Hello everyone. Today we will talk about in the section of applied ethics about this notion of sexuality. Now, when we have talked about ethics and about various philosophical way of looking at morals, their foundations, we have discovered that there are many theories and ways of decision making. Then we came out to see how or do these theories get applied in day to day lives. How are decisions, how human beings make decisions and consciously or not so, they are dependent upon the theories that we implicitly or explicitly assume. Today we will talk about an issue which is considered immensely moral by a large majority of people which is the issue of sexuality and that is why it also brings about the notions of taboo and there are perhaps in most cultures there are do's and don'ts about sexuality which are, which do not originate perhaps from the physicality of sexuality, but from the morality associated around sexuality. We will primarily look at, I will recommend you to go through these two say that is recommended to have a preliminary understanding of the issues that we are talking about of course, this does not, today's session is not limited to these articles, but these two pieces will definitely give you a very good idea about what we are talking about. Now, the first one is Vincent C. Punzo's morality and human sexuality. It is a part of reflective naturalism. These and the second one is Alan H. Goldman's plain sex or published in Philosophy and Public Affairs in 1977. The first one, Vincent P. Punzo proposes a non-reductionist view of sexuality and Alan Goldman proposes a reductionist view of sexuality and you can guess it from the name when it calls it, when Goldman calls it plain sex and Punzo of course talks about morality and human sexuality. If you are institution or if you are subscribed to Jester you will also be able to find the second article on Jester and both these articles should be freely available on the internet if you search them out. So, my citations are primarily to these two articles, however they are not limited to these two pieces. They are also an expression of my views and my understanding of the subject. Now, sexuality has been very strongly connected to morality in most cultures. Perhaps it is a single natural function surrounded and most moral dictates. So, we find that we have many natural functions regarding eating, various natural functions that we perform as physical beings and of course all of them confront or are surrounded with behavior restrictions from which may be termed from etiquettes to moral guidelines, but sexuality in particular perhaps in most cultures is the single most is the natural function that single natural function that confronts the most moral dictates. So, to start with we need to analyze this notion that what is this notion of sexuality, how we conceive this notion crucially determines our moral opinions on the issue. We shall proceed in these exercise in this exercise from two perspectives, the reductionist and the non-reductionist view. Now, considering sexuality laying the background there, let me say we make judgments about people, we make judgments about relationships, we make judgments about dressing, about so many things that surround sexuality. Let us start with a few examples that what is it that makes sexuality of moral issue and why is it that so many morals confront it and how is it that we find various decision making and various questions surrounding this domain of sexuality. Let us think of some of the sexual debates of our times. If you are coming from more conservative societies you would find that the way men and women dress and how physically revealing it is seems to be an objectionable matter because it seems to exhibit sexual intent. If you are coming from more liberal societies it still does not mean that you are away from sexuality because then it performs, it comes around in various other forms say what should be a legal stand on homosexuality, whether homosexuality is something which needs to be legislated out or which seems to be legislated in. What about this institution of marriage? Why is monogamy necessarily also tied up with fidelity? Why is sexuality with more than one partner's moral dilemma? What does the act of sexuality convey? There are various problems on the surface that appear but which all crucially boil down to how we conceptualize sexuality and sex. How do we conceive or what do we understand that sexuality entails? Let us think of more problems and I am sure you can come up with even more problems from your immediate environment or from a more global perspective. What kind of clothes young people should wear? What kind of time young people should spend with each other? What is the level of intimacy? Is sexuality a measure of intimacy or does intimacy or any sexuality or any act of sex that does not correspond to intimacy? Does it make it tabooed or something morally incorrect with it? Let us think of more examples. Let us think of does human emotive abilities connect with this physicality that we have around sexuality as human beings? How far should sexuality govern the interaction between people? It varies in various perspectives that what kind of clothes people should wear, what kind of intimacy people should display, what kind of intimacy people should have, what kind of intimacy people should display in public and various other issues that surround the core area of sexuality. We find that there can be so many problems that arise around sexuality and legislations that take place according. In India recently homosexuality was decriminalized and then again the Supreme Court made a judgment that well it debunking the decriminalization dictated from the lower courts. So, this is again when we have legislation around this. I wish that we all lived in our own universes and where others views did not matter to us, but we do have shared space and that is what brings about the need for discussion on morality and ethics because we need to develop a consensus because we live in a shared space. So, over the various lectures on ethics that we have had, one thing perhaps crucially comes out that we need to engage in a debate to come around to as far a resolution as possible on whatever grounds we can arrive at them because we live in a shared space and the shared space entails absolute plurality of behavior as not permissible, not even logically permissible. Thereof there is a need to have a streamlining of permissible versus non permissible behavior. So, now let us come to analyzing this notion of sexuality that we talked about. We have talked about if you look at the slide we will see that what we have talked about right now is that sexuality is strongly connected to morality in most cultures and we will begin with an analysis of this notion. Now there is something, there is nothing new about it that philosophers can add, but of course it even we analyze this from a distance or from a philosophical perspective there are perhaps many of our hidden presuppositions and assumptions that are unknown to us which do surface when we engage in this activity of explicit analysis of this notion of sex and sexuality. So, because we start with the analysis of this notion of sexuality because this determines what kind of opinions we have on the issues. So, we shall proceed in this exercise from two perspective, the reductionist and the non reductionist view. Now we will start with the reductionist view before that a quick take on what is reductionism. In various contexts we have talked about reductionism and non reductionism which are philosophical positions about various phenomena. So, when we talk about as perhaps many of you would guess that reductionism is the act of reducing one phenomena in terms of the other without loss of meaning and non reductionism is perhaps is granting atomicity or axiomatic foundation to one phenomena which may be correlated with another phenomena, but which definitely cannot be understood in terms of the other phenomena with out loss of meaning. So, we can in example a classical example of reduction would be that well we can understand the color green as a certain wavelength, but the color green cannot be reduced to certain wavelength because when we talk about the wavelength we leave about qualia or the perceptual feel of color that we have. So, for the reductionist about an issue, the reductionist would like to understand an issue in terms of another baser and more fundamental phenomena which will be which will completely explain the other phenomena without any loss of meaning. So, simplifying it reducing it into building blocks whereas, the non reductionist would claim that well we cannot do such a reduction without the loss of meaning. We can have a correlation we say a non reductionist about the mind would say that we can correlate mental phenomena to the neural or physical activities in the brain or the nervous system, but we cannot reduce mental activities to brain activities without loss of meaning.  It is that perceptual feel that cannot be understood or cannot comprehend in terms of that particular region of the brain firing up. So, this is basically the difference between reductionism and non reductionist on a metaethical theory when we talked about metaethics we also dealt upon, we dealt on how values were attempted to be reduced to facts and possibilities where values were non reducible and definitely not reducible to facts. Say for the utilitarian all values would were reducible to anything that promotes happiness or well-being of mankind which is a more empirical and physically measurable phenomena than say holding a value as intrinsically good because not because of its physical or perceivable consequences. So, non reductionist about values would say that well certain things are valuable in themselves and there we cannot reduce them to any further domain we cannot reduce them to facts at least to comprehend its meaning. So, a non reductionist about values would say that well if I follow my if I follow the principles of justice it may lead to welfare of the society but which is a fact but welfare of society is not the fundamental reason for pursuing justice and justice by itself perhaps has a an intuitive appeal which is not limited to the welfare that it brings along because there can be perceivable cases where even or there can be imaginable cases where the welfare of the society is not brought about by following principles of justice but again the reductionist would on the other hand argue that well considering a short term view or a long term view there can be a variation in the that values do ultimately reduce to a fact. So, these are two sides of a debate and perhaps to understand sexuality we will start with the these two perspectives on sexuality. So, now coming to the reductionist view as you see on the slide we talk about Goldman would be the classic case we take of sexuality in the reductionist sense. Goldman points out about the means and analysis of sexuality which views sexuality as the means to various hands to reproduce to love to communicate to express commitment and various other means. Now this kind of a means and end analysis ignores granting any force to the primal desire for physicality often referred as the animality animality of sex reaction so various trains may or may not ignore the above ascribed ends but are unanimous in granting the physicality component of sex as an undeniable motivation and unapologetically so. So what is Goldman saying over here? Well Goldman is trying to conceptualize that what do we consider or conceptually analyze this notion of sexuality. Now conventionally Goldman points out that we find that sexuality and sex undergo a means and analysis. So sex is never as an end in itself but is a means to something. It is a means to communicate with a partner, it is a means to convey affection, it is a means to love to express commitment, of course it is a means to reproduce also. So these seem to be the end for which sexuality is the means. Now this kind of a means and analysis where sexuality is seen as a means to various ends seems to leave out or underestimate if not leave out the primal physical component of sexuality that the pleasure emanating out of the act of sex is a fundamental motivation for sexuality seems to be left out by such a means and analysis. Now this is nothing new and this is nothing revelatory but this is trying to analyze why do we have so many moral notions around sexuality. Now for Goldman this kind of a and as he rightly titles his paper as plain sex he says that well this kind of means and analysis eliminates the immediate physicality or the animality as many would refer to of sexuality and this is as seen in the last bullet in the slide is this is what the reduction is argue against that well there may be many offshoots of sexuality which could include reproduction and to love to communicate to express commitment but fundamentally it is a physical act and the pleasure emanating out of it is the fundamental undeniable motivation and there is nothing to be apologetic about it. So reductionist of various trains except the effects may or may not except the ascribed above ascribed ends but what they are unanimous is that granting in granting the physicality component of sexuality as an undeniable motivation and unapologetically so. So now let us look at the argument what does the reductionist argue about the reductionist argues well for one conventionally all the ascribed ends to sex are taken as the rightful motivation for sex and anything else particularly physicality is considered as perversion. Now it is to be noted that well when it is mentioned that anything else apart from these ascribed ends is considered as a perversion. Now to the reductionist objects to this conventional conceptualization that the fundamental motivation is not only ignored in such a conceptualization but is also wrongly wronged. So that there is this big error that is being made in conceptualizing sexuality as a means to whatever ends as ascribed in the earlier slide at the cost of arguing out sexuality, arguing out the physicality of sexuality.  Now this is a very strong reductionist argument about sexuality that sexuality is fundamentally and ultimately physical and the pleasure emanating out of it is the primary and fundamental and the ultimate motivation of it. Now if you notice the entire taboo and the moral dilemmas and dictates and the entire plethora of moral engagement around morality depends on this fundamental conceptualization that we have that is sexuality, a physical act and nothing else or it is everything else and by the way it is also a physical act with physical pleasure coming in. So more Victorian morality would offer would consider sexuality as sin as especially when it is beyond the rules of the or established rules or custom of the social domain. Now sex and sin go together very often. So for the reductionist the reductionist brings back the physical element to sexuality and tries to explicate that well foundationally and fundamentally sexuality is physicality and it is a physical act and desired for the pleasure that comes out from it. Now if this is so now imagine this answers takes new direction or not new direction in the sense that it has not been taken before but this takes a different direction from established customs and moral flames about it that ultimately is it is coming on it hinges upon the libertarian principle that as long as nobody else is harmed it does not matter what kind of act it is and society or governance or politics has no business in entering into an act between people. Now for the reductionist what are the claims that we can see that come off that we can what the reductionist is saying what the reductionist is definitely not saying that sexuality is only a physical act for physical purposes as many would perhaps uncharitably condemn the reductionist. But what the reductionist is saying that sexuality is essentially a physical act and you may choose it to portray the various supposed beauties of human life of human associations of communication of love of affection you may choose it as an instrument to communicate so many things you may choose it as an instrument for love you may choose it as an instrument for various other supposedly higher ascribed ideals. But it nevertheless is foundationally fundamentally sexual or physical and that it cannot be done away with and we need to take into account that before we put this act in an give it a moral color to this. So, the extreme reductionist could of course come and say that well there is no business of any value assignment or value assessment on this particular issue that morality is that sexuality is definitely and fundamentally a sexual issue physical issue sorry and thereof it does not at all come in the domain of morality and what you may think or what society may propose is just a subjective value creation around sexuality. It is interesting to see how issues are intertwined together because this I understand it is also as a conflict between the two versions of liberty of freedom as positive liberty and negative liberty that well for from the non reductionist perspectives which we will talk about later in detail. But that justifies or that tries to explain that there are values surrounding sexuality and we must educate and guide our generations through these well trodden paths for them to realize the full beauty of life and the association that they have together. So, the non reductionist on the other hand would like to say especially the one who is very firm about the moral component of sexuality is that we need like positive liberty we need to get people to go to them into rules or these customs around sexuality so that they can reach the full potential and celebrate or reach the higher ideal which they would perhaps not ordinarily reach if negative liberty would be followed where they would say that it is our fundamental drive and if we are not cultured or cultivated into it we collapse into the default mode that is in us. Let me repeat an example which I have perhaps given in one of the earlier lectures that the positive liberty areas say that well freedom about anything say even about sexuality as I given analogy with depends on how one is cultured to appreciate it. The classical analogy of the example that I am referring to is one I talked about classical music. So, unless one is trained in the syntax of classical music perhaps one cannot enjoy classical music. Now, if I were following negative liberty I would say that well let me play a piece of classical music versus a piece of popular music to the untrained listener perhaps most often it will be the popular music that would appeal rather than the classical music. Now, the negative libertarians would say that well the final choices with the individual and let the individual choose. The positive libertarians on the other hand would say that well if I if we do not cultivate or we do not enlighten a listener about the nuances and the syntax of the grammar of classical music it is simply unfair for the listener to make an informed choice between the two pieces of music played. The popular music is bound to appeal more to the untrained listener. So, positive liberty would say that we need to culture and certain or we need to train the listener which does involve an infringement of the listener's liberty, but which ultimately makes the listener make an informed choice. So, basically many moral and philosophical issues can be understood under this great division between positive liberty and negative liberty. So, sexuality could be one further instance because the non reductionist would say that to not goad people by into moral customs around sexuality we allow the default mode in us which is essentially biological to overrule us or to take over and till we do not this default mode would given negative liberty would take over and one would perhaps not benefit from the wisdom of the ages. So, the positive libertarians on the other hand would say that we need these moral customs around sexuality or anything for that matter to let us reach the epitome of sexuality or any act for that matter. So, this is how of course we can understand the debate between the reductionist and the non reductionist between the ones who affirm positive liberty which says that well to realize freedom one needs to surrenders one's freedom at the beginning to evolve to learn and then to realize one's freedom whereas negative liberty would perhaps argue for freedom right at the beginning and that the individual is rational enough to choose that to surrender his or her own freedom to reach that level. So, this essentially brings about the dilemma between these two strains of thinking of positive liberty, negative liberty of reductionism and non reductionism. So, for now when we are trying to understand reductionism or the reductionist view of sexuality we see point number 3 that sexual desire is essentially a desire for sexual contact and the immediate pleasure emanating thereof and ignoring this is a fundamental error in conceptualization. Let us look at some other features of if you read the slide right now let us look at some other features of the reductionist view of sexuality. It says it talks about physical acts and the role that is not a day that is the role they play in survival. So, just as hunger plays a role in nourishment. So, this is contiguous with the understanding that sex as a pleasurable for evolutionary reason or for furthering species. A desire for sex is not the same as the desire for reproduction, companionship, communication or any other psychological manifestation that it has become. Self-consciousness and technology bring in choice. We will talk about the last issue later, but let us just take the first three points together. There seems to be quite a popular theory or a popular belief that sex is required for reproduction and evolution of or for the transmission of species and for species to grow and propagate and that is why this intense physical desire has been as a part of our biological makeup. But, for the reductionist here he would perhaps not like to succumb to this argument that the physicality of sexuality is only because of reproduction. Because continuing with the means and analysis the reductionist did say that well these are perhaps the various ends that sexuality serves, but it is definitely not confined to these ends as the motivation for sexuality and it could be intrinsically valuable because of the pleasure it emanates. So, things like that the popular evolutionary example, if you look at the slide the second issue, the popular evolutionary example or evolutionary reason given for furthering species that is evolutionary reason for sexuality is simply because in order to further species. Now, for the reductionist if you look at the third issue it is the desire for the sex, desire for sex is not the same as desire for reproduction, companionship, communication or any other psychological manifestations manifestation that it has become. Now, there are many manifestations about psychology, there are many psychological manifestations about sexuality and that seem to become the ends for which sexuality is serves as means, but the reductionist makes a clear distinction that well the desire for sex is not the same as the desire for any of these be it the biological or evolutionary reproduction, companionship, communication or any other psychological manifestation that it has become. So, this is making a clear epistemological difference between the desire for sex itself and the desire and all the other consequences that come along with it. Now, coming to it on a little further note when the last point raises in the slide that self-consciousness and technology bring in choice and more to choose from social and moral revelation finds its roots here. So, if you look at this well this is a crucial issue that or a shift that is being made that well the very fact that human beings are as a form of entity in this world are unique because of their ability to be self-aware and this self-awareness clubbed with technology is able to wedge these supposed ends to sexuality from the very act itself that it is no more required that reproduction necessarily follows from sexuality. So, this is the choice that technology has brought in with various forms of contraception and self-consciousness gives us this choice to choose the technology and to choose what we ought to do in this domain and this is where social and moral regulation come in and they find the roots here because of the implications of being self-aware and also having the technology to separate these supposed ends from the means as the means and analysis holds it. Now, it is in this space that is created that religion intervenes in this choice and choosing that primarily self-awareness and secondarily technology entail the premise being that the above two that is the choice and the ability to choose or the spread of the choice or the end the ability to choose allow for enormous exhaustion of our natural appetites which is ultimately detrimental. Now, that is the contestation here. So, when very often when religious and moral institutions or proponents of religious and moral dictates attack the reductionist using their own tools of empirical or scientific evidence they would claim that in a newer scenario in a scenario when human beings are self-aware primarily and secondly the technology has entailed the ability of separating the means from the ends and the ends are of regarding sexuality and the ends regarding sexuality are not a necessarily do not necessarily follow from the means that is when we have an element of choice and widespread to choose from. Self-awareness giving the power of choice is perhaps longer ability with the human race and technology may be over the past two or three centuries has enabled or has enhanced the spread of choice in this field. So, these two factors being combined there seems to be a possibility of enormous exhaustion of our natural appetites which is ultimately detrimental and that is the contestation. If you would find that many enthusiasts would perhaps analyze that well we now produce more food than what we need to have and we have the ability to enjoy food as a delicacy or as a aesthetic desire rather than for nourishment and primarily the aim of hunger was to ask the animal in us to consume food to nourish its own self. But this hunger and the pleasure that this hunger and the pleasure that came out of the satiation of which is now abused because of one of our self-awareness and now and secondarily as technology or as affluence enables for us to have a wide choice and this leads us to emphasize on the means which was just a signal for getting a nourishment into the creature now becomes a source of pleasure and therefore keeps on repeating and therefore chronic problems of medical problems regarding the excesses of food consumption do come into existence. Now that is what is contested that many enthusiasts would find the justification from this perspective. Religious regulation of sexuality finds its authority in such an appeal a case of positive liberty, goading individuals via moral dictates away from excesses and its eventual detrimental consequences. So, this is where religious regulation of sexuality comes into being that it seems to be a paradigm case of positive liberty where because of the possibility of self-awareness and the enormous possibility from technology we can have the act without what were earlier considered as essential consequences of it and therefore there tends to be tendency to slide into excesses of this and which perhaps it has been shown to be eventually detrimental in its consequences. But again now for the reductionist well that would be an abuse of any natural appetite that we have and the responsibility for it rests with the person himself or herself. Now let us look at another commonly held view which the reductionist attacks that well sex has communication or the vehicle of love. Now this is an often eulogized feature of sex that seeks to be the very goal of it and anything bereft of this is alleged meaningless. So the reductionist would dispute this dismissal or downgrading of the physical pleasure component of sex meaning cannot be lost on eliminating the communicative function. If there is no communicative function the much eulogized communicative function of feature of sexuality that has turned out or as the reductionist's alleged that it turns out that this seems to be seen as the goal of it and that when communication is lost meaning is lost in that function. So that is where the reductionist disagrees and of course and as an exception and the reductionist often sides that love can be communicated in various other ways thus what philosophically the reductionist would like to establish is that love commitment loyalty are ontologically distinct from sex or sexuality and having this clear distinction does away with many troubles. In fact the last point very clearly communicates the philosophical stand point of the reductionist about sexuality citing the independence of these notions and the troubles and the moralization of sexuality occurs because we fail to make this distinction between love commitment loyalty and other such values and sexuality and this distinction is the source of many troubles. So well finally what is the reductionist saying let us bullet it point by point well for one the reductionist is arguing against any exclusively moral categorization of sexuality sexuality is as much and only as much in the purview of morality as any human interaction is nothing exclusive because of the nature of it. So it is definitely not that the reductionist is claiming that sexuality is beyond the purview of morality but what the reductionist is simply saying is that sexuality is only in the purview of morality by the nature of it being a human interaction and nothing not in the purview or not peculiarly in any peculiar purview of morality because of the nature of it. So a common retort to this has been by making people who oppose reductionist would like to claim that well what about sexual offenses they seem to be immoral and they are immoral and what is the justification of it but then the answer for this is very clear from the philosophical understanding that the reductionist propagates. In the second point it said that sexual offenses are offenses only because of the deceit coercion and violence in it there being sexual is a mere coincidence and this in no way affects the moral status of the actor offense. So any sexual offense is immoral not because it is sexual but because of the other value components in it. So a rape is immoral because it is an act of unauthorized violation of a person's body, it is an act of violence, it is an act of coercion, it is an act against somebody's will and thereby it is immoral and thereby it entails the consequences that it does. So but that it is sexual does not alter the moral standing of the actor offense and this is a crucial claim that the reductionist would make. So now going ahead this view contests many of the established views on morality governing sexuality. For instance there is no justification and this is how the third point brings about consequences of such a reductionist worldview that well we do not do away with morals regarding sexuality but there is nothing what it just goes on as a consequence of the ontology of difference between sexuality and other values is that there is nothing peculiarly moral about sexual acts by their being sexual. They are moral only by their being human by their being acts of human interaction. So what are the consequences that follow from this? Now the consequences that follow from this is that well the established views on morality or established views governing sexuality for instance there is no justification to associate fidelity with sexuality unless it is voluntarily agreed to. So this is a crucial conclusion that or a consequence of the claim by the reductionist. When the reductionist makes a claim that well when a court of law holds fidelity as or infidelity as a violation of commitment and therefore punishable or cognizable it is following the reductionist argument it is cognizable only if it has been an explicit mutual agreement between the partners and then it has been violated but if it is not and it is thereby just the reason that violation of any contract is punishable because all the parties in a contract mutually agreed to such an arrangement. So infidelity is something wrong only because or only if all the partners have agreed to it. So if all the partners have not agreed to pursuing fidelity then it does not automatically become incorrect. So associating loyalty with fidelity seems to be the failure to make or the ontological distinction between values like loyalty and commitment with sexuality. Now if you look further consequences of this we would see that confusing love with sex brings forth many unnecessarily many unnecessary unnatural and unjustified dilemmas. So in fact the entire idea of the Victorian ethos can be very well traced to this failure to make this distinction between what according to the reductionist are apparently very clear and distinct concepts. The concepts of loyalty, commitment and values like this versus the physical sexuality. So not being able to make this difference brings about many unnecessary unnatural and unjustified dilemmas. Reductionism about sexuality is not the same as reducing love. Now however making these claims it is not unexpected that many of us would perhaps feel strongly about reductionism as being something which is reducing human interaction to a pithy state. Well definitely know what reductionism about sexuality is saying is that sexuality is physical and that is it. It is not saying this it is not attempting to reduce love or the various other values of commitment and human interaction. The argument herewith only make sexuality independent of certain other values. So unless the agents themselves choose to associate them. So that this central point needs to be read carefully the second bullet that because it conveys the ethos or the philosophy to claim of reductionism about sexuality. So it is definitely not reducing any other values. What it says is that sexuality is sexuality and nothing else and associating anything else with sexuality is a matter of choice of the agents themselves. But intrinsically there is nothing associated with sexuality and making this or going further to the next point when a prolonged history of the majority making this above mentioned association may have led to this conceptual binding of what has been shown to be independent concepts. Continuing to hold this unjustified conceptual binding simply leads to unjustified moral judgments. So as I conclude from what comes from the reductionist view that well sexuality and other values are ontologically distinct. But we have a prolonged history for the majority of humankind making this above association. And this association or this conceptual binding of which what has been shown by the reductionist as independent concepts leads to unjustified moral judgments simply because the majority have been associating sexuality with morality. And that does not entail that we can always do this for everyone and as long as people choose to associate it with it they are welcome to do so. But finding an intrinsic association with the two domains of morality and sexuality and thereby making binding on everybody else is an unjustified moral judgment. So the pleasure well on a final note when the reductionist puts out well which is if we tend to have a view that well perhaps the reductionist is over emphasizing the importance of sexuality and under emphasizing the importance of human relations then we have misunderstood the reductionist. The reductionist equally cherishes the values of what may be called the higher values of human interaction. What the reductionist only does is that she or he separates the conceptual binding the unjustified conceptual binding between these higher values that we call on one hand and sexuality on the other hand. So we can have a sexual domain which is immoral which does not intrinsically connect with any other values. However if the agents choose to associate the two that is the agents choice and if it is mutually agreed to and then there is a violation of course that is immoral because it is a violation of human mutuality which was previously agreed upon and that is why it is a violation. Again the reductionist does not overemphasize the importance of sexuality if you look at the last but one point made over here that the pleasure associated with sexuality is non-cumulative and that is a reason why it cannot be held as a lasting value for a lifetime. Now these are Goldman's views and Goldman does temper down reductionism which may seem to have an air of overemphasis on sexuality. He does tone it down by saying that well the pleasure associated with sexuality is non-cumulative and repetitive and that is why it is a reason that it cannot be of lasting value for a lifetime and thus perhaps a feeble component of the good life. So Goldman does admit that without any compromise in his position of reductionism that the pleasure associated with sexuality is definitely non-cumulative and thereby it is not of a lasting value and thus perhaps does not necessarily associate itself with the component of good life. So this is perhaps a rational look at what a reductionistic or any view of sexuality or the physical component of sexuality takes in the larger domain of the good life. So as Goldman finally claims that sex affords us a paradigm of pleasure but not a cornerstone of value. So well yes Goldman does admit that well sexuality is definitely not of the kind of value that perhaps other human values like loyalty and friendship and commitment are. In fact sexuality is not a value at all and therefore we can what even Goldman would agree on a meaningful life or a value rich life would necessarily not include the pleasures of sexuality because they do not seem to contribute. In fact by making sexuality physical Goldman is doing away with any value implications for better or for worse for the domain of sexuality. So sexuality is no more being seen as a supreme value that adds to the good life rather it is being seen as a source of pleasure which does not add in the cumulation of a good life. So it is as he says by saying that it does afford us a paradigm of pleasure but it is definitely not a cornerstone of value. Now we come to the non reductionist view of sexuality.


This video features the exploration of a website and on-screen text that resembles closed captioning. The Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative, AMTI, at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies has a two-fold mission to promote transparency about maritime Asia and to use innovative tools to better explain these complex issues to policymakers and the public. The heart of AMTI is its website, which includes the island tracker. This component of the site tracks land reclamation, artificial island building, and construction projects by all claimants in the South China Sea via satellite imagery. The island tracker collects detailed data on the size of the features in the South China Sea, the amount of land that has been reclaimed and provides before and after imagery as evidence. Early in its life, AMTI had a major impact on the international discussion of China's artificial island building and militarization in the South China Sea, which the initiative carefully tracked using high-resolution satellite imagery. This work reduces chances of irreversible acts and miscalculation in some of the world's most disputed waterways, forces illicit and aggressive actors to operate in full view of the world, and hopefully incentivizes parties to manage their disputes more peacefully and equitably.


Russia's Defense Ministry said on May 16 that it had destroyed a US-built Patriot surface-to-air missile defense system with a hypersonic Kinzel missile in an overnight strike on Ukraine. The ministry said in its daily briefing on the Ukraine conflict that it that the overnight strikes had also been aimed at Ukrainian fighting units and ammunition storage sites. It also said that it had done seven long-range storm shadow missiles supplied to Ukraine by Britain, which announced last week that it was providing them as well as shorter-range US-built Hamar's launched and harm missiles. Russia's Defense Ministry said on May 16 that it had destroyed a US-built Patriot surface-to-air missile in an overnight strike on Ukraine.


So I'm going to be taking a bit of the trip to the past today. Hello, this is hello in ancient Greek. And that's hello in Australian, which is where I'm from. Now, ancient Greece might seem like a really long way away, and well, that's because it is. And I've also traveled a really long way to get here today, too. All the way from Australia, which is all the way over there. And I'm from Melbourne, which is at the bottom. Some people think it's a little upside down on the other side of the world. Maybe it is, maybe it's not. Many of you know Australia for our wildlife. These are regular photos that my mom sends to me. If you'd like regular Python updates, feel free to follow me on Twitter. Not about the language, I'm afraid. Generally more related to the reptile. Australia is also known for its other animals, like kangaroos. This is a marsupial known by most as something that young children like to ride to school. We also have this little thing called a platypus, which is also referred to as a duckbill platypus. What makes him so interesting is that he's a semi-aquatic egg laying mammal, which means it's a mammal that lays eggs instead of giving birth to live young. And it can also produce milk. So I think they're actually one of the only animals that can make it so encustered. That's kind of weird, but whatever. And this is a coca, and look, it's just adorable. This is just really cute. So I work at a place called The Conversation. And most of our small team of droolipers are based in Australia, but we have some in London and we have some in Brazil at the moment, too. We also have 150 editorial staff spread around the world for the eight different regional editions that make up The Conversation. So The Conversation is a non-for-profit where an independent source of news and views, an academic newsboard, basically. Editorial staff work with academic experts to report on a huge range of topics, from economic trends, politics, climate issues, and also cultural reviews and things. One of my favorite parts of The Conversation is called Fact Check, where we strive to tackle misinformation and test claims made by political leaders against the evidence that they report. This is particularly important in our current political climate. We have an on-site readership of 10 million and 30 million readers through republication a month. Currently, there's 1.1 billion readers recorded in our data warehouse, and we're continuing to expand. And yes, we do have a US edition, and I promise you we don't publish fake news. But I wasn't aware of the programmer, and it was just over two years ago that The Conversation gave me a wonderful opportunity to learn on the job. Before that, I'd very briefly dabbled in Ruby and written a few small programs here and there. But I generally spent my time working with artifacts in antiquity and heritage museums, as well as studying classical language. So this is generally what you first learn when you learn a modern language. Here's the Hello World for Learning Ruby. And here's when you first learn for classical Greek. So the Greeks did tend to be a little bit dramatic. Yeah, this is from Homer's Lot of Sea, if you're interested. So when I first began programming, one of the first things I learned about was the law of Demeter. And I remember this specifically, because I thought it must have been a coincidence that something in programming and something prevalent enough to learn so early could have ties to Greek mythology. Now, the law of Demeter was named for the origin in the Demeter project, which was named in honor of Demeter herself. Demeter is, or was in Greek mythology, the distribution mother, Mother Earth, if you will, the goddess of agriculture, of fertility. And she's also known for her association with sacred law and legislators. And yes, it is pronounced Demeter, although this does depend on which dialect of Greek you are speaking. So thanks to Demeter, this career king from archaeology and classics to coding suddenly didn't seem so dramatic. And all the links between these two disciplines, they may seem tenuous at best. They suddenly weren't. And over time, I found that there's some really strong parallels between the two. And now I'm finding myself identifying many facets of programming with history. Kubernetes, which comes from the Attic Greek, tekubernau, meaning to steer or to govern, and frequently referring to a helmsman or captain with Kubernetes are the first to claim masculine noun, but known most likely to you as deployment containers. The recent project, Aristotle, which was a study by the people analytics team at Google, to help answer what makes a team effective. With the project taking its name from Aristotle as a tribute to this very loosely translated quote, the whole is greater than the sum of its part, meaning we can achieve more if we work together. Zeus, of course, as God of the sky and thunder and also ruler of the gods, but also known in programming as an IDE, an integrated development environment. So we've got Demeter, we've got Kubernetes, we've got Aristotle, and we've got Zeus. So although we don't realize it, we are surrounded by history, but I'd like to go a little bit deeper than that today. And today I'm gonna talk to you about human intention in the archeological record and what this means for us as programmers, stratigraphy in context and technology itself. And although you've already had a small one, there'll be a few history lessons along the way. So how often do you dig through or commit history, peeling away layers of complexity, sifting for clues, trying to answer why? Why does this code do what it does? You're seeking to separate the important from the unnecessary or irrelevant, only to be stopped in your tracks, derailed by historical debris, an ill-defined method with an amusing but uninformative commit message. If you've all been there, I know that I certainly have. Every day we write code and we commit it, and those commits, for better or worse, preserve a piece of history, our reasons, our approach, and often our emotions. And this history lives on throughout the life of a project. And yet often the whole story, the reason why certain decisions were made is very rarely clear. The obvious decision may not have always been the best one. And when we finally manage to peel back the complexity, we sometimes find ourself in a worse state of confusion than where we began. So how can we make sense of this? What can we do? And to me, the answer is clear. And it lies in archaeology. So what is archaeology? What does an archaeologist do? This, this, this. Thanks to popular culture, you may have thought that maybe one of these represented archaeology. And that's totally okay. But I'm afraid that these are common misconceptions. Archaeology is not dinosaurs. It's usually not piles of gold, but it is definitely not Indiana Jones busting into a booby trap too. Adventure stories like these prevalent in popular culture, and they ignore the painstaking work involved in carrying out excavations and analysis. Does that sound familiar? Archaeology is instead a study of cultural history, of material culture, of people and the traces that they left behind. It is a never-ending detective story. And often, code is also a never-ending detective story. Yet archaeology is also the science of the past using observations and evaluations to test ideas and theories about what happened in antiquity, providing us with a fascinating and frequently beautiful window into the past. Now, I know that this sounds rather romantic, a window into the past to interpret as you will, but using strong scientific principles to ground interpretation. But it is also important to remember that the archaeological record is a distorted version of past events. Artifacts are broken, buildings burn and collapse. Food remains are usually only partially preserved if you're lucky. Not all sites, and in fact, barely any, with the exception of Pompeii, are perfectly preserved. But once archaeologists recognize that these processes influence the preservation and evolution of a site, they are able to look for reliable ways to reconstruct past human behaviors, to interpret these behaviors, these traces of individuality. So let's talk about that, human intention in the archaeological record and what that means for us as programmers. One of the most frequent cliches heard is that you cannot see the individual in the archaeological record, but it does contain very direct evidence of individual action and human intention, the digging of a rubbish pit, the construction of house foundations, the scratchings on a piece of ceramic to exile your least favorite politician. And we can often see such individuality with the first glance at a code base, how certain tests have been structured a certain way or the timestamp on a commit. But yet when I first began programming and frequently when pair programming, I'd hear my colleagues claims things like, oh, that's certainly something that Mark wrote or this class has written James all over it. And this is how I saw it. I couldn't, I couldn't see the individual in the code. I could not see the quirks that made one spec stand out as being written by one person instead of the other. I could not see intention, purpose, individuality. And I couldn't fathom how my colleagues possibly could. Now, for those of you that have been programming and working with others for a long time, this might seem like a really small thing. But the realization that you could actually see the individual within lines of code, it made me comfortable because it reminded me of how I would search for traces of individuality from antiquity. Now, there's this beautiful Greek word praxis, the main discussion of which comes from Aristotle. Aristotle, again, was a philosopher in the fourth century BC, which was at the height of classical Greece. He was a student of Plato and tutor of Alexander the Great. So Aristotle's politics and ethics treated praxis as an activity performed for its own sake, an activity which is undertaken as a realization of the intrinsic high capabilities of the human psyche. I'm not sure if you could decide for exactly what I just said, Aristotle can be a bit like that. This is what I meant, praxis. This word praxis sounds a lot like our modern practice. And that's because practice and praxis are derivatives of it. Praxis itself draws from the Attic Greek feminine noun, hepraxis, meaning fact or action, and the verb prato or praso, which means to do or to perform. Now, what I love about this word and the idea of this word is it's innate reflexivity. You, as the actor, are the one making the decisions when you write a method, a class, a model, you are making a decision to write it a certain way. Now, archeologically, I like to think about praxis as gaining knowledge about the world through observation or in a physical sense through excavation, the result of which being an examination of the relationship between humans and structures of society or an interpretation of these relationships. So let's think about interpretation as constructing a story of past behavior, a story that has a potential for alternate explanation. And think back to what I said earlier about archeology being an interpretive window into the past. So archeologists don't just find artifacts, describe or identify patterns of behavior and put them in time and space in the way that they want. They do it in a way that best suits the perceived interpretation. So we write code that fits into particular times and particular spaces. We write certain patterns of behaviors certain ways, be it language convention, team convention, or personal preference. We are writing code for the future to potentially come back and excavate, to interpret. Now, it's common human behavior to take your cuts. Many people do it all the time. And as programmers, we frequently do too because we are human. But there are many reasons why we may need to do this to write a particular piece of code a certain way. You might be under time pressure at work or the code itself might be forcing something to be written a certain way. And it can be easy to forget these things when you're the one in the future looking back, trying to reconstruct this story and not knowing how to interpret it. Not knowing how interpret the reasoning, the meaning, the story behind the code. Sometimes forgetting that there are alternate explanations and interpretations for things. Different circumstances require different actions and acknowledging these actions can help guide understanding the idiosyncrasies that form the whole picture. So this relationship between praxis and excavation, between interpretation, it puts individual intention and desire into the picture, into the code, into the archeological record. And these traces of individuality that we leave behind in our code, they personify it. And they are all expressions of human decision-making. And in the same way that the individual is present in the archeological record, in a pottery fragment, ostracizing again from Athens or the precise brush strokes that form a pattern. So are we within the code that we write and the decisions that we make to do it. Okay, so let's talk about context now, context and stratigraphy. So as programmers, we are lucky to be able to create a history that remains flat and readable. We have the luxury to rewrite and sanitize history. In the interest of a clean history, manipulating a single commit is easy. Manipulating two commits is easy. But it's essential to be aware that history isn't polluted and context isn't lost. So think about the ability that gives us to view historical snapshots of a code base at any point. An archeologist rarely sees more than a single reference frame at any one point. Portions of sites are uncovered. Everything is recorded as data. And a new reference frame is revealed. The first layer is forever destroyed by the virtue of this second being revealed. So think about this discussion in a programmatic sense from a developer's perspective. This is why you do not force push into master. So in archeology, these reference frames are called stratigraphy. And stratigraphy provides a fundamental basis for understanding chronological relationships in the archeological record. Think about stratigraphy in terms of a layer cake where the top layers are the youngest and the bottom, the oldest. Okay, maybe not a handbag, but more like a book on its side with layers of information, one on top of the other. A sequence from start to end. Now, I feel like I almost don't need to say this, but when you type git log, you've got your commits in that repo made in reverse conlogical order. A sequence, a story from end to start with the most recent commits first. So in order to understand the why of how events occurred, we can use chronological relationships when in the archeological record to get from static material to dynamic behavior. And we can do the same to understand events in the history of our repos. So, our git logs are generally formed in a fairly straightforward way. Our commits are instantaneously preserved, yet archeological sites are formed in complex ways. They are not instantaneously formed and preserved with the exception of Pompeii, of course. The archeological record forms slowly as a cumulative record, like a git log, but with a few more Romans thrown in. So, let's take a look at the Temple of Apollo at Corinth. The temple and Corinth itself has had a tumultuous history, much like most of ancient Greece. Periods of prosperity, followed by seemingly unending wars and conflicts to being ransacked by Romans and razed to the ground in 146 BC. Walls dismantled, territory given to a neighboring city. So, Corinth started again and rebuilt. And almost all of what remains of ancient Corinth is the Roman version. So, how do we date what there is that predates the Roman era? Well, we can do that with context. Context is a place and association of artifacts. It is the relationships that we can infer from such associations. It is a precise location where an object is found and recorded before it is removed from a site. So, the architectural features of the temple placed in the archaic period, which is broadly from the 8th to the 5th centuries BC. Yet the only external evidence for the date of the temple so far consists of part of a Middle Corinthian crater, which is a pot, basically. And this was found among the ships of stone lying between the cuttings for the foundation walls of the temple. And this means that the Temple of Apollo can be accurately dated to the middle of the 7th century BC at 625. So, we can understand the why of the temple, the when of the temple, but not the why. How do we know that it's a temple dedicated to Apollo? If not such much of a site remains and there's only two features that mean what we can accurately date it, how can we possibly determine its dedication to a particular deity? In this case, we know archaeologists know that the temple was dedicated to Apollo, again, thanks to context and association. So, just quickly, this is Apollo, the son of Zeus and Leto. He has been recognized variously as the god of light, sun, truth, prophecy, healing, music, poetry. He was an miraculous god, the prophetic deity of the Delphic Oracle, and considered the leader of the muses and thus the patron god of music. Depictions of Apollo were really, really common throughout the Greek and later Roman worlds. And he was sought to have been the characterization of this popular archaic chaos, the male version of this kure that I showed you earlier. So you couldn't imagine that the iconography of a temple dedicated to a god like this would be prolific. But remember, what we see today is not an accurate reflection of how it was in the past, and the archaeological record is formed in complex ways. In the same way that the current iteration of Master is not what it was an hour a week a month ago. So we know that currents were sucked by Romans and raised to the ground. And although there are a few surviving fragments which could have been sculpture of dedications, they do offer no indication to the, indication to the identity of the cult to which it was dedicated. But just north of the temple, a deposit of Arabalo was excavated. These are perfume or oil flasks. And they generally considered very suitable dedications to Apollo. And Porzanius, who was a Greek travelungeographer, he visited current in 175 AD, which was after the destruction of the city by the Romans. And he described a temple dedicated to Apollo located in the exact same spot that we find it today. So it is the complementary evidence of both written and archaeological records and the context of items within a record that has allowed archaeologists to date and dedicate the temple. And without that evidence, we still might not have a date for it or dedication for it. We may not understand, just like how working out how a big class is very frequently impossible until you can see how and where it's used. Understanding the where and the when something has come from is the main challenge of archaeology. And we are lucky that it gives us this ability, the ability to decipher where things belong. This innate desire to belong has been a driving force throughout human history. We want to know where we've come from and how we got there. And it is often context and association between artifacts, between code that allows us in the future, looking back to be able to decipher such belonging. Now from the late 1800s to the early 1900s, there was a debate raging in anthropological, scientific and cultural circles in North America. When did human beings first arrive in North America? At the time, the generally accepted time for occupation was between 9,000 to 8,000 BC. But then in the 1920s, a stone spear point was found lodged between the ribs of a bison. And this is significant because this particular species of bison had been extinct for thousands of years. In fact, thousands and thousands of years. It went extinct at the end of the last biceach in the Pleistocene. So the Pleistocene was the geological epoch which lasted from about 2.5 million to 11 and a half thousand years, BP. It is the first epoch of the equiternary period between the Pleistocene and the Holocene epochs. And it also corresponded to the end of the Paleolithic age, meaning old stone age term you may be more familiar with. So this particular spear point is characterized as a Folsom point. And Folsom points are found very widely across North America. And it is this context, this direct association between the bones of an extinct species and a spear point that was crafted from human hands and flung into a bison that conclusively proved that human beings were in North America during the last ice age, which was thousands of years earlier than previously thought. So remember, archeologically, context has to do with place and association among artifacts and the relationships we can infer from such associations. Context allows us as programmers, archaeologists, historians to build up webs of associations. So think about how methods all are about defining behavior so that you can apply them easily to different situations or like how you use modules for groupings to add context. Not all knowledge about a site can be found in its history, in its issues, in its pull requests. Remove an artifact from a site without properly documenting it means it has lost all context. It lost its age, its use, and its perceived meaning. It has little to no scientific or cultural value. So I recently ran into a surprising issue at work where I had to make a small change to a view. All I had to do was change the error on an error message. It was simple, it was easy. And then I went to check my change in situ. Although I could trigger the action to show the message, I wasn't seeing the error. I couldn't confirm that my change was okay. Logged to showing me a 404 and yet I was expecting a 403. So I flicked back to master, still 404s. So I could confirm that my change wasn't the problem. But at some point in the past, God knows how many years, five, the status code, the status code when making an XHR request changed from a 403 to a 404. I added a regression test and then I began a biosect. But after I'd gone back a year, I had to bring out the Git blame or context. I definitely recommend using an alias for blame. So with that, it didn't take me very long to realize that the feature was introduced all the way back in 2012. So where did it go wrong? I grabbed the share of the commit, the introduce the feature and checked it out. Since I suspected that this was an authorization error, I did a Git log on that five year old commit and looked for relatable, but suspicious commit messages or branch mergers around the time the feature was introduced.  So this authorization had been broken for years. And once I'd finally isolated where the problem originated, implementing a fix didn't take very long at all. So this small little change, this very minor adjustment to a view, it snowballed into an epic excavation of the code base, leading me all the way back to the beginning of its history. So mid last year, the conversation logged into Indonesia as its eighth region and third language. The first language was English, the third second was French and the third was Indonesian. So preparing a platform to support multiple languages is no small feat. And it requires code changes, realization changes, changes in sentences construction and input from translators. The list just goes on and on. But the Indonesian launch went really smoothly. We were happy, the team in Indonesia was happy and readership from them, Indonesia's just kept on growing. Until this, we began to see Indonesian leading to aspects. And this was noticeable in acceptance specs that use rack test, where the test and the app code were running on the same thread. So a spec that ran at some point earlier would change the locale instead of using the fullback English. And it was just a few here and there, so we kind of didn't really worry about it too much. We had more important things to do until this. And pretty soon, our build hygiene began to deteriorate and enough was absolutely enough. I got out of my biosec and unlike the previous example, I had three very specific pointers to guide me. I had a timeframe of where the issue began. I knew where the problem was isolated in acceptance specs that were using rack test. And I knew that the issue had to do with I-18N. So all these three things meant that isolating and identifying the problem didn't take me very long. But also like the previous example, I had a good commit message and history to guide me to that point. So while these are both fairly standard workflows to identify problems like these, such problems, such changes, such solutions, they appear straightforward enough. Just a small change to overview. This is simple, this is easy. And then suddenly you can't trigger an exception. You can't see a change in situ. And this is why leaving developers good context is important. Otherwise maybe you've got a method whose name doesn't accurately reflect its purpose and an unhelpful commit message. You aren't able to decipher what's going on. You aren't getting the whole story, the whole context. Your code is an undated, unexamined pot on a dusty shelf in a museum. It is a temple without a fragment. It is a spear point lying alone. No one knows where it's come from or what its purpose was. And changing code like that is dangerous. So isolating and identifying those two problems, it didn't take very much because I'd been left with a really good history. I had a clear and concise commit message and well yes, I was lucky because I knew what sort of change to look for. It was still enormously helpful. I would have taken a lot more time trying to see where the change was made if the code base was riddled with things like fix or whip or ODSCS being a bit tricky. So although team conventions may differ, my team generally follows the GitHub recommended guidelines. Where a commit is a short 50 to 75 summary, 50 to 75 char or less summary of the changes followed by a blank line and more explanatory text below. The imperative noted on my last slide means a direct verb, basically a command. So the summary should always be able to complete this sentence here. So it's important that the commit message doesn't rely too heavily on assumed knowledge because you can't always assume that the code itself is self-evident of the original problem. And this is why context is important, archeologically and programmatically, but all is not lost. Remember, as developers, we have the ability to create history, a history that is flat and readable that we can sanitize and improve. Now to finish, I'm just gonna talk a really little bit about technology itself. We work with technology every day and its roots are fascinating. So this is definitely the last one from us. The word technology itself comes from the Attic Greek feminine noun, heitechni, meaning skew with art or skew with craft. Aristotle, again, had a focused but simple restricted concept of techni. He defined it as a rational faculty exercise in making something, a productive quality. The suffix oligy is the first collection of logia, meaning to study or collect knowledge. And we can then trace that to logos, hologos as a masculine noun or lego as a verb, broadly meaning discourse, expression, history, thought, and interestingly enough, reckoning and computation. So we can be a bit more fluid with our interpretation of technology. I like to think of it as an idea of outwardly expanding yet nested set of actions and relationships. Human intent and desire of making and creating. And of course, a study of that. So in a broad sense, technology has defined us as a species. And I don't mean this because we are the sole users of tools because we aren't. I mean this because we have all interacted with some form of technology. We have a dependence on technology and this has led to an unprecedented complexity in technologies. And this underwrites the confidence that technology can iron out many problems which lends itself to a dependence on technology for mundane tasks. And for some, this can create a sense of despair. Individuals are no longer able to understand or reproduce society's technology. And this negative side of technology is becoming more and more apparent. So let us look to the past where archeology focuses on technological changes as an adaption. An adaption to problems. Problems like population growth, perceived needs. From stone technologies, manipulation of natural materials to the first computer, progressing to how we use technology today. And a lot of programming is merely an adaption to problems. And code is a way of fixing problems. Humans throughout history have taken pride in their technological achievements. And we as programmers are no different. It's important to take pride in what you do. No matter how small your contribution may seem or appear. Take pride in your code, in your intentions, in your decisions, in your commits. Your history will thank you for it. Thank you.


I didn't think it'd be all right. We will convene this March 5th 2019 annual city meeting public information hearing at 5 0 5 We still need to do all the approval of agendas and everything I assume so is there motion on the agenda Councillor Bushier I'll move to a top the agenda is presented Second moved by Councillor Bushier seconded by Councillor Tracy. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye and opposed. We have our agenda Yes, let's do the pledge of allegiance Okay First item on the agenda is the number one is the approval of the school budget for fiscal year 2020 Nathan Lavery is come on up and tell us a little bit about this school budget ballot question Board will recall that this is brought to your attention in the past the ballot question calls for a total budget of Just about eighty eight point seven million dollars We in the the state mandated ballot language can be a little bit confusing But questions were most commonly asked is how much did the budget increase and that in terms of the total budget That was about a four point 36 percent increase and then people also ask what is the tax impact of that increase of that increase and for property taxpayers The estimate we're using is four point eight six percent increase and for income payers that it is a Point four three percent increase those figures particularly the property Figure is Well, really both of them are subject to change based on Still a few outstanding factors one being equalized pupil counts Which were very late in kind of being ironed out by the state this year for a variety of reasons At this point while we haven't you know the dust hasn't settled on that It's moving in the right direction So I think there's a fair chance that when the dust does settle on that front The equalized pupils for the Burlington school district will go up meaning that the tax rate Change will actually decrease slightly So there this is one of those areas where I think most of the risk so to speak is moving in the right direction for us But again, all of this is subject to change as well as obviously changes that could be made by the legislature and then Governor reaching different agreements on things like the dollar yield and that sort of thing All right. Thank you And city attorney, we should invite the public on each item or at the end of all of them at each one I think at each item makes sense. Okay, is there any comments or questions from the public on item number one? Dealing with the school budget for fiscal year 2020 Hearing none. All right. Thank you, Nathan. Thank you Item number two is an increase in the maximum tax rate for general city purposes Is that one going to be from the CAO Beth Anderson? So this question asks the for an increase in the general city tax rate to be increased by $1.25 from point two six oh four to point two seven two nine which Sorry represents a 1.5 percent increase in the FY 19 from the FY 19 tax rate. Okay Any questions or comments from the public on item number two the Maximum tax rate for general city purposes for this year Councillor busher Can I just before before Nathan leaves and what? Can I just get clarity? Certainly because I do get asked this question If the public votes for this This is the maximum that that you can tax but You don't necessarily have to Call up that entire amount. Can can both of you speak to that? Yeah, I can I can speak to that with respect to the school Portion that is not how it works. It's different from the municipal the municipal side where I believe that is the case But for the schools what we are saying is this is what will happen really what we are The main issue is how much money does the school district get from the state education fund and that number will be fixed We will get that amount of money The tax rate impacts as I said are the product of a few variables a couple of which could potentially change So there it's subject to change for that reason But we won't it's not subject to change because we'll say well We don't need this money or that money or we need more money that we don't have either of those options Okay, thank you Could the CAO respond to that CEO Anderson? Yes So ours is slightly different in that they're approving the public would be approving a taxing authority We do not have to tax to that authority and in fact for the past number of years for the so for fiscal years 1718 and the current fiscal year 19. We are not taxing to the full authority So what we do as you're well aware is each year as we go through the budget review and approval process Determined what we do need to spend to cover the basic city operations and Tax for the amount we need to cover and when we don't feel that we need to we do not tax to that full authority Does that answer your question? Yes, it does. Thank you I hope that the people that have asked that question have a chance to watch this Thank you for that clarification Councillor busher. So with city attorney Blackwood Could I just add one Clarification for the public that might be confused about this on the for the school the public votes on the budget So what you're voting on is the budget the amount that the school is spending for the city the city council Creates and approves the budget the voters don't vote on the budget just on the tax rate So that's why these are different Also a good clarification Anything else Okay, so we we did do the if anyone who wanted to speak or comment on I have number two and But you'll need to do it in front of the microphone and you need to pull the microphone in It's okay And I really wanted to comment since you brought it back open about the school department and and having an understanding of that And obviously I need I think I need to get more involved in it because it's it's very frustrating that Frustrating as a taxpayer that every single year continually You know more money is asked for and I really feel like a complete evaluation of their budget is Would be necessary is necessary because I feel like every year we can continually just You know hand over money so with that said I'll move on to the second thing and From working at the city. I I know How difficult it is to make the decision to raise taxes even a little teeny bit But seeing the last few CAO's come in and what we've gone through to try to make a budget balance without a tax increase Literally going through every single line item of every single person's budget Right down to their office supplies and asking them if they really need that extra hundred dollars So I am definitely in support of this tax Honestly, I think it probably Could have been more than that. We really could use more than that Thank you, Ms. Barton appreciate it Okay, anyone else on that item Hearing none, we will go to item number three and that is a proposed charter change to create Department of permitting and inspections and make zoning administrator and planning director Mayoral appointments rather than be appointed by the Planning Commission as it is now Hello and bill Ward here to present on this one Gentlemen a 45 minute presentation prepared for you I only gave you a half an hour The third question is about creating a new permitting and inspections department Which would directly address concerns that have endured about the city's permitting process for decades The proposal is to merge three existing components of different departments into one department That would be the ISD the inspection services component of DPW Director Bill Ward's code enforcement office And the zoning portion of planning and zoning into one department and locate that department at 645 Pine Street Anything for mr. Ward I Would just say that we've presented this both at a few different public forums And I wanted to be available in the event that people had specific questions about the overall item or Things that they've seen at other meetings that they didn't get a chance to whether it's counselors or members of the public Thank you both and again as I've said before and others have thank you for the great work on this From both of you and other departments heads as well Questions any one in the public who would like to speak on this charter change or ask any questions? Any city counselor? Okay, thank you very much Close item number three Item number four is the proposed charter change is to strengthen and restructure the downtown improvement district Council roof are you gonna speak to that one? I wasn't I wasn't aware that I would be but I'm certainly happy to also. I think Attorney Blackwood might be good to do that as well. Okay city attorney Blackwood and if council roof would like to add comments Yes, that'd be fine This question looks at the downtown improvement district currently this the city charter sets out a downtown improvement district that is limited to providing funding for the free parking two-hour free parking program and this is Expanding both what that downtown improvement district does and expanding expanding the boundaries of That that district so first it expands the when you look at the Short-form question on the ballot you will see a list of the major things that because this is a very long charter change We had to do a short form question to make sure that we could fit it on the ballot Please make sure that you look at the official copy of the charter changes because that has all the language of the entire For the entire district, but the summary of the changes are that it expands the boundaries It redefines the purposes of the DID so that it is doing much more like what the Church Street Marketplace Commission and district currently do But it does it for the larger area of the whole downtown improvement district area There's also a there's a lot of information about this charter change up on the city's website on the elections page you will see there's Information concerning the ballot questions and if you click on that you can get to Specifics and in this particular instance there there are quite a number of documents leading up to the adoption of this new language the It will establish a non-profit entity to manage this DID and replace the Church Street Marketplace Commission So everyone should be clear that this DID is going to replace the Church Street Marketplace Commission the Change goes on to describe the powers and duties of the non-profit entity and the relative powers and duties of the city council within that DID there the City council is going to continue to have the authority in the city and all of its city departments to Conduct all of the general government services that the city has been doing this district will Create a special assessment fee on certain of the non Residential properties within the disc the DID area that will be used by that non-profit entity to address the purposes of the DID So the money that is raised from this special assessment So this is not being paid for by all the taxpayers but by certain properties within the DID and those properties will Pay that special assessment into the city which will then Turn the money over to the DID to administer the purposes of the DID The city will continue to provide the services that it provides to other taxpayers as well This also provides a process for appeals and for abatement requests for property owners who get have circumstances that Warrant those it creates a provision for enforcement and collection of that fee and It deletes provisions of the article related to the prior DID in Church Street Marketplace It does have a sunset provision that will automatically end the DID after 10 years if it is not renewed So all of that is a general very broad overview of The DID change that is proposed And so the council at that time 10 years from now we'll have to take an action to Renew it correct the council would take action to To renew it in addition in what I didn't mention is that once if if the voters pass this Authorization it then like other charter changes goes to the legislature and the governor has to sign it once that is done then the then the folks that are organizing the DID and the the Charter change lays out who Who those folks represent? They will negotiate with a city council or with the city and come to the city council with things like their bylaws with a management plan And other details of their operations Thank you Council roof. Did you want to make any remarks? Okay, thank you And open that up to the public any comments or questions from the public Ms. Barton come on up. I want to say I'm not exactly sure how I feel about this I I didn't hear a lot about it before it was placed on the ballot I found it really difficult to read the document that was online It was probably 20 something pages and a lot of things are underlined a lot of things are crossed out so At the end I was asking myself. What is this really going to do? As someone who Works with the different departments here I'm curious as to how this is going to affect traffic because it talks about parking But yet traffic is in charge of the parking garages So it seems like there might be a little bit of a conflict with how this could potentially be managed as well Who anyone won't can respond to that council roof or city attorney Blackwood? Just correct me if I'm wrong here city attorney Blackwood, but the Proposal as it's written does not cede any power That is normal that is typical for the the city so the city will maintain all of its authority around Parking and transportation This this district will not have any special privileges or rights around managing The rights of way whether they be on the street or sidewalk or anything like that So any issues around parking will still remain issues to be directed towards Those who manage those those assets and policies This the district could potentially help to Fund things but not manage things in the way that that the government does So my other question is because Eileen you had said that This is going to be funded through a special assessment So that means that the taxpayers that are in this district are going to fund all activities And then there's not going to be any contributions from the city Correct there will be no contributions from the city and and the special in terms of that special assessment fee to the DEA to to this new DID non-profit entity That the city will get a fee for Collecting the money from the the special assessment so there will be a fee to the clerk treasurer's office For example for the time to collect the fees. Okay. Thank you Thank you, and I think it's it is I mean for voters that I look trying to look at that document I think it probably can be confusing to have all the Cross-outs and Is there any way to Have a version that doesn't have that or I mean I know the cross-outs are stuff that is eliminated obviously So it may be right. I I mean if if people think it would be helpful We could put a totally clean version up as an alternative But I don't want to mislead anybody because the chain It's important to look at the changes and see what the existing charter language says and what is being changed Council roof would just request if a clean version is put on just on that document somewhere to note Just what you just said because I do think that it's just as important for folks to recognize what the strikeouts are Then what the what is what's left over? So I just want to make sure that is our request that a note be on that document somewhere or maybe multiple times just to reference those changes Councillor Shannon Thank you for raising the point I actually had requested a clean copy for myself because I found it difficult and maybe if we can leave the Leave leave up the one that has all the changes in it Which is important and then also and and label each of them that one has all the changes and one is a clean copy of the current proposal That would be helpful. Thanks Thank You councillor Shannon. I think that is a good idea. I support as well councillor busher Sorry CEO Anderson is suggesting I clarify that all this information is on the city's website So if you go to elections, and then there is a little I don't know what you call them. I'm a link That you can that you can Click on that says information about ballot questions And if you click on that you you you will see and it'll have all of the questions. We're going over tonight Including this one and then if you click on this one that is the DID there are there's a whole bunch of documents reference that That led up to this including a lot of the background information So I think we can add this To the background information and we can put on it very clearly that this is if the changes are adopted This is what it would look like Thank You city attorney blackwood councillor busher So I think that would be helpful, but I also know that a lot of people go to the polling place and Read that read the questions sometimes for the first time So and that's just the way it is and so I'm wondering if We can have both versions at the polling place and my question also is Which is separate, which was my original question is at the polling place Will there be the map that shows the DID as opposed to the language because I think the map is really important the language is Challenging I can never figure it out I always have to see the map when they say you know north here and south here and blah blah blah anyway We might have to check with the Secretary of State's office about before we commit to Putting those documents at the polling places because I don't know the answer off the top of my head We're not allowed to put promotional materials for example, and these are not The these are informational background not the actual question that people are voting on in In the sense that the question you're voting on is whether to change the charter So that's why it shows the changes. So I don't see this as in from I see that the language is the short version, but what is being cited by my fellow councillors is the full Text of what we're doing. So I don't see that as as Informational I see that as relevant and is just the the extended language My question regarding the map is just further clarity to unto Explain the expanded boundaries, which I think is also germane. It's not It's relevant to the question I fully understand and agree with you We just have to check with the Secretary of State's office to make sure we're not Okay, stepping over the bounds of what we can have. Okay, so hopefully it's total sense Okay, hopefully they will or the person that that we check with will agree and that that will be available For people at the polling place. Thank you We all set on what we're doing on that Thank you item number Six is the proposed charter changes to eliminate the business personal property tax Is that presentation being done by CAO Anderson? So so this ballot item asks to eliminate what we The business personal property tax, which is a tax that we charge in Burlington on the non property assets businesses maintain And it seeks to eliminate the tax in to to or phase it out in two steps The first step would be for fiscal year 2020 to apply The there is currently a 45,000 exemption that applies to some businesses not all we would ask to apply that exemption to all businesses to make it more of a level field and Then the goal would be with fiscal year 2026 to eliminate the tax entirely and at that time There would be a loss in revenue to the general fund. However, that is the same year where the waterfront TIF will expire and there will be more Offsetting tax revenues coming into the general fund to offset the loss Thank you open it up to the public first any Comments or questions for us from the public on this charter change proposed charter change All right hearing none any comments from counselors or questions Counselor Jang. Thank you Anderson can you please come back to the amount of taxes that the city is currently collecting from that? How much is it? It's approximately 1.2. I don't have an exact exact. It's about 1.2 million dollars right now and now if the TIF district Money start to kick in will we have a gap and if yes, how much of a gap it would be? So It's hard to project because I don't know exactly what the business assets that we will be taxing in 2025 are so I can give you Estimates but not exact numbers we estimate that with the application of the exemption for next year for 2020 It's about 125,000 dollars in in lost tax revenues. There will be a change in the tax revenue from this Tax in 2022 when we do their assessment on property because it'll we're expecting the reappraisal will lead to a Decrease in the tax rate, but it will not change the asset value for these assets because they're not reappraising They are currently at market value. They won't be reappraised. So there is about I'm sorry I want to check the number about 268,000 dollar loss in 2022 that's not because the elimination of this tax but that will kind of leads into the final answer Then in 2026 when we would see full elimination of this tax It's about another hundred eight hundred and sixty five thousand dollar loss And we estimate that the TIF proceeds will be about nine hundred thousand dollars so it it would cover the loss in that year and Last question on top of your head. Do you know what were the surplus? From the general fund of FY 18 The surplus of the city Do you remember was 800,000 or something or less? It depends on how you look at that number which so it's a slightly hard answer for me because it depends on which funds You're looking at to go in the health fund And you know your memo. I still think about it. It was really well done. Thank you Thank You councillor Jane and The 2026 They it actually could be earlier, right? Apologize. Yes, it gives the opportunity to eliminate it sooner if we as early as 2024 I don't think we've set any limit on when it just says it could be done sooner by action of the council. Okay. Thank you so If not anyone else has any questions, we'll close that item and go to the final item which is the advisory ballot question regarding single-use plastic reduction policy and Recognize councillor Shannon to give us a description of this one Thank you, this is an advisory question that is simply meant to gauge public support for either banning or taxing single-use plastics specifically plastic bags plastic stirs plastic straws Styrofoam and styrofoam food containers but not limited to that this a vote on this Doesn't in and of itself change anything but give the council guidance so that we would be advised to proceed with creating ordinances that would be in support of this ballot measure and As you said councillor Shannon, we would still have to work through what What that ordinance would entail all of the specifics working with the business community anyone else that was interesting anyone We want to work with thank you. Thank you We'll open it up to the public. Is there any comments or questions for us on this advisory question is Barton Come on up. No, you're fine My only comment would be that if this does pass and you're considering how you're gonna deal with that that it would be That it would not be a tax because I just feel like as a state and as a city We're just so taxed so heavily already that there would be another way of dealing with it And are you that's just a comment, you know, no question. Okay. All right. Thank you Anyone else on this one? All right, hearing none unless the council has anything councillor jane So And it looks like this is an advisory chart. This is an advisory. It's not a charter change. It's just an advisory question I thank you. Okay Unless there's anything else from councillors or the public we will close out this informational public informational hearing and Move to adjourn councillor Shannon second by councillor I know I look like councillor Shannon, but oh councillor Busher councillor Busher It's the eyes and in the back of his head. I raised my hand to councillor Busher and seconded by councillor jane. All those in favor I suppose we are adjourned. Thank you


My villagers, Overham Willingham, have had brilliant volunteer support during the pandemic and I'd like to say thank you to everyone who stepped up to help, especially Jeanette Innova and Katja and Steffid Willingham. Thanks also to our pharmacies and local stores who made sure that people got their supplies that they needed. Well done everyone. I'd like to say thank you to all the individuals and groups that got together across Meldrith, Melbourne, Wooden and Shepard to help each other out. The community groups and also the groups supported by the parish councils. Thank you. I'd like to thank all the volunteer groups in my villages, namely Caxton, Patworth Everard, Patworth St Agnes, Gravely, Croxton, Eltersley, Ellsworth, Natwell, Boxworth, not least. Collington, for all their hard work during the recent pandemic supporting the elderly and vulnerable throughout this ward. You have done a fantastic job. Thank you. I'd like to thank all the community groups and volunteers in South Cambridgeshire who have done so very, very much to help us as a council to keep all our residents safe during the pandemic. You've helped to feed people, to do their shopping, to collect their medication and to give them company and that's worth an enormous amount. Thank you very much. I want to say a huge thank you to my local Histon and Impington COVID-19 core group and to the street coordinators and street volunteers and the local businesses who dedicated so much time making sure that everyone in the village was looked after and who continue to do so building up even more a connected, caring and resilient community. Thank you everyone. I'd like to say thank you to my local COVID-19 community support group in Milton. The coordinating group and the people who volunteer to help with everything from collecting prescriptions to walking dogs have spent their time and energy making sure that everyone in the village knows where they can ask for support. Thank you. On behalf of Alex and I, we'd really like to thank all of the volunteers that turned out to help in Longstown to North Doe and Oakington. We were so proud of this community spirit in supporting each other and we'd really like to thank all of you that got involved. My beyond grateful, repeat beyond grateful thank yous to Tracey Ebon from the Milton Community Support Officer for her 10 stars for professional excellence of superb advice and guidance. Also, thank you much, Lee, to the many Milton Community volunteers for their repetitive, wonderful assistance to myself in the last 16 months.