It is hard these days to keep track of how to be open-minded, open-hearted, tolerant and kind. It is hard these days to remember those school-yard lessons of acceptance, of outcasting, of shaming and of helping. These days it gets harder and harder to remember what we meant when we said imagine a world...
Today(or yesterday), over 50% of the citizens in Switzerland supported a ban on the construction of minarets as part of the construction of a mosque building. There are several things at play here. Switzerland being an oldish country with a long and honourable history enjoys maintaining the symbols of its old and unique culture. There are already laws that suggest new building designs must complement and coinside with surrounding buildings. This kind of law is common in Europe, where my grandmother lived in England they have laws saying new buildings on the highstreet, along with all signage must be in a Georgian style as that is the predominant ethos of the community.
However, many citizens are quoted as saying, this vote is not just about maintaining community stylistic ethos, nor is it Muslims themselves being voted against, but against (sepcifically against)a building that symbolizes Islamisation. What does that means?
What is Islamisation? Presumably it is the gradual shifting of style, taste, and landscape to incorporate the styles taste and symbols of contemporary Islamic architechture. I don't know what it is like to live in a monoculture. That is to be raised in a monoculture. That is, I don't really know how it feels to distinguish my culture from another culture. Canadian culture is Islamisation, is hockeyisation, is maple syrupisation, is catholicasation, and protestanization and mormanization, creeation, and inuization, and hippization and the complex and unending integration of all cultures known to all the citizens of Canada. As an immigrant to Canada, I came to learn to be proud of my country as a complex mixing, blending and integrating of cultures, cultural symbols, cultural practices and so on.
That doesn't mean I wasn't glad a few years back when the Ontario high courts said no to Sharia Law. Not because of any fear os islamasation, simply because Ontario has laws, which all citizens of the province abide by (more or less) and that should there be parts of Sharia Law not covered by Ontario law, then those parts may be brought forward and proposed as new law in legislature. This is because no segment of society is different from any other segment of society. What I must abide by, you must abide by; what i am responsible for you too are responsible for. But it is for this reason that the double applicability of Sharia Law was refused in Ontario. Not because it was a symbol of Islamisation, but because it would act to segmatize our unified society.
But perhaps in countries like Europe, (for it is almost a country now...like Africa ;) where each state has for hundreds of years created unity through the sameness of culture, it must be hard to understand how all humans are human. How the symbols of any culture are merely a symbol with the meaning attached to it by humans. Treating humans as humans makes for humanely meaningful symbols (like the pyramids, roman ruins, crosses on churches, kimono, chopsticks and drums of the world). But treating humans like somekind of outsider, some different thing of less value, of less equality, of less right to belong, you associate those same treatments to the meaning of symbols.
Having been raised learning that we are all Swiss and Swiss looks a certain way, eats a certain food, builds buildings with plants in the walls, It must be hard to feel that identity changing.
Unfortunately (or well I think fortunately) all the votes in the world, all the public opinion in the world, all the generally held contempt for change will never stop change from happening. God made the world to change. That is the only truth in any religion, culture, or system of belief. Change is. And change is irresistable. Babies have to stop breast feeding eventually, people have to start earning money eventually, you will one day think it cool to wear neon green or velvet or pleather or fleece, and that horrible blocky retro building you once though to tacky for words will grow on you and soon become and important mark of your community.
Just as Swiss will immigrate to other countries, Muslims, Brits, people with 6 fingers will all emmigrate to Swizterland. And if they aren't welcome, well then I suggest looking west to Canada.
Monday, November 30, 2009
Monday, November 09, 2009
I know that it seems like a good idea
I know that the mass immunization of the whole world seems like the right answer. Seems like the right course to take. Like the best way to prevent deaths. I worry, however that it will become a "well it seemed like a good idea at the time". I worry this is another example of how our preventative culture is causing serious harm, and dangerously putting our health and well being at risk.
I don't think this vaccine is dangerous. I think it is pretty innocuous. It may help you not get sick this year. Good. It may even prevent 10,000 people from dying each week from flu related complications. Good. But, I think it is the wrong course to take and I think it is the wrong way to handle this situation.
And there are two reasons why: one Influenzas A B and C are easily prevented and treated though cheap and readily available means and practices; two it is misdirected effort that may have a "boy who cried wolf effect" should that really zombie virus ever rear its head.
Reason one.
Of course, we are scared with that big what if out there. What if I get sick? Or worse my child or my mother or my wife...but isn't it better to teach and find ways to deal with that what if? Wouldn't it be better to find out what are the best things to do when that what if comes to fruition? Why are we giving up on the sick so easily?
What are the complications that lead to death in people who contract this virus? Respiratory failure, electrolyte imbalance, dehydration... Why are we spending billions of dollars on vaccines, and the equivalent of trillions of dollars in lost productivity and time spent waiting at clinics etc...to prevent a very common, and usually innocuous illness. Why not spend half that money on more effective treatment? Isn't that the way to save lives? Treat the sick?
Prevention:
I know none of us like to miss work (especially those of us who are paid by the working hour, rather than a set salary). But we need to change that mentality. Further, I know none of us like to accept we are sick and that perhaps we have to do something about it, something that will take time and effort. (we have to drink lots, we have to eat lots, we have to deal with the discomfort of illness). but we need to come to accept this discomfort. And i know that none of us wants to die, or wants anyone we know to die. But it is time we accept the truth about life being the deadliest of all sexually transmitted diseases. (I don't think life is a disease, but i think it is a funny way to think of life as an STD with 100% mortality rate...no one gets out alive...but many people get out happy...and we should embrace this and accept it as the best we can hope for. I can't live forever, but at least I can be happy).
We need to accept that even though we CAN keep working in those early hours of a flu or cold, we shouldn't. At the outset we should take some rest. A good 12 hours of sleep can do amazing things for your immune system. We should be justified in taking it at the onset of a cold. We should be supported and encouraged in it. Because this early treatment can be the difference between heading off an major infection and causing it to develop into a possibly fatal illness. Maybe it feels silly when you aren't seriously ill but stay home, and the next day wake up healthy as ever, and go to work, people think you were just skipping off. Well we should allow this not to make us feel so guilty (unless you were skipping off of course, cause then you should feel guilty it is very inconsiderate of your customers, coworkers and employer who all support your life everyday). That day of rest at the onset of illness is vital. And we must value it. And we must take it.
Next, as I said before, we really need to make hand washing the coolest thing on the block. You aren't lame if you wash your hands. Daily. Hourly. Often and thoroughly. You are clever. You are kind. You are considerate for it. And I thank you. Because you are helping keep yourself healthy, and helping keep me healthy, and together we can help take care of all the sickies out there. You don't have to wash your hands. We should want to wash them. It is proven effective. When surgeons started washing their hands and tools before surgery success rates and survival rates multiplied exponentially. Hand washing prevents contamination. It is inexpensive, and above all it is absolutely safe...no one has ever died from complications due to hand washing (unless they really deserved it) and it has a long long track record of complication free users (unlike most vaccination programs). And you don't need anything fancy. A little bit of water. Maybe a squidge of soap, if you have some to spare. Finally you can do it yourself, which is empowering. And self empowerment if key in all forays of life.
It is the best preventative medicine for an array of illnesses (unlike a vaccine which targets one small group of illnesses at a time). What is more, it also improves your public image, making you more likely to get a higher paying job, find a good spouse, raise well bred children, and have useful ways to contribute to society. There are numerous useless studies that say so..."women like men with clean fingernails" "don't judge a book by its cover, check out it's hands" etc etc.
Next we need to learn about advanced stages treatment. How do you treat a flu that is advancing to higher levels? How do you treat a fever? Respiratory distress? Diarrhea? Of course this is why we have hospitals, but this is knowledge for the masses not just the specialists. We should all know about electrolyte balance, it should be the general knowledge of school-children things like if you drink 7L of water you can die because you electrolyte levels will be too low. Or the reason you feel sick from drinking too much sweet stuff or milk is again that imbalance. We should know about respiratory distress and how breathing exercises are important and can help stage off this distress. We should also feel free to talk about our bowel activity, because if our caregivers don't know the extent of our diarrhea they might not notice our level of dehydration. We should better know how to recognize the signs of dehydration. This should be household knowledge. We shouldn't need specialists for this stuff.
Of course we need the specialists, too. Because we don't have this knowledge. Because there are myriad complications. Because there are many other illness that also signpost the same symptoms. And we are very fortunate that there are specialists in this world who can help us. But we need to help ourselves too.
Reason two:
Will this kind of hysteria and back and forthing lead to public apathy about global health, so called pandemics, and communicable diseases? Can taking a fairly innocuous illness too seriously lead us to underestimate another illness when it presents a more serious threat. Or another illness that may actually call for a medical intervention like vaccination rather than an lifestyle intervention...like hand washing...
There are a myriad of science fiction novels that take on this theme. Perhaps with good reason. To keep us on edge. We do have the knowledge, the skills, the tools and the imagination to handle this catastrophic situation...but I'm not sure the that swine flu pandemic is the monster illness set to wipe out 90% of the world's population...I worry that we are wasting resources and creating a bad mindset with this kind of treatment of the pandemic...
I don't think this vaccine is dangerous. I think it is pretty innocuous. It may help you not get sick this year. Good. It may even prevent 10,000 people from dying each week from flu related complications. Good. But, I think it is the wrong course to take and I think it is the wrong way to handle this situation.
And there are two reasons why: one Influenzas A B and C are easily prevented and treated though cheap and readily available means and practices; two it is misdirected effort that may have a "boy who cried wolf effect" should that really zombie virus ever rear its head.
Reason one.
Of course, we are scared with that big what if out there. What if I get sick? Or worse my child or my mother or my wife...but isn't it better to teach and find ways to deal with that what if? Wouldn't it be better to find out what are the best things to do when that what if comes to fruition? Why are we giving up on the sick so easily?
What are the complications that lead to death in people who contract this virus? Respiratory failure, electrolyte imbalance, dehydration... Why are we spending billions of dollars on vaccines, and the equivalent of trillions of dollars in lost productivity and time spent waiting at clinics etc...to prevent a very common, and usually innocuous illness. Why not spend half that money on more effective treatment? Isn't that the way to save lives? Treat the sick?
Prevention:
I know none of us like to miss work (especially those of us who are paid by the working hour, rather than a set salary). But we need to change that mentality. Further, I know none of us like to accept we are sick and that perhaps we have to do something about it, something that will take time and effort. (we have to drink lots, we have to eat lots, we have to deal with the discomfort of illness). but we need to come to accept this discomfort. And i know that none of us wants to die, or wants anyone we know to die. But it is time we accept the truth about life being the deadliest of all sexually transmitted diseases. (I don't think life is a disease, but i think it is a funny way to think of life as an STD with 100% mortality rate...no one gets out alive...but many people get out happy...and we should embrace this and accept it as the best we can hope for. I can't live forever, but at least I can be happy).
We need to accept that even though we CAN keep working in those early hours of a flu or cold, we shouldn't. At the outset we should take some rest. A good 12 hours of sleep can do amazing things for your immune system. We should be justified in taking it at the onset of a cold. We should be supported and encouraged in it. Because this early treatment can be the difference between heading off an major infection and causing it to develop into a possibly fatal illness. Maybe it feels silly when you aren't seriously ill but stay home, and the next day wake up healthy as ever, and go to work, people think you were just skipping off. Well we should allow this not to make us feel so guilty (unless you were skipping off of course, cause then you should feel guilty it is very inconsiderate of your customers, coworkers and employer who all support your life everyday). That day of rest at the onset of illness is vital. And we must value it. And we must take it.
Next, as I said before, we really need to make hand washing the coolest thing on the block. You aren't lame if you wash your hands. Daily. Hourly. Often and thoroughly. You are clever. You are kind. You are considerate for it. And I thank you. Because you are helping keep yourself healthy, and helping keep me healthy, and together we can help take care of all the sickies out there. You don't have to wash your hands. We should want to wash them. It is proven effective. When surgeons started washing their hands and tools before surgery success rates and survival rates multiplied exponentially. Hand washing prevents contamination. It is inexpensive, and above all it is absolutely safe...no one has ever died from complications due to hand washing (unless they really deserved it) and it has a long long track record of complication free users (unlike most vaccination programs). And you don't need anything fancy. A little bit of water. Maybe a squidge of soap, if you have some to spare. Finally you can do it yourself, which is empowering. And self empowerment if key in all forays of life.
It is the best preventative medicine for an array of illnesses (unlike a vaccine which targets one small group of illnesses at a time). What is more, it also improves your public image, making you more likely to get a higher paying job, find a good spouse, raise well bred children, and have useful ways to contribute to society. There are numerous useless studies that say so..."women like men with clean fingernails" "don't judge a book by its cover, check out it's hands" etc etc.
Next we need to learn about advanced stages treatment. How do you treat a flu that is advancing to higher levels? How do you treat a fever? Respiratory distress? Diarrhea? Of course this is why we have hospitals, but this is knowledge for the masses not just the specialists. We should all know about electrolyte balance, it should be the general knowledge of school-children things like if you drink 7L of water you can die because you electrolyte levels will be too low. Or the reason you feel sick from drinking too much sweet stuff or milk is again that imbalance. We should know about respiratory distress and how breathing exercises are important and can help stage off this distress. We should also feel free to talk about our bowel activity, because if our caregivers don't know the extent of our diarrhea they might not notice our level of dehydration. We should better know how to recognize the signs of dehydration. This should be household knowledge. We shouldn't need specialists for this stuff.
Of course we need the specialists, too. Because we don't have this knowledge. Because there are myriad complications. Because there are many other illness that also signpost the same symptoms. And we are very fortunate that there are specialists in this world who can help us. But we need to help ourselves too.
Reason two:
Will this kind of hysteria and back and forthing lead to public apathy about global health, so called pandemics, and communicable diseases? Can taking a fairly innocuous illness too seriously lead us to underestimate another illness when it presents a more serious threat. Or another illness that may actually call for a medical intervention like vaccination rather than an lifestyle intervention...like hand washing...
There are a myriad of science fiction novels that take on this theme. Perhaps with good reason. To keep us on edge. We do have the knowledge, the skills, the tools and the imagination to handle this catastrophic situation...but I'm not sure the that swine flu pandemic is the monster illness set to wipe out 90% of the world's population...I worry that we are wasting resources and creating a bad mindset with this kind of treatment of the pandemic...
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Is it ironic?
Is it ironic that the steel taken from the twin towers after they were collapsed nearly a decade ago has been turned into a warship. It was a very sad day, a very sad series of decisions, a very sad set of circumstances and in the end a number of people lost their lives, NY lost its iconic towers, and the world in so many ways lost all sense of perspective.
Why did we build warships?
That building could have been recycled into anything. And it was recycled into an instrument to continue the pain, suffering and oppression of people at home and around the world. An instrument that continues to uphold the beliefs and values of a world that we must let fade into the past. Humanity has for tens of thousands of years been becoming less and less violent; and we are coming to a time when we will no longer need mass violence to exert change, renewal, morality and equality. Why couldn't the steel have been used to embrace this bright future? Why once again have we chosen the path of violence and war?
It's a shame. Better luck next time, eh?
Why did we build warships?
That building could have been recycled into anything. And it was recycled into an instrument to continue the pain, suffering and oppression of people at home and around the world. An instrument that continues to uphold the beliefs and values of a world that we must let fade into the past. Humanity has for tens of thousands of years been becoming less and less violent; and we are coming to a time when we will no longer need mass violence to exert change, renewal, morality and equality. Why couldn't the steel have been used to embrace this bright future? Why once again have we chosen the path of violence and war?
It's a shame. Better luck next time, eh?
Saturday, October 31, 2009
SAGE
I don't want to make a stink, as a death is a death and all deaths are sad times for someone. The death of a single person can effect hundreds of others. But I was reading on the jump in deaths from the swine flu and had to think...so what. 5700 people in a week. I guess that is a lot of people. I mean that would be everyone I went to high school with over my 5 years there.
But we are talking about 5700 out of 6.something billion. Why is this such a panic issue? Why is it getting this kind of media? and why is the language of the media that of pending doom, global disaster and mass death?
I guess on the one hand there is the belief that information is one of the best ways to battle anything. Thus the media feels it is its responcibility to get the information out there. (though most news reports are a fair amount of non-information, rarely making not that handwashing is still the single greatest defence against these kinds of infections...you'd think that would get a thousand plugs a day)
Also, there is perhaps a sense that slow information in the past has fueled the spread of some of our more deadly global pandemics. If only someone had put up the flags about HIV back in the 80s would we be where we are now in that fight? Or following the SARS outbreak... the Avian flu, mad cow...if only we had got the information to the masses and scared them suffiently that they would be cautious and kind in avoiding and preventing spread of the infection.
Of course H1N1 Influenza is the hallmark of a kind of Orwellian future coming to life. For generations (well at least one generation) we have been getting warning about the use of antibiotics in animals, about the problems with the feed, changes to genetics etc...that the way we treat our food will put us at risk. That our treatment is going to produce new microbes, capable of moving between species, a pathway that was mostly theoretical, speculated and wished for in science fiction novels. So perhaps there is some "I told you so" in all this media time.
Nonetheless, while it is important that the media offer this imformation that people take the risk of infection seriously, it should be coupled with the handwashing information.
But we are talking about 5700 out of 6.something billion. Why is this such a panic issue? Why is it getting this kind of media? and why is the language of the media that of pending doom, global disaster and mass death?
I guess on the one hand there is the belief that information is one of the best ways to battle anything. Thus the media feels it is its responcibility to get the information out there. (though most news reports are a fair amount of non-information, rarely making not that handwashing is still the single greatest defence against these kinds of infections...you'd think that would get a thousand plugs a day)
Also, there is perhaps a sense that slow information in the past has fueled the spread of some of our more deadly global pandemics. If only someone had put up the flags about HIV back in the 80s would we be where we are now in that fight? Or following the SARS outbreak... the Avian flu, mad cow...if only we had got the information to the masses and scared them suffiently that they would be cautious and kind in avoiding and preventing spread of the infection.
Of course H1N1 Influenza is the hallmark of a kind of Orwellian future coming to life. For generations (well at least one generation) we have been getting warning about the use of antibiotics in animals, about the problems with the feed, changes to genetics etc...that the way we treat our food will put us at risk. That our treatment is going to produce new microbes, capable of moving between species, a pathway that was mostly theoretical, speculated and wished for in science fiction novels. So perhaps there is some "I told you so" in all this media time.
Nonetheless, while it is important that the media offer this imformation that people take the risk of infection seriously, it should be coupled with the handwashing information.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Blackface
It is black history month in the UK and so as in February in Norh America, stories of 'black' history and racism abound in the local media. One story I happened on today, talked about how modern examples of blackface (the business of painting someone to look black). The article goes on to talk about how this kind of race impersonation is disrespectful and highlights how we us race, wrongly, for our entertainment.
The article even suggested that you would never find the opposite happening for entertainment. But there are heaps and heaps of examples all over the place, that are either truly benign or wrongly ignored. There is the classic, Legolas from The Lord of the Rings. I don't know Orlando Bloom's bloodline, but pale skinned, straigth blond hair with blue eyes is not it. I remember feeling quite dupped when I learned what Mr Bloom really looked like (having not known him before the LOTR films).
Of the perhaps even worse examples of Zhang Ziyi, a native Chinese, playing Sayuri in Memoirs of a Geisha. In this case it is very possible that most of us didn't even realize how we were being deceived, or worse that it was a deception...that there are infact differences between Chinese and Japanese.
Like Hate-crime laws, I find it really difficult to face things like black history months. Aren't all crimes, hate crimes? And isn't all history worthy of highight. Would it not be better to have "Hypocracy" history month or "racism" history month or "revolution" hisotry month in which all forms of hypocracy are studied, in which every kind of racism is faced, discussed and worthy of air time, and in which revolutions of every nation are put on equal footing, are explored together to help us all understand how and why we are different, and where our borders overlap and share common ground.
I think this theme based approach, rather than subject based approach would do far more to help us learn about black history...but also about all our histories.
Then perhaps we wouldn't stand for blonde children playing the role of Annie, or of white people playing russians, or french staring as italians...or humans playing the roles of elves...
The article even suggested that you would never find the opposite happening for entertainment. But there are heaps and heaps of examples all over the place, that are either truly benign or wrongly ignored. There is the classic, Legolas from The Lord of the Rings. I don't know Orlando Bloom's bloodline, but pale skinned, straigth blond hair with blue eyes is not it. I remember feeling quite dupped when I learned what Mr Bloom really looked like (having not known him before the LOTR films).
Of the perhaps even worse examples of Zhang Ziyi, a native Chinese, playing Sayuri in Memoirs of a Geisha. In this case it is very possible that most of us didn't even realize how we were being deceived, or worse that it was a deception...that there are infact differences between Chinese and Japanese.
Like Hate-crime laws, I find it really difficult to face things like black history months. Aren't all crimes, hate crimes? And isn't all history worthy of highight. Would it not be better to have "Hypocracy" history month or "racism" history month or "revolution" hisotry month in which all forms of hypocracy are studied, in which every kind of racism is faced, discussed and worthy of air time, and in which revolutions of every nation are put on equal footing, are explored together to help us all understand how and why we are different, and where our borders overlap and share common ground.
I think this theme based approach, rather than subject based approach would do far more to help us learn about black history...but also about all our histories.
Then perhaps we wouldn't stand for blonde children playing the role of Annie, or of white people playing russians, or french staring as italians...or humans playing the roles of elves...
Monday, October 19, 2009
Bunny biofuel
There is a (I think) very funny case of concern in Sweden about the use of the bodies of culled rabbits. It is pretty mean to laugh, but it is very funny in some rather ironic and sad ways.
The problem: invasive rabbits are harming the city environment, so the city has employed hunters to cull them. 6000 last year 3000 this year. We will see how many in the future. Well after culling, the bodies are frozen and then incinerated. The catch, this particular incinerator uses the energy produced from the process to create heat for homes. So inadvertently rabbits are being used as biofuel to heat homes. Although, that is a bit of an oversimplification, as they aren't solely being used, and they are going to be destroyed anyway. And how many homes can be heated by the bodies of 3000 rabbits anyway?
But in many ways it feels a bit like science fiction, doesn't it? A bit like one of those Ray Bradbury stories of old citizens being encouraged to kill themselves, or of dredging the sea to make a kind of slurry for feeding the thousands...which is the funny part.
But it is an interesting question of efficiency. The company is already burning peat moss and wood for this process, along with various waste products, and had 1000 years ago rabbits died and become part of the peat bog, there would be no problem with burning them to make fuel. Or had a large number of people served rabbit soup and thrown out a bunch of rabbit carcasses, there would be no problem burning them. This is because there are intermediate steps, removing the direct animal to energy flow.
But it isn't like the government is going out killing rabbits for the purpose of making energy, that is just an added bonus (or effect if you will). But it does kind of leave that eerie feeling, that if it is okay to dispose of rabbit bodies in this way, how long before human bodies too may be recycled to heat our homes. Does it matter? And there it is...that question of man...our greatest hubris, or greatest truth...are humans sacred?
Anyway, I hope the cute bunnies stop over populating the streets of Stockholm so that the cull can end, and we can avoid that elephant for a few more years.
The problem: invasive rabbits are harming the city environment, so the city has employed hunters to cull them. 6000 last year 3000 this year. We will see how many in the future. Well after culling, the bodies are frozen and then incinerated. The catch, this particular incinerator uses the energy produced from the process to create heat for homes. So inadvertently rabbits are being used as biofuel to heat homes. Although, that is a bit of an oversimplification, as they aren't solely being used, and they are going to be destroyed anyway. And how many homes can be heated by the bodies of 3000 rabbits anyway?
But in many ways it feels a bit like science fiction, doesn't it? A bit like one of those Ray Bradbury stories of old citizens being encouraged to kill themselves, or of dredging the sea to make a kind of slurry for feeding the thousands...which is the funny part.
But it is an interesting question of efficiency. The company is already burning peat moss and wood for this process, along with various waste products, and had 1000 years ago rabbits died and become part of the peat bog, there would be no problem with burning them to make fuel. Or had a large number of people served rabbit soup and thrown out a bunch of rabbit carcasses, there would be no problem burning them. This is because there are intermediate steps, removing the direct animal to energy flow.
But it isn't like the government is going out killing rabbits for the purpose of making energy, that is just an added bonus (or effect if you will). But it does kind of leave that eerie feeling, that if it is okay to dispose of rabbit bodies in this way, how long before human bodies too may be recycled to heat our homes. Does it matter? And there it is...that question of man...our greatest hubris, or greatest truth...are humans sacred?
Anyway, I hope the cute bunnies stop over populating the streets of Stockholm so that the cull can end, and we can avoid that elephant for a few more years.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Green space living
Coming from someone who lives in a jungle, this may seem like an odd blog...It may just be that I need to stop reading the BBC. But they do have some interesting news. Like this report about the effects of green spaces on our health. I do love the green in and around my home, and I fully agree with the findings of the research, as they are very apparent in my life too. But it is grossly one-sided research, and I wonder if they might also acknowledge the problems of allergies, insects and pest that go with green space. The maintenance, and feeling of guilt and resentment that accompany that maintenance work. What about the dangers of parks in cities especially where people tend to be a little less balanced and more likely to go crazy and attack someone...
I am fully for living in jungles. To limiting cities to populations of 300,000 and rewarding cities for populations of under 30,000. To planting more trees, and enforcing civic clean up days when citizens are encouraged and positively rewarded for taking pride in their community and contributing to its maintenance. But we have to be realistic as we promote these better living environments. We have to be honest and allow people to know that its not all green grass over there. That there are downsides too. Otherwise people just get disappointed when they make the change and learn the truth for themselves.
I am fully for living in jungles. To limiting cities to populations of 300,000 and rewarding cities for populations of under 30,000. To planting more trees, and enforcing civic clean up days when citizens are encouraged and positively rewarded for taking pride in their community and contributing to its maintenance. But we have to be realistic as we promote these better living environments. We have to be honest and allow people to know that its not all green grass over there. That there are downsides too. Otherwise people just get disappointed when they make the change and learn the truth for themselves.
Pushing products
I recently posted about the EU's quest for supported claims. That they want any medical sounding claims on products to be supported by research. A, I think, very expensive and futile objective...but then we are talking about the EU.
Well, then I finished using my tube of Crest toothpaste. As I was winkling out that last little divot of paste I read the tube, probably for the first time in the three months I have been using it. And it said that is was an "All in one" toothpaste. And a twinge of panic gripped me. All in one...does that mean I shouldn't have been flossing these past months? Or I shouldn't have been using mouthwash, if only occasionally? What is included in this All that the tube was speaking of?
Unfortunately, beyond the claim that everything was there, there wasn't much else to let me know what complementary oral care I should continue with, and what was really unnecessary. I thought of the minutes of my life I may have wasted flossing, when this toothpaste should have been sufficient. I tried to assure myself that I had at that time removed build up with that little bit of thread...and that perhaps it was All in one, but I may not have been using it properly anyway...I never did read the use instructions.
Then another thought occurred to me...my next tube of paste was Colgate Complete. Was this the same as an All in one? Or did it just mean it was a complete toothpaste, and that other complementary care was still necessary? What about those years of just using the regular red tube Colgate...was that an incomplete toothpaste? Should someone be held accountable for the inferior oral care provided by that product. I mean we should always be good DOB scouts shouldn't we?
So I opened the box to see if the new Colgate would give me a better sense of what complete meant. It said tarter control and breath freshening* I thought, hmm what is the * for? So I looked down the side of the tube It said *with brushing...
With brushing?
Well...how else do you use toothpaste? This is when I really started to panic. i tried to imagine other ways toothpaste might be employed that would provide other kinds of tooth care. Maybe as a kind of soak, or an application, maybe to be taken as a drink? Diluted and used as a rinse?
But in the end, I decided that my smile is beautiful, and still beautiful just with the care I am giving it. And if there might be better care out there, it is okay, because I could be doing a lot worse. And this is what I think the EU science supported-claims need to take into consideration. By forcing companies to back claims scientifically, makes the claims even stronger in the public eye, making individuals even more controlled by the claims made to push a product. Which, as I ahve demonstrated can cause a lot of needless worry (and blogging). Really we should be working to weaken that bond, to encourage people to be their own scientists, to observe their bodies, and the effects of their environment on them. I know some claims can be dangerous, and some of us aren't equipped to handle the investigation...but I am sure we can learn.
Although, the latest episode of South Park "Dead Celebrities" #1308 does suggest, through the Chipoltaway product placement, that this is wishful thinking.
Well, then I finished using my tube of Crest toothpaste. As I was winkling out that last little divot of paste I read the tube, probably for the first time in the three months I have been using it. And it said that is was an "All in one" toothpaste. And a twinge of panic gripped me. All in one...does that mean I shouldn't have been flossing these past months? Or I shouldn't have been using mouthwash, if only occasionally? What is included in this All that the tube was speaking of?
Unfortunately, beyond the claim that everything was there, there wasn't much else to let me know what complementary oral care I should continue with, and what was really unnecessary. I thought of the minutes of my life I may have wasted flossing, when this toothpaste should have been sufficient. I tried to assure myself that I had at that time removed build up with that little bit of thread...and that perhaps it was All in one, but I may not have been using it properly anyway...I never did read the use instructions.
Then another thought occurred to me...my next tube of paste was Colgate Complete. Was this the same as an All in one? Or did it just mean it was a complete toothpaste, and that other complementary care was still necessary? What about those years of just using the regular red tube Colgate...was that an incomplete toothpaste? Should someone be held accountable for the inferior oral care provided by that product. I mean we should always be good DOB scouts shouldn't we?
So I opened the box to see if the new Colgate would give me a better sense of what complete meant. It said tarter control and breath freshening* I thought, hmm what is the * for? So I looked down the side of the tube It said *with brushing...
With brushing?
Well...how else do you use toothpaste? This is when I really started to panic. i tried to imagine other ways toothpaste might be employed that would provide other kinds of tooth care. Maybe as a kind of soak, or an application, maybe to be taken as a drink? Diluted and used as a rinse?
But in the end, I decided that my smile is beautiful, and still beautiful just with the care I am giving it. And if there might be better care out there, it is okay, because I could be doing a lot worse. And this is what I think the EU science supported-claims need to take into consideration. By forcing companies to back claims scientifically, makes the claims even stronger in the public eye, making individuals even more controlled by the claims made to push a product. Which, as I ahve demonstrated can cause a lot of needless worry (and blogging). Really we should be working to weaken that bond, to encourage people to be their own scientists, to observe their bodies, and the effects of their environment on them. I know some claims can be dangerous, and some of us aren't equipped to handle the investigation...but I am sure we can learn.
Although, the latest episode of South Park "Dead Celebrities" #1308 does suggest, through the Chipoltaway product placement, that this is wishful thinking.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Food
Global food production must increase by 70% in the next 40 years...according to a report by the UN council for food. In the news report, as I haven't gone hunting up the original as UN pages are always so slow loading, there is a certain hysteria that nags me to say something about the state of food.
And I find it is now that I must say this because I have recently gained a house gremlin. That is a strange creature who likes to buy food and bring it to my house. And leave it there for me to eat. I like to buy food cook it and then eat it that day or maybe the next day for breakfast. I keep certain stock foods like salt sugar and rice. But most other things I pick up once or twice a week at the market. This is because if i buy more food it will end up in the garbage. As I tried to explain to my house gremlin.
And this is the point I want to make. It seems that 70%, presumably above the regular rate of increase in production is a lot. And I just wonder how much of it could be made up for by eating smarter not harder. In developed countries, so much food everyday gets used helping keep up the diversity of local landfills and incinerators. I wonder if merely learning to waste less food would be sufficient to account for food shortages in developed countries?
Obviously or well presumably a large part of the shortage trouble is and will be in densely populated, poorly developed countries and areas of countries, but seeing as cities are going to do nothing but grow, perhaps we need to help grow a culture of wasteless living in them. Before we go mowing down more forest, "reclaiming" more ocean for land, and irrigating desertland. Helping city dwellers be more conscious of wasted food, may also help us become more conscious of food issues around the world. And perhaps inspire some fabulous thinker to find more creative solutions than just uping production.
And I find it is now that I must say this because I have recently gained a house gremlin. That is a strange creature who likes to buy food and bring it to my house. And leave it there for me to eat. I like to buy food cook it and then eat it that day or maybe the next day for breakfast. I keep certain stock foods like salt sugar and rice. But most other things I pick up once or twice a week at the market. This is because if i buy more food it will end up in the garbage. As I tried to explain to my house gremlin.
And this is the point I want to make. It seems that 70%, presumably above the regular rate of increase in production is a lot. And I just wonder how much of it could be made up for by eating smarter not harder. In developed countries, so much food everyday gets used helping keep up the diversity of local landfills and incinerators. I wonder if merely learning to waste less food would be sufficient to account for food shortages in developed countries?
Obviously or well presumably a large part of the shortage trouble is and will be in densely populated, poorly developed countries and areas of countries, but seeing as cities are going to do nothing but grow, perhaps we need to help grow a culture of wasteless living in them. Before we go mowing down more forest, "reclaiming" more ocean for land, and irrigating desertland. Helping city dwellers be more conscious of wasted food, may also help us become more conscious of food issues around the world. And perhaps inspire some fabulous thinker to find more creative solutions than just uping production.
Monday, October 05, 2009
EU wants it specific
I just read an article about the debunking of the probiotic effects of yogurt drinks. The article was concerned with the EU's attempts to ensure that any "medical-sounding" claims made on food products be supported by facts. They want it verified by scientific observation that the probiots in many yogurt products are "good for you". And what is the percentage, what is the short and long term group mean distribution of effects, and how do these effects come about...perhaps.
This is all in their attempt to protect the public, (there it is my favourite phrase), from misleading or false advertising, and to ensure that all products are fairly represented. Personally, I think it is time to do away with advertising on foods. All food packaging (if any packaging at all) should just say what is in side. Maybe how to cook it. And even those instructions should read something like: add water or add fire or add both...go on experiment.
I don't get it. Or rather, I don't get what people don't get about food. Can't you just eat something and feel it was good for you, or feel, "hmm maybe i shouldn't eat too much of that." I mean, don't you just feel good after eating high quality bread, or a peach, versus when you eat dollar a zip-locked loaf bread and a tinned peach? Can't you feel after a yogurt...oh that was a lot of sugar, or that was a little tarte but my tummy feels calm...
Maybe some of the high fruit, high processed yogurts aren't as healthy as they claim, but eating yogurt is a good habit. Just take away a company's right to promote by claims...I think this is nicer. Instead of spending billions on questionable, arguable research let's spend it teaching people how to enjoy food, how to eat food and how to appreciate how food makes their bodies feel.
I have friends who I know are allergic to tomatoes or maybe cheese who don't know it. I see, we eat pizza or a nice lasgna, 10 minutes later they look lethargic and strained, not long after they are off to the loo. They enjoy the gustatory experience so much that they don't associate the coupled digestive experience with the ingredients their bodies don't like. I know I am probably mildly sensetive to bread. I eat it, especially when I eat a lot of it, and I get depressed, sleepy, groggy. And its a positive feedback cycle too, when I start getting depressed I crave more bread, I eat it, I feel more sick and sad, so I crave and eat more. But when I catch on and go for a bowl of soup or some rice instead of bread it is only a matter of time before my whole condition shifts again.
When we pay attention to our body, we can find out how wise it is. And then all the faulty health claims in the world don't matter a stitch and companies can tell you what you want, but you will say, "your words sound wise, but I know otherwise, my body whispers to me what it needs to keep fit and vital"
But I guess we need some lessons in the listening part. It isn't easy and it does take time. But i think if i could get funding for research I could demonstrate how much money would be saved by governments if food didn't need promoting.
This is all in their attempt to protect the public, (there it is my favourite phrase), from misleading or false advertising, and to ensure that all products are fairly represented. Personally, I think it is time to do away with advertising on foods. All food packaging (if any packaging at all) should just say what is in side. Maybe how to cook it. And even those instructions should read something like: add water or add fire or add both...go on experiment.
I don't get it. Or rather, I don't get what people don't get about food. Can't you just eat something and feel it was good for you, or feel, "hmm maybe i shouldn't eat too much of that." I mean, don't you just feel good after eating high quality bread, or a peach, versus when you eat dollar a zip-locked loaf bread and a tinned peach? Can't you feel after a yogurt...oh that was a lot of sugar, or that was a little tarte but my tummy feels calm...
Maybe some of the high fruit, high processed yogurts aren't as healthy as they claim, but eating yogurt is a good habit. Just take away a company's right to promote by claims...I think this is nicer. Instead of spending billions on questionable, arguable research let's spend it teaching people how to enjoy food, how to eat food and how to appreciate how food makes their bodies feel.
I have friends who I know are allergic to tomatoes or maybe cheese who don't know it. I see, we eat pizza or a nice lasgna, 10 minutes later they look lethargic and strained, not long after they are off to the loo. They enjoy the gustatory experience so much that they don't associate the coupled digestive experience with the ingredients their bodies don't like. I know I am probably mildly sensetive to bread. I eat it, especially when I eat a lot of it, and I get depressed, sleepy, groggy. And its a positive feedback cycle too, when I start getting depressed I crave more bread, I eat it, I feel more sick and sad, so I crave and eat more. But when I catch on and go for a bowl of soup or some rice instead of bread it is only a matter of time before my whole condition shifts again.
When we pay attention to our body, we can find out how wise it is. And then all the faulty health claims in the world don't matter a stitch and companies can tell you what you want, but you will say, "your words sound wise, but I know otherwise, my body whispers to me what it needs to keep fit and vital"
But I guess we need some lessons in the listening part. It isn't easy and it does take time. But i think if i could get funding for research I could demonstrate how much money would be saved by governments if food didn't need promoting.
Friday, October 02, 2009
Terminating an adoption
It is all over may social networks and I am reading a lot about this case of the Tedaldis. Do you know the story? 18 months after adopting a child her husband and her decided to return it, as they weren't bonding to the child the way they had bonded with their biological daughters.
It is a pretty sad story. As is every story of a child being rejected, abandoned and left "for someone else" to take care of. The child in question had been abondoned as an infant by the side of a road and was taken into state care. Then adopted to the Tedaldis family.
It seems impossible that a family would go through the process of adopting and child only to turn it away again, but it happens...and happens frequently. But need we react with name calling and disgust? I don't know. It is a very sad story. It is sad because it reminds us how little love we give sometimes. It is sad because it reminds us of how we have abandoned those we should love. It is sad because it is so true to the experience of each of us.
Life is often a series of abandonments. But it is also full of people willing to take us in. To give us love, attention and affection when we least expect it.
It may be years, decades even before this child finds love. Although with the media coverage of the story probably he will be one of the lucky ones and soon find the people who can and will love and care for him. Who knows, perhaps even his biological parents seeing the hardness of their first abondonment repeated will be inspired to face up and give their son the love he needs. But in the end, in some way we all get the love we need.
It is a pretty sad story. As is every story of a child being rejected, abandoned and left "for someone else" to take care of. The child in question had been abondoned as an infant by the side of a road and was taken into state care. Then adopted to the Tedaldis family.
It seems impossible that a family would go through the process of adopting and child only to turn it away again, but it happens...and happens frequently. But need we react with name calling and disgust? I don't know. It is a very sad story. It is sad because it reminds us how little love we give sometimes. It is sad because it reminds us of how we have abandoned those we should love. It is sad because it is so true to the experience of each of us.
Life is often a series of abandonments. But it is also full of people willing to take us in. To give us love, attention and affection when we least expect it.
It may be years, decades even before this child finds love. Although with the media coverage of the story probably he will be one of the lucky ones and soon find the people who can and will love and care for him. Who knows, perhaps even his biological parents seeing the hardness of their first abondonment repeated will be inspired to face up and give their son the love he needs. But in the end, in some way we all get the love we need.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
multilingual and hyperlingual
I don't know the word for them, but I think I will call them hyperlinguists. I think I am one of this group. These are people who have a poor ability to articulate something simplistically. Like that, for example...
I wonder if hyperlinguiticness could be classified as some sort of condition. I know in some autism type disorders there are ways of classifying language skills that have to do with an inability to express ones emotions in a "normal" way. I wonder if I could research hyperlinguisticality in perfectly healthy people? But then, I wonder, what would be the point of that research? I suppose to eventually publish a paper in some magazine, or journal, as hyperlinguistic people like to call them. And make a whimsically TED presentation on the matter, that will make all the hyperlinguists in the audience, chortel noisily, and some of the more normal people smirk quietly. And in both the presentation and the paper I shall say something to the point of "Isn't hyperlinguisticness a terrifically interesting topic and shouldn't we all spend a great deal more time thinking about it and posting blogs that no one reads on the topic"
Of course, no one doesn't read this blog. But you do. Although, if I am good at researching...or maybe if i am not good at it (I forget which way round it goes) I should find something more about this puzzling condition than I have already hypothosized about. This i will lay out next.
These days I spend a great deal of time speaking Japanese badly. I don't mind too much, except for the part of me that has a burning desire to express myself in plays on words and puns and all kinds of twists of spoken talk. This week I have had a string of nasty nightmares about going deaf. But in each of them I couldn't explain to anyone that the reason I had gone deaf was because I couldn't say what i wanted to say the way I wanted to say it.
this is hyperlinguistic behaviour. The part that puts a great deal of effort into how things are said. The part that reserves speeche acts until they are beautifully scuplted. and also that part that desires to talk and talk until well more talking cannot be had.
I think i just miss talking about things of consequence. As I said, i mostly speak japanese badly. I think I will study some interesting Japanese words like precipitation and neurological...so i can say something really smart, soon.
I wonder if hyperlinguiticness could be classified as some sort of condition. I know in some autism type disorders there are ways of classifying language skills that have to do with an inability to express ones emotions in a "normal" way. I wonder if I could research hyperlinguisticality in perfectly healthy people? But then, I wonder, what would be the point of that research? I suppose to eventually publish a paper in some magazine, or journal, as hyperlinguistic people like to call them. And make a whimsically TED presentation on the matter, that will make all the hyperlinguists in the audience, chortel noisily, and some of the more normal people smirk quietly. And in both the presentation and the paper I shall say something to the point of "Isn't hyperlinguisticness a terrifically interesting topic and shouldn't we all spend a great deal more time thinking about it and posting blogs that no one reads on the topic"
Of course, no one doesn't read this blog. But you do. Although, if I am good at researching...or maybe if i am not good at it (I forget which way round it goes) I should find something more about this puzzling condition than I have already hypothosized about. This i will lay out next.
These days I spend a great deal of time speaking Japanese badly. I don't mind too much, except for the part of me that has a burning desire to express myself in plays on words and puns and all kinds of twists of spoken talk. This week I have had a string of nasty nightmares about going deaf. But in each of them I couldn't explain to anyone that the reason I had gone deaf was because I couldn't say what i wanted to say the way I wanted to say it.
this is hyperlinguistic behaviour. The part that puts a great deal of effort into how things are said. The part that reserves speeche acts until they are beautifully scuplted. and also that part that desires to talk and talk until well more talking cannot be had.
I think i just miss talking about things of consequence. As I said, i mostly speak japanese badly. I think I will study some interesting Japanese words like precipitation and neurological...so i can say something really smart, soon.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
It's down to your base pairs...
Non-sense. There is this wonderful nonsense that surrounds and envelops us, that is put to us plainly everyday, so plainly that it is very tempting to accept. The nonsense goes something like this: something about your behaviour in life is CAUSED by the pairing of acids inside each of your cells. This unfortunate pairing pattern is why you behave in this abhorrent way. But don't worry because if we give you enough talk, lectures and education, we will override that unfortunate pairing...
Let us consider. point one...your behaviour is caused by some chemical bonding. Makes enough sense. Those pairs eventually spell out the production of certain hormones and enzymes in certain proportions...it is possible that this would somehow influence behaviour. Even though behaviour is usual a response to a momentary stimulus predicated by experience...somehow the levels of various chemical things must be involved, seeing as they are a necessary factor in any kind of movement, memory recall etc etc. So fair enough, in going through a kind of syllological reduction we could get A=B=C=D=E=F=G=H=I=J=K somehow and says behaviour=stimulus+experience, experience=time+stimulus+memory, memory= perception + chemicals...=genes... I'm sure we would get there somehow, if we really went through the reasoning and did the math. So let's allow it, behaviour=genes+other environmental factors.
But after making this big stink about the overpowering effect of genes, they go on to say that a kind of brainwashing talk will unravel the negative effects.
Let's look at a concrete example. Today in the news is a US study, or British...i forget now, about how genes, in families where the father is absent for whatever reason, play a key role in predicting early sexual activity. But that what we must do is target these fatherless children and educate them about sex and about why it is bad.
These days I am beginning to think sex education is a load of nonsense. Why not just give them other things to do. I really think there are two things that lead to our current hysteria about children engaging in sexual activities. 1. We recently created this category of being called "child" and thrust on it a Victorian sexual sensibility without recognizing that this was a new way of treating young adults. 2. Children have less interesting things to do. We can't ride horses in cities. We can't keep chickens, see swans, climb trees (without getting into trouble), build campfires...do dangerous things that are interesting, stimulating and exciting. Instead we do the only thing we can think of that stimulates that fun hormones that make us feel happy and exhilarated.
If we really want to keep this impractical view of "the child" then we need to nurture and create a world where "child" life can exists, where kids can be like Huck Finn and Mr Sawyer, where kids have ample space to explore, adventure, question and test with real risks, rewards and consequences. We don't need to educate them to "not have sex till you are ready"--we are ready for those exhilarating hormone rewards from a very young age, 1 and 2 year olds are already actively seeking them. What would be better is to be more fun ourselves and make opportunities for our kids to do other things.
but do you know what that means. That the solutions we are proposing exactly reject our causal theory. If genes are the cause, should genes not also be the solution? And if environmental stimulus (like education) are the solution....then is not environmental stimulus also the cause of the problem?
Let us consider. point one...your behaviour is caused by some chemical bonding. Makes enough sense. Those pairs eventually spell out the production of certain hormones and enzymes in certain proportions...it is possible that this would somehow influence behaviour. Even though behaviour is usual a response to a momentary stimulus predicated by experience...somehow the levels of various chemical things must be involved, seeing as they are a necessary factor in any kind of movement, memory recall etc etc. So fair enough, in going through a kind of syllological reduction we could get A=B=C=D=E=F=G=H=I=J=K somehow and says behaviour=stimulus+experience, experience=time+stimulus+memory, memory= perception + chemicals...=genes... I'm sure we would get there somehow, if we really went through the reasoning and did the math. So let's allow it, behaviour=genes+other environmental factors.
But after making this big stink about the overpowering effect of genes, they go on to say that a kind of brainwashing talk will unravel the negative effects.
Let's look at a concrete example. Today in the news is a US study, or British...i forget now, about how genes, in families where the father is absent for whatever reason, play a key role in predicting early sexual activity. But that what we must do is target these fatherless children and educate them about sex and about why it is bad.
These days I am beginning to think sex education is a load of nonsense. Why not just give them other things to do. I really think there are two things that lead to our current hysteria about children engaging in sexual activities. 1. We recently created this category of being called "child" and thrust on it a Victorian sexual sensibility without recognizing that this was a new way of treating young adults. 2. Children have less interesting things to do. We can't ride horses in cities. We can't keep chickens, see swans, climb trees (without getting into trouble), build campfires...do dangerous things that are interesting, stimulating and exciting. Instead we do the only thing we can think of that stimulates that fun hormones that make us feel happy and exhilarated.
If we really want to keep this impractical view of "the child" then we need to nurture and create a world where "child" life can exists, where kids can be like Huck Finn and Mr Sawyer, where kids have ample space to explore, adventure, question and test with real risks, rewards and consequences. We don't need to educate them to "not have sex till you are ready"--we are ready for those exhilarating hormone rewards from a very young age, 1 and 2 year olds are already actively seeking them. What would be better is to be more fun ourselves and make opportunities for our kids to do other things.
but do you know what that means. That the solutions we are proposing exactly reject our causal theory. If genes are the cause, should genes not also be the solution? And if environmental stimulus (like education) are the solution....then is not environmental stimulus also the cause of the problem?
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Young love
I was recently reading about a survey in the UK of people age 13-17 and their views about their intimate relationships. The survey found that many young people experience abuse and violence in these early relationships. One of the researchers claiming that it is surprising and appalling that abuse would start so young.
But, I'm not sure that it is at all surprising. Aren't children far more abusive that adults? I mean I thought physical communication like hitting and biting to be vital in childhood to express frustration, displeasure, distaste and also preference in the time before we had the words to do so. I know I am a pretty unusual kid, but I see it all over the place, even here in Japan. When kids don't know how else to say "no" or "yes" they usually say so physically. They pull you towards a certain activity, they throw books on the floor, they grab you hand or turn away from what they don't want to do.
So should we be surprised that younger people in intimate relationships are abusive with their partners? They aren't adults. They don't appreciate they aren't adults. Often we don't appreciate they aren't adults too. But those of a certain age understand with certain clarity that they aren't adults, and thus it would be difficult to expect them to act as adults would in such a new and uncharted territory as an intimate relationship (even if they have had several).
I wonder if it is useful to use words like abuse in describing these sorts of interactions. This very broad category can leave young people feeling helpless and paralysed as what they learn in schools is that to overcome abuse in your life is a lot of work, complete overhaul of your life and the strength to strike out against those who are "oppressing you".
I think rather we need to think about how to be involved with your youth. How to be active with them, play with them, engage them in the community so that they have a rich and full life with many diverse aspects to it, so they can engage more things than finding intimate partners. For fear of sounding really catholic, we should also help our kids to value the preciousness of intimacy, and prepare them to wait to find that real person who they want to maintain long term intimacy with. While I know it is unpractical for everyone, there is a great value in the independence and self worth that comes with saying no.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Genius
I was thinking about genius this morning. I was thinking about being gifted too. About receiving the gifts of your gods, your faith, culture and the like. I was thinking about how so many of us use ceremonies to receive and prove that we are gifted people. But this is a little bit nonsense. We are not gifted because of the ceremonies of gifting that we have partaken in. We are just gifted.
It is a bit like this. Just because I don't have the postcard, doesn't mean I haven't been to Australia. You know? The ceremony is just a show, the lack of ceremony isn't the lack of the gift.
Today I will engage a fairly exciting ceremony as I begin to prove my gifts for caring, healing and health care. For even though these gifts already exist in me, my society needs ceremonial proof of their existence. I think this is fine. But it can be a bit nerve racking to have to perform these acts. Nonetheless, I am excited.
But this also hearkens on to an experience I had about a month ago. It happened while I was shower climbing for the first time. I had recently read about the grandfathers and grandmothers choosing to give their gifts to a little native girl, and the elaborate ceremonies she had to endure to receive those gifts. I was thinking, while a read about her experience, that I would never receive gifts from the grandparents of the forest, because I had no one to perform those rituals and ceremonies for me.
And yet, as I was climbing that waterfall, actually just after I finished climbing a rather difficult line, I found myself alone in a part of the river. The next member was still climbing, and it was just me, standing in the water, the sunlight trickling through the leaves of the forest. And as I stood there, I heard drumming. Simple at first, the drums became louder and more complex. The rhythm surrounded me and I found myself transported into a sort of still ecstasy. I stood still and listened and danced at the same time. I laughed because I realized just then how silly I had been to think it was the ceremony that granted the gifts.
Life grants gifts, whether we notice them or not, whether we celebrate them, stylize them, exaggerate them or ignore them. We are everyday receiving gifts from all around us. We shouldn't mistake the ceremony for the gift, and remember to give thanks for all our gifts. They are all precious and they are all real. And celebrated or not they are all valuable.
It is a bit like this. Just because I don't have the postcard, doesn't mean I haven't been to Australia. You know? The ceremony is just a show, the lack of ceremony isn't the lack of the gift.
Today I will engage a fairly exciting ceremony as I begin to prove my gifts for caring, healing and health care. For even though these gifts already exist in me, my society needs ceremonial proof of their existence. I think this is fine. But it can be a bit nerve racking to have to perform these acts. Nonetheless, I am excited.
But this also hearkens on to an experience I had about a month ago. It happened while I was shower climbing for the first time. I had recently read about the grandfathers and grandmothers choosing to give their gifts to a little native girl, and the elaborate ceremonies she had to endure to receive those gifts. I was thinking, while a read about her experience, that I would never receive gifts from the grandparents of the forest, because I had no one to perform those rituals and ceremonies for me.
And yet, as I was climbing that waterfall, actually just after I finished climbing a rather difficult line, I found myself alone in a part of the river. The next member was still climbing, and it was just me, standing in the water, the sunlight trickling through the leaves of the forest. And as I stood there, I heard drumming. Simple at first, the drums became louder and more complex. The rhythm surrounded me and I found myself transported into a sort of still ecstasy. I stood still and listened and danced at the same time. I laughed because I realized just then how silly I had been to think it was the ceremony that granted the gifts.
Life grants gifts, whether we notice them or not, whether we celebrate them, stylize them, exaggerate them or ignore them. We are everyday receiving gifts from all around us. We shouldn't mistake the ceremony for the gift, and remember to give thanks for all our gifts. They are all precious and they are all real. And celebrated or not they are all valuable.
Saturday, August 01, 2009
Topless
As summer heat drives millions to the beaches of the world the question and quiet discomforts surface once more. As a young woman the question and pressures return, to go topless or not? A recent article in the BBC Magazine suggests that these days more and more women are choosing to keep their tits in the tops at the beach. This trend is interpreted as evidence of the increasing failures of feminism to liberate women and allow them the equal freedom men enjoy when they doff their tops in the summer sun.
The article claims women feel sexualized and "stared at" when they go topless, attention they feel is demeaning, unfair and sexists (directed at them just because they are women). Therefore choose to remain covered. But ladies...let's be fair: when a guy with a nice body doffs his top don't you stare? Don't you sexualize him? Don't you think "mmm yummy"? Further when an fat old construction worker does it don't you sexually evaluate him too thinking yuck, hide that gut, cover that hair... we don't just sexualize women but all people. When given the opportunity to evaluate them in their natal state, we unthinking, instantly respond with these evaluations. We assess and make predictions about their virility and quality for breeding.
I don't want to make it sound as though all we do is spend our days thinking about who to mate with, but for brief moments now and then when given appropriate stimuli...of course we do.
So why are more women keeping their tits in their tops. Perhaps they think they look better there. Many swim suits are accessorized to make you look more colourful and attractive. Often tops are padded making breasts look larger and holding them on top of the chest giving them a more appealing shape. Perhaps women feel they don't need to reveal everything about themselves to the world when they just want to enjoy some sun at the beach. Perhaps it's true that women are simple responding to social pressures to keep themselves covered. Perhaps our generation has accepted what our feminist mothers tried to throw off, that women are just different, play different roles, accept a different place in our society with different expectations and rules...
Whatever the reason for the current trend it is not reason to ban toplessness, it should be an available freedom. For many women its is not a necessary practice. Just because it isn't necessary doesn't mean it needs to be banned. You know... like for many people drinking coffee isn't a necessary practice, doesn't mean it should be banned, or eating dogs...just because lots of people don't do it, doesn't mean we need to ban it, some people still enjoy it from time to time.
The article claims women feel sexualized and "stared at" when they go topless, attention they feel is demeaning, unfair and sexists (directed at them just because they are women). Therefore choose to remain covered. But ladies...let's be fair: when a guy with a nice body doffs his top don't you stare? Don't you sexualize him? Don't you think "mmm yummy"? Further when an fat old construction worker does it don't you sexually evaluate him too thinking yuck, hide that gut, cover that hair... we don't just sexualize women but all people. When given the opportunity to evaluate them in their natal state, we unthinking, instantly respond with these evaluations. We assess and make predictions about their virility and quality for breeding.
I don't want to make it sound as though all we do is spend our days thinking about who to mate with, but for brief moments now and then when given appropriate stimuli...of course we do.
So why are more women keeping their tits in their tops. Perhaps they think they look better there. Many swim suits are accessorized to make you look more colourful and attractive. Often tops are padded making breasts look larger and holding them on top of the chest giving them a more appealing shape. Perhaps women feel they don't need to reveal everything about themselves to the world when they just want to enjoy some sun at the beach. Perhaps it's true that women are simple responding to social pressures to keep themselves covered. Perhaps our generation has accepted what our feminist mothers tried to throw off, that women are just different, play different roles, accept a different place in our society with different expectations and rules...
Whatever the reason for the current trend it is not reason to ban toplessness, it should be an available freedom. For many women its is not a necessary practice. Just because it isn't necessary doesn't mean it needs to be banned. You know... like for many people drinking coffee isn't a necessary practice, doesn't mean it should be banned, or eating dogs...just because lots of people don't do it, doesn't mean we need to ban it, some people still enjoy it from time to time.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Is it true?
I recently have faced several proposals that to become truely creative people we must hold up freedom of speech as the pinicle goal of democratic society.
But, creativity demands restriction. Creativity flourishes under oppression. Creativity is the intelligent response to a problem. In a world without problems how can creativity possibly exist. What is creativity anyway? Ken Robinson defines it as the ability to have original ideas that have value. This is a very useful definition as we can look at how we create value in an idea and how we produce original ideas.
As I have suggested original ideas are predicated by problems. If there was no need to solve problems, if there was no need to find new ways to express ourselves within the limits of our time our context our location and our human and other relations, there would be little creative activity beyond the asthetic production of things. But the production of various forms of art as only one very narrow part of the whole of creativity. I argue quite the opposite that creativity flourish best under circumstances of restriction, of oppression, suppression of free speech and the threat of these things.
Let's look at some of the great creative moments. During the Rennaissance there was barely a paltry freedom of speech. And yet that time produced great minds like DiVinci and Michalangelo. It was following the return of the King when freedom of speech was greatly curtailed in England that Milton wrote Paradice Lost, a work that through and through demonstrates a creative outlet for Milton's perhaps controversial political views. Even Christ, if we look at him as just a man who in history had some good advice about how to live, brought forth his ideas against a strongly oppressive regime. We could look to Mohammed too and see that his time no more encourage free thought or action, and yet he produced (transmitted?) a greatly creative work that looked at the problems of his contemporary world and sought to offer new and original solutions that have proved to be very valuable. Further let's look at the Manhattan project, a spectacular demostration of human creativity driven by the fear of forced changes in freedom of thought. If we didn't find away to end aggressions we would be engulfed by war and the possibility of colonization/annexation by various members of the "evil empires".
As I look into my own experience and think about some of my most creative moments it is when I have been somehow restricted, by time, by resource, by motivation, by expectation that I have produced some of my most creative work. Not just of art and writing, but I think in methods of learning material, in means of facing the challenges of school.
Freedom of speech must be valued and allowed, but not because it causes creativity. I think quite the opposite that restrictions and problems in the world cause creativity, a bi-product of which is the valuing of free speech.
But, creativity demands restriction. Creativity flourishes under oppression. Creativity is the intelligent response to a problem. In a world without problems how can creativity possibly exist. What is creativity anyway? Ken Robinson defines it as the ability to have original ideas that have value. This is a very useful definition as we can look at how we create value in an idea and how we produce original ideas.
As I have suggested original ideas are predicated by problems. If there was no need to solve problems, if there was no need to find new ways to express ourselves within the limits of our time our context our location and our human and other relations, there would be little creative activity beyond the asthetic production of things. But the production of various forms of art as only one very narrow part of the whole of creativity. I argue quite the opposite that creativity flourish best under circumstances of restriction, of oppression, suppression of free speech and the threat of these things.
Let's look at some of the great creative moments. During the Rennaissance there was barely a paltry freedom of speech. And yet that time produced great minds like DiVinci and Michalangelo. It was following the return of the King when freedom of speech was greatly curtailed in England that Milton wrote Paradice Lost, a work that through and through demonstrates a creative outlet for Milton's perhaps controversial political views. Even Christ, if we look at him as just a man who in history had some good advice about how to live, brought forth his ideas against a strongly oppressive regime. We could look to Mohammed too and see that his time no more encourage free thought or action, and yet he produced (transmitted?) a greatly creative work that looked at the problems of his contemporary world and sought to offer new and original solutions that have proved to be very valuable. Further let's look at the Manhattan project, a spectacular demostration of human creativity driven by the fear of forced changes in freedom of thought. If we didn't find away to end aggressions we would be engulfed by war and the possibility of colonization/annexation by various members of the "evil empires".
As I look into my own experience and think about some of my most creative moments it is when I have been somehow restricted, by time, by resource, by motivation, by expectation that I have produced some of my most creative work. Not just of art and writing, but I think in methods of learning material, in means of facing the challenges of school.
Freedom of speech must be valued and allowed, but not because it causes creativity. I think quite the opposite that restrictions and problems in the world cause creativity, a bi-product of which is the valuing of free speech.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Missing the point
It is tragic but true the US, in an attempt to liberate it citizens of a very mundane and costly habit, have completely missed the point. I think this is yet another example of legislation without vision. Rather than looking at why people smoke, why people take up smoking and finding ways to intervene and to encourage the nation to take up different habits like papercrafts and cycling they will try to intervene and tell people what they cannot enjoy.
It is the same as the approach to North Korea. NK says that signing sanctions against the NK will be seen as an act of war. And will respond accordingly. (Partly I just think they are looking for something to rally their citizens against and so incited the pending sanction response) But if we just ignored the NK they would have nothing to say. If rather than making laws that we can't trade with them, we just said "no thank you" every time they tried to buy from us or sell to us...what could they do. It is how we should act globally, if we don't agree with a countries activities then just ignore and silently boycott that country. It works with dogs it works with children, i know it works with adults too.
I find when I engage my friends and keep them doing other things they don't think about smoking and go for hours without a cigarette. But once we sit down and stop moving stopping cooking singing dancing etc then out come the ciggies and lighters. We should take note of this behaviour because it is endemic. Rather than spending billions trying to stop a negative behaviour why not spend millions encourage good behaviours sponsor sports and art invest and interest based community activities...
Or...i guess put scarier pictures on the products, put heavier taxes on the users, increase the medical costs...penalize penalize penalize....i think this business of negative reinforcement completely misses the point of why we want to change to role of smoking in our society. And without taking a good look at the role we want tobacco to play we cannot hope to find ways to end the negative roles it currently fills.
It is the same as the approach to North Korea. NK says that signing sanctions against the NK will be seen as an act of war. And will respond accordingly. (Partly I just think they are looking for something to rally their citizens against and so incited the pending sanction response) But if we just ignored the NK they would have nothing to say. If rather than making laws that we can't trade with them, we just said "no thank you" every time they tried to buy from us or sell to us...what could they do. It is how we should act globally, if we don't agree with a countries activities then just ignore and silently boycott that country. It works with dogs it works with children, i know it works with adults too.
I find when I engage my friends and keep them doing other things they don't think about smoking and go for hours without a cigarette. But once we sit down and stop moving stopping cooking singing dancing etc then out come the ciggies and lighters. We should take note of this behaviour because it is endemic. Rather than spending billions trying to stop a negative behaviour why not spend millions encourage good behaviours sponsor sports and art invest and interest based community activities...
Or...i guess put scarier pictures on the products, put heavier taxes on the users, increase the medical costs...penalize penalize penalize....i think this business of negative reinforcement completely misses the point of why we want to change to role of smoking in our society. And without taking a good look at the role we want tobacco to play we cannot hope to find ways to end the negative roles it currently fills.
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Having babies
I was recently in a discussion with two student about the birth rate in Japan. About how the birth rate is plummeting. As the discussion progressed I recognized I had been maintaining some pretty fatal ideas about why children have or don't have children. I recognized this largely because of the male student in the discussion. Somehow hearing the arguments I have heard a million times from a rich successful doctor with at least 1 child (I don't know much more about him) showed me how totally fallacious these beliefs are.
Chiefly we say there are two reasons for falling birthrates: more women are working and children are expensive. And I think every time we good philosophers hear them we think...hmm. But being lazy we take what appears logical at face value and don't investigate further. But we must. So here I go:
The male student largely maintained that women didn't want children as they wanted to work. It seems like a logical conclusion to draw. Supposedly more women of my generation, and at least the two generations before mine, are working in more diverse fields of employment.
But somehow I don't think that more women are working. I think women have always worked just as much as they do now. The only difference is we are recognizing their manner of social participation as working. Not just they are moving into "traditionally male dominated" profession (I even contest that many professions are traditionally male dominated), but that work like nursing, prostitution, educating young children (being a governess, elementary teacher etc), writing are being recognized as professions for both men and women. With our change in perspective of what constitutes work, we have mistakenly concluded that participation in this new perspective is also new. This is like when you first come to understand quantum physics. Just because you have only come to understand it now, doesn't mean it hasn't been governing the universe for ...well forever.
Further, women of my grandmother's generation worked like mad; both my grandmothers maintained full time employment during their working years. And they had 3 and 5 children. Also many of my friends have told me about their grandmothers working, and again they have 2 and 3 aunts or uncles a side... so then we say, ah but women are working at jobs with schedules that are less conducive to child rearing...but I remember hearing stories of my grandmother working graveyard shifts at her hospital...so I don't think that is true either.
But if it isn't the case that more women are working more then why are fewer women wanting children. Well then the argument goes that children are expensive, people don't feel they can afford to have children. Really? Cars are expensive...but most people feel they can afford a car. Houses are really expensive...but most people feel they can afford a house...take out a loan right?So, how expensive is a child? I have no idea, but in university my cost of living without tuition books etc was about $600 a month, for rent, food entertainment etc...so $7200 a year. Now of course a baby doesn't pay as much rent as I did, or eat as much food and alcohol. Now of course there are start up costs on having children you have to invest in infrastructure like beds and strollers, ante-natal training and stuff...so lets say $10,000 a year for the first year, and then $6000 a year subsequently for the first 10 years. Its true...that is a lot of money... But on my single income minimum wage income I save that in a year after travel and celebrating life as I do.
So let's compare: how much is a university education...most people without thinking would take out a $10,000 a year loan for a university education that may or may not help them gain more lucrative employment. how much is a car...most people would take out a loan to buy a new $18,000 car. Most people would tie themselves into a 25 year mortgage for a $250,000 house.
So are children so expensive?
But we have to look at what you get for the money you invest. A child enriches every aspect of ones life, bring validation to many, meaning and motivation to succeed and thrive. Many people find it difficult to be successful for themselves, but when told this will help your family friends etc they have little difficulty overcoming great obstacles.
So, not only do I disagree that children being expensive is a valid argument but I don't even agree that children are expensive.
So why are fewer babies being born in Japan. I contest that even that is true. Yes the current trend is of lower birth rates. But I think that is just because women are having children at a later age. Women are marring later. My future sister in law is well in her thirties. I have many friends too in the same situation. But I think even women who start a decade later we will find will still have 2 and 3 children.
Another very serious reason we need to consider is that men don't want children. It is often placed on a woman's want or not want, but who much is it really? If we were to interview childless couples about why they are childless would the reason really be 1 she's working and 2 kids are expensive... Somehow I think we have been fed these fallacies that we need to reexamine and deconstruct. They don't account for the reality of lowered birthrates and we owe it to our society to figure out why.
Chiefly we say there are two reasons for falling birthrates: more women are working and children are expensive. And I think every time we good philosophers hear them we think...hmm. But being lazy we take what appears logical at face value and don't investigate further. But we must. So here I go:
The male student largely maintained that women didn't want children as they wanted to work. It seems like a logical conclusion to draw. Supposedly more women of my generation, and at least the two generations before mine, are working in more diverse fields of employment.
But somehow I don't think that more women are working. I think women have always worked just as much as they do now. The only difference is we are recognizing their manner of social participation as working. Not just they are moving into "traditionally male dominated" profession (I even contest that many professions are traditionally male dominated), but that work like nursing, prostitution, educating young children (being a governess, elementary teacher etc), writing are being recognized as professions for both men and women. With our change in perspective of what constitutes work, we have mistakenly concluded that participation in this new perspective is also new. This is like when you first come to understand quantum physics. Just because you have only come to understand it now, doesn't mean it hasn't been governing the universe for ...well forever.
Further, women of my grandmother's generation worked like mad; both my grandmothers maintained full time employment during their working years. And they had 3 and 5 children. Also many of my friends have told me about their grandmothers working, and again they have 2 and 3 aunts or uncles a side... so then we say, ah but women are working at jobs with schedules that are less conducive to child rearing...but I remember hearing stories of my grandmother working graveyard shifts at her hospital...so I don't think that is true either.
But if it isn't the case that more women are working more then why are fewer women wanting children. Well then the argument goes that children are expensive, people don't feel they can afford to have children. Really? Cars are expensive...but most people feel they can afford a car. Houses are really expensive...but most people feel they can afford a house...take out a loan right?So, how expensive is a child? I have no idea, but in university my cost of living without tuition books etc was about $600 a month, for rent, food entertainment etc...so $7200 a year. Now of course a baby doesn't pay as much rent as I did, or eat as much food and alcohol. Now of course there are start up costs on having children you have to invest in infrastructure like beds and strollers, ante-natal training and stuff...so lets say $10,000 a year for the first year, and then $6000 a year subsequently for the first 10 years. Its true...that is a lot of money... But on my single income minimum wage income I save that in a year after travel and celebrating life as I do.
So let's compare: how much is a university education...most people without thinking would take out a $10,000 a year loan for a university education that may or may not help them gain more lucrative employment. how much is a car...most people would take out a loan to buy a new $18,000 car. Most people would tie themselves into a 25 year mortgage for a $250,000 house.
So are children so expensive?
But we have to look at what you get for the money you invest. A child enriches every aspect of ones life, bring validation to many, meaning and motivation to succeed and thrive. Many people find it difficult to be successful for themselves, but when told this will help your family friends etc they have little difficulty overcoming great obstacles.
So, not only do I disagree that children being expensive is a valid argument but I don't even agree that children are expensive.
So why are fewer babies being born in Japan. I contest that even that is true. Yes the current trend is of lower birth rates. But I think that is just because women are having children at a later age. Women are marring later. My future sister in law is well in her thirties. I have many friends too in the same situation. But I think even women who start a decade later we will find will still have 2 and 3 children.
Another very serious reason we need to consider is that men don't want children. It is often placed on a woman's want or not want, but who much is it really? If we were to interview childless couples about why they are childless would the reason really be 1 she's working and 2 kids are expensive... Somehow I think we have been fed these fallacies that we need to reexamine and deconstruct. They don't account for the reality of lowered birthrates and we owe it to our society to figure out why.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Jam @ Dub
So I had my first slam poetry experience last night. It was really remarkable. I really always thought I would have to prepare and practice and learn and study at it, and spend heaps of time learning how to do it well, but it just all flowed really naturally. Words and ideas came pouring out, in Japanese and English all muddled in together. It was this weird and marvelous play of me understanding and the audience just listening and me just listening and the audience understanding. Although i don't think I said anything really profound in Japanese...just that it was raining and everyone was smiling...and something like that...
I am left again with this amazing sense that the only reason we might think we can't do something is that we have never done it before. And you know what...I'm going to stop saying I'm no good at stuff just because I have never been good at it before. I'm just going to slam. To try. To sing out and flow with the notes and rhythms of the people around me.
Because precedent is a terrible predictor of potential. And potential is all that we really have until we are dead. That's the second law of entropy isn't it.
I am left again with this amazing sense that the only reason we might think we can't do something is that we have never done it before. And you know what...I'm going to stop saying I'm no good at stuff just because I have never been good at it before. I'm just going to slam. To try. To sing out and flow with the notes and rhythms of the people around me.
Because precedent is a terrible predictor of potential. And potential is all that we really have until we are dead. That's the second law of entropy isn't it.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
I am disappointed morally and scientifically
Today in the BBC it was announced the scientists have managed to create genetically modified monkeys that fluoresce under funny lights. The team of scientist from Japan who synthesized these monkeys, suggested they will aid disease research.
One might wonder how glow in the dark monkeys will aid in human disease research. I did have to scratch my head a bit to make the connection. I wondered is there some human disease that causes us to glow green under certain light conditions. I couldn't think of one, but my expertise is fundamentally limited. I am assuming it is the technique of engineering not by glowing green that will prove beneficial.
This case of glowing monkeys is special, perhaps spectacular as scientists reverse engineered traits into an animal that was in one generation passed on to progeny. (a kind of one generation evolution). Of course we will have to wait to see what happens in subsequent generations (will the trait degrade, will it remain, will it interfere in unanticipated regions).
Anyway, on to the technique, scientists used retro-viruses to "infect" the monkey with new DNA. Of course we all know now how retro-viruses work thanks to ongoing media coverage of HIV research and treatment. The team hopes that this kind of retro-fitting will aid in gene therapies to help people affected by genetic related illnesses. At the birth of this technology viruses can still only carry short pieces of DNA about 10,000 base pairs, but presumably as technology progresses and advances we will create viruses capable of carrying and implanting entire genes maybe even entire chromosomes...
hey...that just gave me a very exciting (?) idea for new generation sex change therapies, in theory this technology could be used to replace X or Y chomosones...wow...I don't know how i feel about that...but it is something isn't it? Sex-change would no longer be the realm of plastic surgeons, but it would be the full and real conversion from one sex to the other...
anyway. The title of this blog suggests I am not happy about this research. Its not the research per say, but the methodology. It seems perverse to genetically modify creatures that never, ever in our knowledge of natural history glowed in the dark to cause them to glow in the dark. I know that scientists are looking for animals that are analogous to humans as this is a technology they are developing for human health care purposes...but somehow I really feel their methodology is fundamentally immoral and unnecessary. There are billions of traits available, more natural and helpful to monkeys than glowing in the dark, why not effect muscle type, or hand bone structure to give them stronger hands, or blue eyes or longer or shorter tails...I know that we think this technology is only for humans because humans thought of it...but I am pretty sure the world doesn't work that way.
I mean algae doesn't insist oxygen is only for algae because they thought of the best way to mass produce it...we all share it, we all benefit from their technological advances, their skills, just as we all suffer from various organisms that think up destructive things to do..magma and its plate shifting, or what is the crimson tide organism...i forget but that thing (cyanobacteria? maybe). We have a responsibility, we especially because of our level or ethical sentience, to use our abilities sensitively to all living creatures.
however if it ever became important to make humans glow in the dark...perhaps I will one day concede my disappointment.
One might wonder how glow in the dark monkeys will aid in human disease research. I did have to scratch my head a bit to make the connection. I wondered is there some human disease that causes us to glow green under certain light conditions. I couldn't think of one, but my expertise is fundamentally limited. I am assuming it is the technique of engineering not by glowing green that will prove beneficial.
This case of glowing monkeys is special, perhaps spectacular as scientists reverse engineered traits into an animal that was in one generation passed on to progeny. (a kind of one generation evolution). Of course we will have to wait to see what happens in subsequent generations (will the trait degrade, will it remain, will it interfere in unanticipated regions).
Anyway, on to the technique, scientists used retro-viruses to "infect" the monkey with new DNA. Of course we all know now how retro-viruses work thanks to ongoing media coverage of HIV research and treatment. The team hopes that this kind of retro-fitting will aid in gene therapies to help people affected by genetic related illnesses. At the birth of this technology viruses can still only carry short pieces of DNA about 10,000 base pairs, but presumably as technology progresses and advances we will create viruses capable of carrying and implanting entire genes maybe even entire chromosomes...
hey...that just gave me a very exciting (?) idea for new generation sex change therapies, in theory this technology could be used to replace X or Y chomosones...wow...I don't know how i feel about that...but it is something isn't it? Sex-change would no longer be the realm of plastic surgeons, but it would be the full and real conversion from one sex to the other...
anyway. The title of this blog suggests I am not happy about this research. Its not the research per say, but the methodology. It seems perverse to genetically modify creatures that never, ever in our knowledge of natural history glowed in the dark to cause them to glow in the dark. I know that scientists are looking for animals that are analogous to humans as this is a technology they are developing for human health care purposes...but somehow I really feel their methodology is fundamentally immoral and unnecessary. There are billions of traits available, more natural and helpful to monkeys than glowing in the dark, why not effect muscle type, or hand bone structure to give them stronger hands, or blue eyes or longer or shorter tails...I know that we think this technology is only for humans because humans thought of it...but I am pretty sure the world doesn't work that way.
I mean algae doesn't insist oxygen is only for algae because they thought of the best way to mass produce it...we all share it, we all benefit from their technological advances, their skills, just as we all suffer from various organisms that think up destructive things to do..magma and its plate shifting, or what is the crimson tide organism...i forget but that thing (cyanobacteria? maybe). We have a responsibility, we especially because of our level or ethical sentience, to use our abilities sensitively to all living creatures.
however if it ever became important to make humans glow in the dark...perhaps I will one day concede my disappointment.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Parent's rights
There is an interesting debate in the Alberta legislature these days about what rights parents have to pull their children from classes on topics they don't want teachers educating their children on. The debate is sparked by the high-tension sexual health segments of school curriculum as well as lessons about religion.
Hmm. In the CBC news article on the topic it suggests that perhaps teachers are not presenting the material in ways that some parents would like their children educated on these topics. Presumably, these parents will provide some sort of homeschooling to compensate for the child's absence from class.
I agree that parents have the right to control, influence and effect what their children learn about the world and how their children learn it. Of course they can't control everything their child learns, but we have a human right to inculcate our children with a worldview that we believe is good. And to introduce them to ways of experiencing and living in the world that will enable them to become mature contributors to Canadian society. Provincial curricula are just one way to educate children. And you can see across every province a myriad of teaching methods, curricula, and pedagogy at work making children into what Canada is. A beautifully interwoven patchwork of differences.
It is what makes our country so great, that we have so many ways of doing everything, and yet more or less we manage to remain a cohesive society. It is what makes me so proud to call myself Canadian. We are diversity at its best. So what of parents pulling their children from classes on topics they don't agree with...I don't agree with this tactic. It doesn't bolster critical thinking in children nor does it support the fundamental Canadian value of diversity.
To me diversity means recognizing there are ways you don't want to live your life, but that for some people they are good ways to live.
A better tactic for parents is to be more involved in their children's classroom learning. Asking about what children learned at school, supplementing school lessons with parental views and values. Adding more information and being a part of the education of children. Trying to make a one size fits all education system in a country like Canada is ridiculous. And trying to give kids outs on education is not the right answer either.
As parents we are responsible to be part of our children's education. We are responsible to make our children's education unique and custom fit tour each child. Sure kids will learn things you don't want them to learn, but with good parenting you will help fix right beliefs in your children. And further prepare them to face the diverse ways of living that exist in Canada. Diversity and tolerance aren't about accepting every ones way of life, but affirming that your way of life is right for you. And accepting all Canadians have the same self-affirming right.
I want to use the example of evolution, as evolution is usually the topic people always say, "you have to learn it, there are uncountable volumes of scientific [ie irrefutable facts] that support evolution, if parents don't want their kids learning evolution then they should home school or not expect to get a science credit from any respectable Canadian school." It seems to be this inarguable truth in education that only simple rock creatures wouldn't agree with. Evolution explains life.
Personally, I have long disbelieved in evolution. I always viewed it as a story, like an Aesop fable...a very good and useful story that hopefully will endure 2000 years as the fables have endured...but in the end it is merely a way of explaining, not an irrefutable truth. It is the moral of the story that is the enduring point. The moral of the story of evolution is "life changes" and evolution teaches that, so it is a useful story to teach. Where as the biblical creation story somewhat falls short of teaching us that life changes and thus is not so useful in that regard, but it does teach belief in the fantastic; which i consider an essential life skill...so it has its place too.
Anyway, even this belief in evolution which we hold up as the bastion of modern though is these days up for debate. Darwinian evolution is fast falling out of favour with many in the scientific community and the whole story itself is changing. But children educated to look at it as "one way" of explaining life are well prepared to handle this debate, this change and the shifting explanations that are now spewing forth from the scientific community. But will children learn this by pulling out of evolution lessons? Even if it isn't the best explanation or the full story, it is a piece of the puzzle. And that's all we should hope for in education...pieces of puzzles.
And parents have the right, and should have the right, to help their children lay with those pieces.
Hmm. In the CBC news article on the topic it suggests that perhaps teachers are not presenting the material in ways that some parents would like their children educated on these topics. Presumably, these parents will provide some sort of homeschooling to compensate for the child's absence from class.
I agree that parents have the right to control, influence and effect what their children learn about the world and how their children learn it. Of course they can't control everything their child learns, but we have a human right to inculcate our children with a worldview that we believe is good. And to introduce them to ways of experiencing and living in the world that will enable them to become mature contributors to Canadian society. Provincial curricula are just one way to educate children. And you can see across every province a myriad of teaching methods, curricula, and pedagogy at work making children into what Canada is. A beautifully interwoven patchwork of differences.
It is what makes our country so great, that we have so many ways of doing everything, and yet more or less we manage to remain a cohesive society. It is what makes me so proud to call myself Canadian. We are diversity at its best. So what of parents pulling their children from classes on topics they don't agree with...I don't agree with this tactic. It doesn't bolster critical thinking in children nor does it support the fundamental Canadian value of diversity.
To me diversity means recognizing there are ways you don't want to live your life, but that for some people they are good ways to live.
A better tactic for parents is to be more involved in their children's classroom learning. Asking about what children learned at school, supplementing school lessons with parental views and values. Adding more information and being a part of the education of children. Trying to make a one size fits all education system in a country like Canada is ridiculous. And trying to give kids outs on education is not the right answer either.
As parents we are responsible to be part of our children's education. We are responsible to make our children's education unique and custom fit tour each child. Sure kids will learn things you don't want them to learn, but with good parenting you will help fix right beliefs in your children. And further prepare them to face the diverse ways of living that exist in Canada. Diversity and tolerance aren't about accepting every ones way of life, but affirming that your way of life is right for you. And accepting all Canadians have the same self-affirming right.
I want to use the example of evolution, as evolution is usually the topic people always say, "you have to learn it, there are uncountable volumes of scientific [ie irrefutable facts] that support evolution, if parents don't want their kids learning evolution then they should home school or not expect to get a science credit from any respectable Canadian school." It seems to be this inarguable truth in education that only simple rock creatures wouldn't agree with. Evolution explains life.
Personally, I have long disbelieved in evolution. I always viewed it as a story, like an Aesop fable...a very good and useful story that hopefully will endure 2000 years as the fables have endured...but in the end it is merely a way of explaining, not an irrefutable truth. It is the moral of the story that is the enduring point. The moral of the story of evolution is "life changes" and evolution teaches that, so it is a useful story to teach. Where as the biblical creation story somewhat falls short of teaching us that life changes and thus is not so useful in that regard, but it does teach belief in the fantastic; which i consider an essential life skill...so it has its place too.
Anyway, even this belief in evolution which we hold up as the bastion of modern though is these days up for debate. Darwinian evolution is fast falling out of favour with many in the scientific community and the whole story itself is changing. But children educated to look at it as "one way" of explaining life are well prepared to handle this debate, this change and the shifting explanations that are now spewing forth from the scientific community. But will children learn this by pulling out of evolution lessons? Even if it isn't the best explanation or the full story, it is a piece of the puzzle. And that's all we should hope for in education...pieces of puzzles.
And parents have the right, and should have the right, to help their children lay with those pieces.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Unconditional Positive Regard
What a wonderful idea! I stumbled on it last night before my mind grew quiet and I drifted out the window into the night air. I was reading Gabor Maté's book "In the realm of hungry ghosts" about his experiences working with the drug addicted and under housed in Vancouver. He said, in quoting someone else, that in this line of work (and I think in all lines of work and life as i will discuss) we need a kind of unconditional positive regard.
He was discussing working with drug addicted people and the kind of expectations we tend to have of them. He suggests that it is not fair or productive to have your own expectations of them, but rather you must learn to learn what their expectations are for themselves and see how you can't help them feel empowered by their expectations and seek and pursue them. Even if you have what you think are better ideas, having an unconditional positive regard means that you don't think in terms of better or worse, but in terms of this is what is and this is a beautiful and powerful human let's be beautiful and powerful humans together.
Drug addicted people are an obvious cohort with whom we must have an unconditional positive regard; as they have usually learned their whole lives that they are useless, worthless, failures with nothing to offer the world or themselves, it is our responsibility to be part of the team that helps them learn their life lessons are untrue and that what has happened in the past doesn't have to determine (fully) what happens next. That we have the power in us to make more in our life than numbing escaping or self-destruction (a lesson not only for drug addicts but for all addicts and all people who seek nothing new but an endless nostalgia and repetition of the good old times). It is this belief that I know everything, have experienced the most high, most positive thing in life and all that is left is to experience death.
In reading Mate's book, I am gaining a sense of what addiction attempts to fill, and how sad it is that we think addictions will fill that desire, need, curiosity, innate human spirit. But in thinking that I am right and those who do things differently are wrong, I refuse to engage an unconditional positive regard. And in the end this regard is what is the best way to help build people up, lift people up, enrage and engage minds and hearts in the positive world, in the creative world, in the uplifted and excited world.
So what is the unconditional positive regard. It seems very clear to me just in those three words. It is a way of regarding, viewing, thinking about, and interacting with other people. It is positive, it focuses on what is done, what is made, what does exist and what i believe i can do. not what i believe you can do. Even if i believe you can do more I disregard that belief and am thankful grateful and cheerful about what you do do. And it is unconditional. I will always be positive about what you do in your life, because it is what you do in your life and it is human. It is beautiful. I don't reward your good behaviour and chastise your bad, but I say always well now what and how can i help.
This might be a nice manifesto, a nice slogan, motto or the like...unconditional positive regard.
He was discussing working with drug addicted people and the kind of expectations we tend to have of them. He suggests that it is not fair or productive to have your own expectations of them, but rather you must learn to learn what their expectations are for themselves and see how you can't help them feel empowered by their expectations and seek and pursue them. Even if you have what you think are better ideas, having an unconditional positive regard means that you don't think in terms of better or worse, but in terms of this is what is and this is a beautiful and powerful human let's be beautiful and powerful humans together.
Drug addicted people are an obvious cohort with whom we must have an unconditional positive regard; as they have usually learned their whole lives that they are useless, worthless, failures with nothing to offer the world or themselves, it is our responsibility to be part of the team that helps them learn their life lessons are untrue and that what has happened in the past doesn't have to determine (fully) what happens next. That we have the power in us to make more in our life than numbing escaping or self-destruction (a lesson not only for drug addicts but for all addicts and all people who seek nothing new but an endless nostalgia and repetition of the good old times). It is this belief that I know everything, have experienced the most high, most positive thing in life and all that is left is to experience death.
In reading Mate's book, I am gaining a sense of what addiction attempts to fill, and how sad it is that we think addictions will fill that desire, need, curiosity, innate human spirit. But in thinking that I am right and those who do things differently are wrong, I refuse to engage an unconditional positive regard. And in the end this regard is what is the best way to help build people up, lift people up, enrage and engage minds and hearts in the positive world, in the creative world, in the uplifted and excited world.
So what is the unconditional positive regard. It seems very clear to me just in those three words. It is a way of regarding, viewing, thinking about, and interacting with other people. It is positive, it focuses on what is done, what is made, what does exist and what i believe i can do. not what i believe you can do. Even if i believe you can do more I disregard that belief and am thankful grateful and cheerful about what you do do. And it is unconditional. I will always be positive about what you do in your life, because it is what you do in your life and it is human. It is beautiful. I don't reward your good behaviour and chastise your bad, but I say always well now what and how can i help.
This might be a nice manifesto, a nice slogan, motto or the like...unconditional positive regard.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Bruce Lipton
Okay, so I haven't done a tone of thinking yet, but I am so filled with excitement about what I am learning that I want to share some of it now. I think I have turned a bit into one of these instant gratifaction people...but anyway.
Bruce Lipton is a I dunno, doctor researchy scientist type person...maybe he is a religious guy too, that hasn't come up yet but it probably will as I learn more.
Anyway he gave this wonderful lecture that finally brought me back to biology. I love biology. I always have. Natural history, the functions of life, generation and decay, ecology all of it is delicious to me. I love learning about it, reading about it, thinking about it. But at some point during my formal education something happened that made me greatly dislike the discourse. That was the doctrinal methodolgies and pedagogies through which it is transmitted to children. I looked at the world, I listened to and read about the explanations but I always felt they were like fairytales, sort of pointings towards a lesson. Although my teachers maintained them as pathways to truth.
I guess being an apostate person I am always a bit suspicious of anyone who claims this is THE pathway to truth. I am certain there are many. In Dr Liptons talk, he shows how the metaphoric language of biology (along with a few errors in word choice along the way) have caused the entire scientific and lay community alike to accept something as true that in fact is fundementally flawed. That is that DNA is the brain, the core, the starting point of life.
He shows a great flow chart that I am all to familiar with that is used again and again to show that everything that happens in your cells starts from DNA.
the chart goes DNA-->RNA-->Protein--->activity.
and I always hated this chart because life is never ever ever ever linear. There is nothing about life the flows linearly. It is a series and cyclically positive and negative feedback cycles. DNA doesn't just start doing things all by it self. Have certain DNA doesn't cause cancer for example. It is merely correlated with cancer. This was the first major error in word choice. Cause and correlate DO NOT MEAN THE SAME THING. DNA has to be turned on. Something my many teachers would say from time to time and then completely ignore. It struck me often that they would say it all starts with DNA, something turns on the DNA and then...uh...wait a second...you just said it starts with DNA and it starts with something before DNA....well which is it. And as we can both see it is the latter why aren't we talking about that "something."
Anyway, Dr Lipton gives a great explanation about why we must change our medical paradigm, we must shift our view of biology and the role of DNA. That not only is DNA not the source of life, but it is also not the cause of illness. Sure it is very strongly correlated with illness, but the truth is our beliefs about illness, our perceptions of our health our world, and the environments we foster for ourselves to live in are far more important than what is written in our code.
We should not be victims of our genes, but of our choices. We want scapegoats, but the truth is if you stop looking for scapegoats you can find the true power, happiness and strength in yourself to be the beautiful person that you are.
It is true you will have no one left to blame but your self when life gives you challenges you think you cannot overcome...but well if you blame no one for those challenges you will find you soon find the strength and resource to tackle any obstacle...in fact the obstacles will soon disappear.
Bruce Lipton is a I dunno, doctor researchy scientist type person...maybe he is a religious guy too, that hasn't come up yet but it probably will as I learn more.
Anyway he gave this wonderful lecture that finally brought me back to biology. I love biology. I always have. Natural history, the functions of life, generation and decay, ecology all of it is delicious to me. I love learning about it, reading about it, thinking about it. But at some point during my formal education something happened that made me greatly dislike the discourse. That was the doctrinal methodolgies and pedagogies through which it is transmitted to children. I looked at the world, I listened to and read about the explanations but I always felt they were like fairytales, sort of pointings towards a lesson. Although my teachers maintained them as pathways to truth.
I guess being an apostate person I am always a bit suspicious of anyone who claims this is THE pathway to truth. I am certain there are many. In Dr Liptons talk, he shows how the metaphoric language of biology (along with a few errors in word choice along the way) have caused the entire scientific and lay community alike to accept something as true that in fact is fundementally flawed. That is that DNA is the brain, the core, the starting point of life.
He shows a great flow chart that I am all to familiar with that is used again and again to show that everything that happens in your cells starts from DNA.
the chart goes DNA-->RNA-->Protein--->activity.
and I always hated this chart because life is never ever ever ever linear. There is nothing about life the flows linearly. It is a series and cyclically positive and negative feedback cycles. DNA doesn't just start doing things all by it self. Have certain DNA doesn't cause cancer for example. It is merely correlated with cancer. This was the first major error in word choice. Cause and correlate DO NOT MEAN THE SAME THING. DNA has to be turned on. Something my many teachers would say from time to time and then completely ignore. It struck me often that they would say it all starts with DNA, something turns on the DNA and then...uh...wait a second...you just said it starts with DNA and it starts with something before DNA....well which is it. And as we can both see it is the latter why aren't we talking about that "something."
Anyway, Dr Lipton gives a great explanation about why we must change our medical paradigm, we must shift our view of biology and the role of DNA. That not only is DNA not the source of life, but it is also not the cause of illness. Sure it is very strongly correlated with illness, but the truth is our beliefs about illness, our perceptions of our health our world, and the environments we foster for ourselves to live in are far more important than what is written in our code.
We should not be victims of our genes, but of our choices. We want scapegoats, but the truth is if you stop looking for scapegoats you can find the true power, happiness and strength in yourself to be the beautiful person that you are.
It is true you will have no one left to blame but your self when life gives you challenges you think you cannot overcome...but well if you blame no one for those challenges you will find you soon find the strength and resource to tackle any obstacle...in fact the obstacles will soon disappear.
Monday, May 18, 2009
ooooh soo exciting and interesting
I have a new great thing to talk about. I am so excited. I have to think about it first. But I will keep you posted, as soon as i finish thinking about it. But in the mean time, you should look up Bruce Lipton.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Categorical fear
"I am afraid of x out of 72 common fears"
Another recent FB thing to post about where you can play make believe that you have said something or written something novel without overworking your creativity muscles and pretend you aren't just showing your friends another postcard you bought at an overpriced gift shop at a tourist attraction that looked better on paper than in life...
But it peeked my interest. 72 things that people are afraid of...I wonder if I am people, so I had a read. But as I read down the list it occurred to me that I am not exactly categorically afraid of anything. For example, I am not afraid of heights. But there are times when I am in high places when I get the sudden feeling that I have left a bit of chocolate on the counter at home and that it would be wise to go and eat it, rather than be in this particular high place. But generally, i rather enjoy being high, especially when it involves jumping down or trees or rocks and that sort of thing.
Or sometimes when I am poking a dead thing with a stick and something comes crawling out in a fastish manner I think i wish I hadn't been poking that dead thing just then, and then have a nightmare about it. But I'm not afraid of fastish things, even in my food. I'll eat whatever, that doesn't scare me.
Or other times when I am in a car with strangers and it is becoming increasingly apparent that they didn't have "favourite things" in mind when they invited me into their car. And then I worry I will have to join a cult...sometimes maybe I am categorically afraid of joining cults. I really don't want to do that. I often face the reality that this stranger is taking me to church...again when i really just wanted to climb a tree or eat some bugs. But that doesn't stop me from getting into cars with strangers, or from talking to strangers on the bus, train, street, in the grocery store, at the library...where ever I happen to run into one.
And so I think that categorical fear is a silly and outdated way of experiencing the world. Haven't we learned yet that all of one category are always different? Haven't we learned the power of context and content? Hasn't it sunk in to our collective belief system that there isn't really any such thing as a category, as a general rule, that really we just want to experience or we are afraid to experience and that's silly...we don't need to be afraid to experience because the worst possible outcome is your experience will kill you, and death is nothing to be afraid of.
Thursday, May 07, 2009
You look just like your picture
I was thinking yesterday about synthetic experiences. About learning through movies, forming impressions through pictures, studying the sound of something. I was thinking about this way of talking we have. We say things like, "Oh, look at that sunset, it is just like a photograph" or "Listen to those birds, they sound like a symphony." It shows what? Is it a drive to reify the world of vital movement? A way to slow down the event of beauty. And why? Why this compulsion to capture little stones of beauty.
I recently took a picture of a sunset, and my friend looked at it and said, "oh, it looks just like a postcard." i thought that was a very funny thing to say, because I had thought it looked just like a sunset. But there you are.
Then there is another wonderful thing we do. When we see something real that we only had virtual knowledge of and we say, "oh it is just like the photograph." Which is equally silly, seeing as the photograph was of the thing...would it not be better to say, "the photograph fared well in capturing this. It did not lie."
But I suppose logic isn't so important to us. We don't seem to mind or even notice how illogical we can be.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
inadequacy and competition
Why do we automatically associate competition with feelings of inadequacy?
I was reading about yoga competitions. In the first breath of the story I thought, Oh that sounds dreadful. Yoga isn't about competing. But, now, several months removed from the reading I want to revisit that sentiment.
It was pretty knee jerk, extrapolating my experience with yoga and assumptions about competition, I came to the conclusion that the two were incompatible, that to compete at yoga would be to do gymnastics or some other activity. But, now I think that to compete at yoga is to take your practice to a different level.
I think we always conclude that there are only losers in competitions. That even the top spot is someone only a future loser as someone breaks their records etc. But this is really just an amazingly temporally distorted bit of logic. We neglect all the benefits of competition for the one downfall that it is a temporal (necessarily as it is a thing of humans and we are temporal) and thus surpassable.
This is silly. Who gets down on life for being temporal? Who says really "no one gets out alive" thus we shouldn't make any more babies? Who suggests that things are only going to change so what is the point of learning to live now?
Competition is an amazing motivator that drives humans to try, to do, and to succeed at things they had not even imagined. When I think of Donovan Bailey's 9.84s 100m race I imagine, he never imagined what it would be like to travel 100m by foot in 9.84 seconds. How could he? He could have some conjectures about it, but no true imagining of it. And this is the wonderful gift that competition gives to us. It drives us to try and to succeed at things that we can't imagine possible.
It is that spirit of testing boundries and limits or out doing and out witting others and ourselves that drives progress, innovation and I believe evolution (or it will soon).
Without someone to race I am sure I will never run a 10k. I just don't care enough about running (I also don't really like running for longer than 20minutes unless there are tacklings to break up the monotony). What is more, I think, what's the point? But who knows what I will think, how my world view will be effected after I complete a 10k run...
I was listening to someone talking about competition being something that we shouldn't really engage because it breeds feelings of inadequacy, ill-will towards others and general feelings of discontentment. He suggested that competition was not good for our souls, in particular, and should be refrained from especially during holy seasons. But I have decided that I wholeheartly disagree. That in fact during holy seasons may be the best times for competitions for those of strong religious conviction. Those are the times that god is closest and most available. And I feel that everytime we do something we never imagines we are with god in that moment.
this post doesn't really make sense anymore...hmm anyway competition...yeah...we need to break it from its false association with failure, inadequacy and discontentment. It brings us progress and that is what i wanted to say about that.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Something marvelous in Japan
I just had another marvelous morning, but I wanted to tell you about something marvelous. All winter I have marvelled at all the green deciduous trees. I thought, wow it is so warm here. In Canada all these leaves would have changed colour and fallen to the ground months ago. But there they were all winter keeping the trees green and beautiful.
Then for the past 3 weeks, or so, new everythings have been growing and many of the new leaves come in red, then change green after a couple of days. I thought it was marvelous how, in Japan, spring time is just like the fall. Except, instead of the leaves changing colour and dying, they are changing colour and then growing for a whole season. I thought it was very nice that the japanese get two autumn blazes a year. And thought about the implications of global warming in Canada, could we one day experience this too?
But then this morning I noticed that all the trees have turned red too. And their leaves are falling. It seems that instead of doing this in the autumn when it gets too cold in Canada, they do it in the spring when the tree is ready to put on a new coat.
Then for the past 3 weeks, or so, new everythings have been growing and many of the new leaves come in red, then change green after a couple of days. I thought it was marvelous how, in Japan, spring time is just like the fall. Except, instead of the leaves changing colour and dying, they are changing colour and then growing for a whole season. I thought it was very nice that the japanese get two autumn blazes a year. And thought about the implications of global warming in Canada, could we one day experience this too?
But then this morning I noticed that all the trees have turned red too. And their leaves are falling. It seems that instead of doing this in the autumn when it gets too cold in Canada, they do it in the spring when the tree is ready to put on a new coat.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Grapefruits are not a threat to society...
Well, I for one am relieved to know that grapefruit have been pardoned the onerous title "danger to society"...
It interests me that these fruit are called a threat because of their interaction with certain drugs that people take.
It has been shown that grapefruit will increase the stomach's digestive power, as a result pills taken orally will be broken down faster releasing higher doses of the drug they contain into the system. This release will supposedly happen at a higher rate as well. This can, of course, be hazardous, we all can imagine. Long gone are the days when we believed more is always better. (well maybe not long gone, most of us still believe more is better...well I do at least).
Anyway, it interests me that the fruit is called the threat and not the drug. Does something funny occur to you? It occurs to me. It's the fruit's fault that the drug doesn't work properly and therefore the fruit is a threat to society. But, why not say it's the drug's fault? I mean we have the power to change the drug to better suit the environments in which it is used. Why not say that pharmacologists who refuse to allow natural evolution of their products are a threat to society, for standing by products that don't suit the needs of users and endanger their lives...
There is this idea that all drugs work for all people and that people should change their lives to suit the drugs they are taking. But I think that is just wrong. Drugs are the ones that should change not us. And not fruit.
I don't like this growing culture of fear around food. We are training ourselves to believe food is dangerous, natural wholefoods are unpredictable and hazardous to our health regimes. That drugs are more important, and should thus be catered to, than a well-balanced fruit-filled diet.
I do think we should change our lives, many of us, but not to suit our drugs. We should change them to free us of the drugs we are on. To break our dependence on marijuana, on alcohol. To end our dependence on oral contraceptives, anti-cholesterol pills, caffeine shots and protein shakes. To bring down the culture of pain pill poppers and supplement takers.
Supplement yourself with whole and healthy foods, with good sleep, with invigorating exercise and engaging breathing. Depend on good friendships for highs and lows. Build up your self-esteem with positive thinking and self-affirming actions not gym memberships and powdered meals. Throw away your television. Just do it. And as for the culture of oral contraception. Learn how your body works and take responsibility for your actions. If you're having reckless one-night sex you should be using a condom anyway.
Just remember it is not the grapefruit that is the threat to society.
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Nothing much
There isn't really anything on my mind. Just felt the blog was a little lonely. These days I am studying hard, playing outside all day from the moment I wake up until I have to fall down asleep. I am so excited for everything April has on tap. I hope my camera gets healthy again soon and even faster.
eep!
eep!
Friday, April 03, 2009
The benefits of planning a trip into space
The benefit of planning to take a trip into space is that it is a very expensive thing to do. If I wanted to go for a trip to the international space station right now I think it would cost $800,000. I don't really know...but I imagine that at some point I learned that was what a ticket costs. Well, it would take me, I think, about 20 years to save that much money (if I stop playing around in Asia and start doing the real money making work I have vaguely planned for my future childhood). So, I should get started.
But this is wonderful, because in 20 years it will only cost maybe $50,000 to go to the ISS, but I will have saved $800,000 so I will have lots of money for things I want to do. Or maybe, even though I thought I would only go to the ISS I will have enough to go to Mars or the Moon...or somewhere really cold like that.
But unfortunately, I don't think I will ever really save a lot of money, because I don't think I would like having a very high paying job. In monetary terms I don't consider anything I can do to be the kind of thing people should pay very much to have me do. And I don't like people paying more than they should for me to do things. And I would really rather climb to the top of every mountain on the planet (above and below sea level) before I would be very interested in going to the ISS. It sounds like a very expensive trip to the science centre without tesla coils and paper making activities...
But maybe I will pretend to be planning a trip to the ISS, just because it might cause an interesting conversation one day.
Happy Half Birthday
I especially love when my birthday is on a Friday, because it means my half birthday will also be a Friday. And I especially love Fridays when the "work" week started on Wednesday and that particular Friday is also my half birthday.
Sure, no one remembered, sent me a card or wrote me a song. I really don't mind. I woke up at the crack of...well shortly after the crack of dawn and my new lover was singing me a beautiful song. Something about a long sigh after three short peeps. Marvelous morning stuff. It was deliciously warm in my room, even though there was no heat on, meaning its spring spring spring into summer time!!
I jumped out of bed, my second favourite thing right after jumping into bed and jumping on the bed which are tied for first. I had some yummy brekkers, although there were no bananas. But I didn't let that interfere. I wrote a letter in japanese, but decided not to send it. Then, I cleaned my home and my soul and took a wicked trip to the gym. I ran 4.3kms in 5 minute splits. I registered for a marathon. Well a little marathon (10k is a lot to me though). Then sweated buckets with some lunges and squats and bridges.
I had a lovely lunch at work and then spent a few hours writing and daydreaming. Now I suppose I am teaching. Or I will be. I think i will pop out to the store and get cake to eat with my students.
Lovely!
Sure, no one remembered, sent me a card or wrote me a song. I really don't mind. I woke up at the crack of...well shortly after the crack of dawn and my new lover was singing me a beautiful song. Something about a long sigh after three short peeps. Marvelous morning stuff. It was deliciously warm in my room, even though there was no heat on, meaning its spring spring spring into summer time!!
I jumped out of bed, my second favourite thing right after jumping into bed and jumping on the bed which are tied for first. I had some yummy brekkers, although there were no bananas. But I didn't let that interfere. I wrote a letter in japanese, but decided not to send it. Then, I cleaned my home and my soul and took a wicked trip to the gym. I ran 4.3kms in 5 minute splits. I registered for a marathon. Well a little marathon (10k is a lot to me though). Then sweated buckets with some lunges and squats and bridges.
I had a lovely lunch at work and then spent a few hours writing and daydreaming. Now I suppose I am teaching. Or I will be. I think i will pop out to the store and get cake to eat with my students.
Lovely!
Monday, March 30, 2009
Practice never betrays you
So I am still mulling through this new information about the money system. I think it is very interesting. We are pretty mad and pretty upset, but I think it is unfair, and we shouldn't be. And I think this because of the fundamental nature of science and of evolution.
What does science have to do with greed or money or the crashing changing growing money system...maybe not very much. But I suspect that actually they have a great deal to do with each other. The pursuit of science, the pursuit of knowledge, like the pursuit of experience requires theories, requires experimentation, requires testing trying out and assessing predictions.
I want to believe that we are experimenting in capitalism, we are pursuing a science of monetary creation and accretion. That much like the Challenger or whatever space shuttle it was that blew up all those years ago, some experiments go very wrong, and at the cost of human lives...
I value life above all things (how can you not?), but I don't think that we should be afraid of loosing it. I see that this financial crisis is leading to suicides, murders, to cycles or depression and despair...because the experiment went wrong. We didn't use a good methodology and as a result missed important indicators that it was not a viable model. But I don't think that means we should follow the example set by the international space programs. It is a bad idea to stop pursuing the dream.
We are capable of doing a lot of things, and I know finding an effective wealth creation-distribution model is one of them (keeping in mind that this system isn't some kind of goal or destination but an ongoing experience). We shouldn't let the fear of extinction kill the process of evolution. Any process of evolution. We must work with that reality and with that goal...that extinction is a necessary part of life, in the same way that death is.
The world as I know it isn't fundamentally changing, because the world as I know it is one of fundamental change. There has never been a day in this life I haven't faced the challenge of change, and i wouldn't have it any other way. If you think the world doesn't change much or very quickly you are deluding yourself. Look at the evolution of the pre-frontal cortex. What is it about this memory storing part of our brains that it demanded the complete architectural overhaul of the human skull in the blink of evolutionary time?
It is very new that we have had the skills granted us by the PFC, we shouldn't be surprised that we aren't very good at using them, yet. So we should keep practicing. We should keep asking, testing, making and trying theories, we should keep on predicting and examining our predictions, because we will start getting it right more and more times...and then we will meet our antecessor...
What does science have to do with greed or money or the crashing changing growing money system...maybe not very much. But I suspect that actually they have a great deal to do with each other. The pursuit of science, the pursuit of knowledge, like the pursuit of experience requires theories, requires experimentation, requires testing trying out and assessing predictions.
I want to believe that we are experimenting in capitalism, we are pursuing a science of monetary creation and accretion. That much like the Challenger or whatever space shuttle it was that blew up all those years ago, some experiments go very wrong, and at the cost of human lives...
I value life above all things (how can you not?), but I don't think that we should be afraid of loosing it. I see that this financial crisis is leading to suicides, murders, to cycles or depression and despair...because the experiment went wrong. We didn't use a good methodology and as a result missed important indicators that it was not a viable model. But I don't think that means we should follow the example set by the international space programs. It is a bad idea to stop pursuing the dream.
We are capable of doing a lot of things, and I know finding an effective wealth creation-distribution model is one of them (keeping in mind that this system isn't some kind of goal or destination but an ongoing experience). We shouldn't let the fear of extinction kill the process of evolution. Any process of evolution. We must work with that reality and with that goal...that extinction is a necessary part of life, in the same way that death is.
The world as I know it isn't fundamentally changing, because the world as I know it is one of fundamental change. There has never been a day in this life I haven't faced the challenge of change, and i wouldn't have it any other way. If you think the world doesn't change much or very quickly you are deluding yourself. Look at the evolution of the pre-frontal cortex. What is it about this memory storing part of our brains that it demanded the complete architectural overhaul of the human skull in the blink of evolutionary time?
It is very new that we have had the skills granted us by the PFC, we shouldn't be surprised that we aren't very good at using them, yet. So we should keep practicing. We should keep asking, testing, making and trying theories, we should keep on predicting and examining our predictions, because we will start getting it right more and more times...and then we will meet our antecessor...
Friday, March 27, 2009
What is poverty?
I recently watched an interesting, oh what's the word for it, "special report" on the US housing industry and what many call the birth of the current "financial crisis". Now for some reason I am somewhat skeptical about the connection between the US housing crisis and the global financial "crisis." A skepticism that was further fuelled by this program, for, even though the show's thesis maintains that the housing bubble is what caused and catalysed financial crises around the world at the end of the show it shows that places like that Norwegian city that bought up badly rated CDOs didn't buy mortgaged backed CDOs...demontrating there is another very serious (maybe more serious) piece to this puzzle. Of course I don't really care about or understand money, so I can't suggest what it is...but I am interested in something Allen Greenspan had to say...
At the end of this program, titled House of Cards, Allan Greenspan suggests that it is human nature to be greedy and further that that nature, the drive for greedy, self-satisfaction, narcissistic endeavor, is what has brought millions out of poverty...
That sentiment hit me pretty hard. Like a slap in the face with a wet pickle by a rugby player named Laura Boghean. This idea that greed is what brings us out of poverty. If that is true, then I think we have unknowingly and fundementally redefined the word poverty. And I am sure this new definition won't stand.
The program goes a long way in demonstrating how we rethought what we meant by the "American Dream." An expression that once meant to prevail after years of struggle, toil, careful investment, pain-staking care and much sacrifice. In the program it is again and again used to mean having every material thing you always wanted...and having it before you are old enough to know what it is without sacrificing anything upfront (though we are all seeing there are big forced sacrifices in the long run).
So what do we mean by poverty? As Allen Greenspan uses the word, it can only mean not possessing much materially in the world. This is the same way President G.W Bush uses it. He sees only poverty as people not having as many lollipops as they want everyday. He sees it as people not owning homes, he sees not owning a home as the fundemental cause of every other social problem in America. This isn't poverty, is it? And if we believe this is poverty then we are the ones truly in poverty.
We are in a poverty of love, spirit, faith, knowledge or happiness. I can only imagine that living in a poverty of these 5 things is a truly sad and tragic thing that corrupts, denegrades and destroys our societies. I don't see how material poverty can cause these things without a greater poverty of the human needs. The only way material poverty can cause social corruption is if we believe that greed is what will bring us out of poverty. If we believe having things makes us happy, brings meaning into our lives... But this is the catch, if we believe and agree greed has this power it is because we live in a poverty of these 5 things.
If you have all the love, all the faith in life in your friends and family in everyday strangers, all the spirit and energy to pursue your life to experience use and generate happiness while people with pools and 6 gaming systems and two cars and machines that vacuum the house day and night might think you live in poverty in your 1 room apartment with mum and dad and 3 brothers but you wouldn't and shouldn't agree with them.
I guess that comes of living within my means. Of living temporarily. Of hoping in increments and preparing for things I want...rather than for taking things i want then having to work to pay for them. I agree that greed is one of the most effective eroding forces of western society. It is the vice over all vices that corrupts and destroys families, friendships, networks and the kinship of strangers. It works with great speed and greater effect than murder, sloth, lust, alcohalism or any vice you can conceive.
I am not trying to point us to some kind of social altruism, it has nothing to do with how we interect with each other, but how we live with ourselves. It has to do with learning how to appreciate and value at a greater level what we have, what we have worked for and things that we are willing to work for. We need to be willing to work for things.
I am sorry for the millions in the US and Canada citizens being thrown out of their homes. Not because they are being thrown out of their homes, but because they never had a chance to learn the value of what they had. They never learned how to be satisfied with what they work for. I am sorry for the people on wall street and the banks that went bankrupt in the way I feel sorry for soldiers with PTSD...I am sorry for people world wide loosing their manufacturing jobs, but I hope that they will find more meaningful ways to contribute to our society, rather than just making more stuff for us to want.
Greed is not the friend of poverty, but the enemy...greed doesn't bring us out of poverty; it drives us into it. But then what does Allen Greenspan know about anything anyway? His defense for why he is not guilty in allowing this problem, and in creating this problem, I didn't understand it...
At the end of this program, titled House of Cards, Allan Greenspan suggests that it is human nature to be greedy and further that that nature, the drive for greedy, self-satisfaction, narcissistic endeavor, is what has brought millions out of poverty...
That sentiment hit me pretty hard. Like a slap in the face with a wet pickle by a rugby player named Laura Boghean. This idea that greed is what brings us out of poverty. If that is true, then I think we have unknowingly and fundementally redefined the word poverty. And I am sure this new definition won't stand.
The program goes a long way in demonstrating how we rethought what we meant by the "American Dream." An expression that once meant to prevail after years of struggle, toil, careful investment, pain-staking care and much sacrifice. In the program it is again and again used to mean having every material thing you always wanted...and having it before you are old enough to know what it is without sacrificing anything upfront (though we are all seeing there are big forced sacrifices in the long run).
So what do we mean by poverty? As Allen Greenspan uses the word, it can only mean not possessing much materially in the world. This is the same way President G.W Bush uses it. He sees only poverty as people not having as many lollipops as they want everyday. He sees it as people not owning homes, he sees not owning a home as the fundemental cause of every other social problem in America. This isn't poverty, is it? And if we believe this is poverty then we are the ones truly in poverty.
We are in a poverty of love, spirit, faith, knowledge or happiness. I can only imagine that living in a poverty of these 5 things is a truly sad and tragic thing that corrupts, denegrades and destroys our societies. I don't see how material poverty can cause these things without a greater poverty of the human needs. The only way material poverty can cause social corruption is if we believe that greed is what will bring us out of poverty. If we believe having things makes us happy, brings meaning into our lives... But this is the catch, if we believe and agree greed has this power it is because we live in a poverty of these 5 things.
If you have all the love, all the faith in life in your friends and family in everyday strangers, all the spirit and energy to pursue your life to experience use and generate happiness while people with pools and 6 gaming systems and two cars and machines that vacuum the house day and night might think you live in poverty in your 1 room apartment with mum and dad and 3 brothers but you wouldn't and shouldn't agree with them.
I guess that comes of living within my means. Of living temporarily. Of hoping in increments and preparing for things I want...rather than for taking things i want then having to work to pay for them. I agree that greed is one of the most effective eroding forces of western society. It is the vice over all vices that corrupts and destroys families, friendships, networks and the kinship of strangers. It works with great speed and greater effect than murder, sloth, lust, alcohalism or any vice you can conceive.
I am not trying to point us to some kind of social altruism, it has nothing to do with how we interect with each other, but how we live with ourselves. It has to do with learning how to appreciate and value at a greater level what we have, what we have worked for and things that we are willing to work for. We need to be willing to work for things.
I am sorry for the millions in the US and Canada citizens being thrown out of their homes. Not because they are being thrown out of their homes, but because they never had a chance to learn the value of what they had. They never learned how to be satisfied with what they work for. I am sorry for the people on wall street and the banks that went bankrupt in the way I feel sorry for soldiers with PTSD...I am sorry for people world wide loosing their manufacturing jobs, but I hope that they will find more meaningful ways to contribute to our society, rather than just making more stuff for us to want.
Greed is not the friend of poverty, but the enemy...greed doesn't bring us out of poverty; it drives us into it. But then what does Allen Greenspan know about anything anyway? His defense for why he is not guilty in allowing this problem, and in creating this problem, I didn't understand it...
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Amazing life
I guess the weather just fills me with joy, but i don`t think i could have drempt up a better morning. Woke up with sun in my eyes around 715. It wasn't cold in my apartment so i could get out of bed and go pee without slippers a sweater and other warming agents. Birds were singing me love songs, inviting me to come and play so i went and did yoga in the park for an hour or so. I returned to have japanese breakfast provided by a students 98 year old great grandmother. And its only 10 to 9. I still have heaps of time for reading and writing before what maybe my most challenging day of teaching this year. 7-60 minute classes back to back.
I am excited to sleep like an angel tonite.
I am excited to sleep like an angel tonite.
Monday, March 09, 2009
Perspective
I had a couple pretty amazing experiences with perspective this weekend, that have got me thinking about the topic quite heavily. It started with a new sketch book. I finally finished the book of block, that is the book that has essentially held the entirety of my writers block over the past three years. Creatively, it is a pretty depressing book to look through, tons of pages of incomplete poems, stories, thoughts, ideas, sudokus, maps of places, plans, goals, drawings, grocery lists...you know the kind of things on puts in a sketch book when experiencing creative block.
Of course, the last two months worth of stuff shows a huge shift in my work, but that's only about 7 pages out of 200...but now I started a new one. And it was funny, looking at the first page and thinking about what to put there, I was afraid I was going to start panicking and I thought I will go back into the mode of self editing and creative abortion that formed the better part of the block. But before i had even started thinking these things I realized that i wasn't worried at all about what to put. I thought it doesn't really matter if it turns out really good, or really crap, or most likely somewhere in between those extremes. I just want to make something. I want to work on it and then some time later finish working on it.
I thought that was funny, because in that moment i came to realize that I wasn't afraid of blank pages anymore. And it was pretty cool. It was like when I came to realize I wasn't afraid of the dark anymore, or I wasn't afraid of people hearing me pee. And I never thought it was something i was afraid of, and if it was i never thought i would stop being afraid of them. And that got me thinking about I can...
I can't is the most dream defeating phrase in every language I have ever tried to learn. And that is because it reifies a temporal obstacle and makes us believe it may be an eternal blockage. We need to revolutionize this phrase and change it from I can't to Now I can't... I sort of always thought I can't means I never can...but that is my great error, and it is an error many of us make and I hope if you are still making it you heed what I have learned. That I can't only means in this moment I can't..but maybe with more heart and practice, with more support and strength I can one day.
I climbed a really steep mountain this weekend. With a child and two women. The child, like any child would, just wanted to go and go and go. She has not yet developed any sense for conserving energy. About 200m from the top, however, she reached her limit. Her legs were heavy from the climbing (it was in many parts a 60-75degree incline...totally wicked). She wanted to quit and stop. But I know how wicked it is at the tops of mountains so I told her to climb on my back.
I didn't know if I could carry her up 200m. In fact I was pretty certain I was as tired as she was. But I wanted her to make it. And I was up for the challenge. So I put my bag on her back and crouched for her. And it seemed that was enough. She sort of looked at me as if to say, "I am tired. I don't think I can keep going, but you would find the strength to carry me the rest of the way...well then I will find that strength too" And like a mountain goat she lit off up the last slope. We raced the last 50m and both fell down on the top of the mountain for feel how good it was to have made it.
Before that she didn't try to talk to me, nor I to her. But after I guess our relative positions changed and we did our best to talk.
Then their was the view of the world. At the top of the mountain there was only blue sky over head, as we has climbed up through the cloud that sits on the valley below, or so it felt. New mountains came into view in the distance and the sea too. I couldn't have imagined...but i can now. And I look forward to more things unimagined. And know they exist out there, just have to find them.
Of course, the last two months worth of stuff shows a huge shift in my work, but that's only about 7 pages out of 200...but now I started a new one. And it was funny, looking at the first page and thinking about what to put there, I was afraid I was going to start panicking and I thought I will go back into the mode of self editing and creative abortion that formed the better part of the block. But before i had even started thinking these things I realized that i wasn't worried at all about what to put. I thought it doesn't really matter if it turns out really good, or really crap, or most likely somewhere in between those extremes. I just want to make something. I want to work on it and then some time later finish working on it.
I thought that was funny, because in that moment i came to realize that I wasn't afraid of blank pages anymore. And it was pretty cool. It was like when I came to realize I wasn't afraid of the dark anymore, or I wasn't afraid of people hearing me pee. And I never thought it was something i was afraid of, and if it was i never thought i would stop being afraid of them. And that got me thinking about I can...
I can't is the most dream defeating phrase in every language I have ever tried to learn. And that is because it reifies a temporal obstacle and makes us believe it may be an eternal blockage. We need to revolutionize this phrase and change it from I can't to Now I can't... I sort of always thought I can't means I never can...but that is my great error, and it is an error many of us make and I hope if you are still making it you heed what I have learned. That I can't only means in this moment I can't..but maybe with more heart and practice, with more support and strength I can one day.
I climbed a really steep mountain this weekend. With a child and two women. The child, like any child would, just wanted to go and go and go. She has not yet developed any sense for conserving energy. About 200m from the top, however, she reached her limit. Her legs were heavy from the climbing (it was in many parts a 60-75degree incline...totally wicked). She wanted to quit and stop. But I know how wicked it is at the tops of mountains so I told her to climb on my back.
I didn't know if I could carry her up 200m. In fact I was pretty certain I was as tired as she was. But I wanted her to make it. And I was up for the challenge. So I put my bag on her back and crouched for her. And it seemed that was enough. She sort of looked at me as if to say, "I am tired. I don't think I can keep going, but you would find the strength to carry me the rest of the way...well then I will find that strength too" And like a mountain goat she lit off up the last slope. We raced the last 50m and both fell down on the top of the mountain for feel how good it was to have made it.
Before that she didn't try to talk to me, nor I to her. But after I guess our relative positions changed and we did our best to talk.
Then their was the view of the world. At the top of the mountain there was only blue sky over head, as we has climbed up through the cloud that sits on the valley below, or so it felt. New mountains came into view in the distance and the sea too. I couldn't have imagined...but i can now. And I look forward to more things unimagined. And know they exist out there, just have to find them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
