A lament to childhood lost

Many of us grew up with a childhood hero. Someone we'd look up to, someone we respected, someone who could do no wrong, and someone who we aspired to be.

For me, that person was Indiana Jones. He was everything I wanted to be as a child. I imagined myself travelling the world, searching for treasure and taking on the bad guys with my trusty whip at my side.

I had a whip as a kid, and spent many an afternoon practicing (although I was never able to master it quite like Indy). He was someone I idolised so much, I even studied archaeology at university.

Tonight I watched Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. This was something I had been looking forward to for some time, the eager anticipation of seeing my hero in another instalment of pure adventure almost too much to bear.

I have learnt the hard way, through bitter experience, not to have too many expectations when it comes to sequels. Especially sequels with a very long period in between. Even more especially when the original or originals are such fine pieces of stand-alone cinematic work. I use Star Wars here to illustrate my point. Now, don't get me wrong, I did enjoy the three prequels, but they were certainly nothing on the original three, and definitely did nothing to add to them. As standalone films, they were OK, as additions to the original three films, I think they were wrong on so many levels.

With this film, though, it was almost impossible for me to not have expectations. If Einstein came back from the dead and said he was going to do a bit more work on his Theory of Relativity, we'd have some expectations. If JFK came back from the dead and said he was going to sort out this whole sorry mess in the US, we would likewise have some expectations. And so it was the same with me and Indiana Jones. You don't go and watch another adventure with your favourite hero after almost twenty years without some sort of expectation.

Were my expectations met? Well, sadly not quite. In two short hours I watched my entire childhood, everything I ever believed in, crumble and fall away before my eyes. I was devastated. Not quite to the point of hysteria, but not far off it. I could not, still cannot, believe what they did to my Indy.

They had my Indy chasing aliens. They gave him a kid, and they married him. They gave him cheesy lines, way more cheesy than the earlier three films, and...well, he just wasn’t the same. He just didn’t feel like my Indy anymore.

Now, I know twenty years is a long time, and people change. Of course Indiana would have changed. But he never would have become they lame old man I saw tonight. No way. The real Indy would have kept his charm, his cool and his wit well into his old age. He would have been the Rolling Stones of archaeology. Still rocking, not quite what he used to be for sure, but still undeniably cool.

Thanks to George Lucas and Steven Spielberg, though, he simply is not. He’s not the cool hero he should be. He’s now the Barry Manilow of archaeology. Old, cheesy and someone you’re too embarrassed to admit you like (even though you might keep a few tracks buried deep in your iPod – I don’t though...honest).

I tried to talk about this with my partner. He didn’t get it. I tried harder. He still didn’t get it. I tried everything I could to get him to understand, and he just couldn’t. After things started to get a bit heated, I asked him who his childhood hero was. He gave me two. McGyver and Michael Knight. Seriously. I’m not kidding. These two people were actually his heroes. Soon after I got over my hysterical laughter, the conversation ended. Obviously, when your heroes are possibly the two lamest guys on the planet, they can do no wrong, as they can’t possibly be any more wrong. Therefore, I can see how it would be hard for him to understand how my hero was no longer cool, as he was totally unfamiliar with the concept of a cool hero.

I never did finish my archaeology studies. Which is probably a good thing, as I think I’d have to resign and hang up my whip. The fear of ending up like Indy would force me out of the profession.

I think movie producers need to better understand the impact their film making can have. They need to appreciate just how important a character can become. They need to understand that we do sometimes form personal attachments to the characters we see on screen, we bond and we become friends. They have a responsibility to bear this in mind when they mess around with our friends and heroes. To some of us, they aren't merely characters on a script to be trotted out whenever a dollar needs to be made. These aren't just characters. To some of us they are part of who we are, part of what defines us, moves us and inspires us.

So, after tonight, my childhood will never be the same. My hero is no longer a hero. My childhood has retrospectively lost something that it can’t get back. I’ll get over it in time. Sadly, though, when I look back at my childhood in future it just won’t quite be the same.

Goodbye Indy. You inspired me, and filled me imagination and possibility. I'll miss you. My hero, my idol...and my friend. I miss the times we had together all those years ago. But most of all, I hate what they did to you. You deserved better.

Darwin and the singing finch

I was reading an article in New Scientist yesterday about evolution. It concerned a type of finch, which after domestication had evolved many traits that its wild counterpart did not. The article discussed how a domesticated animal, apparently free from the pressures of natural selection, would not just continue to evolve, but evolve at a very fast pace. The basic theory is as follows:

Typically natural selection places very tight ‘controls’ over the evolutionary process, paying short thrift to any traits that appear that are of no benefit to the species. Therefore, only those traits or mutations that are of any benefit stay with the species.

Thus, any mutations that appear that are of no real benefit quickly disappear.

Going back to the finch, the wild species has a very mundane, monotone call used to attract mates. Its domesticated counterpart has wide-ranging, melodic calls, vastly different to the wild. The reason for this, based on the assumption mentioned above, comes down to the lack of evolutionary pressures on the domesticated finch. Mutations appeared in terms of vocal range, and as the pressures of natural selection have been ‘eased’ as it where, these mutations have stayed on, and subsequently increased.

In the wild population, the efficiency of natural selection would dictate that mutations in bird calls not only would be of no benefit, but would actually be detrimental. A male finch born with a mutated bird call would have more difficulty in finding a mate; therefore this trait would very quickly disappear, perhaps lasting less than a generation.

In the domesticated finch, the mutation has a completely neutral result, so therefore 'relaxed' natural selection will allow it to stay.

The same theory has been put forward to explain the complexity of our own species. Simply put, as we have progressed, or evolved, many of the pressures of natural selection have been eased. For example, as we refined our hunter-gatherer techniques, and there was less pressure on finding food, we had mental capacity left over for the development of such things as language.

As we have evolved and developed, we have become better and more efficient at doing things. Agriculture and animal domestication made life easier by taking the pressure off finding food. The development of civilisation and societies made life easier all round in terms of survival.

Think of it like this: earlier on, all our mental capacity was taken up just trying to survive one day to the next. As we developed, and became more efficient in our day-to-day existence, less of our mental capacity was required for daily survival, so we therefore had spare capacity that could ‘evolve’ other traits that ordinarily wouldn't be allowed under 'tight' natural selection, such as language and religion (definitely not one of our better moments, to be sure. Obviously, this ‘spare capacity’ didn’t always lead to good things).

So if we stick with this theory, it really does make you wonder how far we as humans will develop. Our lives are getting easier and easier as technology develops. We no longer have to utilise much of our mental capacity for survival, which perhaps explains why we have seen such amazing advancements in human thought in recent times. Based on this theory, it would perhaps be reasonable to hypothesize that out intelligence will continue to grow exponentially, the pace of growth ever increasing  as we utilize more and more of our capacity. 

But i don't think we will. The whole premise of the theory I read about was the notion of 'relaxed' natural selection. The strict rules no longer apply, so traits that ordinarily would not be allowed to reproduce do. Obviously, this is a two way street, and something this particular article didn't explore.

If we assume that certain non-useful traits stay in an environment of relaxed natural selection (for example, bird songs in domesticated finches), then it must also be assumed that certain negative traits will also stay and multiply within a population. And I believe this is what is happening to us.

I believe that natural selection has been relaxed so much for Homo Sapiens that it no longer applies. It could therefore be argued that we are in effect in a state of 'devolution'. Let me explain:

Natural selection and evolution is such that negative traits are not permitted to stay on in a population. If a mutation leads to negative consequences, the mutated individual will have a hard time breeding and thus passing on the negative trait. Likewise, if an individual is born with a mutation that gives it an advantage over other individuals, this mutation is likely to stay and be passed on to future generations. Now, this is a very simplistic way of explaining the process of natural selection, but hopefully you get the idea (for a much more eloquent and thorough explanation, I would recommend Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins).

Obviously, these rules no longer apply to us. Through advancements in medicine and health care, traits that would ordinarily breed out of a population not only stay, but multiply. Hereditary conditions illustrate this point. If we take a condition such as cystic fibrosis, modern medicine now means that many people not only live much longer, but also produce offspring. As the disease is hereditary, it is being passed on to future generations. Obviously, as time and medicine progress, more and more individuals will be born with this particular defect. And so on it goes for many more conditions.

So, as a species we are getting sicker and sicker. If the rules of natural selection still applied, an individual with cystic fibrosis would most likely die at a very young age, and hence would be unable to pass on the defect to a new generation. Eventually, the genetic mutation or defect would be bred out of the population. 

As a species, we have reached such a pinnacle of advancement that we have effectively 'switched off' one of the most fundamental laws of nature. 

I do believe though that it's not all doom and gloom. While we are getting more 'defective' in the short term, I believe that eventually our ceaseless advancement will reach the point where we can artificially remove negative traits. Researchers are already searching for the defects in our genes that lead to many common illnesses and impairments. The day were effective gene therapy can remove such defects as cystic fibrosis is perhaps not too far away.

Once this happens, we will enter a phase of artificial natural selection. We will turn the process back on, but we will be in control, not nature. I personally find this to be a very scary thought indeed. Who will ultimately decide what's defective and what isn't? 

We can already test fetuses for defects such as down syndrome. What happens when science finds the 'gay' gene? Will parents be able to test for that as well? Where will it stop? 

Obviously, being able to detect defects early is of enormous benefit. The problem lies in defining exactly what a 'defect' is. The less enlightened of us would consider homosexuality as a defect. Should parents have the freedom to test for and then treat (when science is able) a perceived defect such as this? If not, then who will ultimately decide what can and cannot be treated? Clearly, there are many traits that more rational people see as just that- traits. Some, however, will see many traits as defects. The white supremacist who sees anything other than blonde hair and blue eyes as defects. The ignorant red-neck who views homosexuality as a defect. Should they be able to screen and treat what they perceive as a defect? Obviously, I would say no, but then why do I get to decide?

I guess this is the problem when we take over control from nature. Nature is ethical, and operates natural selection with no ignorance or bias. Once you introduce free thinking to the process, massive flaws start to creep in. The problem, of course, is that free thinking is not entirely free. We may think of ourselves as free thinkers, but the way in which we think is very heavily influenced by our culture, our upbringing and many other factors, many subconscious. 

If free thinking were truly free, then a future where we control natural selection may not be such a scary place. As this will never happen, I can only look forward to the future with a certain sense of foreboding and apprehension at what we may become. 

 

Why God almost certainly does not exist #1

I have many reasons to doubt the existence of God. Many strong, plausible arguments can be posited as to the non-existence of God, far more than can be put forward for the affirmative.

Thus, I thought I would put forward one of my theories on God's non-existence. I'm sure many more will follow....

This is quite brief, and quite simple. I argue that the bible itself is proof that God does not exist. How can this possibly be when the bible is the word of God I hear you ask? Simple: because it is supposed to be the word of God, this in effect proves that it is not.

The bible contains only information that was known at the time it was recorded. What I mean by this is that those who wrote the bible under so-called divine instruction, or whatever it was, recorded only the information that was known by them at the time. So, the bible is a reflection of human knowledge as it was at the time it was written, which is what we would expect of any book written at any point in time.

Now, my argument is that as the bible contains only the knowledge of the time in which it was written, it simply cannot be the word of God.

So much of what was written about in the bible has been superseded by our current knowledge. I won't go into specifics, but much of what was written is so patently false. So, if we take the bible to be the word of god, an all-powerful, all-KNOWING God, why does the information it contain only reflect the knowledge of the time? Surely God would know that illness and disease is caused by micro-organisms such as bacteria and viruses. Surely he would also know that the world is round, and that it consists of more regions than just the Middle East. Yet, none of this is mentioned in the bible.

Clearly, the bible was written by mortal people, as the knowledge it contains is a reflection of mortal knowledge in a given point in time. If it was the word of God, there would have to be some evidence, some information that simply was not and could not have been known by the people of that time. But there is none. Nothing. Not one single piece of information that would indicate the person writing it was all-knowing.

Therefore, the bible was written by mere mortals, with no divine influence or intervention of any kind.

The bible tells me so.

Thoughts on the hockey mom

Sarah Palin as VP. If that doesn't scare you, I don't know what would.

Her selection as McCain's running mate smacks of desperation, and shows just what lengths the Republican Party will go to try and win an election.

The Democrats have a highly intelligent, articulate candidate...who also happens to be black. The Republicans have McCain, an old white male conservative, who I believe most people have a hard time differentiating from Bush. As most of America (finally) hates Bush, this is not a good thing for McCain or the party. 

So, in an attempt to be seen as modern, in touch with the people and not at all like the Bush administration, we give you Sarah Palin. A redneck conservative from Alaska who enjoys shooting moose from a helicopter. I kid you not. Here are some interesting things you might like to know about Palin:

• Her total political experience consists of two terms as mayor of Wasilla (population 6,000) and two years as Governor of Alaska. This apparently qualifies her to be Vice President of the United States.
• When asked about her foreign policy experience she stated that as Alaska is bound by Russia and Canada, she is therefore experienced. She also added that planes flying from Russia to the US have to fly through Alaskan airspace, further enhancing her experience. Seriously.
• During her time as mayor of Wasilla, she attempted to introduce book censorship at the town library.
• As Governor, she instituted court action against the US government in an attempt to stop the Polar Bear being listed as endangered. 
• She supports oil exploration and drilling in the Alaskan and Arctic wilderness.
• She is pro-life, supporting a constitutional amendment to overturn Roe v. Wade, and ban all abortion, including in cases of rape and incest.
• She opposes same-sex marriage, and supported a bill denying state health benefits to same-sex couples.
• She believes in the literal interpretation of the bible, meaning that she believes the earth was created around six thousand years ago.
• She believes that the return of Jesus is likely to happen during her lifetime.
• She believes that creationism should be taught in schools, as a legitimate alternative to evolution.
• She does not believe global warming is man-made. 

So, let me ask...is this the sort of person you want having the nuclear launch codes? Do you really think that someone who believes in Armageddon will have much hesitation in launching a nuclear attack? How much protection do you think she will afford the environment when she believes that Jesus will return during her lifetime? Not much point in protecting the environment when we aren't going to be around for much longer.

I think it's a sad indictment on the American people when they can be won over by folksy charm. Personally, referring to herself as a 'hockey mom' who's looking out for 'Joe six-pack' while constantly winking at the camera just plain pisses me off. But then I hate it when people take me for a fool. I get the impression many Americans don't feel the same way. 

Hillary Clinton is a strong, intelligent woman, who I feel has done a great deal for women, even though she didn't win the nomination. She has demonstrated that women can be independent and successful at the highest level. And the success she has is her own. She wasn't plucked from obscurity, she worked hard to overcome the shadow of her husband, and has demonstrated that women can succeed to the same level as men, sending a strong and powerful message to women the world over. 

And then along came Palin. The hockey mom who's political skill is being able to time her winks at the camera. A bumbling fool who struggles to string together coherent sentences, who supports the oppression of minorities and government censorship. Who believes in the second coming of Christ, and that the world was created around the time the Chinese were domesticating dogs and making silk. 

Hillary Clinton made giant strides forward for women. Palin has not just undone the positive work done by Clinton, she's hooked it to the back of her pick-up and dragged it into the Alaskan wilderness. 

I'm glad I'm not an American, because I would be so ashamed right now. As if Bush wasn't enough to induce shame, along comes Palin.  

Statistically, based on his age, McCain has a one in three chance of dying during his first term in office. Therefore, if McCain is elected President, there is a 33% chance that this red-neck hockey mom from Alaska will become the most powerful person in the world. 

May God help us all. 

God...and why I'm an atheist

So I thought there was probably no point in holding back. Straight to the point as they say.

If I continue with this blogging, you'll realise very quickly that religion is something I'm very passionate about. Now, to make things clear, I'm an atheist. For those of you who may be a little unsure as to exactly what this means, let me explain.

Theism is the belief in one or more deities (gods). As christianity is concerned with just one god, it is classified as a monotheistic religion, along with judaism and islam. Atheism is taken to be one of two things, either the affirmation that there is no god, or gods, or the rejection of theism. I would argue that they are not mutually exclusive definitions, meaning that you can't have one without the other. If you reject theism, then by default you affirm that there is no god. As least this is what I believe. So, atheism is the rejection, non-belief, or whatever else you might want to call it, of theism, or more specifically, the refusal to accept any notion of a god, higher power, supreme being, etc. 

Therefore, as an atheist, i reject the notion of an all-powerful creator. I reject all the resultant theories of creationism and all the other bullshit that goes along with accepting the existence of god.

Some people assume that atheists 'hate' god. Mostly this is a view perpetrated by die-hard theists. Obviously, if you have even the most basic understanding of what atheism means, you will understand that as an atheist, I can't hate something I don't believe in. So, let me make this clear:

• I do not believe in any form of god or supreme being. I don't hate god, I just don't believe in him/her/it.
• I reject the notion that the universe and all resultant life was somehow 'created'. To assume that the universe was 'created' I believe demonstrates a simple-mindedness that cheapens all we know about astronomy, quantum physics, evolution, etc.
• I reject the notion that religion is were we get our moral guidance from. I find this concept not only offensive, but it also disrespects and downplays the free thought and intelligence that we enjoy as humans. To imply that we need a 'supreme being' to tell us what is right and wrong is an insult.
• I believe that there is no evidence (scientific, provable, verifiable evidence) that god exists. Now, you may well say that I can't prove god doesn't exist. And you know what? You're right, I can't. But I don't have to. I'm not making the claim. If you claim god exists, it's up to you to prove it, not up to me to disprove it. 

The basis of our justice system is innocent until proven guilty - meaning that if you make a charge against someone, it is up to you to prove it. Why should god be treated any differently? You make the claim for his existence, it's up to you to prove it. And I'm sorry, but hearing voices in your head is not sufficient evidence. In the context of religion, hearing voices in your head is considered a good thing. Outside of religion, it's considered a sign of mental illness. 

I like to think of myself as a rationalist. What I mean by this quite simply is that I approach everything from a rational perspective. Is it rational that an all-powerful being created the universe? No, it is not. Is it rational that an all-powerful being is privy to all my private thoughts, and will judge me based on what I think inside my head? No, it is not.

Rational thought, true, unbiased rational thought, tells us that god simply can't exist. 

I will be exploring this in much greater detail in future posts. I have many thoughts and theories as to the non-existence of god, which I can't explore right now otherwise I'd be here all night, and this blog entry would be impossibly long.

I will finish by saying that free thought and rational thinking is the greatest, most powerful gift that we as humans have. If all people learnt how to harness these truly remarkable traits, this world be the most wonderful utopia. To remove the shackles of religious thought, faith and dogma would be to truly harness the power of the human mind. The love, peace and respect that would fill this world would be truly mind-boggling. 

As John Lennon said: 

Imagine there's no heaven

It's easy if you try

No hell below us,

Above us only sky.

Imagine all the people,

Living for today.

*sigh*...if only....

My first post...

Well, my first post and my first ever blog entry anywhere ever. How truly exciting. 

So, why a blog? Well, I find I can be a rather opinionated kind of person, and many of my opinions never get to see the light of day outside my head. So, I thought, why not start blogging? Maybe the whole blogging thing is a sign of arrogance...do I feel my opinions and thoughts are so important and worthwhile that I have to share them with the world? That's a tough one...I'll have to get back to you on that one.

Overall, I think this is just a nice way for me to flesh out some thoughts and expand on various things I have locked away in my head. Do I really think many people will read this? No. Do I care? Hmmm...a little I guess. I mean, first and foremost this a tool for me to get stuff off my chest and evolve what's in my head. But who wouldn't want lots of people to read their blogs? Realistically, if we didn't care, we wouldn't blog. I could just as easily type all this in MS Word and be done with it. So to all those people who say they don't care if people read their blogs...liar I say (I base this statement on no fact whatsoever. I have no idea if anyone has actually said that).

I was about to say that perhaps blogging is the modern day equivalent of keeping a diary, but i realised a couple of problems with that as soon as I thought of it. Firstly, I've never kept a diary. Well...I did briefly for about a month back in 2001, when my partner of the time had to leave the country to serve in the army back home. I was feeling so lost I had to do something, and I thought writing all my thoughts down might help (I actually typed...I'm not one for writing. If you saw my hand writing, you'd know why), and it actually did. Was wonderfully cathartic. I wrote copious amounts, and unfortunately managed to loose all I had written. OK....so after typing that, does that somehow mean I'm going through a crisis right now? Is this some sort of coping mechanism for me? Now I'm confusing myself...and digressing. I was talking about my theory of blogging being the modern-day diary. 

The second point in regards to this is that a diary is typically a personal thing that was kept private. I never knew of anyone who wrote in a diary and then passed it around for all to see. Blogs are intended to be public, diaries are not. So, I guess for blogging to be the modern day equivalent of keeping a diary, there would have to be many similarities, which is simply not the case. So after hypothesizing  the theory, I have to say it's wrong. Therefore, I would argue that blogs are an entirely new form of...not sure what to call it...communication perhaps? 

It's hard to explain exactly why I felt the need to blog. But I'll try anyway....

I think...a lot. Now, I know we all think, but I'm not talking about stuff like thinking about what to have for dinner. I'm talking deeper stuff, like say religion. I think about how people can believe something for which there is simply no evidence, and also how they can believe it so strongly that they can suspend all notions of normal human behavior  and commit horrible acts against other humans. So...simply put, writing all this stuff down helps me to understand it better. Writing clarifies thoughts, and enables these thoughts to develop. 

So really I guess this is predominately for my own benefit, and attempt to try and clarify and develop my own thoughts. And of course there is the hope that someone may come across this, have a read and give my ego a nice stroke in the process.