and I felt that if I learned more about Islam, I would be able to understand why it stated the things it did. I read the Quran with translation and countless books on Islamic jurisprudence. I started taking classes at Zaynab Academy and Al-Huda, two traditional Islamic organizations. The Islam they preached was not the liberal, fluid Islam of my parents: Instead, it followed the Quran very rigidly. While the moderate Muslims I knew never encouraged hijab or gender segregation, these institutions differed in their views. I started to follow a more ritualistic Islam, going as far as giving up listening to music and wearing the hijab.

Stifled by orthodox Islam, I decided to turn to a more liberal approach. I embraced Sufism, which is the mystical side of Islam, and began to see God as an entity of love. Feminist scholars, such as Amina Wadud and Leila Ahmed, gave me a glimmer of hope that Islam and feminism could be compatible, although I later found their arguments very selective. On the other extreme, I read writers such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, another ex-Muslim atheist, whose harsh criticism of Islam was not always justified.

After trying to understand Islam through a plurality of perspectives — orthodox, feminist, Sufi and liberal approaches — I decided to leave Islam, but by that point, I had realized that I didn’t need to look at things as black and white. I could leave Islam without dismissing it or labeling it as wrong.

Going through all of these versions of Islam has enabled me to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the religion. Islam is no monolith, and with more than 1.5 billion followers, it’s impossible to refer to Islam as a single entity. There are Muslim women who cover every inch of their bodies except for their eyes, and there are also Muslim women who wear short skirts. With so much variation amongst Muslims, it’s hard to determine who really gets to speak for Islam.

Despite being one of the fastest-growing religions in the world, Islam is still extremely misrepresented and shrouded with stereotypes. I want to address these stereotypes and portray Islam in all its diversity. I’ve experienced the religion firsthand and have also viewed it as an objective bystander. I probably spend more time thinking about God than most religious people; despite my skepticism, I’ve always yearned for a spiritual connection. I want to share what I’ve learned about Islam over the years. I plan to defend it and give credit where it’s due — Islam, after all, gave women the right to work and own property back in the seventh century — and I also plan to ruthlessly point out areas that need reform (yes, Islam does allow men to have four wives and sex slaves).

If there’s one thing I’ve learned about Islam, it’s that my former religion, just like any other ideology, has its flaws. Religion should not be immune to criticism. It’s important to have an honest dialogue about religion and identify what can be improved — and that’s exactly what I plan to do.

Seriously, what about that letter should doom its author? It’s time to put a stop to the kind of bullying barbarism that can censor a letter this mild—a letter that even says some good things about Islam, and suggests simply that it be improved. It even suggests that Islam and feminism can be harmonized, though I find that a real stretch.

If someone wrote the same letter about Catholicism, Orthodox Judaism, or any patriarchal faith, there would have been no problem. The problem is Islam. And this is why Ayaan Hirsi Ali has bodyguards.