Crazy Logic Around the Abortion Issue

 I just saw this article posted yesterday in the Boston Daily online magazine:

The Sex Education of Mitt Romney by Barry Nolan

It discusses an audience question directed toward GOP presidential campaigner Mitt Romney. Essentially the questioning went:

  Do you believe life starts at conception?  Yes

  That would mean banning most forms of conception. Why are you against conception?  To which Mitt, apparently, responded with a stunned silence.

The article then critisizes him for his seeming lack of knowledge of the functioning of contraception, stating the questioner was correct.

To which I respond with saddness at the seeming lack of logical deduction abilities in the average reporter today... and with the following observation (originally intended as a comment on the site, but since they require the article to be shared on facebook before comment, I chose not to):

------->I'm not republican (by a long shot), but I will suggest that perhaps Mitt was 'tripped up' by the seeming illogical 1+1 = 3 of the question. If anti-abortionists believe life starts at conception and contraceptives prevent conception, then fertilization has obviously not taken place and there is no issue of whether you're harming life because there is no life there to harm--from anyone's point of view.

For contraceptives to be considered harmful to life, even by anti-abortionist views, life would have to be considered to start at the level of sperm or egg. That would be a difficult sell, however, since male masterbation or, indeed, a woman's menstration could both be considered acts of murder. In fact, couples would still be committing murder even if sex lead to fertilization, since only 1 in millions of sperm 'survives' (oh yeah, and since sperm die after a few days anyway, whether used or not, men would be committing murder just by existing).<-------

 This article exposes some of the craziness that arises around the issue of abortion. Especially when it's mixed with politics.

Lightspeed Dreams vs glacial progress

There is a big issue regarding superinjunction in the UK right now. I won't comment on my personal opinion in this post, but rather, my comment is reserved for an article that suggests that twitter and facebook should be censored in order to uphold such laws because they are like internet media outlets.

This idea is, of course, completely crazy.

The editorial is here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/24/twitter-ryan-giggs-social-media

and my response is here:

This is clearly written by someone who misunderstands the technology of the modern age completely.

Twitter and Facebook are no more akin to media outlets than talking to your neighbour in the street is. They are far more like textual mobile phones, than newspapers. And I don't think Richard would dare suggest a delay after every sentence communicated over cellular, just so the censors could confirm its legality. Or what about big brother agents standing on street corners with directional microphones listening to all conversations on the street?

This is yet another example of the glacial pace of the establishment clashing with the lightspeed dreams of modern technology. One of them has to give, and unless the establishment is willing to take us back to the caves to maintain control I'm sure it will be the glaciers.

The Illegal War in Libya

I wrote this as a forum post in support of the article:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/02/nato-gaddafi-libya-air-strikes?commentpage=last#end-of-comments

because some of the posts seemed to show such a naivete that it was frightening.

-----------------------------------------

Bravo on all counts.

Accurate on all counts. I have trouble believing that thinking readers understand otherwise, and I have to put down crazy comments like:

Make no mistake, Nato's strategy violates international law, shows callous disregard for the innocent, and prosecutes a war approved by no international body,

--> Wrong on all three counts.

to astroturfing (that is: the 'Wrong...' comment). Especially as the poster gives no further elaboration on what anyone can clearly see is a gross, illegal, but entirely expected, overstepping of the original mandate.

Otherwise, some of the 'enlightened' posters surely would have to question why we're expending so much energy on Libya when other, much worse regimes, are not being addressed (Saudia Arabia, as mentioned in the article, is essentially the king pin of all terrorism, but also our greatest financial supporter).

And, yes, such 'enlightened' posters would have to conclude that, once again, money and oil are doing the talking. Libya has one of the largest oil reserves in Africa. That and its proximity to Europe make it an ideal country in which to install a puppet government.

Even if such 'enlightened' posters ignored the black gold issue, they would have to question the ethics of appointing ourselves (along with US) as global policeman. After all, no one else wanted us to have the job. No one begged us to invade them and most countries spend their time either laughing at or loathing us. Even more worrying is who polices the policemen?

We run around the world professing to help downtrodden people in areas that suit our economy. But think. If Britain or the US had a civil war (and mark my words, it's not too far off) do you really think we would want someone like China or Russian to come in and 'help' us?

I can't help but think that the majority of 'enlightened' posters would answer a resounding 'no'. To which I must conclude that they are hypocrits. If we don't want to be policed, what gives us the right to police?

And now, as the western world rejoices at the 'death' of Bin Laden (buried at sea?! come on, you can do better than that U.S.) we are supposed to conveniently forget that we were complicit in an invasion that killed an estimated 30 times more civilians in Iraq than the 9/11 attack (not officially, of course, since allied forces conveniently decided not to keep count). Our leaders are as big criminals as any despotic regimes we're currently attacking. Yet none will ever come to justice, since justice seems to be a concept only available to the west.

Anti-Nuclear Rhetoric

I was reading The Double Standards of Green anti-nuclear Opponents by George Monobiont in the online Guardian--a very balanced look at nuclear power and how it dangers compared to other energy sources are often exaggerated and, as usual, once finished I went browsing the comments and following up some of the links provided by concerned readers. I came across one comment a few times that I just can't reconcile with my understanding of reality so I decided to write a comment, which I'll share here.

-------------------

3. The creation of energy through renewables has the potential to spread wealth, generate employment, and increase equality.

The above comment confuses me, yet I've read it in various places by different people. For the life of me I cannot see how renewable energy has the potential to do any of those things.

1) Renewable energy collectors / transducers / distribution lines will still be built by companies who will still reap most of the benefits (even government contribution will be reduced the way the UK is going).

Energy production/distribution is big business and building a different type of energy generator is not likely to change that. Even if we each have personal solar panels everywhere, we'll still have to buy the equipment etc. and there will be some form of tax to make us pay more (or, in UK, we'll have a few sunny areas we'll go where we'll pay to rent space for charging our panels!).

Building a personal wind farm is impractical due to money and space (again, especially in UK where there are more people per square km than China, and a lot less area. However, you may be able to rent a windmill at a reduce rate...)

2) I can't see that the construction would require that many more people but, in the case of wind, it would obviously require much more area also --> would that not result in greater damage to the environment? Even the sea has creatures and ecosystems and a wind farm has a huge footprint.

Maintenance would likely be similar for both

Any renewable source requires almost no further human intervention apart from maintenance, construction and manning the stations--same as non-renewable sources (i.e. no mining, shipping, waste removal, etc are needed). Therefore, any non-renewable source almost by definition would supply more jobs.

3) Given the above--that wealth will remain localized to the companies, and that there will not be any more jobs than with non-renewable energy--how will renewable energy contribute to greater equality? I just don't see it.

So, I'm quite confused by some of the arguments and would appreciate some clarification.

-------------------------

And I would, because some of the arguments put forward by the anti-nuclear lobby seem full of meaningless utopian rhetoric.

Edwin

Religious Thought: War on Drugs?!

I find it strange that we in the west have had a war on drugs for at least the entirety of my life, it seems. Yet, the euphoric state of peace and carelessness is exactly what much of Christianity prescribes to being in heaven. Many I've talked to will say heaven must be much like being in love all the time (in love with God, of course) and little else seems to enter the picture. Of course, the obsessive, euphoric state that we commonly describe as love is a highly disturbed period of a person's life that's not unlike an addiction.

Now, I don't know about you, but I would find trillions of years in a drugged haze to be a vast waste of existence (not to mention the obvious question: why would God want to keep everyone in that state?).

So, basically, Christians are a vast organization of pushers in the midst of a turf war. They're trying to run all other drugs off the street to get a monopoly for their own version.

---------------------

Supplemental thoughts:

(1) Perhaps the 'chosen' represent those who are most susceptible to the drug!

(2) Why would God want an 'army' of mindless, addicted souls?

Updated Religious Thought of the Day

Mythology = old beliefs

Religion = new beliefs

The Truth 101: Going to Church

People do not go to church because they want to believe in a higher power than themselves. People find religion because they want to believe in a higher power than themselves. They go to church because they want someone else to tell them what and how to believe about such a higher power.

Religious Thought of the Day

The religious view of mankind is akin to putting someone on a pedestal and then kicking the crap out of them.

State of the World

With all the religious-themed hatred, bigotry and violence being perpetrated on all sides, I'd say the world has gone crazy. But was it ever sane?

Religious Thought of the Day

Mythology = their beliefs

Religion = our beliefs

Social Warfare, Drawing the Lines

While it may not be obvious to many, there are several social wars underway that, if ever resolved, will determine the direction of society itself.

It's understandable if you aren't aware of them, or hear of them only in passing. The world is so busy today, with longer work days, automation leading to greater expectations at work (contrary to the initial assumptions), more leisure activities to distract. In addition, there are the societal demands of your spouse and children to eat into ones time. With all these distractions, there simply isn't time for most people to be socially aware.

So what I thought to do in this and the following blog posts is to summarize some of the most hard-fought wars that are currently underway in western society.

1) Creationism vs. Evolution
This simply won't go away. The lines were drawn with the publication of Charles Darwin's famous book Origin of the Species, however, I'll argue that the seeds for this war were sown with the origins of the Catholic Church.

2) Digital Rights Management
Simply put, this is a war over who has the rights to control that tech device you just bought. This is actually a subset of an much larger and more insidious war. Simply put, corporations are trying to control...well, everything. It sounds like a conspiracy theory when written, but anyone who pays attention to the machinations of Big Biz will note the trends.

3) Go Green
This, arguably, is the simplest and yet most complicated of the wars currently being waged, and the only one that, if one side is right, has a time limit. To make it more complicated, it has become my view that we could lose regardless of who wins unless calmer heads prevail.

In the next few blog posts I'll go through these issues trying to show where the lines are drawn and what each side has to win and lose. Of course, I have a side I favour and, sorry to disappoint, but I won't pretend to be impartial. Unlike the media, who pretend (or at least pay lip-service to the idea) that each side of an argument is equal, I will try and show the logic of one side over the other.

If you haven't guessed my leaning yet, I'm a humanist. I believe that everyone is born with the right to a healthy, happy life. It's not achievable for all, since there are people who are made happy by gaining power over others, but those people, regardless of their social position, should be considered to have a mental illness. As intelligent people building a healthy future, we should take the path that makes the majority happy (the meek shall inherit the Earth?). It has always struck me as strange that those who gain happiness from physically hurting another we lock up in prisons while those who gain happiness from controlling and making suffer thousands of lives, we reward with big houses and huge salaries. Ultimately, this is the mentality we will have to break, if we are to truly harness the power of the coming technology.

Religious Thought of the Day

Christianity is the McDonald's of religion.

It took something that had existed for thousands of years before, made it tastier and more accessible, and introduced kiddie versions to 'get them hooked while they're young'.

Reality TV Xtreme

So what's with all the wimpy reality TV these days. I never watch the shows except when flipping to catch a few minutes when nothing else is on. I did, however, watch survivor reruns about 6-7 years ago when the station would play them every night. Perhaps that's why I see the difference when I'm unfortunate enough to catch a few minutes of Stranded or whatever the show was called where they're supposed to be marooned on a dessert island (not that survivor was all that 'survivor' either). I mean, the entire time was about various quasi-romantic liaisons, and everyone was nicely showered and wearing good clothes. I really must be missing something here, but where's the 'reality' in this 'reality TV' or the feeling of being stranded and needing to survive?

What I'd like to see is something much more reality:

-Stack an island with props / food / challenges / cameras
-Drop teams at either end of the island
-Leave them to their own devices to get food, water and find the way off
-Each evening the teams do a secret ballot to remove one member. That person is taken off quietly/secretely while the groups sleep.
-Various challenges are added each day, but without knowledge of groups (until the challenges are encountered). That could mean that, as they move through the island, their path behind becomes perilous also.
-Challenges are set so that teams figure everything out on their own, and eventually when getting to the end, there is only one person left
-Important: at no time does anyone from either team come in contact with show hosts or anyone setting the challenges (except when taken from the island or for medical reasons). The challenges are not scripted (i.e. there are no instructions to read, no one telling them what to do). Everything is totally 'real'.

That's what I would called survivor reality TV. Not this club med stuff that's on now.

Of Afghanistan and Video Games

As ever more British soldiers are killed in Afghanistan (204 as of writing), ever more questions are asked by the British media and public. Before I go any further I'd just like to state that I support the idea of removing the Taliban from Afghanistan and I believe it should have been the main goal in the region even before 9/11. The resources poured into the illegal invasion of Iraq would have been much more useful in Afghanistan where they could have actually combated an evil/terrorist supporting regime.

Be that as it may, it seems the US/UK still hasn't learned their lesson (or aren 't actually serious about taking Afghanistan?). Somehow, the governments are still playing at WWII tactics and haven't realized that most of their wars since then have been more akin to guerrilla warfare than European urban warfare. I saw an interview with a government official this morning who insists that over the last few months the troops realize they've been making substantial progress. Then, when questioned further on a timeline, he goes on to say that both he and the general believe that very real progress can be realized over the next several years.

What?

He's spouting such a can of hogwash it isn't funny. The short of it is that, as of now, Afghanistan is basically another Iraq (if you consider the real Iraq battles to have started after Hussein was ousted). And that is precisely because the government is being wishy-washy and is not fully committing either way (going full-on or pulling out). Granted, the terrain of Afghanistan does present some formidable problems as does the guerrilla nature of the conflict against an army of fundamentalist zealots. Which is precisely why the governments need to decide go-or-no-go and stick to it. A policy of perpetual war might have been useful for them in the past, but considering the internet for disemminating information/opinion and considering the financial crisis and a wishy-washy policy is far more detrimental to all involved than almost any other option.

The numbers I've seen are that there are an estimated 20,000 Taliban. The report this morning said the UK military is requesting there be 9000 UK troops and the US around 30,000 troops with a total internation forces of around 65,000.

?

Either someone hasn't been doing their math right, or, as I suggested above, they're treating this as an urban European war. If these numbers are correct, the international forces outnumber the Taliban around 3:1 To have any chance at winning a guerrilla war the attacking forces (us) typically requires 10:1 numerical superiority. So, the numbers alone will tell you that this war will not end any time soon (and probably never with a favourable outcome for us).

Conspiracy freaks have your way with this info (i.e. either someone has goofed big time, or someone doesn't want the war to end).

So where do the video games come into it? Only regarding battle experience in relation to numerical superiority. Anyone who has ever played a real-time-strategy game (RTS) such as Warcraft, Starcraft or any of the numerous others in the genre quickly realizes that without appropriate numerical superiority there is very little hope of victory. In fact, the only thing that stops an devastating counter attack is lack of resources by the enemy.

For those of you who don't like numbers, keep hoping that something good will come of it. Those of us who've looked at the numbers know that a finish to this is very unlikely in the near future--and the finish we desire much less so even then.

If God does exist...so what?

I've spent much of my life questioning the existence of God. I was twelve when I told my parents I wasn't going to church anymore because I didn't believe. And that wasn't just a kid complaining about an unpleasant chore. I didn't believe because it was my impression that the events of the bible could more likely be carried out by aliens than Gods. Seems even at twelve I instinctively understood the burden of proof, or more accurately, the truth behind the phrase: an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence.

Be that as it may, I think I've reached the point where it's time I've moved on to a new question. I'm now more concerned with the idea that, even if God exists, why should anyone worship him?

Perhaps I come at the whole religion thing differently than most people and that's why I can't understand the common thinking. I believe that, if God(s) exist it/they are simply being of a greater scale than us. Even as we are of greater scale than other beings. They may even have created the universe from an older universe outside ours (or maybe universe creation is just a natural even of the cosmos). But even if they did create our universe...so what? That still doesn't leave any reason, in my mind, for worshiping them.

I suppose many believe that such a god holds the key to other dimensions--afterlives, if you will--and that worshipping them, getting in their good books will come with rewards. Yeah. Whatever. If you believe that a being capable of creating universes has anything but a passing interest in your existence then...well, let's say, I have some property in Atlantis to sell you. Do we take any serious notice of ants? When we stick them in an ant farm, do we really care about them. Do we feel any great, long-lived angst when we empty the farm in the back yard when it's time for us to move on? 'Higher' beings do not, and never will truly care for 'lower' beings except as pets or curiousities.

So whether God(s) is creator, higher being, or imaginary friend, there is absolutely no reason to worship him/her/it/them except self delusion.

Dark Matter / Dark Energy Could They Be...

Something a bit different this time, a bit of recent cosmological speculation of mine coming as a result of reading the non-fiction book Parallel Worlds by the physicist Michio Kaku. It is a credit to his layout of the book and a bit of extrapolation relating to my digital 3D artwork that I had this idea.

Let me start from the beginning.

Michio leads off with an overview of the book in which he describes the idea of parallel worlds/universes as becoming a popular idea in modern cosmology. He also likens this to a combination of religious ideas where you can have your creation and your perpetual universe too. That is, he suggests the idea that the multiverse could be thought of as universal 'bubbles' constantly 'banging' (as in big bang) into existence amid the timeless sea of a greater cosmos.

He continues by discussing results of WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe) and 2002 measurements of the background radiation that put the universe, very precisely measured, at 13.7 billion years old.

Another thing that WMAP did was to show us just how much of our universe is not composed of the periodic elements. We now see that only 4 percent of the universe is made up of matter of a type we understand. The rest is made of dark matter and dark energy (a mind boggling 73 percent is dark energy).

Now, I don't have any more idea on the fundamental nature of what dark matter or dark energy could be composed of, however, what did occur to me is that, if our universe is not strongly bounded but rather a quasi-loose collection of matter (galaxies, stars, etc) then the situation may be more akin to a dandilion dander floating in a river. Conceptually, one could think of this (here's where the 3D art part comes in) as a sphere whose volume has been textured with patches of colour (galaxies) and patches that are transparent. Or, to put it another way, imagine our universe is permeable to the greater cosmos (that sea of the multiverse). Now, instead of being self contained, we are part of the whole and the whole can flow through out universe. i.e. the dark matter energy may actually be fundamental 'stuff' of the greater cosmos, the structure of the multiverse, that flows like an immense river through our (and other) universe.

Conceptual representations of different universe 'types'. The top image represents a bounded, homogenous universe as a sphere bobbing in the sea of the cosmos. The middle image is the general view of our universe as a bounded sphere that has matter inhomogeneity (galaxies, stars, etc). It is still an entity unto itself. The lower sphere is that of a unbounded, inhomogenous collection of matter that floats as a loose sphere in the cosmos. It is only this last version that is transparent to the 'stuff' of the cosmos (dark matter/energy?) and allows the matrix of the multiverse to flow within it.

So, if my idea is right, then by studying dark mater/energy we could actually learn about the fundamental nature of the mulitiverse, that currently hypothetical area 'outside' our universe.

Edwin Rydberg
June 24, 2009

jobs and the environmentally friendly world

I'm really getting tired of the excuse that 'we can't go green because it will destroy thousands of jobs', or 'it will change our way of life'. If your car stalls on the train tracks with a train coming toward you, do you stay in it because you can't bear to leave your car? Of course not.

So, first things first. Yes, it will change our way of life. It has to. If our way of life didn't change, then nothing would have changed and we will keep marching down the road to oblivion. But that's actually irrelevant because...life is constantly changing! Many people somehow seem unable to see this. I personally blame religion (especially the Abrahamic ones) because living your life around one ancient book tends to give people the idea that things shouldn't change. Buddhists. on the other hand, see everything as constant change. So do biochemists. Without change there is very literally no life. The biochemistry that gives us life requires flux, change. If the system is at equilibrium (i.e. no net change) the organism is dead. So on a fundamental level change is always happening and is crucially necessary. But so too on a larger scale. Is the world the same as it was last year? five years ago? ten years ago? Was our way of living the same a hundred years ago as it is now. The people who use this argument are intending to imply (without actually saying it) that our way of life will somehow be worse if we live better and more harmoniously with our environment. I suppose, for them, it might since most of the people starting such ideas make their money from destroying the environment.

Now onto my real pet peeve (yes the last argument was just a warm up). Will we lose jobs if we go green. Yes. And no. Once again, this comment is said with the suggestion that we will all be destitute when we stop building gas-guzzlers or stop running coal-fired power plants. That simply isn't true. You know and I know that just because we don't make gas-guzzling cars doesn't mean there won't be cars, they'll just be more fuel efficient--and who is going to build those fuel efficient cars? New technologies, in energy generation, transportation, and others, will require factories and plants of their own. It will mean retraining, at least for some. Although I'm sure in many cases the retraining wouldn't have to be that significant. But if fear of retraining is the only real argument you have against this then I say go live in a cave or get with the age of technology because things are only going to move faster from here on. So going green, in and of itself, will not necessarily cause any net loss of jobs and will open up many more new jobs and industries.

Thus, the only real arguments against shifting to a green society real boil down to laziness or fear of not being in first class on the big business money train. But, if we don't go green either through habits or technology, then we'll be forced to change in ways we never wanted to.

Postman Pat should be fired!

Those of you with young children will likely know what I mean. I often watch Cbeebies on BBC with my young daughter and one of the shows is 'Postman Pat' - now the Special Delivery version. In writing terms, each episode of Postman Pat follows the ' idiot plot ' model. Which is to say that all the characters have to be idiots for the plot to work. And this is precisely what I believe Postman Pat should be fired. Normally, the post suggests to us that a 1% failure rate is very reasonable (that itself is questionable, since they deal in millions of objects and 1% failed delivery amounts to tens of thousands of objects not being delivered...). Regardless of whether we accept the post's claims, the simple fact that Pat screw up his delivery EVERY show warrants a serious look at his work record by his supervisors. His record is made all the worse by the fact that he only has about ten people to deliver to. Yet still he finds ways to lose or mix up their packages--everything from Teddy bears to reels of film. He even lost a cow once. There is no doubt that the people of his district would be better served with a new postman.

DRM: Help! Amazon is robbing my home!

Well, not my home, but, effectively, that of certain people. Let me explain.

If you're at all into the e-reader scene you would have to hiding under a rock not to know about Amazon's Kindle. Originally hailed as a wondrous device and essentially the herald of the true future e-reader, opinions of the new version have done somewhat of a 180. With the company's remote access to the new Kindle, opinions are now more of the mind that the Kindle is the harbinger of true corporate invasiveness. On the chance that you've not heard, while the Kindle allows very convenient access to Amazon's online store from anywhere in the region (U.S. atm), it also allows the company to access your Kindle. And disable it, should they feel the desire. And, apparently, that desire can grow from something as relatively innocuous as returning too many items. Once disabled, you lose access to everything stored on the kindle.

Now, music and movie companies have, for almost a decade now, been trying to convince us that copying a DVD or CD or recording a movie is like stealing it from the store. And the courts agree, which is why movie and music 'piracy' is now illegal in most of the developed world. However, Big Business is trying to eat their cake and sell it too. Somehow, they believe that by selling a product they gain the complete rights over how and when it is used. WRONG. Once we buy the product, it's OURS to do with (legally) as we'd like. If we want to take it apart, that's fine. If we want to sit it on the shelf and admire it, that's fine. If we want to use it constantly, while returning other items that we don't deem to be to our standards, they may not like it, but tough, that's still fine. In parallel with the DVD/CD copying analogy, we have the idea that e-books are still books and still subject to the same rules--be that copyright or ownership. If I buy a book in a store and take it home and put in on my shelf, I don't expect the bookstore to come by a few days later and remove it from my shelf. If they do, I'll call the police. Likewise, if Amazon feels the need to inactivate a legally purchased Kindle, thus preventing access to legally purchased e-books, they have essentially come into the book owner's house and robbed them. And Amazon should be taken to court for every time it happens.

It's time to make big business realize that the street runs both directions.

Aren't hospitals insane?

Does anyone else think the idea of hospitals is criminally insane?

I mean, you bring all the sick people from the surrounding area, all those carrying the worst contagious diseases, and you concentrate them in the same building. You ensure the building is cleaned well to kill all competing microbes so that only the strong pathogens are present. Then you have healthy staff and family visit so they can catch the illnesses and transmit them to the healthy population. It's no wonder we have superbugs evolving in such an environment.

How has such a psychotic system managed to survive until now?