On feeding magpies

The general view is that Cracticus Tibicen is a wild animal and that as such, should not be fed. Feeding wild animals makes them likely to become aggressive around humans in general and the picture of a magpie stealing a child's sandwich, and doing so roughly, is a strong argument for leaving them alone. The idea is that they will stay away. And in many jurisdictions, there are rules to enforce this.
About five years ago, I started feeding wild magpies with the purely selfish aim if not being swooped during the nesting season. My usual run is about 15 km and it takes me past around 40 families. But what started out as a simple bargain - food for peace - quickly became a matter of 'Where is my breakfast?'.
I've learned quite a bit about how wild animals interact with humans and quite a bit about magpies. It became more of a multi-faceted experiment.

Firstly, they have good memories. They recognise me despite any attempts to disguise myself with different coloured or styled clothing or sunglasses. The best I can do here is to avoid being recognised from 150 metres as opposed to 50. They can even recognise and remember me a year later. I think it's not just facial recognition but rather the whole package.

Secondly, they are individuals when it comes to behaviour. Some will take walnuts from my hand, some want me to toss it to them, some to the side, some want to catch on the wing. Some will sing a song before they will take the food. One juvenile male wants to choose from the plastic ziplock bag. This one is the aggressive feeder and was so from the first snack. Two want food placed on the fence. There is another pair, who after five years, still feed the same. They will both land in front of me but one will take food from my hand and the other doesn't want to. He will if I look the other way and wait long enough.  What has changed is that they learned that I carry food. Many will even wait at the side of the path for me to arrive.

Thirdly, their feeding behaviour doesn't change. It's 'imprinted' as a very young juvenile and seems inflexible after that. This means not only that the offspring learn to ask for food politely if that's what their parents do, but also to be aggressive if that's the family they were brought up in.
I've tried long and hard to tame magpies that are aggressive feeders. These are invariably close to picnic areas. I suspect they learned to be aggressively competitive during hot leftover chicken feeding frenzies. As the shy ones can't be tamed to hand-feed, I've found these can't be trained to behave. As a consequence, I just bypass these areas.

One important note is that feeding aggression is related to quantity. More food and more birds makes for more aggressive feeding and that makes sense. If I feed a family of four one piece at a time, all will be happy. Tossing a handful of food to an extended family is a no-no.

Lastly, they are smart, but not in all aspects. They can estimate where in the air a walnut half will be at any time, but easily forget that there were two pieces. They can be sneaky too. Two are in the habit of taking food then flying ahead. If they can't finish the food in time, they'll move ahead again. They've learnt they can get seconds.  

So I'll continue to feed them. It means I can run where I like and never get swooped regardless of the season. It's also entertaining. But what I have come away with is the knowledge that behaviour 'imprinting' in magpies is absolute and final. they can learn that I have food, but how they take it cannot be changed.

Limited anecdotal evidence is that others don't get swooped where I've been feeding and this is also confirmed by two web sites for reporting magpie attacks. A nice clean 15km circle amongst the red dots but only after I filter out those on bicycles. If you are on a bike and have cable ties poking from your helmet, you will be attacked. So I only count walking and running.

There is much more to the story than just 'Don't feed magpies because it teaches them to steal food and act aggressively'. Feed them the right way and you have friends for life.

Two things wrong with religion.

I'm sure there's more than two, but these are the biggest.

Firstly, from a morals point, religions promise eternal life. Always only through that one brand - everyone else is a heretic and will go to hell - and money is always involved. The sale of eternal life is fraud because it doesn't exist. How do I know it doesn't exist? There is no evidence for what is essentially a ludicrous proposal and no logic.

Secondly - collateral damage. This can take many forms and is regularly evidenced.

A small percentage of the population suffers significant mental health issues. If you teach a vulnerable person with tendencies towards violence that a god wants them to kill unbelievers then that is likely to happen. Most religious texts create an enemy of the non-believers and while the literal interpretation is usually to kill them, it's always argued by some that there is some deeper and non-violent interpretation. The problem with that is that crazy violent people will see the crazy and violent version. Jainism is an exception.

 Another group are those who attain a 'Doctorate in Theology' or similar. That's as wasted a life as a 'Masters Degree in Pokemon'.

A more serious group is those who take a particular instruction to heart and to the detriment of their followers. An example is the Jehovah's Witnesses who cite two passages in the bible where eating blood is forbidden. The result is that countless devotees have died unnecessarily. Transfusions save lives.

Another group is those who think it might be better to end this life for the better one to come. this could be through suicidal depression or even pining for a lost life partner.

Another group is those who agree to fight and die for their king (who rules by divine right) knowing if it all turns pear shaped, they will be reunited with their loved ones some time down the track. Atheists generally don't fall for that one.

And religions just want the thinkers to butt out and keep quiet while they rake in the cash.

I see nothing moral in the sale of eternal life, creating imaginary enemies, risking extreme violence or in promising a paradise to a vulnerable person who may have found more professional help in another area (medicine).

Can we be moral without a belief in gods?

The most powerful motivation we have is survival.
And I'll make the claim that every action of every form of life is for that end.

We eat, breathe, drink, avoid danger, store food, make protection, gather in groups, experience empathy, love, hate, laugh, self-deprecate, seek assurance, obey, command, fear, elect leaders, believe in superstition and the supernatural and we are greedy. All can be explained either directly or indirectly by understanding survival as the ultimate goal.

Both Confucius and Aristotle are credited with espousing the 'Golden Rule'. A rather trivial exercise as most toddlers have this principle on board at the earliest age. Do good things - not bad - to others and maybe they will do good things - not bad - to you and in this way, the survival odds of both of you may be increased. Parents also try to reinforce this principle.

'Good' and 'bad' need to be defined. 'Good' describes a thought or action that might increase the ultimate survival of another - or possibly yourself. 'Bad' describes a thought or action that might adversely affect those chances. 'Evil' is a better word as it carries a bit more emotion.

Of course, this rule is not mandatory. We can easily explain bad people and bad things if you look at those who are bigger, stronger, were not successfully disciplined as a small child and see that their best chance to survive is to take - sometimes forcefully. The decision is between the consequences of being caught and the gains if not. A local police commissioner was chastised for saying 'Five percent of the population are career criminals. And the other 95 percent are opportunistic.' Funny, but probably close to the truth. I would like to think there were an unquestioningly good five percent or so.

There are biblical versions such as 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.'. That's OK, but from a logical perspective, if you, for example, wish to be enslaved by your god, you may be acting badly towards others. Stick with the Aristotelian version.

So, we can explain good and bad without gods and devils.

But does religious belief help? It's unfair to draw the simple conclusion that faith and crime go together. Statistics overwhelmingly support this, but there are other factors. Poverty and crime are closely associated as are poverty and education. It's natural that religiosity and crime are associated. Rwanda is 93 % catholic. Did that help any of their many genocide attempts? 'Hutu' means servant and 'Tutsi' means owner of many cattle. That may be closer to the cause.

Important conclusions from statistics are firstly that religious belief, no matter how devout and widespread, is not a cure-all. Another is that secular nations with very low church attendance don't fair too badly in the crime stakes.

Most societies have a legal system whereby politicians are elected by a society that has a tolerance to a low level of crime so as to balance freedoms. When crime increases, politicians strengthen laws to meet the mass approval. police catch offenders, courts try and incarcerate where necessary and at least hopefully the whole cycle has the best interests of victim and offender at heart.

So, there is no evidence I know of to suggest lack of faith leads to crime, The tools to invest morality in the individual are natural and we have a self regulating mechanism to attend to transgressions.
And we don't ever kill offenders. Not for any crimes. That's the moral thing to do. religious versions of law usually have some primitive punishments for crimes.

And just a quick note that Adolph Hitler was a catholic who hated Jews through his belief in god. Find his 1922 Munich address. And Stalin educated in a Greek orthodox school, then moved to a Russian orthodox school by his father, studied to be a priest, left or was kicked out but in any case, learned the techniques of manipulating people. It's suggested in his coming to power just after the Czars (ho were living gods), he was able to capitalise on the well-tuned gullibility of the masses.
But in any case, atheism doesn't mean perfect.

To quote Steven Weinberg "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

Certainly some people commit the most horrific crimes in the name of their god, but I will concede I think there is one missing option in Weinberg's quote. from a logical perspective, there must be a group who commit dastardly crimes because they have no god. That might be a match for Stalin.

On balance, I think more crime is committed because of bad training, poverty or both but there are some types of crime including terrorism and war that probably wouldn't have happened without religious belief. 

Me? I worship Good.

Why do we believe in gods?

I could be wrong, but I'm fairly sure every civilisation has had at least one god.
The Romans had 230 at one point. Norse, Greek, German versions usually had about a dozen. Sometimes extended families of gods, sometimes one to explain every unexplained phenomenon.
Over recorded history there have possibly been about 10,000.

Just saying 'gods explained the unknown' is a simplification. There's more to it than that.

Close your eyes and try to imagine having never existed.

There's a small logical problem of course with that. If you never existed, you wouldn't be here to think about not being.

You aren't your neighbour, your son or anyone else on the planet. You are the thought processes going on inside your head. If you are not here, the world goes on but you would have no consciousness of it.

Trying to contemplate non-existence presents the same problem as contemplating a time after your obliteration. Your brain doesn't want to go there because it's logically impossible. Possibly the same emotion known as 'cognitive dissonance' - when the mind is presented with two known facts that can't coexist. The mind refuses to play.

So acceptance of non-existence is not a natural position to take. Philosophers throughout history have devoted a great deal of time contemplating identity and existence and with many resulting opinions, it's clear most, if not all, have failed in this endeavour. Taking the best ideas of each does help though.

So what chance does the average person have of understanding identity and life?

Survival is the key to life. It defines life as 'that which survives' and when a life fails to survive, it is no longer life. Every organism on this planet has developed survival mechanisms - from razor teeth to venom, spikes, camouflage, slimy secretions, waterproof skin and storing fat. Most organisms have developed multiple mechanisms with some having too many to count.

More advanced organisms like animals have developed behavioural survival mechanisms. Humans are probably the best example.

Masslow spoke of the 'Hierarchy of Needs' starting with the physical such as air, water and food, followed by the survival needs such as shelter, continuing on to cooperation and ending with a type of altruism - 'self realisation'. We have made survival an art.

But we are clever enough to think about death. We have a myriad of mechanisms to keep us alive, fighting microbes and even cancers daily, plus we can choose a healthy diet and exercise. We can learn from others and even explore our own biochemistry and biology to give ourselves the best chance of survival. being kind to others is like future favours in the bank and is our foundation for morality (and survival).

And all to no avail. We will die and shortly before have to tackle the whole obliteration thing. All that effort and for what?

Searching for the meaning of life has intrigued mankind probably since before recorded history. Trying to answer the unanswerable question is what an existentialist would call 'the absurdity'. And arguing that there must be a reason is a logical fallacy.

So there is that lingering problem of the 'meaning of life' no matter how illogical the question is. Hence we will make meanings just to answer the question.

Knowing things is important to survival. Which mushrooms to eat, how to heal a wound or cure a disease. Knowledge is power and a key to life in a harsh world full of challenges.

But what about surviving death? We already worked out there must be a meaning to life (except for the Nihilists) so where do my thoughts go when I die? Where do I go. Non-existence makes for non-sense.

Of course, we can fool ourselves into thinking our children are really us and so we will live forever. They certainly might provide support when we are old and incapable so there's that survival thing again.

What is required is something a little more convincing and have I got a deal for you!

The sale of eternal life began probably about 10,000 years ago and challenges the traditional 'world's oldest profession' for the title.

What probably began as a tribal elder trying to justify his continued existence by telling children that the stars were really people that had passed to another land (it's always 'up there' be it paradise, heaven, happy hunting ground or cloud nine) evolved into a business. From a simple offering of food to the sage - which still happens now - to the multi-billion dollar a year multinationals that operate today. Some are well organised and some less so. Our completely rational desire to survive has led us to entirely irrational methods to do so.

Mendeleev said 'All religions are false paths to an unknowable god'. I agree with him to a point.

Religions charge money for eternal life. Usually called 'charity', the fees can be structured or unstructured - from a few coins a week up to a 'tithe' or even more. Some are more like a straightforward business transaction than others.

The moral aspect is also pushed hard but unfortunately the texts are usually old - written in a time where slavery, sacrifice, honour killings, genocide of unbelievers and persecution of anyone of a different anything was rampant. Secular morality still leads today even if the idea of 'the golden rule' and personal survival seems a little mechanical and disappointing.

For belief in deities to survive, they too must evolve survival mechanisms. The techniques include all those appropriate to industries and institutions like marketing, education, military, law, policing, crime gangs, politics and any other field where consent or cooperation is required.

Techniques include secrets and intrigue, repetition, sounds and colours, grandeur, levels, sense of belonging, uniform, repetition, early indoctrination and inculcation, funny hats, icons or symbols, a charismatic leader, baubles and trinkets, inability to question and the often unapproachable nature of the leader.

Visualise the vice chancellor, the high court judge, the bishop, the army general and the president. Note also that not all techniques are appropriate for all institutions. If Bill Gates wore a tall hat and carried a crook, you might laugh. Note also that some methods of dress imply grandeur. When the army general gets around in camouflage, you can still think about the last uniform with the most medals. Same for the pope. Humble is good too.

Inculcation is a powerful tool and works best when the subject is young and vulnerable.
Early exposure to the church with the parents vowing to raise the child in the church (and with a backup 'godfather') combined with icons in the house, daily or even five times daily prayers and worship, greetings including references to a god and dress style signifying a particular faith all help. skimping on any of these risks a child failing his or her indoctrination and leaving the faith. Exposure to non-believers is also very risky. One very powerful tool is 'grace'. Explained as giving thanks to the creator, the deeper message to the vulnerable child is 'worship my god or you don't eat'.

It's 'carrot and stick'. Worship my god, my way and you will be granted eternal life. Do anything else and you will be damned in a fiery hell for an eternity.

Children don't have the logical skills to question yet. this also goes to the way we learn. In the case of having no previous experience or knowledge, we accept the first thing we are told usually without question. When presented with an alternate idea, the first thing we say is 'that's not what I was taught - where is your proof?'.

And of course, proving the non-existence of god is not possible.

So, we don't want to die.
Non-existence is logically impossible to imagine.
Where there are questions, someone will offer an answer.
Where there is a need, someone will sell the product.
Every religion is the only path to 'heaven' and there is a cost.

Back to the beginning. Just about every civilisation has had a god belief. Usually involving the sun. If managed well, religions can last centuries.

Why do we believe in gods? It's arguably the biggest richest business on the planet today and it has evolved to survive, providing, so far, the only way to avoid death. Why wouldn't you subscribe?