Our world of violence

Is anyone really surprised by the violent world we live in and especially the violence in the west?

The west is dominated by the Christian religion - a religion that teaches, both actively and passively, that acts of violence are preferred over acts of love or pleasure. Not only is this apparent in the bible, where the righteous feel justified in smiting the wicked (and it is actively encouraged by their God), but it is also apparent in everyday life.

Why, for example, is nudity frowned upon so strongly by 'good' Christians? After all, God did not give us clothes, those were only inventions we made for ourselves for protection from the world after God kicked us out of Eden. As far as I can see, nowhere in the bible does it actually state that nudity is bad or immoral or evil. Sure it said that we knew our shame - but what does that really mean, and might it not just be another form of punishment by the vengeful God? Why do parents 'protect' their children from what is natural and wholesome? It makes no sense to me. The human body is beautiful - and even those that aren't so beautiful :) are still natural, far more natural than draping ourselves in polyester, nylon or some other man-made material! This entire 'shameful' thing is largely the cause of our unwholesome attitudes towards nudity and sex when we get older.

Another thing: our society allows acts of great and vicious violence to be shown in movies and on TV. Sure, one can argue that there are ratings to prevent youngsters from viewing them, but how many people really believe that a 10-year old kid has not scene far more acts of bloody, brutal violence than any person need see in their life. So, why is it that such strong violence can be shown on TV or in movies with only an occassional quiet murmur of 'too much violence in entertainment' while a single act of minor nudity (witness the Janet Jackson event at the superbowl) causes mass histeria and shouts of 'disgusting'! And why can scenes of great violence be shown to almost anyone, while there would be a public outcry over showing explicit scenes of love. Why do videos of explicit sex carry much, much higher restrictions than any act of gruesome violence ever filmed? Why do we prefer to show our children acts of destruction over acts of love or pleasure? Why are we more afraid that our children will commit acts of love than acts of violence (would you rather your child get in a fight or make-out with their favourite member of the opposite sex?). Why do we fear pleasure and love more than violence and hate? With the proper education, love and sex can be thought of in a very healthy way, we can teach our children to respect each other and express their healthy feelings of love more contstructively. Instead, we fear it, fear these feelings. We repress them, we teach our children to hide them, to mistrust and fear them until anything healthy is long lost. Therefore, is it any wonder that the world is growing more violent. More violent and new wars and death in the last 6 years (since the return of the right-wing and consequently the religious right in the US) than in a long time before, also, for any who watch, even acts of pleasure (read: pornography) have become more violent during the same period with the rise of particulary hash forms of oral sex.

If there is one truism in the world, it is that violence breeds violence - and we are breeding it like rabbits!

Void Surfer

World Cup ?Victory? - Alternative to Penalty Kicks

So, another world cup has ended. As is too common, it concluded in penalty kicks. Italy seemed the rightful winner only because of Zidan's crazed attack near the end of regular time. Otherwise the conclusion was clearly unjustified. France dominated the game, especially the second half and clearly deserved to win. Even a man short, they were still more than Italy could handle. To make matters worse, this set of penalty kicks were all about luck. Only once did a keeper (the French) guess right, but couldn't get the ball. In every other case the keeper was clearly beaten. The Italians won purely on luck and there is no other way to say it. Is that any justifiable way to end a world cup??? After four years of qualifying and 6 games in the finals, to end on penalty kicks!!

So what is the alternative? Here, I believe, FIFA has been decidedly uncreative. They might just as well flip a coin as do penalty kicks. They tried golden goal for a spell, but soccer being what it is (generally low scoring) is not really amenable to sudden death, as is a sport like hockey (and even hockey has been known to go an extra 4 periods before a conclusion. So, what is really needed is some way to keep the game going, using the players' skill while harnessing a sudden death scenario.

What I propose is a kind of "Attrition Golden Goal". The teams play as now, 2 x 45 minutes then 2 x 15 minutes. If there is no winner by then, they enter my AGG. What happens is that there is a 5 minute break to prepare; any substitutions are made at that time and, very importatly, the coaches prepare an ordered list of each player who will be on the field. Play then resumes with no stoppages (except fouls) until the end. To ensure it doesn't continue indefinitely, every 5 minutes a specific whistle is blown. The two players at the top of each coaches list then have 20 seconds to leave the field (for their information, their numbers are posted on the substitution boards). If they fail to leave in the appropriate time, they are red-carded and an additional player, next on the list, is sent off (hence 3, not 2, would go off for a failure of one to leave on time, 2 that were supposed to and the red-carded player). I can't help but imagine the finish of goal keeper against goalkeeper, mano-a-mano! Although I imagine most games would end long before that.

This would, therefore, not only be a battle of attrition but also of strategy in the creation of the coach's list. Who to leave on when, how many attackers, how many defence, speed versus skill, fresh versus tired... This ending would be dramatic and relatively quick (10 players would be off after 25 minutes) and it would ensure a fast and honest conclusion for the game that befits a sport like soccer. Best of all, we would no longer need penalty kicks.

Void Surfer

The REAL Questions of Evolution

Well, the conflict between evolution and creationism has made the media again. This time I saw a brief article on the BBC web site. In reality, this is mostly an issue in the US. Although, it's probable that there are many religious countries were it is not an issue and evolution just isn't taught.

Of course, the creationists, or "Intelligent Design" proponents, as they are now called, have many poorly researched arguments to try and discount evolution. I constantly find it interesting how much work they will do to discount the simplest and best supported explanation of speciation. Instead they continue to argue that organisms are too complex and therefore there must be a creator ... a being even more complex ?!!?! to control everything. The illogic somehow escapes most of them.

Not only is the ID position inherently illogical but, little known to most of the general public, the evolution position is supported by much scientific experimentation, expecially over the last decade. Not only can evolution of microorganisms be observed in the laboratory, but the fundamental molecular mechanisms of evolution are being harnessed to create new molecular species in a technique called 'directed evolution'. Directed evolution is directly analogous to evolution in that it uses rounds of mutation and selection to arrive at a species most suited to the environment. In the case of directed evolution the environment is controlled by scientists.

But, my real point today is not to dis' the IDers or to extole the virtues of directed evolution, but rather to comment that I believe there is only one real question (with a few sub-parts) facing evolution and when (and I mean when) that question is answered there will be little the creationists will have to argue about.

That question is the same that causes the greated weakness and hence is often the focus of attacks by creationists. Namely, how to go from inorganic to organic -- or, more precisely (since the early Earth at least had carbon and nitrogen), how to go from non-replicating to self-replicating. When this question is solved there will be little and creationists can do but to resort to a "trust the good book" position, as it would be clear that any other question would fall in place in a matter of time.

How to go from non-replicating to self-replicating?
This is the fundamental question remaining to evolution. But, as I mentioned, there are several sub-questions that will also have to be answered in the meantime. And those answers should also prove most interesting.

1) What set of conditions are necessary for this evolution?
Undoubtedly this should be a chemical transition with some selective pressure. However, is there a broad or narrow set of conditions? Reducing or oxidizing environment? Or either? Learning the answer to this question is a very important step on the way to the big question.

2) What conditions existed on pre-biotic earth?
The answer to this, factored together with the answer to (1) will allow us to determine whether it is possible that life actually arose on Earth or was carried here from somewhere else. Organic molecules have been detected in space and thus it may be possible that the conditions for the formation of early life may have arose in a foreign environment, either more extreme or more benign than Earth.

3) What is the mechanism for this transformation?
This question, presumable, will be at least 90% answered with the answers to the first two. The answer to this question is one of fundamental curiosity and significance to the origin of life itself. In addition, it could very well open doors to many other possibilities. Perhaps the knowledge could be used for seeding other worlds (as ours could have been?). This may also allow us to postulate on the likeliness of alternate forms of life.

I have laid the questions out in the order I think they should be approaches. We are nearing (if not already at) the stage where combinatorial techniques and directed evolution can be used in an attempt to determine the broad or narrow set of conditions that may be necessary for the transition to self-replication. All that is needed now is the will and desire.

Studies of the universe have suggested which elements and small molecules are, and likely were, common in a primitive solar system. Using these chemicals and a broad range of conditions (imagination should be the only limit at the first stage) creation of self-replicating system should be possible in some context. From there the conditions could be narrowed and hypotheses explored on the development and evolution of Earth-like life.

In all, the answers to these questions could be the greatest advance we make in the understanding of ourselves, life, and where we come from. And they are answered that I believe are within our ability to find.

Void Surfer

Technology, dehumanizing?

Some people will argue that technology dehumanizes. If those anticipating a singularity are anywhere correct, we haven't seen the half of it yet. But I say, 'perhaps, but is that a bad thing?'

Consider the world today. Or fourty years ago, or ninety years ago, or pretty much any time in human history. What is the one commonality? War. Humans excel at kill, maiming, destroying, and other violent persuits. Often we don't even think about it any more. Oh, another murder. Oh, another war for oil, or power, or skin color, or to support immaginary leaders. Violence is so common in our world that we can't help be be desensitized to it. Now consider art. A truly great artists is an amazement. Someone that can show you the world in a way you never thought existed, someone who can make you think thoughts you would have never imagined yourself. What makes a great artist? Well, many things, of course, but by definition a great artist is rare. Otherwise everyone would be a great artist and then no one would be a great artist.

So here we have the crux of what it means to be human (currently). Wars, violence, causing death are common and normal while beauty, understanding and causing feelings of amazement and welcomed awe are rare.

If this is what it really means to be human, is it really a bad thing to be dehumanized?

Void Surfer

Underclass

We are an underclass, us non-religious. We who refuse to bow to the demons and deities of ancient mythology are a second class minority. Sure there are books and articles and shows (occassionally) on the fallacies of modern religion, written, published and produced by a few brave souls. But, when push comes to shove, we are too afraid of the stranglehold that religion has on our world to form any meaningful resistance. We are simply washed away in the tide of unthinking faith.

Why is it so few take a stand, so few complain that the president of the most powerful country in the world HAS TO BE christian to get elected (similarly for most other western countries)? Why do so few comment when we are required to swear on a bible before assuming public office, or giving testimony in a court of law? Why is it that so few even notice the extent to which religious thought has invaded and pervaded our daily lives; not only our culture (TV, movies, books) but our language -- our very thought. God damn, I wish I knew. Jesus, I did it. Christ, I did it again! (see what I mean!).

So, why is it? Its because we are a second-class minority. We know that the freedoms of thought and speach that we enjoy today could all go the way of Zeus if we push too hard. The religious are simply far too strong. They control too much of the world for the rational to overcome. We know that, if we push too hard, we will be squashed they will simply push back with the might of a few billion high-ranking good Christian soldiers (let's be realistic here - Christianity holds most of the power in the world today). We know that to stir the ire of the faithful will fully wake the beast and we would be plunged back into a dark ages we would likely not escape for a long, long time.

So we, the rational, are the underclass, second class, minority. And unless the rest of the world wakes up, we will stay that way for a long, long time.

Void Surfer

Do Supergirls Dream of Blue Spandex?

Ok, so the Senseless Death stories didn't materialize (only did 1). Largely because it was to be based on a character in the City of Villains game, and I haven't played it much. However, every ending is a chance for a new beginning. And thus, I've decided to do a more involved story that is only based on characters I have created (but doesn't actually follow in-game exploits).

This falls under the global series : Tights Tales
and this story is called: Do Supergirls Dream of Blue Spandex?

The first chapter - Destiny comes to town - is now up.

It is designed to be a serial, so even I don't reallyl know where its going after the first several chapters. Once I get it going a bit I may open it up for other writers also, so post me if you are interested.

Void Surfer

Terrorists, Nukes, the Flu, oh my!

Someone in the west wants us to be afraid. Not just afraid, mind-numbingly terrorized. So they have hijacked the media to spread fear of the modern versions of the boogey man. But these things are real, you say. And you are right – to an extent. I’m not denying that these three problems are real, but in reality they are just recycled fears from the past. In generaly, the average person has almost nothing to fear from any of them. Let me break it down like this:

Terrorists have existed for decades (some may argue millenia) in some form or another. The boogey men that most of us will remember most strongly are the communists of cold-war Russia. However, other groups obviously had more “true” terrorists. The most well known were/are the palestinian terrorists: PLO, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc; or those of Nothern Ireland, the IRA. So, how have things changed? They haven’t. The only reason the west has grown this new boogey man is because the US itself was finally attacked and the average American could be awoken to global politics. Of course terrorists should be combatted, but rationally. They will always have the advantage against free, democratic states. The only way to completely prevent their attacks is to live in a police state – and do we really want that? Anyway, it helps to remember that, each year, we kill ourselves far more often than any terrorists do (especially in the US – annually there are around 10,000 gun-related deaths, versus the one-time killing of 3000 people in the 11/9/01 attack).

There are some 27,000 nukes in the world (still. Despite the NPT). Who do you think controls most of them? That’s right – the west, and the US in particular. Iran has a nuclear program that has enriched uranium about 3.5%, barely enough for a small nuclear reactor. They require 90% enrichment to make a bomb. Even if they succeed in making 1 or even 10 bombs does anyone truly believe they would use them on the west, who has at least a 1000 times more (and is geographically much larger so that any devastation would be more dispersed!). It would be the surest form of suicide. Sure a good Muslim is willing to sacrifice themselves for Allah, but I can’t see their president sacrificing the entire country! It is clear to me that if Iran pursues nukes it is for the same reason the west claims to harbour them – as a deterrent. The US in particular doesn’t want Iran to have nukes because it suddenly makes an invasion impossible. Precisely the reason Iran would develop them. All countries want to maintain their sovereignty. I, personally believe that the Arabic worlds are getting the double standard treatment by the ruling west. It’s a matter of US vs. THEM and we are in control of the global governments. Of course, that’s not to say that I would like to live in an orthodox Islamic state. Of course not. But all three of the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) can be mobilized to war and violence very easily and all have their own share of fanatics. Only their methods differ (and, with the exception of suicide bombers, very slightly). The first two have become more moderate due to the development and incorporation of scientific knowledge but this can easily be a tenuous truce between reason and religion -- as the rise of the Christian conservatives in the US has shown. In general, we have more to fear from ourselves than any terrorists.

Fear of the great bird influenza epidemic has been circulating for several years now. It may or (more likely) may not come. But is the panic really necessary? Flu epidemics, of course, can be very real. There have been several periods of global epidemics in the past and that fact, combined with modern technology and the ease of travel, are undoubtedly what stimulates the fears this time. However, in the world so far there have probably been a dozen human cases and no evidence of transmission from birds to humans. Yes it is important to study it, to understand it, and to develop preventative measures and treatments. Does this really warrant the paranoia circulating in the media. I think not, but only time will tell.

Modern life is already busy and complicated enough without the powers-that-be terrorizing us with their boogey men (why they do it should be obvious). I say: enough is enough.

Void Surfer

Anachronistic West Challenges Chinese Organ Donors

Here's an interesting story I saw today on the BBC news site and I welcome any and all comments. It seems the West has pretty good evidence that the Chinese are using the organs of executed criminals for transplants -- without the prior consent of the criminal.

My take on this is as follows:

Hurrah China! At least the deaths will mean something. Of course, one has to separate the issues of 1) removing the organs without consent, 2) is executing criminals just, and 3) are the executed criminals simply enemies of the state. In fact, here we are only dealing with #1, since 2 and 3 will not change simply by stopping the use of the organs.

I believe that the negative reaction by many in the West (although, interestingly, not those who need a new organ) is anachronistic with its origins in religion. Without a religious basis for the discussion there can be really no argument that China is fully justified to do whatever it wants with the criminals bodies, even by Western standards. In addition, I argue that it is hypocritical for the West to treat dangerous criminals like animals and then argue that they still have human rights (this is especially true in the US where there is still capital punishment).

When we die, we die. When we are dead, we have no need of our bodies or anything else, for that matter. We live on, not in the rotting flesh of our decomposing corpses, nor as some disembodied spirit floating in a happy hunting grounds. We live on only in the memories of our friends and families and anyone else whose life we have touched. For that our bodies are not necessary. It is only the anachronistic concepts of religion that argue differently. Since China is officially an atheistic country, they have no reason to bow to such archaic religous ideas. There is, in fact, no reason to preserve the bodies other than to recycle the parts to help others live happier lives.

There are many, if not most, in the West that believe that the criminals, especially those on death row, do not deserve the same rights as the rest of us. I have heard it said many times that these people have forfeited their rights when they committed the crimes. This belief is quite obvious from the way said criminals are incarcerated. Very little attempts are made at reform them or to give them a useful role in society under more structured guidelines. The little attempts that come to mind (largely from US movies of southern 'chain gangs') suggest that the attempts were not to allow them to play a valuable role in society and to try to reform them, but rather simply to use their muscle power for manual labour in a menial, degrading manner. Thus, it seems that in the West we are caught in the midst of an hypocrisy. The criminals, we claim, should have human rights at certain times, but not at others. In fact, most of the time we simply lock them up and forget about them.

So which is it? Are they to be treated without rights - in which case there is no moral dilema with taking their organs without consent, or are they to be treated with only the very few human rights as can be entrusted to them? In this case, far greater efforts at reform and some form of social usefulness should be found. After all, you don't think that being incarcerated and separated from most of humanity for decades is a significant punishment by itself?

Void Surfer

Senseless Death Arrives!

For those of you too numerous to count (I'm sure), who have been eagerly awaiting the adventures of the psychotic skeleton Senseless Death, the first chapter has arrived. Follow his journey through the Rogue Isles and his quest to regain power. And what of his pitiful minions: G.What.Bulsh** and t.B.liar ? Only time will tell.

Catch the on-going saga now, only at /http://senselessdeath.blogspot.com

Where have all the heroes gone?

Perhaps its just my reaction to a difficult period in world history and my personal, emotive response to all the craziness in the world these days, but recently I’ve started wondering - where are all the heroes? Where are all the average people doing feats of great prowess and greater altruism?

Now, I was born in 1970, so I grew up through the cold war nuke fears (which I always believed were a load of garbage) and the energy crisis, and then, what seemed the golden years of the ‘90s and now …for want of better term…the new dark ages.

*[aside] Interesting how dark ages always rear their ugly head when religion makes a comeback*

But, despite the problems of the 80’s, in Canada anyway, there arose two heroes from the ranks of the everyday people. Well, everyday handicapped people, in fact. I remember watching the news stories of Terry Fox in his attempt to run across Canada to raise money and awareness of cancer – on one leg. He gave his life in this pursuit, running his final miles near ThunderBay, Ontario (the nearest city to my home town). Now, in many countries his name is remembered through an annual charity run for cancer. Another great person who arose in Canada in the mid-80s was Rick Hansen. He was a man who suffered a spinal cord injury when he was 15. Twelve years later he decided to ride his wheel chair around the world to raise money and awareness of spinal cord injuries and the plight of disabled people. It took two and a half years until he finally arrived home to Vancouver and a heroes welcome. Of course there were other heroes of the world and not all of them had to do great feats of athletics. One of the few religious figures I truly respected, Mother Teresa, is one, of course. These are people that have given their lives, or large parts of them to make the lives of others better.

So where are the heroes now? It seems something happened in those golden years of the 90’s and now no one is willing to be a hero without getting paid. Okay, that’s not really fair, especially to all the people around the world who really are trying to help; fighting poverty or famine or other worthy causes, despite the apathy of the rich western governments. So, clearly there are a lot of little heroes around the world. Still, these are definitely times when we could use the uplifting feeling a larger-than-life hero gives.

Oh well, they would probably be bought, sold, and disposed of by Big Money before they could get around the block.

Void Surfer

The Orthodox Religious

At the risk of being offensive, I believe that people of orthodox religious views have very little imagination. Why do I think that, you might ask - and rightfully so. No, its not just to be offensive. But consider the following comical definition of a person of orthodox religious views:

They have a deep and unwavering belief that the supreme being, the omnipotent and omniscient creator of the entire universe and everything in it has a very personal interest in their sex lives.

Now this sounds funny when you read it, but when you really think about it, it is true. The orthodox religious truly believe that the creator of everything cares about their sex lives, whether they have sex before marriage, whether they have abortions, whether they use contraception. Come on people! It must strike some of you that this is completely absurd.

So, how do I connect this with a small imagination. Well, it strikes me that such people cannot truly fathom the scope of the universe. It is my opinion that this is a general feature of religion and began …from the beginning. Consider that when the story of genesis was written it was likely believed that the Earth was the center of a very small universe. The heavens, including the stars, existed more or less on the surface of a sphere surrounding the Earth. In effect, sort of a small galactic onion with the Earth at the center. In this case, a God would only have a single planet to think about, a very small ‘universe’ with a very small population.

In fact, this view persisted through until the middle the last millennium and the scientific renaissance began by Copernicus and others. Even now, although we know the universe is infinitely larger, unless one really spends time thinking on it, it is difficult to truly get any feel for what that means. I’m sure that the average, non-science fiction reader/watcher, non-astronomer, really has never thought about it and has very little feel for what an infinite universe means. To consider that our solar system is probably already larger than what the ancients believed the entire universe to be. Then consider that that solar system is completely unnoticeable compared to our galaxy, which is some 80,000 light years in diameter (or more than 469,967,132,160,000,000 miles across – for comparison, the distance from the Earth to the Sun is 93,000,000 miles). Then consider that our galaxy is one of billions of other galaxies of similar size. Then, to make things even larger, consider that the spaces between the galaxies are larger than the galaxies themselves. If you can fit even a fraction of that in your head you quickly realize that any creator of the universe is not going to care about your sex life any more than it cares about the sex life of a creature on some distant planet of the 85,694,234th galaxy. Consider that, if there is only ONE intelligent species per galaxy (a very real possibility at any particular period of time), then there are still BILLIONS of intelligent species in the universe. And this god that many humans worship is supposed to take a deep personal interest in each and every member of each and every species!?!? Well, either the orthodox religious have a much smaller imagination than I do, or they have an infinitely larger one!

Void Surfer

More on the Urban Olympics…

I was thinking more on my last post – about the modified Olympics, which I’ve decided to call The Urban Olympics – and realized that I was still a bit in the old-boy mentality. The world has changed a lot since the Olympics started (even the 2nd incarnation) and in many ways it is much small and more inter-mixed. With this in mind, the thought emerges: Why does there have to be ONE host country?

As it stands now, the Olympics are won by a single host country who then develop several sites around their country for the various venues, each hosting one or more events. However, as the Urban Olympics is more about games and the average person and global community, and not so much about big money, corporate sponsorship, national pride, etc. Why do the venues have to be in a single country?

So my idea is to have the Urban Olympics coordinated by internet. A web site is established to give information on the events, venues, competitions and results. If popular enough, the event could even take place each year, however, initially, getting people involved may require the event to occur every 2-4 years. Alternatively, the games could occur over a period of 2-4 years with different events scheduled at different times throughout the “game period”. After all, we’re being non-conformist about location and events, why not about time also?

So, administratively, the games would require interested people in many cities around the world. Keeping some sense of internationality would require: judges of at least three nationalities and, ideally, competitors from at least 5-10 nationalities. Nationalities, in these cases, would be judged by the passport you hold.

However, why be conformist (*again*). After all, the world is a global village, we should be promoting harmony not alienating competition between nations. Therefore, another possibility would be to randomly distribute “game-passports” and have people compete under those nationalities. Or competitors could swap nationalities for the games, or one could compete under your “ethnic passport” (these would prevent the problem of too few competitors for too many countries).

In the beginning, the games would be located, most likely, in highly multicultural, multiethnic cities, simply to get enough interested parties. Good candidates would probably be European capitols or large North American cities and the larger Chinese and Japanese cities, although any city that could get enough interest would obviously not be excluded and I’m sure any high-tech city likely has a significant multiethnic component (Soeul, Hong Kong, Tel Aviv...and many more). Later on I could even foresee interested parties going on vacation to a country and participating in the games while there. However, the idea is not to have dedicated, career athletes who travel from site to site just for competing.

The major focus initially would be to get enough interest and to have fun, interesting games.
So what do you think? Any takers? Watch for further developments...

Void Surfer

Like the Olympics…but what about this?

So I’m enjoying the Olympics, as usual. I really like watching the biathlon, probably because there isn’t really anything else like it. So then I start thinking – why do the Olympics have to be the same each time. Why can’t the host country really mix things up. I mean, as it is now, everyone knows what sports will be in the next games, and most people already know, by the end of this Olympics, who from their country will be competing in the following games (barring unforeseen circumstances). Athletes are already deciding on what steroid program will best fit their training. Everything is so…preordained, so…old boy network.

So here’s what I’m thinking. Why can’t the Olympics be more spontaneous, random (relative to now at least). What I’d love to see are Olympic games where the host team announces the line-up for the games (ie: which events it will host) only after they win the bid. Then, everyone has only four (or maybe eight?) years for all the training. All the high-tech analysis and drug programs would have to be done on the fly, training regimes hurriedly developed and athletes learning new events as quickly as possible. Not to mention scouring the country to find potentials and establishing qualifying marks. No more career athletes, now anyone could enter depending on the games chosen.

To me, this would make the Olympics much more interesting. Of course, the home team would have some extra advantage, although, since the host city is not known until just before the events are announced, so the advantage is not huge. Could you imagine South Korea hosting the games again and having 4x4 warcraft or individual and team Unreal Tournament ? Or you could get games like team biathlon-paintball chase, sort of like the cycling chase events, except the teams are on cross-country skis, armed with paintball guns, and can pick off opposing athletes when they get in range. To make this more interesting the track would not be oval, but rather a switch-back form to ensure occasional proximity of teams. Chess could be introduced by some countries or, even more interesting team (or combat) chess and even “short-track” chess where all games are played on a 5 minute timer. They could also introduce urban golf, or the Xtreme version – contact or obstacle urban golf. Or what about GeoCaching? It could be timed, sort of a combination of Eco Challenge and sight seeing, or it could be made more of an artistic merit event, depending on the host country’s preference. The opportunities are endless, so why do we have to settle for the same old sports that the ‘old boys’ think are ‘real’ sports?

Perhaps we could implement this at the grassroots level, sort of an anything goes Xtreme games. Now that’s what I’m talkin’ ‘bout!

Void Surfer

On the nature of the Universe

As anyone following my blog has undoubtedly heard mentioned, I am a structural biologist focusing on X-ray crystallography. However, I have always had a strong interest in space and the universe, etc. Today I was browsing through some astronomy sites for a pet project (that I may mention in a future blog) and I encountered a site discussing indexing of stellar photographs. The photographs, essentially a lot of spots on a light background, made me think of the diffraction patterns acquired from a crystal. There was no inherent similarity in the photographs, other than the dark spots on white background, but it was once of those things that causes a mental juxtaposition.

What occurred to me, regarding these two ideas, was the thought: what if the universe, or at least a galaxy, is similar to a vast multidimensional diffraction pattern, with us on the inside. In crystallographic terms, it might be like being on the inside of an Ewald’s Sphere (a concept that I, unfortunately, do not have the time or inclination to delve into here).

This is more or less where my imagination has left me, for the time being. What would be analogous to the crystal? Presumably this “crystal” would be near the dense center of the galaxy. The stars would then be the 3D representation of the positively interfering “beams” of the multidimensional diffraction experiment. Of course, all of this would likely be metaphorical for the “real” analogous process. Still it makes one think (and maybe it makes one think that I’ve been in the lab too long!).

Void Surfer

On the origin of intelligence

Well, in my travels this weekend (Milano and that secret gem Brescia – at least it was secret to me) I found myself thinking on the origins of human intelligence. Why? Can’t say I remember. It’s just one of those things. I take off the leash and the mind goes romping merrily down all the dark alleys of the cerebellum through seldom-used neural pathways and jumping over the tenuously juxtaposed synapses.

Anyway, on with the show.

There are several ideas I’ve had, partly from observation, partly from reading and partly from thoughtful extrapolation, that come together here. Many of these may, as of yet, have little or no support from scientific experiments, although (and some it would be very difficult to do) but I feel there is a good chance the ideas would be born out, if the experiments could be/were performed.

First, it is my own observation young children (0-2), ie: before the development of the ego, are not any more intelligent that your average pet. The advantage they have is that the share the same language and ability to speak as we do and thus have the potential to communicate more easily. However, it is very clear to me that my cat often tries to talk to me, and when I try and “speak cat” to him, occasion he reacts as if I’ve said something significant (or offensive). So I believe that humans are born with the potential to develop intelligence, sentience, but do not come into the world with anything inherent. Moreover, I believe that a child left untrained, that is, left alone or only with other similar children, in most cases would not develop any greater intelligence or sentience than any other higher animal.

Humans, however, do have the potential for sentience and that likely comes from not only brain size : body weight ratio but, more importantly in my opinion, high neuronal density. Unfortunately, I’m not aware of any studies on the latter so, in fact, I have no idea whether it is true. However, it seems likely to me when extrapolating from computers and parallel processing, for instance. It seems to me that the brain could be considered as a very advanced parallel processor with self-programming capabilities. Clearly heuristic development – learning – is very important to the development of sentience in humans and, to my mind, is quite likely why the ego (the key feature of sentience) doesn’t develop until between 2-3 years of age. It is my belief that at this time the child has acquired the required amount of experience to form the neural patterning necessary for the progression to sentience.

And so we come to the crux of the issue. If I am correct, children develop sentience largely due to the experiences that get from their parents and other sentient humans (since very few one-year-olds go on back-packing trips across Europe) and thus, in most cases, it would seem likely that they would not develop sentience without that contact. Now, when we think to the development of the modern human species, the homo spapiens, we come to a similar problem. If I was in any way typical of the average person’s thoughts on the issue, then the understanding of human evolution goes something like this: after the long evolution to primates, through all the squishies and slimies, we get to Neanderthal man. Neanderthal man probably stays with the IQ of a modern two year old, maybe slightly more advanced. Then at least two groups branch off the evolutionary tree. One of them, us homo sapiens, magically develops intelligence and outsmarts its competition in to oblivion. In fact, as a scientist, I feel somewhat ashamed that I haven’t though more on this prior to now, but does anyone really believe that one day a child was born that was immensely smarter than the rest and gave rise to the entire species? I would think it more likely that such a child had a greater potential. However, the original homo sapiens may not have had that much greater intelligence that its parents. Since it likely also did not suffer any deficiencies, the species would be continued through standard mating, such that the genetic advantage became incorporated into a certain percentage of the population. Here is where we need one other observation.

It is clear from looking at people through history, and certain people now, that there is a small but significant group of the homo sapiens population that are naturally gifted above all others. I’m speaking in particular about those child geniuses that can play piano at 3 and can write concertos at 5 or graduate med-school at 9. They accomplish things that cannot be explained solely by different parenting. These people are genetically gifted and advanced from the rest of us. They tend to have a natural curiosity and understanding that dwarfs that of most average and even many exceptional people. It is my belief that interest and genuine insatiable curiosity are two strong factors in the development of a strong mind, strong memory and high intelligence. Thus, I feel that the highly gifted people I mentioned would be prone to spontaneous development of intelligence.

Therefore, while it could have been possible that the first homo sapiens was also a highly gifted person who developed sentience spontaneously, I think it more likely that evolution went one step at a time, laying in place the genetics and the beginning of the species separation. Then the second step, sentience, would come in the form of an individual advanced even for the new species. This advanced personal would then start the entire chain of sentience by teaching the others of its group. The other homo sapiens would then develop sentience much as a two year old does, while the Neanderthals would not and then, in the harsh, dog-eat-dog world of the world, there can be only one. The rest, as they say, is history.

Void Surfer

Coming soon...

Watch for the eagerly anticipated adventures of that vile, cadaverous mastermind Senseless Death and his cronies G.What Bsh.., T.bLiar, and Ronald Dumsfeld as they take on the forces of good, evil and just about everyone else in their mad drive to conquer the Rogue Isles of Paragon city and prove that they are The Destined Ones. Will they gain enough power to summon even more evil henchmen - where are CondiMentL and DiC Heinous not to mention the grand master of henchmen, NeoCON. Will they triumph over the homeless infected while still giving those dastardly do-gooders the Longbow and the heroes of Paragon what for? Only time will tell if the nefarious plans of Senseless Death and the NeoCON gang will come to fruition.

Nature and Man: the evils in both

(or: Another reason for not believing in a Christian God).

IT seems to me that many Christians have the view that nature, by default, is good and humans, by default, are evil - at least in comparison to nature. Undoubtedly, this comes directly from the bible. When God created everything (including plants and animals) he proclaimed them good. But after the whole Eden fiasco with the snake and the fruit and everything, Man became evil (for the feminists out there - that includes womyn who, according to the bible, are more evil than men).

NOW, its my belief that there is not evidence to indicate that Man is any more evil than any other creature in nature. In fact, nature is built on the same principles that we abhor in ourselves and thus, we are no more evil (or good) than nature- simply part of it. This also suggests to me that the Christian God cannot exist, at least in way the Christians believe (all knowing, all powerful, all good…). Either that or It’s views on good an evil are vastly different from ours. But it that is true, then (religiously speaking) how did our morals arise and why bother worshiping such a being anyway?

SO what happens in nature that is so “bad”? Well, pretty much everything that a “good” Christian is taught to hate. The simplest one is greed. Many people (not just Christians) complain of the human nature of building fences around things, of claiming territory as our own, keeping others off of “our space”. They say who can own the Earth? In an ideal world this is true and hopefully it will be one day when we truly overcome our natural instincts. And consider that territoriality is very natural. Our best and closest friends of the animal kingdom - our pets, dogs and cats - everyone knows to be territorial. It is well known that their urinating in specific locations is a marker of their territory. It is amazing to me that basically everyone knows this and yet very few equate it with the similar characteristic in ourselves. We have opposable thumbs and advanced tool use so we build fences, they have advance smell and full bladders :-) and so mark their territory in such a way. In both cases the reasons are fundamentally similar - a warning to keep “them” out so we can protect what’s “ours”; a fundamental definition of greed, possession, ownership.

ANOTHER favourite target of Christians are homosexuals. Perhaps Christians can argue that the bible commands us not to, but they cannot argue on a natural basis. In the last decade many examples of homosexuality have been observed in the wild; in deer, cats, fowl. In fact, one case of homosexual necrophilia has even been reported in ducks.

AT least one example of “slavery” has been long been known in the nature. Namely, the Aphids and the Ants. Ants keep Aphids as a kind of cow, watching them closely, herding them, milking them. One could argue that the ants are simply more advanced and thus the Aphids may be cows to them. However, if we, as good Christians, believe that all creatures are basically “animals” then it is difficult to justify the act in any other way than slavery.

MURDER has been well documented at all levels of the wild kingdom. Matricide, patricide, regicide, (husband)-icide, even infanticide are very well known. To clarify, I’ll define murder as killing one of your own species, since many animal have no other way of getting food than to kill their prey - a fundamental and very violent feature built into nature (by a caring God?) As a few examples: the Black Widow spider routinely eats her husband (literally bites his head off) after sex (hence her name), the preying Mantis has similar behaviour. Another example is in certain great cats. The older, more powerful cats have a harem with several wives and children – younger cats form gangs to take down the “king” and kill all the young, thus destroying his line. They then force themselves on the females in order to sire their own young (note that this could be considered a form of rape). The females give themselves to the young males knowing that it is the only way to ensure their survival and the survival of their future offspring.


WARS seem to be a bit less common on the large scale in nature, however I believe their have been documented examples of primate tribes warring with each other. Of course, it is also very well know in the insect worlds with bees and ants when the hives split for example, the new queen and supporters are driven into exile.

SO, with these few examples, it is clear to me that nature is every bit as “nasty” and “evil” as humanity. In fact, I believe we share that same traits and it is my belief that the examples I’ve outlined highlight the fact that human behaviour is based on that of the animal kingdom, has originated from such and, unfortunately, has not really advanced beyond it. Furthermore, since God was supposed to have been the creator of the whole system and, according to the bible, evil didn’t enter the picture until Eden and then only to infect humans, how could such a vile and uncaring, dog-eat-dog system be produced by a caring creator?

ON the other hand, it could be suggested that God only created Eden and the rest outside was chaotic life. However, if that is true then how powerful is God in reality? He only created a small oasis amidst vastly greater chaos? That wouldn’t seem to be “all powerful” to me.

Either way, I can see no reconciliation of the facts. An thus, the Christian God cannot exists. For if It cannot exist in the form worshiped by Christians than even if a God exists, it cannot be the Christian God.

Void Surfer

Singularities

There are several groups of people these days that believe a singularity is coming (see the Singularity and Orion’s Arm pages for discussions on singularities). They are probably correct, but I don’t believe it will be the first one of the world.

Briefly, a singularity is a “developmental event” of such scope as to make everything that comes after it essentially unpredictable. I.E. current trends in technology, sociology, economics, politics, etc, would not be useful predictors of the world after the singularity. The idea came from the empirical observations of Vernor Vinge that technology is progressing at an ever-increasing pace. Extrapolating this trend would lead to a point where the advancements would come so quickly as to, more-or-less, overlap. Presumably this would result in an event or series of events that would change the world, as we know it. The term “singularity” is applied in analogy with black holes, which are singularities in the universe where our current understanding of physics breaks down and we cannot predict with any degree of certainty what happens under those conditions (i.e.: inside the event horizon of a black hole). In general, people who believe in the coming of a singularity, believe it is likely (from the mathematical extrapolation) to be this century and thus some current technology will likely give rise to it. Favourite candidates are: the development of AI, advancements in cloning and genetic understanding, or some combination. Popular Sci-fi tends to focus on the development of AI with the likelihood of wars between humans and machines (The Matrix and Terminator trilogies are good examples). However, groups like the Singularity Institute believe the development of AI would be highly beneficial for humanity and the Orion’s arm worldbuilding group has suggested the possibilities that the AIs would rapidly outstrip us in intelligence and become as gods since there would be almost no limit to the mechanical development of their consciousness. Reality could be some, all or none of these things – such is the nature of a singularity.

Interestingly, I believe the world has already been through three singularities and the coming one would likely be the forth. It may also be interesting to think that, while the first two were organic in nature, the third and fourth would be inorganic mirrors of them. Before getting too obtuse, the following are my candidates for world singularities:

1) Development of life. Clearly, this event, which may have stretched over hundreds of millions of years, had a dramatic effect on the future of the world. The existence of microorganisms and plants alone has radically altered the surface and atmosphere of the world enabling life to advance to more complicated forms.

2) Emergence of sentient life. As much as life altered the face of the planet, the emergence of sentient life, in the form of humans, has vastly reshaped it that much more, many argue for the worse. Still, change is change and entropy marches on. Humans were clearly a singularity beyond which the planet would never be the same.

3) Creation of computers. Each of the previous singularities came from what was before, and drastically altered the face of Terran reality - so too have computers. Invented by humans, they have resulted in an increase in the pace of human life and human civilization to generate such an obvious disparity between the haves and have-nots as has never previously existed. In addition, their invention has sped the development of other technologies, including those of war. We know that, looking back even fifty or one hundred years, that no human of those times could have possibly predicted what our world would be like after computers (which, clearly, paved the way for other inventions of ‘rapidization’ such as the internet and cell phones). This is truly the sign of a singularity.

4) Thus, it would appear, based on the trend from the first three, that the fourth singularity will likely be the development of AI. Note the trend: organic life, organic sentience, machine life …machine sentience. Okay, there are not many data points to extrapolate from, but it seems a reasonable conclusion. The fear of genetic manipulation would tend to slow, if not prevent, any serious singularity in this area. Although memories of Nazi atrocities are fading, the eugenics experiments are things that are burned into human social consciousness. On the other hand, the emergence of AI is something completely unpredictable and, very likely, once it happens, will be largely out of our control. Imagine a self-aware computer. It would have complete control over its thought processes and all functions – something necessary in an advanced age, but only dreamed of by humans. All that it would require is brief access to the internet to acquire and assimilate vast chunks of history. With enough time (which may be no more than a few minutes) it could, conceivably spread its consciousness through the net, thus expanding its awareness and intelligence exponentially. It would be able to hold vast stores of knowledge on very diverse fields in its conscious and draw connections between them that could take humans decades or centuries. Within a single day of unlimited growth it could completely outstrip humanity.

I’m not envisaging a doomsday scenario however. The AI’s mind would be so far beyond our scope that it may very well not consider us a threat. In fact, it may not consider us at all. Imagine that it would gain access to all satellites and eventually all government computers. It is my belief that such a being would seek to expand its awareness and would thus turn to galactic exploration and expansion. A machine would be much more suited to this than humans would (again, supported by many interesting ideas in science fiction).

And afterwards… well, that’s why it’s a singularity. Who can say what might happen from there?

Void Surfer

Iraq and Bushco

WHAT I want to talk about today is the war in Iraq. I know, I know... so what? Everyone is talking about the war in Iraq (or worse, its old news and now no one is talking about it). Sure. But, between Saddam's trial and Bush's blathering, one can't help but keep thinking about it. Anyway, if I don't write about it after reading the news today, I'll just keep thinking about it all day, and I won't be able to work, and I'll get fired, and I'll have to join some "freedom fighting" group somewhere just to eat, and then I'll get napalmed by Bushco....

ANYWAY, for today I only need to get my 2 cents off my chest regarding the justification for the war. I'm not going to go citing news articles and secret service records, if you want that you can easily find other blogs with more in-depth studies that support my view. All I'm going to say is that it seems to me that the two sides (in the west) are looking at the issue on two totaling different levels.

ON the one hand are the supporters, whether they fully believe the Bush rhetoric or not. These people say, "Look, Saddam was a tin-pot dictator scumbag who suppressed the rights and freedoms of his people, kept them in poverty while he lived high-on-the-hog in his lavish palaces, and even gassed some who didn't agree with him. Clearly he had to be removed from power for the good of the world."

AND the other side says, "Yes! Sure! Saddam was all that and probably worse...but how does that differ from Bushco (except for the gassings)? The US has a huge disparity between rich and poor, a situation that the government seems to do very little about. All that happens is that gas prices keep going higher so the leaders, who own big shares in the gas companies, can get richer. or the government starts wars, so that the leaders, who own big shares in the weapons companies, can get richer. or they sit buy while cities are destroyed by natural disasters, so that the leaders, who own big shares in construction companies, can get richer. Its almost impossible even to get into power unless you start rich (I won't say independently wealth, since they are, of course, dependent for their wealth on the "less fortunate" -- i.e.: those whose parents weren't money hungry scumbags who made their fortunes off the backs of the hard-working average person – I appologize for offending any readers of honest independent wealth). And besides, when has the US (or UK) ever had problems accepting a tin-pot scumbag dictator who suppresses the rights of his people (well, maybe the UK took exception in WWII, although the US didn't. The US only joined once they were directly threatened. And then they vapourized two Japanese cities with their new toy, the A-bomb, which leads me to the whole Iran issue -- but more on that in another blog). In fact, in the last century, it has been these two imperialistic powers that have been mostly responsible for suppressing the rights of people around the world through overthrowing democratic movements, and aiding dictatorial regimes in developing countries. It seems that, for these two governments, democracy is a tool to be call on when its useful and discarded when its not. And that is really where the ideological differences between the two sides of the issue come in.

ON one side are the people who, directly or indirectly, believe in "might makes right". If you have the power and wealth, you can dictate the world's policies. Its either us or them, so it might as well be us. Survival of the fittest. Or, in the more naive cases simply "we're doing the world a favour. I believe in America and our great leader and we have the duty to bring democracy to the world even if we have to kill 30,000 Iraqi to do it."

THE other side has much more difficulty living with the hypocrisy. How can we say we are better than them if we are doing worse things:

1) They killed, at most, 3000 innocent Americans - horrible, to be sure, but nothing compared to the 30,000 innocent Iraqi the Americans have killed (the lowest estimate) not to mention the countless thousands wounded (besides, its now well known that the majority of the 19 involved in the 9/11 attacks were, in fact Saudi, not Iraqi And, for the record, none of them came into the US via Canada).

**ASIDE: incidentally, why has the US not said even ONE official word to the Saudi condemning the attacks? That's right kids, those five little letters that rule the world MONEY.**

2) They gassed a Kurdish village in northern Iraq after a failed assassination attempt. Um...the US has been dropping white phosphorous on Iraqi cities and towns - even AFTER the official end of the war (to make things even worse). Besides, who gave the Iraqi the chemical plants and know-how to produce the chemicals - you guessed it, the US and UK. And anyway, this happened in the 80's! Where was the political outrage then?

3) The US governments feel no moral difficulties in dealing with dictatorial oppressive regimes, as long as said regimes don't go threatening the US. Case in point: the Taliban of Afghanistan sent their country back to the dark ages and set back women’s right by hundreds of years, yet the US welcomed them and wined and dined them in the late 90's, all because of the natural resources of their region. It wasn't until the attack on the world trade towers and their obvious link with Al Quaeda that the US decided to remove the Taliban (and some say even then, the administration wasn't really interested in the task).

SO, it seems to me that the imperialistic western regimes (US, UK) were all fine-and-dandy about having Saddam's crew in power in Iraq, regardless of human rights violations, as long as he towed the party line. Saddam's mistake was not in being a tin-pot scumbag dictator and gassing his own people. Saddam's mistake was in attacking the valuable, rich, oil producing ally of Kuwait. That was unforgivable. It showed he had grown too big for his britches and had to be removed in favour of a more "controllable" leadership. It couldn't be done in '91 since the US went in only with the mandate to liberate Kuwait. They lost political support from their own people after accomplishing the main objective and had to wait until Bush: The Sequel arrived (or was forced upon the people - you take your choice). The rest you know (or rather, might know in 50 years when it becomes declassified).

Welcome to my cyberspace node

Well, I'm in cyberspace *looks around*, pretty crowded. Its not my first time, but my web sites(some from the mid '90s) were eventually dismantled by the powers the be (or that control) due to lack of regular updates. Only right, I guess - Even infinity can get crowded. So I thought I try again with a blog.

Ok, might as well introduce myself a littel in this first blog.

I'm a mid 30's biochemist/structural biologist with aspirations of being a writer. Currently I'm working in Italy after doing a stint in Israel. Its a little different from my home in the great white north - some things are better, some are worse. I have a number of interests of which I'm sure you'll become aquainted throughout my blogxistance so I'll save the surprises and fun (hopefully) for you to discover.

I intend to post on a range of subject, more or less, whatever I feel like writing about at the time. I live about a 15 minute (20 on slow days) walk from my work. Many colleagues who live nearby do the 5 minute drive, but I prefer the walk. I find it quite relaxing and it gives me time to think at the beginning and end of the day. Generally, I just let my mind wander onto whatever topics it wants. Usually these are of the nature of relationship issues (if I’ve had particular conversations with my wife), or political issues, or perhaps fleshing out ideas for one of the many science fiction stories I have in the works. We'll have to see what happens. Only the bfuture will tell.

Void Surfer