Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

I've just finished reading a fascinating book that I recommend to everyone -

Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything ~ Steven D. Levitt, Stephen J. Dubner

Have a look at Amazon for reviews - it is very readable and does make one think about cause and effect on various topics, ranging from cheating in exams and professional Sumo to the reason behind the drop in crime in the US since the 1990s.

Basically on the latter question, he argues that the major cause of the drop in crime in the US in the 1990s is due to the legalisation of abortion in the 70s after a court ruling effectively legalised abortion in all US states.

He makes a very convincing argument based on facts and data, rather than conjecture and supposition.

Basically on this point he argues that the change in crime rate is due to a generation of kids that were not born to single mothers or mothers who did not want the children. These ladies in the past would have been forced to have the children (abortion being a viable option only for middle and upper classes) and these kids were more likely to later on in life lead a life of crime.

This effect has been measurable - there were some states that liberalised the rules on abortion ahead of the court ruling, and these few States have had crime reductions ahead of other States (and also after statistically removing the other factors that affect crime).

The authors do not make any moral judgements - just point out what the data points to.

Reading it though, it did make me think about the moral/religious implications of these findings.

- Children born outside of stable family / loving relationships in sufficient numbers translated to social unrest.
- The crime figures going back can be correlated to increasing acceptance of promiscuity and s-e_x outside/before marriage and the lessening of taboos of illegitemate births
- Abortion has mitigated the ill-effects to society of unwanted children, but are there other 'costs' to society - such as more divorce, more stds etc
- what about the problems of teenage pregnancies in the UK and increasing acceptance of single parent families - are we storing up problems in the future (in fact, aren't today's teenage mothers just reflecting the social mores of their mothers?)

My perspective is that religion gives individuals as set of rules to live by to maximise their contribution to society as a whole. All religions emphasise marriage and fidelity - and for me the findings of the authors shows the detrimental impact on society of extra-marital relations.

Or perhaps I'm just old-fashioned and reading in implications that aren't there? It certainly got me thinking.

Cheers,
Shafique

You are not old fashioned. Just concerned. Most people are

shafique wrote:I've just finished reading a fascinating book that I recommend to everyone[/qupte]

I read it, but I didn't think it was *that* fascinating, it could have been about half the size that it was and more direct to the point. I didn't find too much about the economic theory 'eye-popping' as the reviews would suggest, but then again, I've got a good handle on economic theory to begin with.

Have a look at Amazon for reviews - it is very readable and does make one think about cause and effect on various topics, ranging from cheating in exams and professional Sumo to the reason behind the drop in crime in the US since the 1990s.

And it keeps coming back to this point repeatedly, so much so you start a new chapter and think "didn't I already read this?" or when the author says "you won't guess what happened!" you actually will because you're totally used to "what will happen" after the first chaper.

Basically on the latter question, he argues that the major cause of the drop in crime in the US in the 1990s is due to the legalisation of abortion in the 70s after a court ruling effectively legalised abortion in all US states.

And he presents it as if it was HIS discovery, which it wasn't and has already been the subject matter of an already printed (and much shorter) book.

He makes a very convincing argument based on facts and data, rather than conjecture and supposition.

Basically on this point he argues that the change in crime rate is due to a generation of kids that were not born to single mothers or mothers who did not want the children. These ladies in the past would have been forced to have the children (abortion being a viable option only for middle and upper classes) and these kids were more likely to later on in life lead a life of crime.

And therein lies the biggest problem. Did you know that as the number of pirates have decreased the average temperatures go up! Yes, that's right, pirates prevent global warming! But in reality, as much as the author tries to go to lengths and says correlation doesn't prove causation, he falls victim to this very point, a point he conveniently ignores because without he would have no book.

This effect has been measurable - there were some states that liberalised the rules on abortion ahead of the court ruling, and these few States have had crime reductions ahead of other States (and also after statistically removing the other factors that affect crime).

Economists invented a phrase ceritus paribus (or something like that) meaning all things being equal. Except they're not equal and it's almost impossible to measure something happening outside of a lab or a simulation and effectively remove other factors.

The authors do not make any moral judgements - just point out what the data points to.

And we need more pirates.

- Children born outside of stable family / loving relationships in sufficient numbers translated to social unrest.
- The crime figures going back can be correlated to increasing acceptance of promiscuity and s-e_x outside/before marriage and the lessening of taboos of illegitemate births
- Abortion has mitigated the ill-effects to society of unwanted children, but are there other 'costs' to society - such as more divorce, more stds etc
- what about the problems of teenage pregnancies in the UK and increasing acceptance of single parent families - are we storing up problems in the future (in fact, aren't today's teenage mothers just reflecting the social mores of their mothers?)

And no disrespect to you, but if you needed to find that out in a book then you're in dire need of common sense.

My perspective is that religion gives individuals as set of rules to live by to maximise their contribution to society as a whole. All religions emphasise marriage and fidelity - and for me the findings of the authors shows the detrimental impact on society of extra-marital relations.

Perhaps to an extent he does, but he also bores the tears out of you in the process. Also I think you're reading too much into this. The author also describes himself as an economic genius... which I think is just a bit too much self flattery for my liking, especially from an author who:

1 - borrows someone elses research
2 - borrows someone elses story
3 - uses the borrowed information to right his own book
4 - warns against correlation proving causation and then goes on to do so.
5 - writes a very circular and somewhat 'duh!' book that is very annoying by the end.

Or perhaps I'm just old-fashioned and reading in implications that aren't there? It certainly got me thinking.

I think you just got suckered out of 100 AED, but that's OK, I did too.

No hard feelings, just a different opinion on the book.

Ian,

If you note, I am just extending the arguements laid out in the book about the causes of the reduction of crime in the US to the rise in abortions.

I actually enjoyed the book and didn't feel cheated by it (and I too have a reasonable grasp of economic theory) - but then again, I didn't pay for but got it from my friend Limewire.. (Which begs the question, don't we have so many more pirates these days ?? )

I think (although I may be mistaken), you are questioning the premise that liberalisation of abortions was a cause for the reduction in crime rates. Fair enough. I thought that the arguements were convincing, and he did mention that the stats were adjusted for 'factors' so that the 'ceteris paribus' (latin for 'other things being equal') condition applied.

The book says that adjusting for other measurable effects, the reduction in crime is correlated strongly with the increase in abortions. The author argues that this correlation is causative - but you are right, this is a value judgement, but one I would argue that makes sense.

My thread extends this presumption and points out what is not said in the book - that the crime rates previously due to children who would have been aborted had this been a viable was a result of moral values and s_e.xual mores that are contrary to those required by organised religions.

I was trying to ask the question whether this hypothesis and measurements backed up the claims of religions that society is better off when promiscuity is viewed as a sin and relations are limited to marriages.

As the authors repeatedly point out (I agree with the tautology of the prose - but I think they may have tried to make each chapter self-contained, but then again I may be too generous in this regard) their conclusions are generally pretty much common sense in hind-sight.

Cheers,
Shafique

And he presents it as if it was HIS discovery, which it wasn't and has already been the subject matter of an already printed (and much shorter) book.

Which book?

shafique,
ive read some of ur posts and i personally like that nevertheless u seem to be a religious person, u dont judge and dont become personal or offensive with those who think differently than u do. Still religion again plays a big role in how ppl think.

i havent read the book, so ill just comment the abortion issue. This is another of those things that implies way more than it might sound at 1st read.
1. virginity and how, when to lose it
2. s.e.x with multiple partners during the life of a person
3. protection as a way of avoiding pregnancy and disease
4. who has the responsibility of assuring protection during an intercourse? the man or the woman? ...or both
5. if a woman gets pregnant, who decides the faith of the fetus?
6. a man can never ever be so implied in the life or death of the fetus as the woman is. men can think they know what should be done or what is correct to do, but at the end it is the woman's body. so as a woman i have to accept whatever happens to me, regardless if that causes more harm both to me and my child, or should i be recognized the right to decide over what i believe is best for me and the child?
7. S.E.XUAL EDUCATION
we learn in school just about anything and everything, except s.e.xual behaviour. Too many young girls think they will die when they have their 1st menstruation, because nobody explained them that its a normal thing and it assures that they will be healthy and capable of having children. Too many kids dont know what the condom is for. too many men are not willing to use the condom because "its uncomfortable and reduces pleasure"...buy some good quality and think that maybe ur saving ur life when u mess with putting it on instead of just giving into the heat of the moment.
i could continue here with all the other things like, se.x.ual education should not be only about protection, but so many other "details" like, beautiful breasts and body are not enough to keep the interest of a man alive or that (quality)s.e.x is not by far just about some good looking penis and penetration. If children would hear about these things in school, they would become adults, conscious that s.e.x is not a sport, not a sin, not a perversity, not just a way to procreate and certainly not enough by itself to keep to ppl together and make a relationship work.

Instead we inoculate our children with all kinds of wrong and misleading ideas about s.e.x and relationships and the entire package that comes along with these 2 things.

Now i was lucky enough to be raised in a family with good values, but i learned pretty fast that many things dont go as smoothly as one might think. So if one cannot find the right person at the very 1st try or the 2nd and so on, what should u do? S.e.x is not everything but it surely is a big part of a normal and healthy life. If there is s.e.x, than protection or not, there is a chance for pregnancy.
What if it happens in a bad financial moment when bringing a child into the world would be a huge irresponsibility?
What if it happens to a couple that is not stable and do not want to become stable? Wouldnt that go more against religion and principles of any kind having the child out of marriage than aborting?
What if the pregnancy is the result of a rape? Women have been punished for getting themselves in situations where they could become victims of a rape. As if there is one woman who would want that. And the world changes smwhat, but it continues to be shameful being such a victim. Would in a situation like this smart and wise and fair for that woman to be forced to have that child, just because according to religious books children are a gift from God, no matter what?
We contaminate our bodies, men and women in endless ways, buy smoking, drinking, unhealthy food, etc. Arent those too decisions over our own body?
Once again, a man could never comprehend the psychological, emotional and physical factors that are involved in a decision that a woman makes about the life or death of her fetus. So if anybody, shouldnt be women to decide and women only whether to accept the responsibility of bringing smbody to life or not?

Not sure if smbody will have the patience to read or comment my post, but in case there will be, id like to add one comment. Approaching this question from the prism of religion in my opinion is completely wrong. Not because religion or religious values can or should be neglected, but because the world and the morality of religious books is an idealistic one and has very little to do with the reality of the everyday life (the reason for this discrepancy is totally irrelevant in this case and its for sure another issue).

Raidah,

I have had the patience to read your post, and I am sure many people here will.

The views you have expressed are perfectly valid and I for one will not criticise anyone for holding these views, as they relate to how one chooses to enter into relationships and when one decides to be active in a marital sense (boy do I hate not being able to use the s.e.x.! here)

People who choose to follow the revealed religions of this world all subscribe to the view that s.e.x should be confined to marriage.

This seems very 'old fashioned' now, but by definition at some point was the prevailing view of how society should operate.

Now, the norm in many countries is to expect multiple partners before marriage. People who choose to wait for marriage are in the minority.

The question I am asking is whether the impact of this promiscuity has led to social ills - such as the increase in crime (in the past, when abortion was not as freely available).

Nowadays, contraception is widely available and illigitemate children should be a matter of choice of the parents. However, teenage pregnancies on the rise causes me concern about whether these girls ( I have 3 !! ) are making informed choices and whether these choices are going to be good or bad for society in the long run.

My personal view is that children born out of a loving, long term relationship are disadvantaged. This is a generalisation, of course - but as a practicing religious person, that is the set of rules I believe works best for society.

Don't get me wrong, I would not want to impose moral judgements and decisions on people, but I do have concerns over the ever-reducing period of innocence that children seem to have these days. I have a nine-year old daughter that my wife has already has had to talk to her about the birds and the bees - primarily because her peers are reading magazines and chatting about boys already. I would, as a father, rather have her as an innocent child for at least a couple of years - but with magazines/internet sites etc AIMED at pre-pubescent girls and giving them advice about dressing, make-up etc, I react with dismay.

We are trying to impart our belief sets and values on our children, and it is dismaying to me that others are growing up with the view that pre-marital relationships are the norm and should not be avoided (but that you should take protective steps to avoid STD and pregnancy).

I am dismayed that the alternative view of abstinence is viewed as so alien as to be characterised as 'old fashioned'.

I may just be awaking to the fact that I'm now middle-aged!!

Cheers,
Shafique

i wrote s.e.xual education with capitals because i think it has a lot to do with how we all perceive life and relationships. i understand ur point and ur concern regarding the innocent period of life of ur children, but also believe that the perception of s.e.x by kids is determined in a very big way by the approach to this question of their parents.
as long as its not irresponsable and used as a sport to do it whenever and whomever, s.e.x is the most normal thing a person can and should have. were children properly educated and informed by their parents and the school, it sould not become a reason to laugh at corners and peek at on internet sites, etc, but smthing as part of a healthy couple life.

as regarding pre-marital s.e.x, if i remember correctly u said smwhere that u live in europe. i dont have chidren, but being in my 20s, i can still remember well what is like being a kid or teenager. in my oppinion the only thing a parent can do for his/her child is to state a good example and set of values and hope that when that child will grow up, she or he will remember smthing from what has been shown by the parents.