Lincoln/Coverdale

Apparently, kids are now participating in organized ultimate fighting. For reasons I cannot quite express verbally, I have a visceral repulsion to ultimate fighting and would like to see it go away. I think we can all agree that ultimate fighters probably wouldn’t be able follow an open discussion or any type of persuasion that uses non-violent means. In light of this, I propose that ultimate fighters be allowed (or, if I have my way, required) to kill each other. Here’s how it would work.

According to these estimates, about 20% of American males are between the ages of 18 and 45 which I will assume is the prime band for ultimate fighting. If the population is about 300 million and half male, that gives a pool of 60 million candidates. I’m going to be conservative and assume that 1% of these participate in ultimate fighting.

So, we have 600,000 ultimate fighters. Every match will halve the fighting pool. All we need to do is solve this equation: 2^x = 600,000. Whip out your log to get x = log(600,000)/log(2). That’s about 19. At one round per month, we could have this wrapped up by late 2009.

There is one problem with all this — in the end will be left the ultimate ultimate fighter. I believe in due process, so we can’t just kill the guy, but he must be kept from reproducing. I have a speculative solution, but no doubt someone else could do better. Society could wait until he inevitably commits a heinous violent crime leading to prison or worse. During this time of waiting, women attracted to violent assholes will be asked to take a pledge of abstinence.

I just got done reading this exchange between Sam Harris and Andrew Sullivan regarding religion, fundamentalism, and other related topics. They both debate well and their rhetorical skills often had me nodding in agreement to contradictory messages. This has something to do with my susceptibility to an argument that I cannot question in realtime, but I think there was more to it. Being a debate, reason and logic made Harris’s job easier than Sullivan’s. Short of Euler’s identity, it is an understatement to say that logical proof for the existence of God is strained. Sullivan often resorted to his subjective experience of faith which, while moving and eloquent, don’t support the notion that Jesus was divine.

Just because it wasn’t a fair fight doesn’t mean that it wasn’t worth the read. I think absolutists of any sort would do well to consider where the other side comes from. Just because I do not believe in the god of the Bible, doesn’t mean I cannot learn from those who do. Likewise, believers might be interested to know why atheists see the world differently. Intolerance on either side only seems to make the other side worse in response.

That’s my “why can’t we all get along” for 2008.