"How's Your Food?"

Have you noticed that your waiter/ waitress always puts the question to you just after you've transferred a substantial forkful of victual into your mouth? You have haven't you?  I have a theory.

I suggest that it's part of their front-of-house training. To indicate "Yes, it's fine" without generating an embarrassing food-overflow, you can either nod your head slowly or make a 'thumbs-up' gesture. Easy to do. To indicate that all is not satisfactory you will have to shake your head and finish your mastication of the mouthful of food before you are able to explain the reason for your dissatisfaction. Similarly for a 'thumbs-down' gesture. Unless you suspect you've been poisoned, you will usually opt for the affirmative option that involves far less hassle. And - of course - they know it!! An essential lesson for any aspiring waiting person. QED !!

WHY IS IT SO IMPORTANT TO HAVE CONTROL OF IMMIGRATION?

I have consistently argued that it is absolutely essential for a sovereign country to be able to choose the number, usual occupation and character of those wanting to come to the country in question. Why?

Firstly, why do we need immigrants at all? The answer is straightforward. There is never a perfect match between the needs of industry and the skills of the working population. Therefore we need to attract people from abroad able to provide the relevant know-how/ skill-sets. In addition, we need to do our humanitarian duty by providing a safe haven for a reasonable share of genuine refugees fleeing the ravages of war, natural disasters etc. However, immigration policy at any time has to strike a balance between these considerations and the impact of population increase on infrastructure and facilities such as housing, the NHS, etc. Obviously we also need to ensure that individual immigrants do not pose a threat to our security.

While we are in the EU we cannot say 'no' to anyone from another EU country. It is simply impossible to strike the balance I refer to above. If the country is doing well relative to our neighbours in the EU, the entry-demand from these countries increases significantly for obvious reasons and net immigration soars. Our infrastructure/ services are unable to cope at short notice, a crisis ensues and our wellbeing takes a dive. Additionally, we find it difficult to say 'yes' to needed skilled applicants from non-EU countries - such as computer programmers from India - because of these same pressures.  It is also much more difficult to refuse entry to those coming from the EU that are not known terrorists but who, we believe, may well pose a security risk.

This issue will become much more acute as the EU continues to expand to include more countries.

I believe that it is very important for the UK to get complete control of immigration and this is why I have voted to leave the EU.

"I'm In My 80th Year !!"

My friends were quite astounded when I came out with this declaration over coffee yesterday afternoon. "But you were only 78 in January last" said Rosie - quite accurately. I replied that by my calculations I must have been conceived in early April 1937 and, therefore I have existed as an individual from then until now, early May 2016; which is 79 years and one month. Hence I'm now in the 80th year of my existence. Silence.

Finally Rachel nodded wisely and pointed out that this line of thought had implications for the ethics of abortion. Quite the intellectual is our Rach. We had evidently traversed from the rhetorical nursery slopes of calculating the implications of my age to the controversial black run of abortion ethics. Oh my!

Although the estimated date of conception is relevant to estimating the duration of my existence, if you discount a purely religious argument - which I do - it isn't relevant to the issue of abortion ethics. The relevant concept from a purely humanitarian view is the estimated date of sentience. That is the estimated date from which the fetus has some sense of self and can feel pain. Since there is no way of estimating this with any accuracy, the relevant experts have to come up with a consensual  arbitrary estimate based on their knowledge and experience. In the UK, except in very exceptional circumstances, the legality of abortion can only be considered prior to 24 weeks from estimated conception.

But, re-traversing to the nursery slopes folks; I really am in my 80th year of existence.  Ain't I bloody ancient?!

Email to Matt Ridley re 'The Evolution of Everything'

Dear Matt,

I'm really enjoying the book. Many thanks.

I want to suggest that the 'Baldwin Effect' is much more ubiquitous in nature than is generally acknowledged and I would welcome your thoughts. 

As you point out yourself, spontaneous adaptive behaviour of individuals in a population will often be positively associated with genetically-mediated predispositions. This will result in an inter-generational positive feedback loop between the behaviour and the predispositions being created. Over time more and more individuals will manifest the behaviour together with the supporting dispositions. In effect, the behaviour gradually becomes part of the living environment that is 'selecting' alleles and so honing the architecture of the genome.

I consider it likely that this process was involved in all the adaptive behaviour we see in nature; spiders spinning webs, birds building nests, beavers constructing dams, etc. In our own species I suggest that language and religiosity, for example, started as spontaneous adaptive behaviours with positively associated predispositions; possibly intelligence/ curiosity.

Thoughts?

Best wishes,

John Jacob Lyons

Do we need an Ideology to be Moral?

What do we mean by an ‘ideology’? My understanding of the word in this context is 'a body of doctrine that guides behaviour’. Certainly an individual, group or an organisation that has such an ideology may try to conduct their behaviour so that it never breaches the ideology to which they subscribe. In these circumstances the ideology does become very relevant to their morality. However, by no means all individuals, groups or organisations would point to a particular body of doctrine if asked to explain the basis of their own morality. Even if they did profess such an ideology - such as “I’m a Christian” - it would often be found that both their definition and knowledge of the body of doctrine referred to would vary considerably between individuals.

No. At its heart, morality is subjective. Each of us develops our morality as we grow and mature. It is a function of our genetic make-up, our upbringing and the social rules/mores of the society in which we live. If we do subscribe to an ideology this, of course, may well become very relevant to our code of morality. Relevant but never essential. If an individual becomes disenchanted and abandons a particular ideology to which they once subscribed, he/she may find his/her moral compass changed but not obliterated.

Those in any particular society are all conditioned in common by the rules/mores of that society and therefore tend to develop relatively similar codes of morality. The variability in morality caused by innate and 'experience of the world’ differences remain however. Hence the good, the bad and most of us in our society with a bit of both!

As a case in point, I don’t subscribe to any particular ideology but I would claim to have a strong sense of morality. Of course, I may well have assimilated bits of morality from the ideologies of which I have knowledge; but no particular ideology has been “essential” for my moral compass.

In general, one can be a good and moral person and live a good and moral life without having a particular religion or any other source of ideology. A corollary is that one can profess to follow a very clear ideology yet exhibit a disgusting lack of morality. I’m sure there is no need to remind readers of recent notorious examples. It gets worse of course. If the profession of an esteemed ideology is taken as clear evidence of goodness by others, it can operate as a cloak to hide wicked wrong-doing. Does that also sound familiar?

I suggest that we know the man/woman by his/her deeds rather than by his/her words. If Thomas Aquinas didn’t say that, he should have done.

Many of our Greatest Philosophers loved to Walk. Why?

Most of us inhabit a world buzzing with cares, distractions and stimulation. We are cronically overstimulated all our waking-hours and overstimulation is the arch-enemy of clarity of thought.  We have become so accustomed to this state of affairs that we hardly notice that it is so. Is it any wonder that the philosopher, pondering some of the deeper puzzles of this strange existence, will often seek peace in perambulation? 

In fact, I contend that the walking is neither necessary nor sufficient to achieve such peace. The necessary and sufficient conditions are to be alone or with an equally contemplative companion and to be quietly in a natural environment. Sitting side-by-side fishing on a river-bank in quiet harmony with a close friend will do very nicely. While every-day life is overstimulating, sitting alone in your favourite arm-chair is not stimulating enough. The conditions I have tried to describe above provide a near-optimal level of peaceful stimulation as a backdrop to clear thinking and incisive analysis. 

Are You Unaware of an Innate Talent?

Would it not be sad to live and die without realizing that you have an innate and extraordinary propensity for a particular endeavour? Since it would be impossible to have tried your hand at everything, you cannot possibly know that this is not indeed the case. Perhaps you could have been a very famous dentist. Perhaps I would have excelled as a circus clown.  Maybe - if we had known - we could now be famous, rich, fulfilled, happy. Is it possible?

Very few psychologists/ evolutionists would claim that we come into this world as 'a blank slate'. In my 'genetic priming theory' - do google it - I have suggested that all organisms are primed by their neuronal architecture for the adaptive behaviours of their particular species. I also explain how this has come about. It usually requires just a simple trigger or prompt from their surroundings for the behaviour to be manifested. Spiders are so primed to make webs, birds are primed for bird-song, humans are primed for language and religiosity among other things. Also since children tend to inherit a neural architecture that is conditioned by that of their parents, grandparents and more distant ancestors, we observe talents, skills and abilities that "run in families". I suggest that it is no coincidence that Nancy Sinatra could carry a tune.

There is no doubt that we are each born with certain propensities; perhaps primed to excel at certain endeavours. But here's the kicker. No trigger: no manifestation! Perhaps my expertise as a circus clown lies dormant and un-celebrated by the world simply because I never got my face painted up.

If I'm right - and I believe I am - the implications for education are obvious. As far as possible, parents and teachers should ensure that the propensities of every child are fully explored. This is made more feasible by the fact that skills and talents tend to present in groups. Many sports require hand/ eye coordination for example. I was rubbish at tennis so it was no surprise when I didn't make the England squash team.

If you are wondering whether you have a particular innate gift that has hitherto remained un-unwrapped, give it a try. I will do the same. Perhaps you will see me performing my hilarious clown routine at the next dentists' convention!