So, once again it seems like the US government is going it alone and sticking to its 'oil over environment' policy. We can hope otherwise, but there seems to be good evidence to suggest that they will once again attempt to derail any G8 commitment to policies in aid of the environment.
I'm wondering if someone could please explain to me why "The US still has serious, fundamental concerns" about saving the planet?
Perhaps someone might try to explain it to me in a way that addresses real-world concerns like what difference will it make if gas prices and taxes stay low after the populace of those cities are submerged under rising oceans. Or when our children have to wear masks to school because the smog is too strong, or that many other lives will be lost to unpredictable and rapidly changing weather patterns induced by global warming, or that our children will live in a world devoid of much of the life we currently take for granted because climate change, combined with human encroachment, will make many wildlife habitats unlivable.
But I don't suppose the person explaining this to me (or to anyone else) would be one of those from the US administration because I suspect they don't learn much about shepherding the world for the good of humanity in their 'next ruler of the world' private school systems.
Something that always gets me, however, and the hypocrisy of it is truly overwhelming, is this: what is the powerful religious right lobby doing about the environment? According to the bible, God gave the Earth to humanity to watch over and the animals to shepherd. As I read it, that doesn't mean sacrificing them in the name of power and money. So where's the voice of the religious? That should be one of the strongest voices in favour of environmental responsibility but...it's completely silent. They foam at the mouth over stem cell research (and most don't even know what it means), they are willing to blowup hospitals and kill doctors over the destruction of one fetus but they don't say a single word about the countless genocides happening constantly all around us (genocide more accurately refers to the extermination of a species rather than of a race or culture). If you're one of these people, maybe you figure that God will take care of it and if he wanted it different he would fix it? If so, think on this...maybe the environment is a test for humanity. Surely not all tests were announced in the bible (although I'm sure if someone tried, they could find evidence..). If we fail this one, what does it say about us? Would we truly be worthy to enter paradise, having made our own world a hell?
Regardless, all we can hope is that something will wake up the American administration before it's too late.
EH Rydberg
Saturday, May 26, 2007
Friday, May 25, 2007
Stereotypes
Men and women are different. Duh. Everyone knows it's true and yet why, in some circumstances, does it feel so...evil...so 18th century...so non-PC (politically correct, for those living in a cave) to say it?
And what about statements like "Indians are..." or "Italians are..." or "Canadians are..."? Why do they feel so wrong to say? Okay, sometimes such things are said out of hatred and are clearly lies propagated at the expense of certain cultures and that's undoubtedly the source of aversion to such comments. However, what about other generalized observations that are not hate-mongering but observation and opinion? Are they wrong? Are they misguided? Are they made by small-minded people who only see a narrow section of the world. Not necessarily.
I'm sure we've all had an experience where a comment is made, eg: the French are rude. But we know many very nice French people so the statement is clearly wrong. Or 'Americans will sell you the shirt off their back if they can make some money'. But we know many Americans not like that. So what's the deal? Clearly stereotypes are inaccurate at the least and maybe flat-out wrong. But are they?
I believe the difficulty with stereotypes comes from a small twist that the human mind does when moving from groups to individuals. We interpret the phrase 'Italians love soccer (football for the Europeans)' as 'All Italians love soccer'. It's a subtle, misleading and ultimately inaccurate interpretation that leads easily to the mathematical assertion 'Gianni is Italian, therefore he must love soccer'. However, I can tell you from experience that I know many Italians who don't love soccer. Yet, during the world cup, we hear on the news of great parties throughout Italy (and I’ve filmed one of my own). What's the deal?
Now, I'm hardly the first think on this topic and for a great sci-fi story based around the idea, read Isaac Asimov's Foundation series. Basically stereotypes can be highly accurate (if made intelligently and not out of hatred or bias) for describing a population--a large group of individuals of similar background (cultural, occupational, etc)--even if they don't, and generally they won't, apply to the individual. What?!
Think of it this way. An 'accurate' stereotype (to distinguish it from the hatred type) can be seen as a statement describing an 'average' individual of the population; an individual that, in most cases, doesn't exist in reality. If you view a population statistically, as possessing individuals that each have traits ranging over an entire spectrum of possibilities, you will generally find, not an even distribution over those possibilities, but a distribution in which there is a very obvious excess around certain values--this produces, for example, a 'bell-shaped (Gausian) curve' where most (generally two-thirds) of the population will have similar characteristics, tending somewhat to one side or the other of the stereotype. In other words, while no individuals will be the average, most may be close enough in some ways, to support the stereotype (mathematically, only about five percent will be so far out as to be the 'weirdos'.)
This argument may still not be convincing if we think only of one trait. You can say 'well, none of the people I know voted for George Bush'. That might be true, but still half of the country did (ok, this is not the place to discuss rigged ballots and biased voting machines). The important thing is that the population is made up of a huge number of individuals each of whom will fall into a different place on the curve when a different characteristic/philosophy is examined. Thus, on the whole, stereotypes can be valid for a society even if they are not (and generally they won't be) for an individual.
So? Why should I care?
Well, stereotypes have 'great' uses in a scientific society, just ask any politician or advertising executive. They are an excellent way, not only to develop products that will sell, but as a means to guide (or, more harshly, control) a population. If you know how the majority feels on an issue (that two-thirds on the curve) you can plan accordingly.
In a democratic country, one could argue that this is the Achilles heal of the society, since it makes the entire population susceptible to control by the few. It is a very simple thing to move from understanding the stereotypes (now I can use the more common term 'demographics') to using it and then to, ultimately, controlling and influencing it in, dare I say it, a Pavlovian manner. Certain aspects of government and business are already exploiting these ideas; exploiting the fact that some parts of society are more susceptible to manipulation (thus, possible to mold into the desired stereotype) in direct and indirect ways. Don't believe me all you parents? When's the last time you bought a toy for your child because they wouldn't stop bothering you about it? Or took them somewhere for the same reason? Welcome to the crowd; you’ve been manipulated by big business (I won’t even get into politics here). I can hear the Twilight Zone music of realized horror playing in your ears.
EH Rydberg
And what about statements like "Indians are..." or "Italians are..." or "Canadians are..."? Why do they feel so wrong to say? Okay, sometimes such things are said out of hatred and are clearly lies propagated at the expense of certain cultures and that's undoubtedly the source of aversion to such comments. However, what about other generalized observations that are not hate-mongering but observation and opinion? Are they wrong? Are they misguided? Are they made by small-minded people who only see a narrow section of the world. Not necessarily.
I'm sure we've all had an experience where a comment is made, eg: the French are rude. But we know many very nice French people so the statement is clearly wrong. Or 'Americans will sell you the shirt off their back if they can make some money'. But we know many Americans not like that. So what's the deal? Clearly stereotypes are inaccurate at the least and maybe flat-out wrong. But are they?
I believe the difficulty with stereotypes comes from a small twist that the human mind does when moving from groups to individuals. We interpret the phrase 'Italians love soccer (football for the Europeans)' as 'All Italians love soccer'. It's a subtle, misleading and ultimately inaccurate interpretation that leads easily to the mathematical assertion 'Gianni is Italian, therefore he must love soccer'. However, I can tell you from experience that I know many Italians who don't love soccer. Yet, during the world cup, we hear on the news of great parties throughout Italy (and I’ve filmed one of my own). What's the deal?
Now, I'm hardly the first think on this topic and for a great sci-fi story based around the idea, read Isaac Asimov's Foundation series. Basically stereotypes can be highly accurate (if made intelligently and not out of hatred or bias) for describing a population--a large group of individuals of similar background (cultural, occupational, etc)--even if they don't, and generally they won't, apply to the individual. What?!
Think of it this way. An 'accurate' stereotype (to distinguish it from the hatred type) can be seen as a statement describing an 'average' individual of the population; an individual that, in most cases, doesn't exist in reality. If you view a population statistically, as possessing individuals that each have traits ranging over an entire spectrum of possibilities, you will generally find, not an even distribution over those possibilities, but a distribution in which there is a very obvious excess around certain values--this produces, for example, a 'bell-shaped (Gausian) curve' where most (generally two-thirds) of the population will have similar characteristics, tending somewhat to one side or the other of the stereotype. In other words, while no individuals will be the average, most may be close enough in some ways, to support the stereotype (mathematically, only about five percent will be so far out as to be the 'weirdos'.)
This argument may still not be convincing if we think only of one trait. You can say 'well, none of the people I know voted for George Bush'. That might be true, but still half of the country did (ok, this is not the place to discuss rigged ballots and biased voting machines). The important thing is that the population is made up of a huge number of individuals each of whom will fall into a different place on the curve when a different characteristic/philosophy is examined. Thus, on the whole, stereotypes can be valid for a society even if they are not (and generally they won't be) for an individual.
So? Why should I care?
Well, stereotypes have 'great' uses in a scientific society, just ask any politician or advertising executive. They are an excellent way, not only to develop products that will sell, but as a means to guide (or, more harshly, control) a population. If you know how the majority feels on an issue (that two-thirds on the curve) you can plan accordingly.
In a democratic country, one could argue that this is the Achilles heal of the society, since it makes the entire population susceptible to control by the few. It is a very simple thing to move from understanding the stereotypes (now I can use the more common term 'demographics') to using it and then to, ultimately, controlling and influencing it in, dare I say it, a Pavlovian manner. Certain aspects of government and business are already exploiting these ideas; exploiting the fact that some parts of society are more susceptible to manipulation (thus, possible to mold into the desired stereotype) in direct and indirect ways. Don't believe me all you parents? When's the last time you bought a toy for your child because they wouldn't stop bothering you about it? Or took them somewhere for the same reason? Welcome to the crowd; you’ve been manipulated by big business (I won’t even get into politics here). I can hear the Twilight Zone music of realized horror playing in your ears.
EH Rydberg
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Mustard headache
Yep, you read right. Sure, I know everyone is familiar with the 'ice cream headache'; the brain-numbing pain in the front of your forehead when you eat ice cream too fast (incidentally, I've found that it can be relieved a bit quicker by trying to warm the roof of your mouth with your tongue). But, how many of you have had a 'mustard headache'? Raise my hand.
So, what is a mustard headache? A mustard headache is caused by eating very hot mustard (such as strong Dijon). While also being very painful, the difference is that it affects a different part of the head. When I get one, it causes a painful burning sensation in a small area in the back right top of my head (it feels like my brain is burning!).
What I find most strange is the localization of the pain. With an ice cream headache, you can understand the pain in the forehead as resulting from a sudden coldness in a part of the body nearby (the roof of the mouth). However, with a mustard headache, why is the pain so far from the mouth? If anyone happens to know that answer, I really appreciate them sharing (I'm a scientist, so you don't need to skimp on the details).
In addition, I'd be interested in hearing of anyone else who has mustard headaches. Honestly, I'm not sure if the mustard varies strong by region, whether its an age related effect, or something else. I never experienced this when I lived in Canada and only since having strong Dijon bought in Germany or Italy have I had the mustard headaches.
EH Rydberg
So, what is a mustard headache? A mustard headache is caused by eating very hot mustard (such as strong Dijon). While also being very painful, the difference is that it affects a different part of the head. When I get one, it causes a painful burning sensation in a small area in the back right top of my head (it feels like my brain is burning!).
What I find most strange is the localization of the pain. With an ice cream headache, you can understand the pain in the forehead as resulting from a sudden coldness in a part of the body nearby (the roof of the mouth). However, with a mustard headache, why is the pain so far from the mouth? If anyone happens to know that answer, I really appreciate them sharing (I'm a scientist, so you don't need to skimp on the details).
In addition, I'd be interested in hearing of anyone else who has mustard headaches. Honestly, I'm not sure if the mustard varies strong by region, whether its an age related effect, or something else. I never experienced this when I lived in Canada and only since having strong Dijon bought in Germany or Italy have I had the mustard headaches.
EH Rydberg
Sunday, May 13, 2007
What's in a name
I'm a Canadian living in Italy-- a straniero in a strano mondo (stranger in a strange world) if you will. Perhaps that's why I think of these unusual things. Like, for example, the question of how Italians name their children.
Italy has a rich artistic history, arguably one of the riches in the western world; home of the renaisance and greats like Michelangelo and Da Vinci among many others (I haven't even mentioned their scientific contribution from figures such as Galileo).
With all this depth of culture and history, why is it that Italians seem to completely ignore these greats when naming their children? Italians seem to love naming their children after other people and a large number of those I have met, if having a name reminiscent of any historical figure, have religious names. I know numerous people with Christian-themed names; maybe one with the name of a famous painter or scientist.
Well, maybe it's just the people I know...
Italy has a rich artistic history, arguably one of the riches in the western world; home of the renaisance and greats like Michelangelo and Da Vinci among many others (I haven't even mentioned their scientific contribution from figures such as Galileo).
With all this depth of culture and history, why is it that Italians seem to completely ignore these greats when naming their children? Italians seem to love naming their children after other people and a large number of those I have met, if having a name reminiscent of any historical figure, have religious names. I know numerous people with Christian-themed names; maybe one with the name of a famous painter or scientist.
Well, maybe it's just the people I know...
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Cell (mobile) survey update
Well, the survey has now reached the 210-vote mark and the values are...
...holding very close to what they have been from the beginning.
Straight 'communication' has held the lead at about 70%, although calling is starting to leave calling+SMS behind. Next are the Luddites and then, essentially, a three-way tie between the 'gamers' the 'music-lovers' and the 'everything' people. Very few seem to use the internet on the phone and I've yet to find someone who loves their phone for the TV. Is this really surprising?
Calling only 86 41%
Calling and SMS 59 28%
Don't use or don't like 18 9%
Love the pictures 12 6%
Love those games 12 6%
Everything! 11 5%
MP3 player 7 3%
Internet on phone 5 2%
Cellphone TV 0 0%
EH Rydberg
...holding very close to what they have been from the beginning.
Straight 'communication' has held the lead at about 70%, although calling is starting to leave calling+SMS behind. Next are the Luddites and then, essentially, a three-way tie between the 'gamers' the 'music-lovers' and the 'everything' people. Very few seem to use the internet on the phone and I've yet to find someone who loves their phone for the TV. Is this really surprising?
Calling only 86 41%
Calling and SMS 59 28%
Don't use or don't like 18 9%
Love the pictures 12 6%
Love those games 12 6%
Everything! 11 5%
MP3 player 7 3%
Internet on phone 5 2%
Cellphone TV 0 0%
EH Rydberg
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)