Archives for category: consequentialism

So you’re traveling, and in your motel room you discover a hard-cover Bible, deposited there by the obnoxious “Gideons”. Presumably the Gideons don’t go room to room putting Bibles in drawers. I reckon they go to the motel manager and make him an offer he can’t refuse.

Anyway, what should a weary traveler do with that darned thing? You can’t just leave it there like a ticking bomb waiting to blow away innocent people’s rational minds. A couple times I did this: tear the covers off and throw it in the trash. But then I thought: Some poor cleaner is going to see this and have a heart attack.

Now I just put it in my suitcase. When I get home, it goes in the recycling bin. I’m all about saving the planet, you know.

Thunder Valley Casino is in the Sacramento area. This is a screen shot from their website. Of course some people have won a lot of money “playing” there. But to put this in the proper context, Thunder Valley needs to tell us how much money, before their big win, and after, those lucky winners lost.

Is this a reasonable way to treat your customers?

This happens all the time. I put a DVD into my player, and the first thing I see is an ugly threat. 5 YEARS IN FEDERAL PRISON, it bellows at me. It’s hard to imagine a ruder way to treat the customer who’s chosen to watch your movie. Who on Earth came up with this? And how do we make them stop?

Today I was watching Where the Wild Things Are, which is from Warner Brothers; but all the big studios do something similar. Before the title, before anything, the very first thing, they’re yelling abusive language in your face — and they program the disc to disable all your controls, so they can yell at you as long as they want to. Some discs keep the controls disabled through a whole string of previews, which is kind of like what they did to that poor guy in A Clockwork Orange.

Sorry, chapter selection is temporarily disabled!

DVDs shouldn’t even have previews. They should not have any kind of advertising or marketing, especially before you even get to see the top menu. I feel like a chump when that happens. I craved this movie and paid $20 for it, and now before I get to see it you’re going to take away the controls and show me a bunch of ads, whether I want to see them or not! Should I have seen that coming? Should I have known that Warner Brothers was planning to treat me like dirt?

Well, I know now. So I won’t be buying DVDs from WB any more. I’ll be hesitant even to rent them. Paying to be insulted is not my idea of a good time.

Some weeks ago I was at a meeting of Sacramento Freethinkers Atheists and Non-Believers and someone said, “Why are religious organizations better at charity than secular organizations? And shouldn’t we try to pick up the slack? What can we at SacFAN do to promote ‘good works’?”

This remark bothered me for days, so much that I was forced to do the research and analysis necessary to determine whether there was any truth to it. There wasn’t. The truth is, religious organizations are not better at charity than secular ones.

In the first half of this report I showed that the widely cited statistics that seem to show that Christians give much more to charity than atheists do are fatally flawed, and do not mean what religious apologists want them to mean. Despite the claims, there is no evidence for this special generosity that is supposed to emanate from the Christian faith. This second half will show that the good works produced by secular institutions are astonishing in their scale. Religious contributions are trivial in comparison.

International, secular, charitable organizations

The first point that needs to be made is pretty obvious. If you don’t think that there are secular organizations out there doing beautiful things, let me remind you of a few examples.

UNICEF provides children in over 150 countries with health care, clean water, nutrition, education, emergency relief, and more. ($3 billion in 2008)

Oxfam works in nearly 100 countries to overcome poverty and injustice. ($772 million in FY 2008–09)

CARE, a humanitarian organization fighting global poverty, puts special focus on working alongside poor women because, equipped with the proper resources, women have the power to help whole families and entire communities escape poverty. CARE also delivers emergency aid to survivors of war and natural disasters. ($700 million in FY 2008–09)

The International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement promotes humanitarian principles and values; provides disaster response; teaches disaster preparedness; promotes health and provides care. ($450 million in 2009 – and this does not include their 186 national societies)

Save the Children Federation works to ensure that children in need grow up protected and safe, educated, healthy and well-nourished, and able to thrive in economically secure households. ($400 million in 2009)

The International Rescue Committee responds to the world’s worst humanitarian crises and helps people to survive and rebuild their lives. ($240 million in FY 2009)

Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières is an international medical humanitarian organization working in more than 60 countries to assist people whose survival is threatened by violence, neglect, or catastrophe. ($168 million in 2008)

I adapted these descriptions from the organizations’ About Us pages. The dollar amounts are the annual program expenditures cited in their annual report – this is the amount that was spent on helping people, not organizational overhead. Compare these numbers with any religion.

But please remember to compare apples to apples. When it comes to the delivery of charitable services, a strongly religious organization necessarily embodies certain inefficiencies as compared to a secular one. For example, religious observances cost money, and those costs will have to be deducted from the charitable effort. More silver chalices, more ceremonial wine and wafers, more statues of Jesus means less medicine or food or whatever the charity was supposed to be about. Promulgation, too, siphons away resources from humanitarian projects. More priests on the plane to spread the Good News around means fewer doctors on the plane to treat malaria or tuberculosis or AIDS.

Evangelism is routinely considered part of the mission. When churches list their charitable efforts, I would bet you a million dollars that most of them include “spreading the Good News” on that list. But it is not charity, it is marketing.

When you donate to (or volunteer for) a church, the primary beneficiaries are the church and the people who run the church. This does not help children in Africa. It does not even help children in the church’s own neighborhood. You must keep these considerations in mind when comparing charitable work by religious organizations to charitable work by secular organizations.

Social welfare programs in the secular democracies

There are secular institutions bigger than UNICEF. Much bigger. They’re called countries.

Of course everything such entities do is not benevolent, but if you want to talk about good works, the world’s secular democracies perform charity on a fantastic scale. Think of all the taxpayer-funded social-welfare programs in these countries. Year after year, all over the world, citizens who are doing well enough that they have to pay taxes contribute trillions of dollars to their less-fortunate neighbors, no matter what anyone’s declared faith may be on either end of the transaction.

Here are some of the things we do here in the United States in a single fiscal year. (The following text is adapted from FY 2010 information at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.)

Social Security provides retirement benefits to retired workers (36 million of them, as of December 2009) and their eligible dependents. It also provides survivors’ and disability benefits. ($708 billion)

Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP provide health care or long-term care to low-income children, parents, elderly people, and people with disabilities. ($753 billion for all three programs)

Safety net programs ($482 billion) provide aid (other than health insurance or Social Security benefits) to individuals and families facing hardship. In 2005, according to CBPP analysis, such programs kept approximately 15 million Americans out of poverty, and reduced the depth of poverty for another 29 million. The programs include:

  • earned-income and child tax credits, which assist low- and moderate-income working families
  • cash payments to eligible individuals or households, including Supplemental Security Income for the elderly or disabled poor and unemployment insurance
  • in-kind assistance for low-income families and individuals, including food stamps, school meals, low-income housing assistance, child-care assistance, and assistance in meeting home energy bills
  • other programs such as those that aid abused and neglected children.

If you even think about comparing these numbers to the efforts of any religion, or all religions together, you are going to feel kind of ashamed.

Someone will say, “But every taxpayer pays for these programs, the religious as well as the non-believers.”

Yes, but the point is that the whole arrangement is a result of secular thinking. The question in front of us right now has to do with the differences between religious and secular institutions. Is the organization responsible for the enormous expenditures on social welfare listed above a religious one, or is it secular? The government of the United States of America is almost perfectly non-religious. It was designed by secular humanists. It is the reification of a humanitarian social contract with no theological component. Religion had no role in the Constitution or the New Deal. None of our laws or institutions are based on the Christian Bible or any other “holy” book. And of course the social safety net has been relentlessly opposed by all major religions. There are people who claim that compassion is essentially a religious impulse, but this is upside-down and backwards. Around the world and across history, the societies that have provided such humanitarian structures for their citizens have all been secular. In fact it never happened until quite recently – when religion began to lose its hold on our imaginations. Religion makes democracy impossible.

Someone will say, “Your secular democracies, especially the United States, do terrible things – making war on innocent people, for example – as well as good.”

Yes, but so do religious organizations. So that doesn’t get us anywhere. On the other hand, democracy is a humanitarian idea in its very essence. The only reason democracy exists is that it’s supposed to help everyone have a better life. You can’t say the same thing about religion. The purpose of religion is not to give people a better life, unless you mean after they’re dead.

Look through the holy books of the Big Monotheisms. There’s hardly a mention of how to have a decent life, or how to provide a decent life for others. The topic simply doesn’t come up.

The Q’uran’s primary message seems to be, “If you don’t believe this book, you’re going to Hell.” It’s all about pleasing Allah – which really means pleasing the author of the book and the head of the church, a guy called Muhammad. I don’t call that a good life. I don’t call that equality, or respect, or kindness. The Christian Old Testament – its first five books are also known as the Jewish Torah – glorifies and abjectly worships a creator-god who has no interest whatever in the welfare of human beings. The God of Moses and Abraham (and Muhammad) wipes out cities, tribes, and whole ecosystems when he’s in one of his moods. Obviously, compassion’s got nothing to do with it.

In the New Testament we do see an occasional glimmer of kindness, but it is rare. And Jesus never mentions justice (in the modern sense of fairness, as opposed to the older sense of retribution). Nor does he ever once use the word ‘democracy’. The authors of the holy scriptures seem to have been just fine with the prevailing social structure of that ancient era: absolute tyranny, with a man on the throne who can be as vainglorious, capricious and bloodthirsty as he likes. That is what Moses and Muhammad and all the other “prophets” advocated. There is not a single sentence in any of these books on how to set up a just society – one where everyone counts and everyone matters. But this is the entire object of the foundational documents of secular democracy.

Little wonder, then, that secular institutions provide so much more kindness to those who need it than religious institutions do.


Proponents of religion, and especially of Christianity, insist that religion is essentially a good thing. It makes the world a better place, because it’s all about being good to people. For example, Karen Armstrong’s Charter for Compassion begins:

The principle of compassion lies at the heart of all religious, ethical and spiritual traditions, calling us always to treat all others as we wish to be treated ourselves. Compassion impels us to work tirelessly to alleviate the suffering of our fellow creatures, to dethrone ourselves from the centre of our world and put another there, and to honour the inviolable sanctity of every single human being, treating everybody, without exception, with absolute justice, equity and respect.

That’s a pretty paragraph – but the word ‘religious’ does not belong at the front of it. No religion has ever offered, or tried to offer, “justice, equity and respect” to “every single human being.” That is pure fantasy. To mention just one example out of millions, the Christian and Islamic scriptures require that women be given less respect than men. It’s right there in black and white. Apologists like Armstrong have been telling us since Day One that religion is a force for good – that it is the epitome of good – but this is simply and obviously and utterly false.

Armstrong’s proposal has a sinister side, because if you accept her version of “compassion” then you cannot accept secularism. If it were true that religion makes us better people, then to support secularism would be to push for a harsher, less compassionate world. But of course religion does not make us better people. This is a lie; yet it has been shouted so loudly, and repeated so faithfully, for so many centuries, that almost everyone believes it. Even many atheists do.

In a piece called 10 Things That Christians Are Better At Than Atheists, “Friendly Atheist” Hemant Mehta writes:

Christians give back to the community they love. It’s a part of their budget. Many atheists might pay their organizations’ membership dues, but they do very little else to support them.

Parenting Beyond Belief author Dale McGowan agrees:

When it comes to actual giving of actual money, there’s no contest: churchgoers have us licked. Even outside of church-based giving, the average churchgoer in the U.S. gives twice as much as the average non-churchgoing American. Obviously there will be notable exceptions … but the overall picture of giving by secular individuals needs improvement.

Keith Logan of Young Australian Skeptics asks, “Why do religious groups have a monopoly over charity?

And a recent post on the Atheist Revolution blog makes the same mistake:

Foundation Beyond Belief is an organization designed to make it easier for people to support charities that do not proselytize. … Think of it sort of like a secular version of tithing. … Foundation Beyond Belief … helps to combat the stereotype that atheists do not support charities. Sure, one could contribute directly to any of the selected charitable organizations as an individual, but there is something to be said for larger donations coming from a secular group.

So even folks who are pretty comfortable with atheism are saying: “Look at all the religious groups doing ‘good works’. Why don’t secularists give back to the community they love (as Hemant Mehta puts it), the way religious folks do?”

But this is all upside-down. Religion doesn’t make you a better person, and religious people and institutions do not make the world a better place. In this post I will show that the statistical studies that supposedly demonstrate that religion has a positive influence in charitable giving do not hold up when examined carefully and without prejudice. Next time, I will show that secular people and institutions contribute enormously to the general welfare – probably much more than religious ones do.

Why the studies are misleading

Aren’t there scientific studies that show more charitable giving by Christians than by atheists? Only if the misleading interpretation of data from ideologically biased opinion polls qualifies as scientific study.

Mehta and McGowan cite studies by the Barna Group (see for example Trends in Tithing and Donating). The first thing to note about Barna is that they are evangelists. This does not immediately invalidate everything they say, but it should make us suspicious of their methodology, their results, and their reporting. Too strong, you say? Remember that an evangelist is basically a liar. If you haven’t read me before, that may sound pretty extreme, but it’s a simple fact. Evangelism is lying for a living. Helping churches prosper is central to Barna’s stated mission – and you can’t do that without lying.

In 2008, Barna’s president David Kinnaman described some of their study results this way: “Many of the most ardent critics of Christianity claim that compassion and generosity do not hinge on faith; yet those who divorce themselves from spiritual commitment are significantly less likely to help others.” In Kinnaman’s description, atheists are bad people by definition – no wonder they give so little to charity!

A set of Gallup polls, “Giving and Volunteering 1989–95”, is cited in Religion as social capital: producing the common good, edited by Corwin E. Smidt. I am going to quote from this book’s discussion of the Gallup data, and show how the authors are misinterpreting it. The passages are from Chapter 6, “Religion and Volunteering in America” by David E. Campbell and Steven J. Yonish, and Chapter 7, “The Religious Basis of Charitable Giving in America” by Roger J. Nemeth and Donald A. Luidens.

Campbell and Yonish say that according to the survey:

Americans volunteer more for religious organizations than any other type of group. This mirrors the finding of Nemeth and Luidens in the next chapter that Americans give more money to religious causes than any other type of charity. (p. 90)

First question: Why is a “religious cause” automatically considered a charity? Isn’t it misleading to give money to your church and call that “giving to charity”? I mean, think about where the money goes. You’re paying for your preacher’s salary, and the beautification of his workplace – what kind of charity is that?

The authors seem to be conflating the idea of a not-for-profit organization, contributions to which are tax-deductible, with the idea of a charity, contributions to which will actually help people who actually need it. Churches are statutorily not for profit, but that doesn’t mean that they do anybody any good. To me the word ‘charity’ means we’re talking about the more fortunate helping the less fortunate. But little, if any, of the money you give to your church goes toward helping people in need. It mostly goes toward the church: the land, the buildings, the stained glass, the silver chalices, the silk chasubles, the pastors’ salaries and offices and residences. None of this actually benefits anyone except the pastors – the professionals – the guys who set up this whole operation and registered it as a tax-exempt charity.

So look at the language again. “Americans volunteer more for religious organizations than any other type of group [and] give more money to religious causes than any other type of charity.” Campbell and Yonish take all the time and money that church-goers devote to their church and call it charity. I don’t think that’s the right word for it.

Church involvement provides a powerful impetus for individuals to engage in voluntary activity. But, if we look at volunteering from a slightly different angle, it also serves to channel volunteers into internal church-maintenance activity at the expense of more general-purpose volunteering. Among people who volunteer … more frequent church attendance leads to a lower probability of engaging in secular, informal, or advocacy volunteer activities. (p. 100–101)

People who go to church a lot volunteer a lot – but only for the church. They’re too busy to do “general-purpose” volunteering. Church participation makes them less generous with their time, not more. And what kind of work is it that they are volunteering for?

In 1995, 82 percent of religious volunteers indicated that the work they did for their religious organization was … internal church maintenance activities. Such a high percentage suggests that there is a distinction to be made between nonreligious and religious volunteering. (p. 102)

Indeed there is. Internal church maintenance! – this is not feeding the hungry or sheltering the homeless. It’s not humanitarianism. It’s not generous, it’s inward-facing. It benefits, not people in need, but the church itself. The organization. The priests.

These results suggest that the form social capital takes within a church community does not have appreciably different effects from that found within secular voluntary associations, at least in regards to voluntarism. This is similar to Nemeth and Luiden’s conclusion in Chapter 7 that people who participate at least weekly in either religious or nonreligious organizations contribute equally to charity. (p. 105)

So, according to Campbell and Yonish, participation in religious organizations builds “social capital” in the form of relationships, norms, and habits; and participation in other kinds of organizations – the League of Women Voters, or a bowling league – has the same effect. Religious organizations are not actually better at this than other kinds of organizations.

We now move on to Nemeth and Luidens in chapter 7.

Although a forceful and cogent argument can be made that religion creates social capital in the form of charitable giving, it is a bit more difficult to generate an empirical verification of such a causal relationship. (p. 110)

This is hand-waving. They believe that religion is a positive influence, but they can’t demonstrate it. “Forceful and cogent” arguments can also be made that religion poisons everything it touches.

What the Gallup data show is that participation in social organizations of any kind has a positive influence. If these data mean that religion creates social capital, they also mean that bowling creates social capital. Nemeth and Luidens do not highlight this.

More people participate in religion than in bowling, but that doesn’t make religion more effective, only more popular. (Furthermore, religious participation is inflated by coercion. Millions of people go to religious services partly or only because if they don’t go someone will kill them. This is not true of bowling.) But Nemeth and Luidens really want to find something special about religion.

By varying the presence or levels of other variables (e.g. income), we hope to find whether religious membership influences giving in any discernable way, and if it does, whether the patterns can be explained in terms of relationships that are likely to be found exclusively among religious members. (p. 110)

Why would we expect that? What kind of relationship happens “exclusively among religious members”? (The obvious answer is pederasty – but that happens in the secular world too.) The passage reveals a huge assumption that underlies the whole book – and countless others. The authors want to verify, somehow, that religion is a qualitatively different type of enterprise. But there is no evidence to support this. It is simply assumed. And of course this makes the argument almost circular. Define churches as charitable organizations and you are halfway there.

In 1995, about one-half of all respondents reported making a contribution to religious organizations. This was nearly double the figure for health-related charities, which ranked second in terms of the number of contributions made. Moreover, the average amount contributed to religious organizations far exceeded the average given to any other charity. … In fact, the average amount contributed to religion is nearly double the level of giving to all other charities combined ($417 compared to $279)! (p. 111)

Remarkable – until you remember what religious organizations do with all that money. Nemeth and Luidens assume that religion is a good thing – that by contributing to a religious organization you enable it to do good things. But churches don’t do only good things. Many of the things they do are neutral, or bad.

Spending $417 a year on your church does not make you generous. And it certainly does not mean that you have a habit of taking effective humanitarian action. It only means that belonging to a church is more expensive than belonging to a bowling league.

Religious members are (by a margin of 20–25 percent) more likely to contribute to charities than are non-members … . … But what about charities that are specifically nonreligious in nature? … Religious members are not only more likely than non-members to contribute to nonreligious organizations, but they are more likely to contribute in greater amounts. (p. 111–112)

This is almost interesting. But remember three things.

a. Very few organizations are “specifically nonreligious”. They’re not opposed to religion, they just don’t emphasize it. When Nemeth and Luidens write “nonreligious” charities they just mean all charities, including the specifically religious ones. Note that in general, people who want to, say, feed the hungry don’t found a church. Instead they’ll start an organization dedicated to feeding the hungry. So in general, contributing to a church is going to be a less effective way of helping people. There are organizations set up specifically to help people; churches exist for other reasons.

b. On the other hand, since religion has a (false) reputation for doing good things, it tends to attract people who want to do good things. Someone might form (or join) a church because they have been told that this is the best way to feed the hungry. But such people are not generous because they’re in church, they’re in church because they’re generous (and because they have been misled). When church members do good works, it’s because they are generous, not because they are religious. They joined the church because the church said, “we are a great place for generous people.” But there are much better places for generous people than a church.

c. It’s well established that people don’t go to church nearly as often as they say they do. About half of these “at least weekly” churchgoers are liars. Might they also be exaggerating their levels of charitable contribution? This would severely compromise the Gallup data!

If religion’s influence on charitable giving results from relationships embedded in religious organizations (as the social capital model would suggest), then one would expect that those members who participate more in the life of their church or synagogue will be more strongly influenced by these relationships. In other words, we would expect greater religious participation to be associated with greater support of charities. … Roughly two-thirds of those who attend church on a weekly basis make contributions to nonreligious charities; in contrast, only 57 percent of those attending church less than one or two times a month do so. But this is exactly what one might expect with regard to social capital – the norms and expectations of a group are likely to be strongest among those who interact frequently and on a regular basis. (p. 113)

Now this is a strange one. As we saw earlier, the Gallup data provide no evidence that religious organizations promote benevolence to a greater degree than other kinds of organizations. Nemeth and Luidens could have written this:

If religion’s influence on charitable giving results from relationships embedded in any kind of organization … , then one would expect that those members who participate more in the life of their organization of whatever kind (especially if it describes itself as benevolent) will be more strongly influenced by these relationships. In other words, we would expect greater participation in almost any organization to be associated with greater support of charities.

But Nemeth and Luidens miss this. They are blinded by their assumption that there is something magical about specifically religious institutions.

Weekly participation in either religious or nonreligious organizations substantially increased the likelihood of giving to charities. Indeed, weekly participants in either religious or nonreligious organizations contribute to charities in nearly the same proportions. … However, weekly participants in religion gave nearly twice as much of their income to charities as did weekly participants in nonreligious organizations. (p. 118)

This is the bottom line, and the description is misleading. To see why, you have to look at the chart (Table 7.5, page 117).

This table compares the charitable contributions of four types of people. The type 2 person participates at least weekly in some non-religious organization. Type 3ers participate at least weekly in a religious organization. Type 4 folks do both; Type 1, neither.

The middle four lines deal with contributions to “all charities.” Frequent participants in religious organizations (orange oval) contributed more of their household income than did those in nonreligious organizations (green) – 2.3% compared to 1.3%. But “all charities” includes religious institutions, which usually means that your contributions support the church rather than people who need help.

The last four lines are about contributions to “nonreligious” charities – that is, the ones that actually are charities. Frequent participants in nonreligious organizations (blue) contributed more of their household income to nonreligious charities than those in religious organizations (red) – 0.9% compared to 0.5%. People who did both (purple) spent the same amount; that is, church attendance didn’t increase it.

Contrary to the authors’ description, the Gallup data do not show a positive correlation between participation in a religious organization and charitable contributions to the general welfare. Even if they did, this could be explained by the phenomenon mentioned earlier: the practically universal belief that a church is a good place to do humanitarian things seems likely to lead to generous people joining churches! But the Gallup data do not support this, either.

Bottom line: it has not been convincingly shown that religious people are statistically much more likely to support those less fortunate than themselves with charitable contributions of time or money.

In Part 2 of this piece I will show that secular institutions do in fact accomplish this. They don’t just talk about it. They actually help people who need help. A lot of people. Every day.

I plan to never go there, too!

Governor signs legislation affirming”we hate immigrants, they deserve nothing from us but abuse“.

(Note to self: call Noah. Suggest that he get out of Arizona, even though this means switching to a different school.)

Here’s a useful rule of thumb. If they’re screaming in pain when you do it to them, it’s wrong.

Wonderful perspective on the bogus arguments used to support things like Prop. 8.

Human beings took our animal need for palatable food . . . and turned it into chocolate souffles with salted caramel cream. We took our ability to co-operate as a social species . . . and turned it into craft circles and bowling leagues and the Metropolitan Museum of Art. We took our capacity to make and use tools . . . and turned it into the Apollo moon landing. We took our uniquely precise ability to communicate through language . . . and turned it into King Lear.

None of these things are necessary for survival and reproduction. That is exactly what makes them so splendid. When we take our basic evolutionary wiring and transform it into something far beyond any prosaic matters of survival and reproduction . . . that’s when humanity is at its best. That’s when we show ourselves to be capable of creating meaning and joy, for ourselves and for one another. That’s when we’re most uniquely human.

And the same is true for sex. Human beings have a deep, hard-wired urge to replicate our DNA, instilled in us by millions of years of evolution. And we’ve turned it into an intense and delightful form of communication, intimacy, creativity, community, personal expression, transcendence, joy, pleasure, and love. Regardless of whether any DNA gets replicated in the process.

Speaking of aliens, District 9 (now available on DVD) outclasses Avatar in every way. Avatar‘s “aliens” have sophomorically humanoid bodies, with navels, dreadlocks, broad noses from Sierra Leone, big adorable eyes from manga, and perky, perfect little light-blue breasts. This is an insult to the viewer’s intelligence. If we ever do meet some real aliens from another star system, the chances are very low that we will even understand what we are seeing. I guarantee to you that we won’t find them sexually attractive. We won’t understand, at first, whether they have anything like sex. Chances are, they will be so different from us that we will not be certain that they are alive. (They may have the same doubts about us.) They could be here in this solar system right now, and escape our notice because they don’t look humanoid, or even eumetazoan. They could look like haystacks, or lightning, or sunspots — or something we literally cannot imagine.

That being said, District 9‘s aliens are at least kind of alien. They are not appealing. The body plan reminds one of vultures, insects and crayfish. They don’t have Kate Moss breasts. They do have something like lungs, and you can see them working and it is not pretty. They eat garbage. They fight over garbage, seemingly. They came in a spaceship, but they don’t know how to work it, apparently. They live in a government slum. They are repulsive and pathetic.

Then you get to know them. And they turn out, despite their grotesque anatomy, to be more appealing, on a humanitarian level, than the humans around them. You get to know them, and you remember things like “beauty is only skin deep” and “the only way to be good is to do good” and “the best things in life aren’t things”. District 9 is that rare, glittering gem: a movie that makes you think.

It’s not perfect. I would not call it a great film. But I rented it, and enjoyed it, and recommend it to you.