On December 15th, 2011, a great man lost his life. This is not a post saying how great he was. I will admit I've not read any of his work. I plan too, but I haven't yet. This post is not about wallowing in pity about this loss, because there is no point in such a course of action. This post is not talking about the large number of people he inspired, or helped, though that would be a worthy post. This post, one that reaches only very few, will be talking about douche-bag reactions to the death of Christopher Hitchens.
First off, I have ALREADY SEEN some dick headed, heartless responses to the grave news. It seems that a minority (at least I hope it's a minority) of people think this is good news. "HA HA Burn in hell" or the like is common, though there are other more colourful responses... The fact that he hasn't been dead for a day and people are CELEBRATING it. Claiming God's will is to blame. FUCK YOU! A MAN IS DEAD! Anyone who can derive happiness for the passing of another is fundamentally sick. Also, he died of cancer, not act of god. Either accept that ALL people killed by diseases die naturally (and more often than not, painfully), or believe that God decided to make most people suffer for no discernible reason, killing indiscriminately. Claiming that an atheist died because he was atheist is pathetic, and only serves to alienate you further from the rest of the civilized society.
Another type of comment follows this kind of template: "A good man has died, he now knows the Truth". All I can say to this is, shut up. His death proves nothing about your faith. Using the death of another human, the loss of their mind, and potential ideas, to further the goals of his enemies is unethical. It is a sad and failing attempt, and complimenting him in the same breath is an attempt to justify the unjustifiable.
Lastly, in anticipation of all the 'bedside conversion' rumors that will inevitably begin circulation, Christopher Hitchens said this: "As a terrified, half-aware imbecile, I might even scream for a priest at the close of business, though I hereby state while I am still lucid that the entity thus humiliating itself would not in fact be 'me.' (Bear this in mind, in case of any later rumors or fabrications.)" This is an awesome quote, and I will be sure to point it out to any douche bag that tries to convert me with stupid crap like this.
Friday, December 16, 2011
Friday, December 9, 2011
Answering creationist "arguments"
I said this post would be good, and while it is not particularly unique, it is very entertaining. This is of course an incomplete list, but I'll expand upon it later when I find some more "arguments".
Okay, well first off, that's fucked up. Second, there are many reasons why a false result could have been achieved. First and foremost, radiometric dating is to brides on very old things. Fossils, or rocks that are at least a couple hundred years old. Thief younger than this are going to give a false result. Or, if you were using a more appropriate dating method (and thus disproving your conclusion anyway) there is a high chance for human error. I doubt you have a degree in any of the sciences, which makes it unlikely that you know the correct processors. Or perhaps it was confirmation bias comung into play. Doing multiple tests and only one of them was wrong, so you hold it up as a triumph. Silly creationists, tricks don't work well in science.
I respond to this thusly: ever eaten an orange, or a lemon? Those have citric acid in them. And not just a kittle. How come your teeth and stomach didn't dissolve? Remembering from my Chen days (a couple years back) I think an acid is defined as having a readily bonding hydrogen atom on it. Like HCl, or hydrochloric acid. The acidity is determined by the number of free H+ ions in a solution, I think. I'll check my facts and comment the results on this post.
So that is it for the arguments I've seen/heard. If you know of any that you want me to answer, or want to challenge my answers on these, just comment, and I'll get right on it.
If humans evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?Ok, almost everyone has heard this one, and almost everyone thinks it is stupid. But for those who think it is convincing, I'll explain it this way. All dogs were bred from wolves, so how come there are still wolves? It's because only a small group was changed. And there are so many different breeds of dog, but they all have the same ancestor species, the wolf. The same thing applies to humans and monkeys, and apes. We all evolved from a common ancestor. It wasn't a monkey or an ape of today. It was something that had the shared traits of all, and most likely in a more primitive form. There was a divergence of genetics in the past, one side went on to become monkeys, the other to become apes (humans are just really smart apes).
Creatures don't live for millions of years!Once again, this is stupid, even to some creationists. The million year timeline isn't for the individual, but for the genetic group it is part of. Their defendants over the course of millions of years adapt to survive in drastic ways (depending on the circumstances). If a being did live for millions of years, that'd be amazing, and worthy of study and preservation.
I did a (insert radiometric dating technique here) on my dead cat and found it to be thousands of years old. Therefore radiometric dating is false.
Okay, well first off, that's fucked up. Second, there are many reasons why a false result could have been achieved. First and foremost, radiometric dating is to brides on very old things. Fossils, or rocks that are at least a couple hundred years old. Thief younger than this are going to give a false result. Or, if you were using a more appropriate dating method (and thus disproving your conclusion anyway) there is a high chance for human error. I doubt you have a degree in any of the sciences, which makes it unlikely that you know the correct processors. Or perhaps it was confirmation bias comung into play. Doing multiple tests and only one of them was wrong, so you hold it up as a triumph. Silly creationists, tricks don't work well in science.
Scientists like to use big words to sound more impressive, like deoxyribosenucleic acid, for example. Sounds impressive, right? Ever seen what happens when you put something in acid? It dissolves. If we had that throughout our bodies, we'd all dissolve. So much for the theory of evolution.
I respond to this thusly: ever eaten an orange, or a lemon? Those have citric acid in them. And not just a kittle. How come your teeth and stomach didn't dissolve? Remembering from my Chen days (a couple years back) I think an acid is defined as having a readily bonding hydrogen atom on it. Like HCl, or hydrochloric acid. The acidity is determined by the number of free H+ ions in a solution, I think. I'll check my facts and comment the results on this post.
So that is it for the arguments I've seen/heard. If you know of any that you want me to answer, or want to challenge my answers on these, just comment, and I'll get right on it.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
New blog
Hey there, my loyal followers. I'm sorry I haven't posted recently... I'm a shit of a person. I have now got a new blog, Written Utopia. It's about my writing skills; differing styles, practicing for my novel, reviews of literature. Things of that nature. Grammar Nazis are more than welcome, how else will I learn?
Keep a lookout for my next post, it'll be good, as a sorry for my lack of content for the last few weeks/months.
Keep a lookout for my next post, it'll be good, as a sorry for my lack of content for the last few weeks/months.
Sunday, September 25, 2011
A soul saved is a mind lost
I am between reliable Internet sources currently, and as such haven't been able to post ad often as I'd like. This month there will be no insane imagery, but if you have an idea for one, don't hesitate to email me. The address is prophetoflogic@hotmail.com. And now to my post.
There are many reasons one could come up with to suggest that religious people can be amoral, or at least highly immoral. But that isn't such a big problem. It's treatable, just like many mental disorders. A bigger problem is that, despite all evidence to the contrary, most people fail to accept their insanity. And it's transferrable, like paranoia within conspiracy theorist circles. The difference is that conspiracies aren't accepted and respected like religion. Every soul saved is a mind lost. Every person who accepts supernatural claims without, or in spite of, evidence is at least delusional, at worst schizophrenic. But it's even worse.
Some of those counted amongst the saved don't feel anything different to an atheist; don't attribute coincidence to some omnipotent being. In almost every way these people could be considered sane, except that they desire, usually very strongly, a supernatural feeling. They want to be delusional, though they wouldn't call it that, or even know it. It actually saddens me to see otherwise rational people say they long for the day they are touched by god.
when they get this 'touch' ignorance seems to infect their whole mind, moving from simply god to other areas like science and law. I've known people to over the course of a year (after being born again) change their opinion from being strongly against the death penalty, to being strongly for it, as well as other horrible acts, like corporal punishment. It imitates an infection, without a biological or chemical agent. The are no anti-ideology medications. The only thing we, the strongly atheist, can do is to explain their delusion, usually in nicer terms, and try to return them to sanity. It doesn't work often, but when it does, I suspect the sensation is similar to when a psychologist hears a schizophrenic patient say the voices aren't real.
Unfortuantely every soul lost is not a mind saved. Many times when someones soul is lost (not because of death) it is a conversion story. It is easier to believe that the voice in your head was someone different to who you thought, then it is to accept that it wasn't real to start with. No-one wants to be insane. Those who recover, though, seem to retaliate against religion harder than others who, like myself, were never converted to begin with.
Every soul saved is a mind lost. The impression of needing to be saved is hurtful to people, usually causing massive amounts of guilt, and manifesting in other unexpected ways *cough**catholic church**cough*. The idea that atheists need rescuing isn't completely untrue. Most times, however, they need to be rescued from their supposed Sabines. Beatings, life threats and constant harassment seem more characteristic of a stalker, or violent sociopath, than is does of a morally upstanding citizen, but therein lies the paradox. In order to save someone, you should isolated and punish them until they believe. That belief seems about as reliable as a confession given under torture. This has led good-hearted atheists to start groups dedicated to helping the unfortunate victims of the savior paradox. And I am thankful for them everyday.
You probably noticed I said "every soul saved is a mind lost" a number of times. This was no accident. This phrase associates being saved with being insane. It is my hope that it help to alleviate the savior paradox problem. I hope to see it floating around the web eventually, and perhaps even in real life. I know I'll be doing my part, by donating to he groups I vaguely pointed out and by trying to bring people back to the light of reason and sanity.
frites evidentia logica
There are many reasons one could come up with to suggest that religious people can be amoral, or at least highly immoral. But that isn't such a big problem. It's treatable, just like many mental disorders. A bigger problem is that, despite all evidence to the contrary, most people fail to accept their insanity. And it's transferrable, like paranoia within conspiracy theorist circles. The difference is that conspiracies aren't accepted and respected like religion. Every soul saved is a mind lost. Every person who accepts supernatural claims without, or in spite of, evidence is at least delusional, at worst schizophrenic. But it's even worse.
Some of those counted amongst the saved don't feel anything different to an atheist; don't attribute coincidence to some omnipotent being. In almost every way these people could be considered sane, except that they desire, usually very strongly, a supernatural feeling. They want to be delusional, though they wouldn't call it that, or even know it. It actually saddens me to see otherwise rational people say they long for the day they are touched by god.
when they get this 'touch' ignorance seems to infect their whole mind, moving from simply god to other areas like science and law. I've known people to over the course of a year (after being born again) change their opinion from being strongly against the death penalty, to being strongly for it, as well as other horrible acts, like corporal punishment. It imitates an infection, without a biological or chemical agent. The are no anti-ideology medications. The only thing we, the strongly atheist, can do is to explain their delusion, usually in nicer terms, and try to return them to sanity. It doesn't work often, but when it does, I suspect the sensation is similar to when a psychologist hears a schizophrenic patient say the voices aren't real.
Unfortuantely every soul lost is not a mind saved. Many times when someones soul is lost (not because of death) it is a conversion story. It is easier to believe that the voice in your head was someone different to who you thought, then it is to accept that it wasn't real to start with. No-one wants to be insane. Those who recover, though, seem to retaliate against religion harder than others who, like myself, were never converted to begin with.
Every soul saved is a mind lost. The impression of needing to be saved is hurtful to people, usually causing massive amounts of guilt, and manifesting in other unexpected ways *cough**catholic church**cough*. The idea that atheists need rescuing isn't completely untrue. Most times, however, they need to be rescued from their supposed Sabines. Beatings, life threats and constant harassment seem more characteristic of a stalker, or violent sociopath, than is does of a morally upstanding citizen, but therein lies the paradox. In order to save someone, you should isolated and punish them until they believe. That belief seems about as reliable as a confession given under torture. This has led good-hearted atheists to start groups dedicated to helping the unfortunate victims of the savior paradox. And I am thankful for them everyday.
You probably noticed I said "every soul saved is a mind lost" a number of times. This was no accident. This phrase associates being saved with being insane. It is my hope that it help to alleviate the savior paradox problem. I hope to see it floating around the web eventually, and perhaps even in real life. I know I'll be doing my part, by donating to he groups I vaguely pointed out and by trying to bring people back to the light of reason and sanity.
frites evidentia logica
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Insane Imagery
Welcome to the late edition of Insane Imagery. This month I'm doing Star Wars, and focussing on the key elements of the films. These features include:
We all know what a lightsabre is, the fantastic sword apparently made of extreme light and heat, which in all other aspect behaves like a sword. But is it a plausible weapon? Short answer: No. Any weapon which is made of light is not going to be solid enough to deflect other weapons, or blaster bolts, or anything else for that matter. Ever try to block a punch with a laser light?That doesn't even get into the idea of keeping the light in a very constricted shape, without the use of mirrors.
Of course, that isn't to say something similar will never be available. The characteristics of a Lightsabre are almost identical to those exhibited by a Plasma Sword. What's Plasma? Why, Plasma is the forth state of matter! Solid, Liquid, Gas, Plasma. If somthing doesn't fit solid, liquid or gas, it's probably plasma. Some examples are, FIRE! LIGHTNING! AURORA BORIALIS! AURORA AUSTRALIANIS! NEBULAS! and many others. Chemically, plasma is a state of matter in which all molecules are dissociated and most are ionized. Make any sense to you? Chemists, correct me if I'm wrong, but is that basically the nuclei (centres) of the molecules are not really connected, but the electrons are almost free moving? Sounds about right.
In any case, if enough energy was produced to superheat plasma, it could be drawn out and held in place with a ridiculously powerful electro-magnetic field. The EMF would cause the sword to strike other such swords as though they were solid, but would pass straight through a non-magnetic sword... although the superheated plasma would probably do some damage. Another advantage would be drawing magnetic weapons to it, melting or contorting them to be useless. This isn't seen in the movies, but would be cool to see in real life.
Despite the seeming simplicity of the concept, creating a "lightsabre" would be next to impossible, as the energy requirements for even short term use are astronomical. In order to create one with today's technology, you would need a nuclear reactor, several super computers and something the size of a tank to house it all. and that's for a normal length blade. We won't be seeing any lightsabres around here any time soon. Blasters on the other hand...
Blasters
The other handheld weapon of the Star Wars trilogies is the blaster. In effect, a blaster is a handheld weapon of similar shap and size to our current firearms, the only difference being they shoot what looks like lasers. A more likely shot would be, you guessed it, Plasma.
Plasma guns do exist. They aren't military grade, and are VERY bulky, but they do exist. They are known as Dense Plasma Focuses or DPF, and shoot short lived high temperature, high density plasma in scientific experiments. If the design could be miniaturized, and the yield increased, so as to increase the life of the plasma shot, it might achieve a weapons grade. As it is, it is indescribably useful to science, and completely useless to the military.
The other big problem would be energy. It requires a large amount of energy to create the shots of plasma, and nothing we can currently create at a handheld level as anywhere near the levels of output required to run such a device. If a small portable fusion or even fission reactor could be designed, then we'd be much closer to the time of lightswords and ray guns. If we managed to create such a device, perhaps we'd have the energ needed for faster then light travel.
Space travel
First off, when designing the films, the distance between planets was not taken into account, or at least can't have been thought through. Most of the travel in the galaxy was by large starships going at light speed. Not only is this impossible, it is impractical. The faster an object moves, the more energy it needs to go faster; and the more energy it has, the larger it's mass. In order to go at the speed of light, an object would require an infinite amount of energy, and because of that it would have an infinite amount of mass. This is one of the things discovered by Einstein's Theory of Relativity.
The design of the starships witin the Star Wars universe are reminiscent of the rockets of old. They suggest that some fuel burning within a confined space would create a sufficient speed for galactic travel. This is not the case. Unless the fire at the back of the ships were plasma vents... A more realistic inter-planetary transport system would be an Alcubierre Drive, which is akin to the Warp Drive of Star Trek. A drive of this style creates a wave IN THE VERY FABRIC OF SPACE! Doing this would make the space around the ship move, not the ship itself, so it violates no Relativistic laws. Of course an Alcubierre Drive doesn't suggest the intricate maneuvers demonstrated in the films as possible. Though if it could be weakened and directed, there isn't any logical reason why it wouldn't work. At present, there are no known ways to create a spacial distortion event. Perhaps we'll find an alien species who knows a way...
Aliens
This is an interesting question, are there aliens, and if so, what do they look like? The best thing about the films is that the aliens really do look strange. If aliens are out there, it is almost impossible that they'd look similar to anything we have on earth. The conditions of life on other planets would be different to Earth, just because it isn't Earth. They even have creatures that aren't sentient, which is how you would expect it to be, if they worlds there are anything like Earth.
I won't say whether there are aliens out there or not, because I have no idea. Whose to say just how likely a life starting event is? Or a sentience event? It's possible that we'll never find alien life, just as it it possible we'll find some tomorrow. I will remain agnostic to this question, as the evidence just isn't there for either side.
I have hopefully explained to you the various logical inaccuracies and potential real world applications of the science of Star Wars. I'm likely forgetting a lot, so if you notice something I forget, please comment on here so I can address it. Otherwise, comment of likes and dislikes, follow me if you want, and stay tuned for mor INSANE IMAGERY!
- The Lightsabre
- Blasters
- Space Travel
- Cloning
- Aliens
We all know what a lightsabre is, the fantastic sword apparently made of extreme light and heat, which in all other aspect behaves like a sword. But is it a plausible weapon? Short answer: No. Any weapon which is made of light is not going to be solid enough to deflect other weapons, or blaster bolts, or anything else for that matter. Ever try to block a punch with a laser light?That doesn't even get into the idea of keeping the light in a very constricted shape, without the use of mirrors.
Of course, that isn't to say something similar will never be available. The characteristics of a Lightsabre are almost identical to those exhibited by a Plasma Sword. What's Plasma? Why, Plasma is the forth state of matter! Solid, Liquid, Gas, Plasma. If somthing doesn't fit solid, liquid or gas, it's probably plasma. Some examples are, FIRE! LIGHTNING! AURORA BORIALIS! AURORA AUSTRALIANIS! NEBULAS! and many others. Chemically, plasma is a state of matter in which all molecules are dissociated and most are ionized. Make any sense to you? Chemists, correct me if I'm wrong, but is that basically the nuclei (centres) of the molecules are not really connected, but the electrons are almost free moving? Sounds about right.
In any case, if enough energy was produced to superheat plasma, it could be drawn out and held in place with a ridiculously powerful electro-magnetic field. The EMF would cause the sword to strike other such swords as though they were solid, but would pass straight through a non-magnetic sword... although the superheated plasma would probably do some damage. Another advantage would be drawing magnetic weapons to it, melting or contorting them to be useless. This isn't seen in the movies, but would be cool to see in real life.
Despite the seeming simplicity of the concept, creating a "lightsabre" would be next to impossible, as the energy requirements for even short term use are astronomical. In order to create one with today's technology, you would need a nuclear reactor, several super computers and something the size of a tank to house it all. and that's for a normal length blade. We won't be seeing any lightsabres around here any time soon. Blasters on the other hand...
Blasters
The other handheld weapon of the Star Wars trilogies is the blaster. In effect, a blaster is a handheld weapon of similar shap and size to our current firearms, the only difference being they shoot what looks like lasers. A more likely shot would be, you guessed it, Plasma.
Plasma guns do exist. They aren't military grade, and are VERY bulky, but they do exist. They are known as Dense Plasma Focuses or DPF, and shoot short lived high temperature, high density plasma in scientific experiments. If the design could be miniaturized, and the yield increased, so as to increase the life of the plasma shot, it might achieve a weapons grade. As it is, it is indescribably useful to science, and completely useless to the military.
The other big problem would be energy. It requires a large amount of energy to create the shots of plasma, and nothing we can currently create at a handheld level as anywhere near the levels of output required to run such a device. If a small portable fusion or even fission reactor could be designed, then we'd be much closer to the time of lightswords and ray guns. If we managed to create such a device, perhaps we'd have the energ needed for faster then light travel.
Space travel
First off, when designing the films, the distance between planets was not taken into account, or at least can't have been thought through. Most of the travel in the galaxy was by large starships going at light speed. Not only is this impossible, it is impractical. The faster an object moves, the more energy it needs to go faster; and the more energy it has, the larger it's mass. In order to go at the speed of light, an object would require an infinite amount of energy, and because of that it would have an infinite amount of mass. This is one of the things discovered by Einstein's Theory of Relativity.
The design of the starships witin the Star Wars universe are reminiscent of the rockets of old. They suggest that some fuel burning within a confined space would create a sufficient speed for galactic travel. This is not the case. Unless the fire at the back of the ships were plasma vents... A more realistic inter-planetary transport system would be an Alcubierre Drive, which is akin to the Warp Drive of Star Trek. A drive of this style creates a wave IN THE VERY FABRIC OF SPACE! Doing this would make the space around the ship move, not the ship itself, so it violates no Relativistic laws. Of course an Alcubierre Drive doesn't suggest the intricate maneuvers demonstrated in the films as possible. Though if it could be weakened and directed, there isn't any logical reason why it wouldn't work. At present, there are no known ways to create a spacial distortion event. Perhaps we'll find an alien species who knows a way...
Aliens
This is an interesting question, are there aliens, and if so, what do they look like? The best thing about the films is that the aliens really do look strange. If aliens are out there, it is almost impossible that they'd look similar to anything we have on earth. The conditions of life on other planets would be different to Earth, just because it isn't Earth. They even have creatures that aren't sentient, which is how you would expect it to be, if they worlds there are anything like Earth.
I won't say whether there are aliens out there or not, because I have no idea. Whose to say just how likely a life starting event is? Or a sentience event? It's possible that we'll never find alien life, just as it it possible we'll find some tomorrow. I will remain agnostic to this question, as the evidence just isn't there for either side.
I have hopefully explained to you the various logical inaccuracies and potential real world applications of the science of Star Wars. I'm likely forgetting a lot, so if you notice something I forget, please comment on here so I can address it. Otherwise, comment of likes and dislikes, follow me if you want, and stay tuned for mor INSANE IMAGERY!
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Imagine all the people
Can you imagine my rage? I recently went on to youtube to listen to one of my favourite songs of all time, Imagine by John Lennon. What i find, amongst the numerous remixes, covers and film clips, but this garbage:
http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=AU#/watch?v=oS8T3fy9yQo
This is clearly a mobile weblink, so if you can't follow it, it's called Imagine(christian version). This really burns my biscuits. I'm sure this guy felt his response was grea, but unfortunately he missed the point of the original song. He seems to think the strongest message is anti-religion. That message is there, but it's an accompanying message. The main point of the song is "give peace a chance", to quote another John Lennon song. It seems to me that any message of peace that doesn't mention religion is HORRIBLY flawed. In order for peace to be achieved in the world, there must be understanding and acceptance between religion. That or accepting the fact that if there is some deity out there, it has lost all the fucks it had to give.
This post is not a rambling about the evils of religion, nor am I going to destroy this guy (he made no argument either than his belief in god). This post is my attempt to enlighten people to the things people will do for their belief. Creating a parody is one thing, this is another. To me it seems as though this man thought his religion was being singled out, so he wrote a pro-"my religion" version of the song. It's one of the better reactions possible, but pointless, stupid and counter-productive. Ignorance breeds ignorance, and if a song like this became popular, there's a good chance that the hell theists believe in would break loose upon the Earth.
Crites evidentia logica.
http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=AU#/watch?v=oS8T3fy9yQo
This is clearly a mobile weblink, so if you can't follow it, it's called Imagine(christian version). This really burns my biscuits. I'm sure this guy felt his response was grea, but unfortunately he missed the point of the original song. He seems to think the strongest message is anti-religion. That message is there, but it's an accompanying message. The main point of the song is "give peace a chance", to quote another John Lennon song. It seems to me that any message of peace that doesn't mention religion is HORRIBLY flawed. In order for peace to be achieved in the world, there must be understanding and acceptance between religion. That or accepting the fact that if there is some deity out there, it has lost all the fucks it had to give.
This post is not a rambling about the evils of religion, nor am I going to destroy this guy (he made no argument either than his belief in god). This post is my attempt to enlighten people to the things people will do for their belief. Creating a parody is one thing, this is another. To me it seems as though this man thought his religion was being singled out, so he wrote a pro-"my religion" version of the song. It's one of the better reactions possible, but pointless, stupid and counter-productive. Ignorance breeds ignorance, and if a song like this became popular, there's a good chance that the hell theists believe in would break loose upon the Earth.
Crites evidentia logica.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Apathy
Before I begin the rant you've all been waiting for, I must first apologise for my absence the last month. I have had the flu, and have been without access to the Internet. I missed last months "Insane Imagery" and will hopefully post that this weekend. However, I'm back now and completely ready to rant.
"Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little death that brings total obliteration." Dune 1965, Frank Herbert. This quote is memorable for it's vivid imagery and simplicity. Everyone has been scared before and everyone can understand the thoughts and feelings that occur when one is scared. This seems to make this quote more substantial, more real. And I assert a similar idea: Apathy is the soul-killer. Apathy is the slow but steady death of passion and thought that bring utter annihilation. I use the word soul as a synonym for inspiration, and not as an ethereal entity that acts as your mind.
Apathy has been a major concern of mine, first as my classmates succumbed to its allure, then as I battled it during my years of social anxiety. And now as the world hides from itself behind the shadowy cloak of apathy, I find myself rejuvenated, my normal wish to stay inside and do nothing destroyed, and a new desire to get out and work washing over me, soaking to my core. There isn't much that I can do, especially in gfc world, but without doing something I will go insane. Aside from looking for work, I am going to do my part to save the world. I will write on this blog, make my YouTube videos (currently in editing by the way), and I will be taking every opportunity I can find to discuss this problem and remove it. This will involve public speaking, so I'll be letting everyone know when I do it and how it went. As a personal note, my apathetic nature during puberty led me to become frail and unfit, lacking in self-confidence and stooped over to boot. I am rectifying the situation, working out more, eating healthier and visiting the doctor in regards to a overall health plan. This is all about me, I got off track.
Apathy is a major symptom of clinical depression, as there is virtually no difference between not feeling and hiding from your feelings. Depressed people don't want to show their feelings for various reasons, including being scared of what they'd see, or thinking no-one would like them. They need care and understanding, but because it's a difficult problem, they mostly get confusion or outright rejection. The first step a person can take to help inspire the world is to notice broad spectrum apathy for what it is, and try to help those they see with it.
Harder than noticing apathy in others is noticing it within yourself. If those around you seem worried, or you're bored 90% of the time, you might be depressed and hiding behind apathy. If you think you might be depressed, talk to someone, either someone you trust or a mental healthcare professional. Preferably the latter, as they have been trained to help and know what they are doing. A single apathetic person can deflate a whole room, and as such should do all they can to help themselves, if not for themselves, then for the inspired people they might meet.
Finally, apathy within a group is an easy fix. Anyone can do it, as passion can be contagious. A word of encouragement here, a pat on the back there is all it takes to bring someone out of a slump. If you're really up for it a well timed speech can cause even the least caring individual to become fervent. Even without a set stage a speech can work wonders. If whilst walking down the street you see the chance to inspire, take it. Talk proudly, passionately and with conviction, and people will listen. Let it come from within and people will be impressed by your passion, or have it prepared and let your words come out clear. There are other ways to eliminate the soul-killer, but this is a start, I call it the "Inspire the World Campaign". Please comment with your contributions and support, or point to the multiple flaws in my ad hoc plan. I can benefit from both.
crites evidentia logica.
"Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little death that brings total obliteration." Dune 1965, Frank Herbert. This quote is memorable for it's vivid imagery and simplicity. Everyone has been scared before and everyone can understand the thoughts and feelings that occur when one is scared. This seems to make this quote more substantial, more real. And I assert a similar idea: Apathy is the soul-killer. Apathy is the slow but steady death of passion and thought that bring utter annihilation. I use the word soul as a synonym for inspiration, and not as an ethereal entity that acts as your mind.
Apathy has been a major concern of mine, first as my classmates succumbed to its allure, then as I battled it during my years of social anxiety. And now as the world hides from itself behind the shadowy cloak of apathy, I find myself rejuvenated, my normal wish to stay inside and do nothing destroyed, and a new desire to get out and work washing over me, soaking to my core. There isn't much that I can do, especially in gfc world, but without doing something I will go insane. Aside from looking for work, I am going to do my part to save the world. I will write on this blog, make my YouTube videos (currently in editing by the way), and I will be taking every opportunity I can find to discuss this problem and remove it. This will involve public speaking, so I'll be letting everyone know when I do it and how it went. As a personal note, my apathetic nature during puberty led me to become frail and unfit, lacking in self-confidence and stooped over to boot. I am rectifying the situation, working out more, eating healthier and visiting the doctor in regards to a overall health plan. This is all about me, I got off track.
Apathy is a major symptom of clinical depression, as there is virtually no difference between not feeling and hiding from your feelings. Depressed people don't want to show their feelings for various reasons, including being scared of what they'd see, or thinking no-one would like them. They need care and understanding, but because it's a difficult problem, they mostly get confusion or outright rejection. The first step a person can take to help inspire the world is to notice broad spectrum apathy for what it is, and try to help those they see with it.
Harder than noticing apathy in others is noticing it within yourself. If those around you seem worried, or you're bored 90% of the time, you might be depressed and hiding behind apathy. If you think you might be depressed, talk to someone, either someone you trust or a mental healthcare professional. Preferably the latter, as they have been trained to help and know what they are doing. A single apathetic person can deflate a whole room, and as such should do all they can to help themselves, if not for themselves, then for the inspired people they might meet.
Finally, apathy within a group is an easy fix. Anyone can do it, as passion can be contagious. A word of encouragement here, a pat on the back there is all it takes to bring someone out of a slump. If you're really up for it a well timed speech can cause even the least caring individual to become fervent. Even without a set stage a speech can work wonders. If whilst walking down the street you see the chance to inspire, take it. Talk proudly, passionately and with conviction, and people will listen. Let it come from within and people will be impressed by your passion, or have it prepared and let your words come out clear. There are other ways to eliminate the soul-killer, but this is a start, I call it the "Inspire the World Campaign". Please comment with your contributions and support, or point to the multiple flaws in my ad hoc plan. I can benefit from both.
crites evidentia logica.
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Relatively Good Morals
A large contention between atheists and theists is that of morals. "If there is no God, why be good?" This is something I hear fairly commonly in my life, whenever I start talking about evolution in a place where ignorance is high. There are many books, blogs, articles, videos, podcast's, and radio shows that answer this question. I will be included, with my own intriguing spin.
What is the benefit of being good? There are 4 evolutionary reasons for altruistic behaviour (helping others even to the point of hindering yourself).
Firstly, there's Relatives. A person you are related to has a higher chance of sharing similar genes to you, and so it would be beneficial to those genes that you help our family.
Second is Reciprocation. If you reward good, you'll be rewarded for your good acts. Reciprocation is a 2 way street, if you don't do good acts, you wont be rewarded, and if you do bad acts, you will be punished.
Third, Reputation. By doing altruistic things, you are known for those acts, and are more likely to be rewarded, if only because you are likely to reciprocate it.
Lastly, there's Ego. Large, obvious acts of altruism can be used as a way of saying "Hey, look at me, I can afford to give you my food, cause I'm that good. I can head the charge, cause I'm brave." This technically isn't altruism, as the reason isn't selfless, but the word fits better than most.
These can easily explain why we have a conscience. This doesn't explain how we determine our morals. A lot of it is easy, and obvious. An application of the Golden rule (which is attributed to religion, but can be traced back otherwise) is all we need for most of our morals. We don't kill because we wouldn't like someone to kill us. Immanuel Kant was right on the money when he said: "act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law." Understand? I didn't get it at first either, but what it means is that you should act in a way that you would want everyone to act at the same time. Be nice to others, because you want everyone to be nice to others. Don't be violent, because you don't want everyone to be violent.
Morals are, and always have been, relative. Relative to the circumstances, to the people, to society as a whole. I feel that everyone should be morally correct killing, provided the circumstances left only that option. I also feel that there would be certain circumstances in which being mean would be right. Just cause I can think of them doesn't mean they don't exist.
"Without god, why be good?" seems to me to be the same as asking "Why not rob them, they're blind". I also never thought god wanted you to be a brown-noser. I suppose there's no "thou shalt not kiss ass" commandment, and he does want you to please him above everything else. I guess it is better to be good to make a petty, vengeful guy happy, than to be nice without worrying about him. He'd make you pay for not trying to please him, or so it seems.
I am going to look into the research on the correlation between religiosity and morals/crime/violence/life span/living conditions/education. I have a strong feeling that the less religious a person/city/country is the higher the morals/life span/living conditions/education and the lower crime/violence is. It will be up next week. Until then,
crites evidentia logica.
What is the benefit of being good? There are 4 evolutionary reasons for altruistic behaviour (helping others even to the point of hindering yourself).
Firstly, there's Relatives. A person you are related to has a higher chance of sharing similar genes to you, and so it would be beneficial to those genes that you help our family.
Second is Reciprocation. If you reward good, you'll be rewarded for your good acts. Reciprocation is a 2 way street, if you don't do good acts, you wont be rewarded, and if you do bad acts, you will be punished.
Third, Reputation. By doing altruistic things, you are known for those acts, and are more likely to be rewarded, if only because you are likely to reciprocate it.
Lastly, there's Ego. Large, obvious acts of altruism can be used as a way of saying "Hey, look at me, I can afford to give you my food, cause I'm that good. I can head the charge, cause I'm brave." This technically isn't altruism, as the reason isn't selfless, but the word fits better than most.
These can easily explain why we have a conscience. This doesn't explain how we determine our morals. A lot of it is easy, and obvious. An application of the Golden rule (which is attributed to religion, but can be traced back otherwise) is all we need for most of our morals. We don't kill because we wouldn't like someone to kill us. Immanuel Kant was right on the money when he said: "act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law." Understand? I didn't get it at first either, but what it means is that you should act in a way that you would want everyone to act at the same time. Be nice to others, because you want everyone to be nice to others. Don't be violent, because you don't want everyone to be violent.
Morals are, and always have been, relative. Relative to the circumstances, to the people, to society as a whole. I feel that everyone should be morally correct killing, provided the circumstances left only that option. I also feel that there would be certain circumstances in which being mean would be right. Just cause I can think of them doesn't mean they don't exist.
"Without god, why be good?" seems to me to be the same as asking "Why not rob them, they're blind". I also never thought god wanted you to be a brown-noser. I suppose there's no "thou shalt not kiss ass" commandment, and he does want you to please him above everything else. I guess it is better to be good to make a petty, vengeful guy happy, than to be nice without worrying about him. He'd make you pay for not trying to please him, or so it seems.
I am going to look into the research on the correlation between religiosity and morals/crime/violence/life span/living conditions/education. I have a strong feeling that the less religious a person/city/country is the higher the morals/life span/living conditions/education and the lower crime/violence is. It will be up next week. Until then,
crites evidentia logica.
Saturday, May 21, 2011
Attack of the Velocirapture
And once again, the founder of family radio Harold Camping has failed to predict the date of the Rapture. This comes as no surprise to those of us with an IQ in the double digits, but for those who had high hopes for today, let me explain a few things.
1) You believed the founder of a radio station without looking into it. That's not something anyone does, without evidence that they are trustworthy, from a reliable source. This is not the case with Harold Camping. There's been nothing to show that he should be taken at his word. And being christian is NOT a reason to assume he's truthful, just look at televangelists.
2) Harold Camping is 90 years old. There is a good chance he is senile. He's got a lot of life experience, and a lot of faith, but that doesn't make him sane. Not everyone loses their mind as they age. But if a 70 year old person starts claiming the end is nigh he is labelled as deluded at the best, deranged at the worst. When a 90 year old starts taking random numbers from a "holy" book and finds a nearby date and cries about the coming of rapture, you should lock him up. Not pay for billboards to promote his ideas.
3) The bible says that the second coming of Jesus will be like a thief in the night. Unknown to man. If you believe that the Bible is the word of God, whether inspired or written, then you cannot also believe that God was lying, and that he warned you about the rapture when he said he wouldn't. I suppose that makes as much sense as any other part of God...
4) Only a complete moron would not have a contingency plan against the Rapture. It is already illogical to believe it will happen, but to put absolute faith in such a fantasy, to the point of giving away all of your things and donating all of your money, is complete lunacy. If you did this, you don't deserve to own things.
I had a fifth point, but at the time of writing this I have forgotten it. I'm sure it was witty and insulting, and highly relevant. Oh well, I think I've made my point. If you are one of the people who was hoping to go to heaven today, I truly pity you. And I'm sorry to inform you that your life should be spent in a rubber warmed room. Until next time,
crites evidentia logica.
1) You believed the founder of a radio station without looking into it. That's not something anyone does, without evidence that they are trustworthy, from a reliable source. This is not the case with Harold Camping. There's been nothing to show that he should be taken at his word. And being christian is NOT a reason to assume he's truthful, just look at televangelists.
2) Harold Camping is 90 years old. There is a good chance he is senile. He's got a lot of life experience, and a lot of faith, but that doesn't make him sane. Not everyone loses their mind as they age. But if a 70 year old person starts claiming the end is nigh he is labelled as deluded at the best, deranged at the worst. When a 90 year old starts taking random numbers from a "holy" book and finds a nearby date and cries about the coming of rapture, you should lock him up. Not pay for billboards to promote his ideas.
3) The bible says that the second coming of Jesus will be like a thief in the night. Unknown to man. If you believe that the Bible is the word of God, whether inspired or written, then you cannot also believe that God was lying, and that he warned you about the rapture when he said he wouldn't. I suppose that makes as much sense as any other part of God...
4) Only a complete moron would not have a contingency plan against the Rapture. It is already illogical to believe it will happen, but to put absolute faith in such a fantasy, to the point of giving away all of your things and donating all of your money, is complete lunacy. If you did this, you don't deserve to own things.
I had a fifth point, but at the time of writing this I have forgotten it. I'm sure it was witty and insulting, and highly relevant. Oh well, I think I've made my point. If you are one of the people who was hoping to go to heaven today, I truly pity you. And I'm sorry to inform you that your life should be spent in a rubber warmed room. Until next time,
crites evidentia logica.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
The Written Word
I like to think that I have an entertaining and easy-to-understand way of getting my ideas across. This is because I try my best to educate people with all levels of learning. I know I don't get everyone, but those that I do make me feel great. I love to teach. That being said, I won't become a teacher, I don't really like kids. Instead, I'm going to write a non-fiction book, with the aim of educating the masses with my brilliant mind, comedic wit and incredible ego. Here are the ideas I have so far:
crites evidentia logica.
- Magical Miracles: Discovering that 'miracles' are nothing more then tricks.
- The Right side of Wrong: Explaining sin, and why there's nothing wrong with it.
- The Arguing Atheist's Guide: Debunking Creationism 1 'proof' at a time.
- The Price of Faith: Examining the cost faith has on the person, the country and the world.
- Prophets of Logic: Explaining and applying reasoning from the Old world to the New.
crites evidentia logica.
Friday, May 6, 2011
Insane Imagery: The Science of Pokemon
Welcome to my first post in a monthly series called Insane Imagery, where I look at different TV shows, movies, books, etc. and try to explain the science therein. This month it's POKEMON!
Yes Pokemon, that cute group of games where technology is high, and ethics are low. As I explained, I'm looking into the science here, not theorizing about the mental and emotional development of a 12-13 year old sent out to travel the world alone, all the while using technology to abuse animals into doing what they want. I am also not going to go into the anomalous lack of factories, warehouses and transport within the world.
Here's a large list of the crazy things in this world that require some thinking to understand:
- Pokemon
- Linguistics
- Moves
- Types
- Evolution
- Death
- Pokeballs
- Size change
- Capturing
- Coercion
- Release/Return
- Power
None of this is easy to explain, but I'll give it my best. I'll go down the list as best I can, making references as needed. First up, Pokemon Linguistics, and how they can understand each other and humans.
Pokemon language is an enigma, simple yet complex, undefined yet specific, gibberish with meaning. The problem addressing this issue lies firstly in the fact that the different sources (Games and TV Show) don't agree in how Pokemon sound. Is it Pika Pikachu, or Pupupupupupuu? Not only that, Pokemon must also understand human speech, because no training is needed after capture in order to use the Pokemon. Logically, Pokemon must either be very intelligent, or somehow given a translator between the time they are caught and the time they are used. I feel the second is more likely, though they aren't mutually exclusive, and I'll get to that when I'm discussing Pokeballs.
Next come the moves, and the types of moves available. Most moves make logical sense, and may even be seen in the natural world, e.g. Bite, Gust, Water Gun, etc. Others are a little bit less common, but can be explained, e.g. Flamethrower, Psibeam, etc. And then there's Baton Pass, Block, etc. There's a biological explanation for fire or ice generation, see http://dragonint.webs.com/dragonbiology.htm. Psychics and telekinesis are generally cast off into the realms of Pseudo-science, but there is a little bit of theory that supports it. It's described well here: http://weilerpsiblog.wordpress.com/2009/10/09/the-physics-behind-psychic-ability/. Moves like Baton Pass don't work well in reality, unless you consider the move a subtle form of mental manipulation. If psychic powers exist in the world of Pokemon, then a move which prohibits escape or transfers powers up can be a version of these. For example, Ninjask gets a speed boost just because it is Ninjask. If it uses Baton Pass, a suggestion could be placed that the next Pokemon used is faster then normal. Block could be explained only if the return function of a Pokeball requires consent. I'll get to that too.
Now for the obviously flawed idea in Pokemon called 'Evolution'. This involves a Pokemon fighting enough to trigger it's metamorphosis. This change involves a rapid, and sometimes drastic, reconstruction of the Pokemons body. One of my friends, as a way of explaining this, suggested that Pokemon aren't very similar to us. They are made of Cells which, like ours, originate as Stem cells. However, unlike our cells, a Pokemons cells can revert back to this Stem cell shape. In addition, each can quickly duplicate, allowing for the large size differences between different Pokemon evolutions. Just as animals have instinct, Pokemon have a evolution instinct programmed into their brains. It is repressed however, which is why battling can bring it forth. When activated, the evolution instinct causes a gland within the Pokemon, probably something akin to the hypothalamus, to excrete certain chemicals. These chemicals trigger a rapid chain-reaction that causes all the cells to revert to Stem cells and the reform into a new, more efficient form. This process is not consciously activated, but can be halted. If the Pokemon has reason (It's directed not to, insufficient food, etc), it can cause the same gland to produce a neutralizing agent, which acts quickly to stop the evolution process.
Another form of evolution is stone evolution. There are stones which effectively force a Pokemon to evolve. Stones only affect a small number of Pokemon, those that would otherwise not evolve. The stone actually replaces the evolution instinct chemical. It's not specified how a stone is used in the game, just that they are. The reaction caused by the stomach acid melting the stone could release the necessary chemicals, or perhaps the stone is made of the same chemicals and only contact is required. Who knows, maybe it's a suppository.
This brings us to happiness evolution. It seems to me that the trigger event in this case is a desire to impress. This makes sense in terms of real evolution, as a creature that will change to impress a mate will have more chance to reproduce.
Finally, what happens when a Pokemon dies? Obviously Pokemon die, otherwise there wouldn't be the Pokemon Tower in lavender town, or the skull on Cubone's head. Clearly, when Pokemon die, they enter a transitional state and revert into a ghost Pokemon. This does not make sense. But, then, neither does a lot about Pokemon. Despite their clear existence in Pokemon, ghosts seem to still avoid explanation, so I'll leave it at that.
Wow. All this and I'm just up to Pokeballs. Hopefully they'll be quicker to explain.
Okay, in the TV show a Pokeball is about the size of a golf ball until it's center button is touchedarea. Due to it's virtual silence and smooth movement, there would have to thousands of moving parts to work. This would create a lot of friction, so perhaps the mechanisms use magnets to operate.
Next is the capturing. Once a Pokemon is struck by a Pokeball they are drawn within. This event is similar to the Transporter from Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek. A information pattern of the Pokemon is stored within the ball, and is reconstructed upon use. Considering that returning to the Pokeball must require consent in order for certain moves to work logically, it follows that to be captured also requires consent, or at least low resistance. A Pokeball, or it's more powerful variations, influence the Pokemon they are trying to capture, to somehow entice a low resistance. This is normally done through a small coercion device being written into the Pokemons pattern. If it isn't written fast enough, the Pokemon is released as a safety measure, hence 'breaking free'. The stronger the ball, the faster the coercion device is written. A master ball for instance writes so quickly and safely no Pokemon pattern has the chance of damage. Different types of balls, made of apricorns use a strong scent to lower the resistance of certain types of Pokemon before converting the Pokemon to a pattern.
The coercion device would likely be a small chip which exists within a caught Pokemons brain. It functions as a identifier, and a translator as well, allowing the trainer to use the Pokemon without the need for hours, days, or even months of training. The identifier would stop theft by preventing opponents Pokeballs from writing a new device into the pattern. Team rocket, and other thieves, would likely have developed their own 'balls to get around this safety net. If a trainer wants to remove this chip, and release the Pokemon, it is simply removed from the pattern before its last release.
The most basic problem of Pokeballs is the power necessary to run them. Short of developing a micro nuclear fusion reactor, a molecular fission reactor, or a dilithium crystal reactor, I can only guess that a very small, very heavy duty rechargeable battery is used. The first three are out when you consider the power stations within the games and show. They rely on current technology or Pokemon to operate. These batteries would most likely be recharged at a Pokemon center.
As a final note, I will suggest just how a Pokemon center works. When the Pokemon are placed in the machine, a complex algorithm runs, repairing the pattern stored in the Pokeball, whilst leaving the memory center of the brain unchanged. This allows for the Pokemon to eventually reach an evolution state and still be repaired from a backup.
I hope this clears a few things up for you, though there will still be questions, I'm sure. Please ask in a comment. If you're going to point out the leveling system inside the Pokemon games, don't. That's just a mechanism used by the games to show the amount of pushing needed to make a Pokemon evolve. If you have suggestions for my next Insane Imagery, please tell me in a comment below. Until next time,
crites evidentia logica.
Yes Pokemon, that cute group of games where technology is high, and ethics are low. As I explained, I'm looking into the science here, not theorizing about the mental and emotional development of a 12-13 year old sent out to travel the world alone, all the while using technology to abuse animals into doing what they want. I am also not going to go into the anomalous lack of factories, warehouses and transport within the world.
Here's a large list of the crazy things in this world that require some thinking to understand:
- Pokemon
- Linguistics
- Moves
- Types
- Evolution
- Death
- Pokeballs
- Size change
- Capturing
- Coercion
- Release/Return
- Power
None of this is easy to explain, but I'll give it my best. I'll go down the list as best I can, making references as needed. First up, Pokemon Linguistics, and how they can understand each other and humans.
Pokemon language is an enigma, simple yet complex, undefined yet specific, gibberish with meaning. The problem addressing this issue lies firstly in the fact that the different sources (Games and TV Show) don't agree in how Pokemon sound. Is it Pika Pikachu, or Pupupupupupuu? Not only that, Pokemon must also understand human speech, because no training is needed after capture in order to use the Pokemon. Logically, Pokemon must either be very intelligent, or somehow given a translator between the time they are caught and the time they are used. I feel the second is more likely, though they aren't mutually exclusive, and I'll get to that when I'm discussing Pokeballs.
Next come the moves, and the types of moves available. Most moves make logical sense, and may even be seen in the natural world, e.g. Bite, Gust, Water Gun, etc. Others are a little bit less common, but can be explained, e.g. Flamethrower, Psibeam, etc. And then there's Baton Pass, Block, etc. There's a biological explanation for fire or ice generation, see http://dragonint.webs.com/dragonbiology.htm. Psychics and telekinesis are generally cast off into the realms of Pseudo-science, but there is a little bit of theory that supports it. It's described well here: http://weilerpsiblog.wordpress.com/2009/10/09/the-physics-behind-psychic-ability/. Moves like Baton Pass don't work well in reality, unless you consider the move a subtle form of mental manipulation. If psychic powers exist in the world of Pokemon, then a move which prohibits escape or transfers powers up can be a version of these. For example, Ninjask gets a speed boost just because it is Ninjask. If it uses Baton Pass, a suggestion could be placed that the next Pokemon used is faster then normal. Block could be explained only if the return function of a Pokeball requires consent. I'll get to that too.
Now for the obviously flawed idea in Pokemon called 'Evolution'. This involves a Pokemon fighting enough to trigger it's metamorphosis. This change involves a rapid, and sometimes drastic, reconstruction of the Pokemons body. One of my friends, as a way of explaining this, suggested that Pokemon aren't very similar to us. They are made of Cells which, like ours, originate as Stem cells. However, unlike our cells, a Pokemons cells can revert back to this Stem cell shape. In addition, each can quickly duplicate, allowing for the large size differences between different Pokemon evolutions. Just as animals have instinct, Pokemon have a evolution instinct programmed into their brains. It is repressed however, which is why battling can bring it forth. When activated, the evolution instinct causes a gland within the Pokemon, probably something akin to the hypothalamus, to excrete certain chemicals. These chemicals trigger a rapid chain-reaction that causes all the cells to revert to Stem cells and the reform into a new, more efficient form. This process is not consciously activated, but can be halted. If the Pokemon has reason (It's directed not to, insufficient food, etc), it can cause the same gland to produce a neutralizing agent, which acts quickly to stop the evolution process.
Another form of evolution is stone evolution. There are stones which effectively force a Pokemon to evolve. Stones only affect a small number of Pokemon, those that would otherwise not evolve. The stone actually replaces the evolution instinct chemical. It's not specified how a stone is used in the game, just that they are. The reaction caused by the stomach acid melting the stone could release the necessary chemicals, or perhaps the stone is made of the same chemicals and only contact is required. Who knows, maybe it's a suppository.
This brings us to happiness evolution. It seems to me that the trigger event in this case is a desire to impress. This makes sense in terms of real evolution, as a creature that will change to impress a mate will have more chance to reproduce.
Finally, what happens when a Pokemon dies? Obviously Pokemon die, otherwise there wouldn't be the Pokemon Tower in lavender town, or the skull on Cubone's head. Clearly, when Pokemon die, they enter a transitional state and revert into a ghost Pokemon. This does not make sense. But, then, neither does a lot about Pokemon. Despite their clear existence in Pokemon, ghosts seem to still avoid explanation, so I'll leave it at that.
Wow. All this and I'm just up to Pokeballs. Hopefully they'll be quicker to explain.
Okay, in the TV show a Pokeball is about the size of a golf ball until it's center button is touchedarea. Due to it's virtual silence and smooth movement, there would have to thousands of moving parts to work. This would create a lot of friction, so perhaps the mechanisms use magnets to operate.
Next is the capturing. Once a Pokemon is struck by a Pokeball they are drawn within. This event is similar to the Transporter from Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek. A information pattern of the Pokemon is stored within the ball, and is reconstructed upon use. Considering that returning to the Pokeball must require consent in order for certain moves to work logically, it follows that to be captured also requires consent, or at least low resistance. A Pokeball, or it's more powerful variations, influence the Pokemon they are trying to capture, to somehow entice a low resistance. This is normally done through a small coercion device being written into the Pokemons pattern. If it isn't written fast enough, the Pokemon is released as a safety measure, hence 'breaking free'. The stronger the ball, the faster the coercion device is written. A master ball for instance writes so quickly and safely no Pokemon pattern has the chance of damage. Different types of balls, made of apricorns use a strong scent to lower the resistance of certain types of Pokemon before converting the Pokemon to a pattern.
The coercion device would likely be a small chip which exists within a caught Pokemons brain. It functions as a identifier, and a translator as well, allowing the trainer to use the Pokemon without the need for hours, days, or even months of training. The identifier would stop theft by preventing opponents Pokeballs from writing a new device into the pattern. Team rocket, and other thieves, would likely have developed their own 'balls to get around this safety net. If a trainer wants to remove this chip, and release the Pokemon, it is simply removed from the pattern before its last release.
The most basic problem of Pokeballs is the power necessary to run them. Short of developing a micro nuclear fusion reactor, a molecular fission reactor, or a dilithium crystal reactor, I can only guess that a very small, very heavy duty rechargeable battery is used. The first three are out when you consider the power stations within the games and show. They rely on current technology or Pokemon to operate. These batteries would most likely be recharged at a Pokemon center.
As a final note, I will suggest just how a Pokemon center works. When the Pokemon are placed in the machine, a complex algorithm runs, repairing the pattern stored in the Pokeball, whilst leaving the memory center of the brain unchanged. This allows for the Pokemon to eventually reach an evolution state and still be repaired from a backup.
I hope this clears a few things up for you, though there will still be questions, I'm sure. Please ask in a comment. If you're going to point out the leveling system inside the Pokemon games, don't. That's just a mechanism used by the games to show the amount of pushing needed to make a Pokemon evolve. If you have suggestions for my next Insane Imagery, please tell me in a comment below. Until next time,
crites evidentia logica.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Happy Zombie Day!
It's Easter time. A time for the trading of chocolate and eggs, Bunnies and hot-crossed buns. For a Christian it's also the time to celebrate the horrible torture, and Crucifixion of Jesus, and his subsequent resurrection and Ascension. As far as I can tell, there is no reason for an atheist to put much emphasis on this holiday. At least no more or less than Halloween. Christmas has the "togetherness" ideal to fall back on when religion is removed, but Easter only has chocolate, or fertility.
The origin of Easter stems from the beliefs and fertility rites of the Babylonians, Phrygians, Phoenicians, Israelites, Anglo-Saxons or any other number of others. The name "Easter" could originate from the Babylonian Goddess Ishtar (pronounced Easter) or perhaps the Saxon god of fertility Eostre. The symbols within modern day Easter also have ancient roots. The eggs and rabbits are symbols of fertility and tied to Ostara. Painting the eggs was known in ancient Egypt and seen as a symbol of rebirth from the mouth of gods. The Hot-crossed buns were carried over from the Saxons. An ox was sacrificed and the horns were symbolic of the feast. They were carved into the bread, in reverence. And as for chocolate, that's new. But who doesn't love chocolate?
As for me, an Atheist, Easter is an excuse to get out of work, eat chocolate and ham. Adding another value to it has helped others alleviate any guilt in taking a holiday for no real reason, but it really isn't necessary. Personally, I feel that four special holidays per year should be observed: Christmas, Easter, New Year and Halloween. I observe these as a break from the rest of my life, to relax and enjoy myself, but mostly to save my sanity. I've been told that because I'm atheist, I shouldn't observe Christmas or Easter, but to hell with them, I enjoy these holidays for their recreational and celebratory aspects, even if not for their 'traditional' religious reasons. Until next time,
crites evidentia logica
The origin of Easter stems from the beliefs and fertility rites of the Babylonians, Phrygians, Phoenicians, Israelites, Anglo-Saxons or any other number of others. The name "Easter" could originate from the Babylonian Goddess Ishtar (pronounced Easter) or perhaps the Saxon god of fertility Eostre. The symbols within modern day Easter also have ancient roots. The eggs and rabbits are symbols of fertility and tied to Ostara. Painting the eggs was known in ancient Egypt and seen as a symbol of rebirth from the mouth of gods. The Hot-crossed buns were carried over from the Saxons. An ox was sacrificed and the horns were symbolic of the feast. They were carved into the bread, in reverence. And as for chocolate, that's new. But who doesn't love chocolate?
As for me, an Atheist, Easter is an excuse to get out of work, eat chocolate and ham. Adding another value to it has helped others alleviate any guilt in taking a holiday for no real reason, but it really isn't necessary. Personally, I feel that four special holidays per year should be observed: Christmas, Easter, New Year and Halloween. I observe these as a break from the rest of my life, to relax and enjoy myself, but mostly to save my sanity. I've been told that because I'm atheist, I shouldn't observe Christmas or Easter, but to hell with them, I enjoy these holidays for their recreational and celebratory aspects, even if not for their 'traditional' religious reasons. Until next time,
crites evidentia logica
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Facts
I started this blog with the intent to express my ideas and concerns about life, sociology, biology and religion, tempered with strong facts and well reasoned arguments.
I have noticed very few examples of this.
As such, I reform my ways. After this post I will only post ideas that are well referenced, well thought-out, and most of all, well written! This means that on occasion I will have marathon posts, perhaps even an essay for you to download, but at least what you read shall be worth it.
I won't apologise for my posts, past or future, but I will accept that they need improvement. My lack of commenters and followers is evidence that I am doing something wrong. I will try to amend this.
I will apologise for this post, as I'm very tired and feel a reform post should be more formal. Oh well. See you next time,
crites evidentia logica
I have noticed very few examples of this.
As such, I reform my ways. After this post I will only post ideas that are well referenced, well thought-out, and most of all, well written! This means that on occasion I will have marathon posts, perhaps even an essay for you to download, but at least what you read shall be worth it.
I won't apologise for my posts, past or future, but I will accept that they need improvement. My lack of commenters and followers is evidence that I am doing something wrong. I will try to amend this.
I will apologise for this post, as I'm very tired and feel a reform post should be more formal. Oh well. See you next time,
crites evidentia logica
Friday, April 8, 2011
My idea of SPORE 2: The Micro
I recently discovered Darkspore, which appears to be another creature designer game, with a few key differences. Mostly due to the fact it's a "fast-paced action RPG". I will say that it looks good. I plan to own it as soon as I can, in the meantime, I will have to make do with blog posts like this.
They should make a second spore. Not Darkspore, the Action RPG using a similar game concept, but SPORE 2, the creature creator that allows for any evolutionary eventuality, within reason. At the begining players start with little photosythetic cells. After so much energy an DNA is collected, the cell reproduce (Preferably by mitosis), allowing for the devolpment of herbivourism, or a more effficient photosythesis. Once again the game continues in the collection of DNA and Energy until the next change is made, adding the third potential, carnivourism. These levels are easily adapted into the original game system by use of evolution parts.
By the use of this system, players are given the opportunity to expand their imaginations outside of the generic "Cell->Terrestrial animal->Intelligence". So far outlined the posibilities included all plants and animals, with a potential for fungi. What the game would lack in scientific accuracy it would make up for in adaptability. I will continue through all the stages of the game, but not all in this post. The potential stories from Protocell to Space-faring being are likly to be as varied as they are entertaining. Next post: "The Early Macro"
crites evidentia logica
They should make a second spore. Not Darkspore, the Action RPG using a similar game concept, but SPORE 2, the creature creator that allows for any evolutionary eventuality, within reason. At the begining players start with little photosythetic cells. After so much energy an DNA is collected, the cell reproduce (Preferably by mitosis), allowing for the devolpment of herbivourism, or a more effficient photosythesis. Once again the game continues in the collection of DNA and Energy until the next change is made, adding the third potential, carnivourism. These levels are easily adapted into the original game system by use of evolution parts.
By the use of this system, players are given the opportunity to expand their imaginations outside of the generic "Cell->Terrestrial animal->Intelligence". So far outlined the posibilities included all plants and animals, with a potential for fungi. What the game would lack in scientific accuracy it would make up for in adaptability. I will continue through all the stages of the game, but not all in this post. The potential stories from Protocell to Space-faring being are likly to be as varied as they are entertaining. Next post: "The Early Macro"
crites evidentia logica
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Defense of Irreducible Complexity?
I recently came across a video on YouTube which was a clip from a "documentary" in which an apparent biochemist suggest evolution was trumped due to the Irreducible Complexity of the bacterial flagellum. We've all heard this before, and have heard the rebuttal. This post isn't about that. This is about how, I've noticed, creationists try to avoid reading the arguments and facts. It seems that for those new to Internet debate its a simple mass-denial, where a group all deny it, and congratulate each other on how 'smart' they are. Those of a little more experience get to the accusations quickly. I asked a simple question about the nature of empiricism, and he accused me of preparing to move the goal posts or accusing him of being misinformed, or under-educated on the subject. I will now explain what confuses me.
Firstly, where are the goal posts going to move? On my side of the field, to keep with the metaphor, they are securely set at the position of evolution from simpler stages. Where will they move? To my mind there is nowhere for it to go. I'm not saying anything about their side, so I can't move their goal post.
Second, why do I need to move the goal post? My side is more then adequately presented, theirs is obviously an argument from ignorance. I can even show it. The best example of goal-post moving is when an evolution-denier asks for a certain level of proof, and when it's presented he say that he actually meant a higher level of proof. I am SO confused.
Third, I've sent 1 message, and the guy assumes I'm out to get him. I was just trying to ascertain his level of knowledge of science and the scientific method, and he gets hostile. Seems to me that if a point is strong enough, one shouldn't need to make accusations until something actually happens.
In order to try and either get him to withdraw his accusations, or at least calm down, I replied with a message asking him to explain what he meant, and assured him that I'm sure he educated himself on the subject before posting his video. To not do so would be completely retarded. He hasn't responded yet, but it hasn't been long.
I do hope I can converse with this guy intelligently, although to do so I would need to penetrate his shield of ignorance, an I do not have the patience for that. Chances are, I'll have to debunk every false fact he says and point out any logical fallacies he uses.
If you happen to run across someone of this calibre, be careful, as they have enough experience in debating to make the slightest mishap seem like a enormous hole in your point. 'Tis better to disengage if unprepared, or to proof-read all posts. ALWAYS THINK BEFORE YOU SPEAK! Otherwise we may have to re-align your logical compass.
Just me ranting about a guy on the net... Until next time,
crites evidentia logica.
Firstly, where are the goal posts going to move? On my side of the field, to keep with the metaphor, they are securely set at the position of evolution from simpler stages. Where will they move? To my mind there is nowhere for it to go. I'm not saying anything about their side, so I can't move their goal post.
Second, why do I need to move the goal post? My side is more then adequately presented, theirs is obviously an argument from ignorance. I can even show it. The best example of goal-post moving is when an evolution-denier asks for a certain level of proof, and when it's presented he say that he actually meant a higher level of proof. I am SO confused.
Third, I've sent 1 message, and the guy assumes I'm out to get him. I was just trying to ascertain his level of knowledge of science and the scientific method, and he gets hostile. Seems to me that if a point is strong enough, one shouldn't need to make accusations until something actually happens.
In order to try and either get him to withdraw his accusations, or at least calm down, I replied with a message asking him to explain what he meant, and assured him that I'm sure he educated himself on the subject before posting his video. To not do so would be completely retarded. He hasn't responded yet, but it hasn't been long.
I do hope I can converse with this guy intelligently, although to do so I would need to penetrate his shield of ignorance, an I do not have the patience for that. Chances are, I'll have to debunk every false fact he says and point out any logical fallacies he uses.
If you happen to run across someone of this calibre, be careful, as they have enough experience in debating to make the slightest mishap seem like a enormous hole in your point. 'Tis better to disengage if unprepared, or to proof-read all posts. ALWAYS THINK BEFORE YOU SPEAK! Otherwise we may have to re-align your logical compass.
Just me ranting about a guy on the net... Until next time,
crites evidentia logica.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
An Argument for God
This post is strange for me. I will actually argue for the existence of God. However, due to the nature of the argument, I must also point out it's problems. I came to this idea not 10 minutes ago, whilst in the shower. I'll return to the post tomorrow, and leave a comment explaining my ideas after some thought.
God has been defined in many different ways. Common elements within these definitions are: Eternal, powerful, and affects the world/universe. There are others which are not as common, and are not important for this argument.
For a being to be powerful, it must be somehow better then it's counterparts. An adult weightlifter is more physically powerful than a child. A scientist is more mentally powerful than a person with down syndrome. In the case of God, It can affect the world either by it's mental will, or by physical modification. It can do so in a better way then ourselves, or any observed beings. All things observed to affect the world are within Space, so it stands to reason that God is within Space.
However, all living things are observed to die. So for God to be eternal, either It is the one thing which cannot, or does not die, or It exists outside of Time. If It exists outside of Time, it could spark the Big Bang, without defying physics.
I can see a few things wrong with this, can you? Post a comment of your answers before you read on. Go on. I'll wait.
...
OK, enough of that. I offered no evidence for my assertion about being powerful, I just state it as fact and move on. I also assume God is true, which has yet to be proven. I go on to use an inconsistency fallacy, wherein I state that everything observed to affect the universe exists in Space, but don't apply the same premise to Time: Everything observed to affect the Universe exists in Time. I then use the naturalistic fallacy and introduce an idea into the conclusion that wasn't in the premises (without defying physics). I feel like I'm missing something, or perhaps I screwed up which fallacies I used. If I did, please let me know, as I'm still trying to wrap my head around all the different logical fallacies.
This hopefully shows that it is easy to make an argument that sounds convincing, that actually follows false reasoning. I do hope that the next time your are presented with an argument you look for, and expose, any and all logical fallacies within it. With any luck, people will stop intentionally using them. Until next time,
crites evindentia logica.
God has been defined in many different ways. Common elements within these definitions are: Eternal, powerful, and affects the world/universe. There are others which are not as common, and are not important for this argument.
For a being to be powerful, it must be somehow better then it's counterparts. An adult weightlifter is more physically powerful than a child. A scientist is more mentally powerful than a person with down syndrome. In the case of God, It can affect the world either by it's mental will, or by physical modification. It can do so in a better way then ourselves, or any observed beings. All things observed to affect the world are within Space, so it stands to reason that God is within Space.
However, all living things are observed to die. So for God to be eternal, either It is the one thing which cannot, or does not die, or It exists outside of Time. If It exists outside of Time, it could spark the Big Bang, without defying physics.
I can see a few things wrong with this, can you? Post a comment of your answers before you read on. Go on. I'll wait.
...
OK, enough of that. I offered no evidence for my assertion about being powerful, I just state it as fact and move on. I also assume God is true, which has yet to be proven. I go on to use an inconsistency fallacy, wherein I state that everything observed to affect the universe exists in Space, but don't apply the same premise to Time: Everything observed to affect the Universe exists in Time. I then use the naturalistic fallacy and introduce an idea into the conclusion that wasn't in the premises (without defying physics). I feel like I'm missing something, or perhaps I screwed up which fallacies I used. If I did, please let me know, as I'm still trying to wrap my head around all the different logical fallacies.
This hopefully shows that it is easy to make an argument that sounds convincing, that actually follows false reasoning. I do hope that the next time your are presented with an argument you look for, and expose, any and all logical fallacies within it. With any luck, people will stop intentionally using them. Until next time,
crites evindentia logica.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Not Religious Now?
On the 9th of August this year, Australian citizens will be asked to fill in a form detailing multiple areas of our daily lives. This is known as a Census, and it occurs every 5 years. This year, the Atheist Foundation of Australia is campaigning to encourage people to be honest with themselves and state on the Census that they are non-religious. This is very important, as currently Census data is used in support of funding religious organisations.
I have no qualms with people believing, but when politics becomes religious, things get scary. *cough* The inquisition *cough*. In this day and age, governments should be secular, in order to best support their country. Most people I've spoken to who claim to be religious really aren't. They just have been saying they are for so long that it's just stuck. The Australian 2011 Census will hopefully show that more then half of Australian Citizens are non-religious, as seems to be the case, though I do believe this is aiming a little high.
Check out their site, as well as this one. It goes into greater detail then I have here. I discovered these sites from a mutual follower of Atheist Propaganda. Check that out as well, it's very entertaining, and much more thought out then my own. Until I'm next sane,
crites evidentia logica.
I have no qualms with people believing, but when politics becomes religious, things get scary. *cough* The inquisition *cough*. In this day and age, governments should be secular, in order to best support their country. Most people I've spoken to who claim to be religious really aren't. They just have been saying they are for so long that it's just stuck. The Australian 2011 Census will hopefully show that more then half of Australian Citizens are non-religious, as seems to be the case, though I do believe this is aiming a little high.
Check out their site, as well as this one. It goes into greater detail then I have here. I discovered these sites from a mutual follower of Atheist Propaganda. Check that out as well, it's very entertaining, and much more thought out then my own. Until I'm next sane,
crites evidentia logica.
Sapiens: Rodents in Disguise
Everything we do as a race is horrid. We are like technological rats. We swarm into an area, eating and wasting our way through the natural resources, and screwing to the point where we need outside sources to sustain us. Instead of finding places to hollow out and live in, or burrowing underground, we build structures to live in, some of which could easily house 2 or 3 times as many people as they do. With growing unemployment and homelessness, I feel it's selfish of some to keep empty houses for the off chance they might pop 'round for the week this year.
There is a big difference though, aside from the size thing, between us and rats. We have a hierarchy. Within society we have people who effectively control others. The most effective of these are the governments. They control their populations, while making them believe they are free. HA! True freedom cannot exist, not if we are to survive. I do not dispute this, though I do understand it's not perfect. Rats over-populate then slowly die off, and even eat each other, when the food runs out. We grow our food, but what happens when our vital resources run out? Petrol is running low, and as one of our vital resources, we can see an example of the Human reaction. What happens? WAR! We kill each other for the smallest scrapes. Sure, there are some who are doing the smart thing, trying to come up with an alternative resource, but they are a minority, compared to the people who are attacking others, either to take control, or keep it.
I'm going insane. I've been thinking about this for a long time. Since before The Matrix came out. My inability to change anything is taking it's toll. I doubt I'll be posting particularly coherent things on here. Hell, even this post has no structure. Tomorrow, I'll open Pandora's box. I'll embrace this new found madness, and I'll see how it fares in my attempts to save the world.
I have a back-up plan. I doubt I'll be able to bring myself back from the black abyss of insanity, so I've brought in outside help, so in a week, I'll be back to ... relative normality. See you on the other side.
crites evidentia logica
There is a big difference though, aside from the size thing, between us and rats. We have a hierarchy. Within society we have people who effectively control others. The most effective of these are the governments. They control their populations, while making them believe they are free. HA! True freedom cannot exist, not if we are to survive. I do not dispute this, though I do understand it's not perfect. Rats over-populate then slowly die off, and even eat each other, when the food runs out. We grow our food, but what happens when our vital resources run out? Petrol is running low, and as one of our vital resources, we can see an example of the Human reaction. What happens? WAR! We kill each other for the smallest scrapes. Sure, there are some who are doing the smart thing, trying to come up with an alternative resource, but they are a minority, compared to the people who are attacking others, either to take control, or keep it.
I'm going insane. I've been thinking about this for a long time. Since before The Matrix came out. My inability to change anything is taking it's toll. I doubt I'll be posting particularly coherent things on here. Hell, even this post has no structure. Tomorrow, I'll open Pandora's box. I'll embrace this new found madness, and I'll see how it fares in my attempts to save the world.
I have a back-up plan. I doubt I'll be able to bring myself back from the black abyss of insanity, so I've brought in outside help, so in a week, I'll be back to ... relative normality. See you on the other side.
crites evidentia logica
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Directional Evolution
In the world today many things are openly verbal, and others are taboo. Homosexuality, whilst controversial, is openly verbal. So is genocide (although genocide is morally abhorrent). The mental state of a person is taboo. As was Eugenics. But now, recent breakthroughs in the field of molecular biology and genetics have begun to bring light back to the once popular ideal.
Eugenics is, on a basic level, the conscious identification and control of evolution, with a focus of humanity. This idea was hugely popular in the 1920's, where governments actually wrote legislation based on the misconception that the mentally ill were somehow inferior to the rest of the population. The euthanasia and sterilization have all but stopped, although there are places who do voluntary sterilizations. Eugenics met its apparent defeat at the hands of Nazi Germany during World War II.
Nazi Germany did not outlaw eugenics. It legalised it, calling for the euthanizing of the mentally ill. It reached its peak when the concentration camps were opened. Millions of Jews and Gypsies were killed in less-than-humane ways, all in the name of the betterment of mankind. There is some debate as to whether Adolf Hitler started the death camps because he believed Jews and others were a detriment to society, or a threat to the Aryan race. In any case, whether or not eugenics is inherently evil, the methods employed in it's name were.
In the world today, a new form of Eugenics has formed. Designer babies are just one avenue a person can take to enhance your child to be slightly better than others. While this is not the only means, it is the best known. The kind of positive directional eugenics is a change off pace from the out-dated negative direction. Promote the good, not the bad is much more PC than Stop the bad. A analogy could be drawn to health and medicine promotions: Eat right and exercise, so we don't have to cut away infections. I feel this is a positive step in human evolution, so long as it wont hamper social evolution. Calling for mandatory sterilization or death of those deemed unfit for procreation would slowly kill society, and thus humanities only hope for higher evolution. But slowly weeding out natural aggression, and other of societies ailments, through the betterment of our children is much safer and, dare I say, righteous.
Before I conclude this post, I would like to draw attention to the media. There is a mixed climate for the advocates of Eugenics in the media. Most news programs spin designer babies to be a bad thing, though there are exceptions. Many movies also have ties to eugenics. Any Sci-fi where people are changed genetically, either directly or through a slow breeding process, is based on the idea of eugenics. My favourite example is: Idiocracy. It's a brilliant and funny movie, which is based on an age old idea that less intelligent people breed faster the more intelligent people. This is generally true, though there are some smart guys who counter this. I recommend this movie to anyone. Anyone at all. It freaking hilarious.
To conclude, I have only recently researched into the intricacies and history of Eugenics, and I find nothing inherently wrong with it. Error lies, like in most things, with humans. We as a species have the ability to make ourselves better, either by cutting back on the bad, or promoting the good, but we don't have the foresight to see which way we should evolve. This is the folly of man, and in hindsight, we could probably have used a little less violence in our nature. Hopefully, we live and learn.
crites evidentia logica.
Eugenics is, on a basic level, the conscious identification and control of evolution, with a focus of humanity. This idea was hugely popular in the 1920's, where governments actually wrote legislation based on the misconception that the mentally ill were somehow inferior to the rest of the population. The euthanasia and sterilization have all but stopped, although there are places who do voluntary sterilizations. Eugenics met its apparent defeat at the hands of Nazi Germany during World War II.
Nazi Germany did not outlaw eugenics. It legalised it, calling for the euthanizing of the mentally ill. It reached its peak when the concentration camps were opened. Millions of Jews and Gypsies were killed in less-than-humane ways, all in the name of the betterment of mankind. There is some debate as to whether Adolf Hitler started the death camps because he believed Jews and others were a detriment to society, or a threat to the Aryan race. In any case, whether or not eugenics is inherently evil, the methods employed in it's name were.
In the world today, a new form of Eugenics has formed. Designer babies are just one avenue a person can take to enhance your child to be slightly better than others. While this is not the only means, it is the best known. The kind of positive directional eugenics is a change off pace from the out-dated negative direction. Promote the good, not the bad is much more PC than Stop the bad. A analogy could be drawn to health and medicine promotions: Eat right and exercise, so we don't have to cut away infections. I feel this is a positive step in human evolution, so long as it wont hamper social evolution. Calling for mandatory sterilization or death of those deemed unfit for procreation would slowly kill society, and thus humanities only hope for higher evolution. But slowly weeding out natural aggression, and other of societies ailments, through the betterment of our children is much safer and, dare I say, righteous.
Before I conclude this post, I would like to draw attention to the media. There is a mixed climate for the advocates of Eugenics in the media. Most news programs spin designer babies to be a bad thing, though there are exceptions. Many movies also have ties to eugenics. Any Sci-fi where people are changed genetically, either directly or through a slow breeding process, is based on the idea of eugenics. My favourite example is: Idiocracy. It's a brilliant and funny movie, which is based on an age old idea that less intelligent people breed faster the more intelligent people. This is generally true, though there are some smart guys who counter this. I recommend this movie to anyone. Anyone at all. It freaking hilarious.
To conclude, I have only recently researched into the intricacies and history of Eugenics, and I find nothing inherently wrong with it. Error lies, like in most things, with humans. We as a species have the ability to make ourselves better, either by cutting back on the bad, or promoting the good, but we don't have the foresight to see which way we should evolve. This is the folly of man, and in hindsight, we could probably have used a little less violence in our nature. Hopefully, we live and learn.
crites evidentia logica.
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Time Tested Truths
We've all heard of them. Eternal Truths. From "Toasts lands butter side down", to kindred spirits that are drawn together throughout lifetimes, these ideas have a firm hold in society, and will have for generations to come. But what is the point. Simple, there isn't one. These ideas, like this post, are pointless aside from an amusing anecdote in an otherwise boring life. But what happens when that changes?
For a while now, I've been seeing ads on TV talking about "love calculators". These really are the stupidist things I've seen. The idea that compatability is reducible soley to an arbitrary configuration of letters, (Names), is ludicrous. Yet, I have no doubt that there are people in this world stupid, or crazy, enough to believe it. This would mean those people could decide against dating a nice guy, and decide to date a horrible guy. Or vice versa. It could ruin perfect relationships, or bring a realisation to a victim of a bad one.
It has the potential to bring great joy and great pain, and overall would have little effect on the world. But the problem I have with it is not with the calculations, but with the profit making. Everyone wants to be happy and in a relationship. Playing on peoples emotions for the benefit of self is a horrible thing to do. We've all done it, but mostly we don't gain monetary profit from it. On a large scale, it's positively evil.
That about wraps it up for this rant, it's pointless, but I hope it was fun. Great to be back online everyone. Until next time,
crites evidentia logica.
For a while now, I've been seeing ads on TV talking about "love calculators". These really are the stupidist things I've seen. The idea that compatability is reducible soley to an arbitrary configuration of letters, (Names), is ludicrous. Yet, I have no doubt that there are people in this world stupid, or crazy, enough to believe it. This would mean those people could decide against dating a nice guy, and decide to date a horrible guy. Or vice versa. It could ruin perfect relationships, or bring a realisation to a victim of a bad one.
It has the potential to bring great joy and great pain, and overall would have little effect on the world. But the problem I have with it is not with the calculations, but with the profit making. Everyone wants to be happy and in a relationship. Playing on peoples emotions for the benefit of self is a horrible thing to do. We've all done it, but mostly we don't gain monetary profit from it. On a large scale, it's positively evil.
That about wraps it up for this rant, it's pointless, but I hope it was fun. Great to be back online everyone. Until next time,
crites evidentia logica.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)