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