No One Special

(from friendlyatheist.com comment)

Brett (or is it Mike?) thinks he’s being censored unfairly.  I’ve invited him to post his comments here since they’ve been deleted from FA.

Maybe I’m just taking the  flamebait here but we’ll soon see.

The Parade Magazine question asks: Do you agree with Darwin’s theory of human evolution?

Go vote.

I’m quite disappointed to see an article so  ignorant of modern science in such a popular publication.  I particularly loved the part about evolution being accepted by “scientists and secularists” while it is supposedly rejected by everyone else.   I was so dismayed by the article and associated poll that I wrote them a letter.  The text is below.

Do we not have some sort of responsibility to demand that publications understand their science, or at least portray it accurately?  Maybe you are also tempted to write them a letter and blog about it?   What  else can we do about it?

Let me know if you ever see another “major” publication make such a mockery of science in favour of an obvious religious bias.

I am flabbergasted and deeply insulted by the article online about the legacy of Charles Darwin and its associated poll.

To begin with, the entire second paragraph is misleading and incorrect.  It reads:

“Just as scientists and secularists around the globe will celebrate “Darwin Day,” creationists and those of other beliefs will renew their argument against his work.”

This falsely identifies the sides of this “debate” being scientists and secularists against everyone else.  Apart from creationists, I can’t even think of who else has a problem with evolution.  Perhaps you are referring to Raelians who believe aliens genetically engineered every species on the planet?

The real debate is between those who accept that the scientific method is the best way to learn about the universe and those who would rather trust the superstitions of bronze-aged goat herders.

Evolution happens and that it happens isn’t in any doubt.  The only debate is how it happens.  For example, is the driving force of selection at the group, individual, or genetic level?

The poll question itself is extremely problematic.  As mentioned earlier, to suggest that evolution doesn’t happen is completely foolish.  Yet if unscientific responses are allowed, why not have an option for aliens creating us or the flying spaghetti monster?

The second problem with the poll question is that no one agrees with “Darwin’s” theory of evolution.  Evolutionary theory has changed a great deal since Darwin’s time.  Darwin’s pangene hypothesis, for example, has been long discarded, in part due to Gregor Mendel’s work on inheritance.  Mendel — a priest, by the way — is the one commonly referred to as the “father of modern genetics.”  Taking a poll on the acceptance of “Darwin’s theory” trivializes an entire field of science, one that has developed one of the most elegant and demonstrable theories in the history of science itself.  Would you similarly slight Einstein by polling readers on their acceptance of Newton’s theory of gravity?

The third big problem with the poll is one of tense.  “Humans evolved…?”  “Evolution required…?”  Evolution is an ongoing process, not something that happened to us once 150,000 years ago.  There is no end result of evolution.  There is no final goal or ideal.

All of these are serious misrepresentations of evolutionary theory and of Darwin’s significant contribution to science.  If you’re going to write an article about science, make an attempt to understand the science.  Your failure to report accurately on the issue only plays into the superstitions of Raelians, creationists and other tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists.

In the future, please report on the science of today instead of the mythologies of a bunch of bronze age goat herders.

(From FriendlyAtheist.com)

Hello.

This is my latest blog project.   There will likely be many changes over the next few days while I figure out how far I want to take this.

Why blog?  For two reasons.  The first is that I would like to get back to writing.  The second is that I have a passion, a mission and a vocation that need a voice.  Rawr.

I’ve been down this road before.   Posts dated before today were from previous blogs that I decided to keep for various reasons.

I’m using WordPress which is quite nice.

The blog is called “No One Special” because that is what I am.  It is important to me.  That’s what makes me special.

I’m 30, single, and male.  I live in Hamilton, Ontario.  It is a good thing I appreciate the kitsch of Asian dollar stores since that’s what Hamilton’s economy seems to be based on.

I’m an atheist and an animist.  I have been for years.  I suspect much of this blog will be about these two subjects.

To the extent that I am known, I am known as “Tao Jones” on the interwebz.

Welcome.

Sometimes I like to joke that I am psychic.

I’m not, well, at least not in any way that can be considered “magic.”  What I do is watch.  Watch and observe, paying attention as best as I can.  I’ve been a people watcher for as long as I can remember.  As such, I’ve become fairly good at reading people and my impressions are usually quite accurate.  I pay attention to other things too: history, politics, trends, and nature among other things.  As such, I find myself aware of the types of things that tend to happen.

In the spring of 2001, I boldly predicted — while sharing a pitcher of Stella with some friends — that the United States would be hit by a major terrorist attack in the next 6-8 months.  That fateful 11th day of September changed America, possibly forever.  True story.

Nearly a year ago when Barack Obama emerged as a front runner in the Democratic nominations, I once again felt my “spidey sense” tingling.  I have told a few people about this in private, but I thought I’d make it public here.  You know, for posterity’s sake.

Obama will not complete his term as president.

I don’t know when, how or by whom, but Barack Obama will be assassinated.

Supposedly one attempt was recently foiled:
http://cbs13.com/cbsnational/assisination.plot.obama.2.802884.html

But Obama can’t avoid destiny.

Black Op or grassy knoll; evangelical Christian or white supremacist, it is going to get messy.

Another from Yahoo! Answers:

Question:  As we appear to be on the brink of a global food crisis, is it time to rethink farming methods? How?

Given that we appear to be on the brink of a global food crisis, should we be making the world’s farms even bigger and more efficient, or should we be making them smaller? Is it time to dismantle the industrial food machine, or should we be cranking it up to the next level?

My Answer:

Source(s):

Post Script:
Some of the answers other people presented were quite interesting.  It’s fascinating to see how nearly everyone can see that there is a problem, not many are identifying the same problem. For example, some people seem to think the problem is with the distribution of food, rather than the production of it.  Honestly this seems a litlte strange to me.  The countries that would seem to have the highest levels of malnutrition tend to be the ones with the highest mortality rate.  However these are the same countries with the highest birth rates.  This stands to reason and makes perfect sense.  If you live in a region where only 20% of children born reach the age of 20, it makes perfect sense to have as many children as you can.  If you have 10 children, chances are two will reach adulthood.  If we flood the region with imported food to the point where 40% of children survive, that will result in a population explosion in a region that is incapable of sustaining an increased population.

Don’t believe me?  Canada and the US share a population growth rate of approximately 0.9% per year.  This means our population will double in approximately 78 years.  Ethiopia, the world’s stereotyped “hungry country” has a population growth rate of 2.7% per year, resulting in a doubling every 26 years.  And what are all these extra people made out of?  You guessed it, food.

So if the region can’t sustain these extra people AND we keep sending them more food, what happens in the event of a drought, a decrease in aid, etc?   It won’t be pretty.  The ecological reality is that more food equals more people and more people require more food.

We need to break the cycle.  Next year, instead of producing more food as we always have, why don’t we try something different?

Surely you remember Smokey the Bear who told us, “Only you can prevent forest fires.”  It is widely acknowledged as being one of the most successful public relations campaigns in history.  Smokey taught us to respect the forest and make sure we put out our campfires, etc.  The campaign worked wonders as the number of human-caused forest fires saw a sharp decline in the 70’s and 80’s.  The campaign was one in a series of programs since 1908 designed to execute their strategy of preventing all forest fires at all costs

Of course, not all fires are caused by humans.  Probably 50% of them are caused by lightning which is something we can’t control.  The important thing to note here is, fire is a naturally occurring event in a forest.  The Forestry Service’s program was thus included to prevent all fires at all costs, and immediately extinguish all fires at all costs.

Into the 60’s and 70’s, the US Forestry Service found they were having to spend less money each year in fighting forest fires.  This indicated to them that their fire prevention programs were working very well and everyone was overjoyed.  Though strangely enough, from the 80’s to the present, the costs have skyrocketed as the number of forest fires have increased, as have their intensity.  In California, the Redwood trees have been around hundreds, if not thousands, of years having survived many forest fires.  Now, they are threatened as much as anything else.  Many people are quick to blame this on drought and global warming.  Only now are we starting to see a different picture of why forest fires are more devastating now than ever before in history.  Only now is the Forestry Service (and others like it around the world) starting to realize the real reason, even though it is extremely simple.

In a forest, life and death is something that happens every day.  Branches are felled and trees die.  This kind of stuff piles up on the forest floor.  Some is used by various animals and some rots away.  Every few years a fire breaks out and clears this stuff away, returning the nutrients to the soil and helping new trees grow.  These fires rarely destroy the entire forest, only what is on the ground.  The larger trees are healthy and resistant enough to be able to handle these fires.  Actually, in many cases, these fires actually help the forest keep its natural cycle.  Some trees like the Lodgepole and Jack Pine have evolved to a point where they can only reproduce in the event of a fire.  Their pine cones have a thick resin that protects the seeds.  At 60 degrees Celsius, the resin melts and the seeds drop to the forest floor allowing a new tree to grow.  Without the odd and regular fire, the natural cycle of the forest is interrupted.

Something else happens without the odd and regular fire in a forest.  All that falls to the forest floor accumulates.  You can imagine that a 100 years worth of dead branches and leaves is a much bigger pile than 20 years worth of the same.  What does all this extra stuff end up becoming?  Kindling.  When the eventual fire does come, (as it is impossible to prevent all fires everywhere,) the flames burn higher, hotter, and faster because of all the extra fuel.  The fire burns so hot and high that the giant redwoods or sequoias are burned to the ground.  The fire spreads fast engulfing a very large area in flames resulting in massive damage.  Very large fires can create their own weather systems as the superheated air rises rapidly sucking in cooler air as it goes.  One result of this is high winds, which makes fighting the forest fires much more dangerous and difficult.  Another result is what happens when a warm front meets a cool front — lightning!  This can cause a new fire or otherwise keep the existing fire going.  The end result?  A completely destroyed forest as well as a high likelihood of deaths and destruction of homes.

So what can be done about this?  Well, the Forestry Service has changed their tactics slightly.  They have begrudgingly allowed for controlled burnings to clear out the undergrowth.  This can be problematic as a few years ago, one of these “controlled” fires killed 100 people in New Mexico after it got out of control with all the fuel that was available to it.   With all the cottages and homes being built in “cottage country” near, or in, these forests, there is a huge public resistance to allowing these controlled fires to be set.  These people living in the area are also a huge incentive to continue trying to extinguish all fires at all costs.

Smoke the Bear, now says, “Only you can prevent wildfires,” to distinguish between controlled burns and accidental ones.

Another possible solution is to mechanically remove the undergrowth periodically.  It has been estimated that it would take 77 years and upwards of $350 Billion just to undo the damage that all this “fire prevention” caused.  By then, of course, the forests will have to be cleared again.

So in our infinite wisdom, what we’ve done in the past 100 years with our “fire prevention strategy” is cause worse fires and disrupt the natural ecosystem of our forests.  Natural selection had kept these forests thriving for hundreds of thousands of years, and we killed them in 100.  We should have left them alone, but we can’t now…  In many forests, a fire with all the extra underbrush would completely destroy the forest and wreak havoc.  Now we have to manage these forests, and that means managing the ecosystem, to the tune of many billions of dollars a year.  If we didn’t have the foresight to leave things be, what makes anyone think we’re going to be able to manage the thousands of diverse ecosystems in forests all over the continent?   Do we really have the bureaucratic wherewithal to devise programs for every individual forest and every species living in them?  How many species will die off because of our inadequate management?  Can we really trust the government (a foreign one at that!) with this?

We’ve royally screwed up and we’ve only just begun starting to pay for it.  We screwed up because we think we know best and we think the planet is ours to do with as we see fit.  We screwed up because we took management of the forest (and their ecosystems) out of the hands of “the gods” and into our own greedy grubby little paws.  The natural selection that has worked so well for hundreds of thousands of years has been replaced by artificial human selection which has a very shoddy record.

If we can screw this up so royally, what else are we screwing up just as bad?

Food for thought.

If you live in Ontario and want some more information about the upcoming referendum, please visit my Web site at www.noonespecial.ca/mmp.

Also on that site is my second video, this one tackling the referendum.

The importance of this referendum cannot be overstated.  Consider, we haven’t had a referendum here in Ontario since Prohibition.  Curiously enough, it was also around that time that Ontario last had a government elected by a majority of voters.

Spending 5-10 minutes today can help make sure you live in the Ontario you want to live in for years to come.

If you have any questions about the referendum, feel free to contact me.

I was trolling around Yahoo! Answers today and found this question:

What is the advantage (to god) in having each person experience god differently? (sic)

Here was my answer..  I’d be really curious to know what other people on Yahoo! Answers think of it because I’m essentially describing Darwinian natural selection… that’s right.. the dreaded e-word.

The idea of god is transferred from person to person by means of replicators known as memes. Memes are, essentially, the high level concepts that we use to come up with things we call ideas.

Like other replicators, the survival value of a specific meme is determined by its fecundity, fidelity, and longevity.

Fecundity is basically the ability to reproduce. Memes reproduce through communication between hosts — those that carry these memes — through sharing ideas. Memes and ideas with high fecundity are those that basically get talked about often. The idea of god is a meme with, naturally, very high fecundity meaning it is spread very often.

Fidelity is the ability of copies of memes to be as true to the source as possible. Consider a game of telephone where 20 kids sit in a circle. One starts by whispering a message into the ear of the person on their right. That person again passes the message on to the person on their right, etc, until the message returns to the originator. If the message stays the same, it could be said to have high fidelity. If the message changes (due to pranksters, kids hearing wrong, or kids speaking wrong) it can be said to have low fidelity. Memes with a low fidelity are more likely to have errors in the copying process which would create a mutation of the original.

Longevity would imply how long a meme could survive. Consider an idea of god where it is implied that the world will end in 2000. This meme would have been free to spread in the 1990’s and in fact there were many cults who believed just that. Now that it is 2007, I can’t imagine anyone would still have this idea of god.

As a hopefully humourous illustration of this, lets consider the message of FREE BEER.

The meme would have low fecundity if you whispered it at a Catholic Womens League bridge night. If anyone could even hear you, they may not care preferring wine or prune juice. Shout the same message at a college party and you can bet the meme would have a much higher fecundity and everyone would be coming up to you.

Use a modern photocopy machine to print out a thousand letters saying FREE BEER and everyone you send a letter to will know there is FREE BEER. Hire a pilot to do some sky writing over a stadium on a windy day and you might get as many people talking about FREE DEER or FREE BEAR as FREE BEER, an example of low fidelity copying of the meme.

Even a huge advertising budget couldn’t save a campaign to give out FREE BEER on April 8, 2007 if it is now April 9, 2007.

Now then, in the long term what makes a meme have a high survival value? You might say a meme with high fecundity, high fidelity and high longevity. While this would certainly be true, it would only work in a closed system. Memes are constantly competing with other memes for dominance. In an open system, memes representing the status quo are constantly being challenged by new memes and the example of the idea of god is certainly no different. To ensure the greatest success of a meme over time, the fidelity actually has to be lower than perfect.. meaning it has to be open to change and mutation. This essential infidelity is what gave us Christianity in the first place. This essential infidelity is what allowed the bible to be translated into English and every other language. This essential infidelity is what provides the best defense against alternate memes that would threaten the idea of god.

In conclusion, the “benefit to god” for the diversity of the ideas of god is that it is the same diversity that keeps people believing in god. If the idea of god didn’t have that essential infidelity, it would have fallen behind in place of a competing idea with a greater survival value.

This question was rather long and convoluted.. you can click the link if you really want to know the question. Basically the guy wanted to know what spirituality meant if there wasn’t a god and was trying to figure out what a couple different things meant that would be connected to the question if there was a god, but aren’t at all if there isn’t.

Basically I am copying this (and my last post) to my blog here to save them for myself since I doubt I’ll spend a lot of time on Yahoo! Answers after today.

Here goes:

It sounds like you are trying to mush quite a few different issues together to find some sort of connection that isn’t there.

For a theist, there might be a tight knit little package that merges a creator, spiritual enlightenment, a predetermined end result of creation, and moral rules to live by. It sounds as if you are asking about the nature of a puppet without a puppeteer.

We are, however, not puppets and there are no strings.

Even atheists believe in god, just not in the way theists do. Someone once had some rhetorical trick planned for me. They put a bible in front of me and asked me if I believed in the bible. I said of course I did and held it up to them as evidence of its existance much to the dismay of my would be opponent. I’m not sure what he expected me to say but I left him speechless. Atheists believe the idea of god exists, just not that god does. God, religious institutions, the bible, the idea of spirituality, the soul, etc, are all human constructs. We created them to make sense of the world as we (mis)understood it. As Voltaire said, “If there wasn’t a god, one would have to be invented.” This is precisely what happened.

Of course there are creative and destructive forces in nature. We should be thankful for that.. evolution wouldn’t have happened like it did if there weren’t creative (obviously) and (less obviously) destructive forces. That isn’t evidence for any deterministic view of nature and if anyone thinks it is, they are falling into the same intellectual trap as creationists have. Yes, intelligent life evolving is quite improbable mathematically. That isn’t evidence of something even more improbable (ie god) existing and creating us.. it is just evidence that this planet was one with the right physical and atmospheric attributes capable of supporting life and that life was capable of evolving intelligence. That we happen to be here thinking about it isn’t evidence of a creator or anything like that at all. Where else would life evolve capable of inventing these theories (ie god) other than a planet suited for the evolution of intelligent life?

In terms of a spiritual path or enlightenment, why would you need god for that? The universe, this planet, and life itself are truly wondrous things. The bible teaches humility, doesn’t it? What could make a person, or humanity in general, more humble than the knowledge that this world was not created for them?

Your last question again appears to be trying to fit an undeterministic world into a deterministic worldview. If you really want to appreciate the wonders of the universe, you’ve got to get out of that habit. The universe is more simple and at the same time more mysterious than you think. But yes, stars, the birth and death of stars, all allow heavy elements to exist which allows chemistry to exist. Without heavy elements there would be no planets and without chemistry there would be no life.

A brief look at history will show how polarization is a root cause of conflict.  When polarization is great, it manifests itself in fundamentalism and radicalism.  Islamicism and the rise of the religious right in the United States are definite signs of the growing polarization of religion.

You might want to differentiate religion from fundamentalism in this context, but I think that is skirting the issue.  Moderate views of religion provide a certain degree of legitimacy to their more extreme cousins.  George W. Bush did get elected afterall, twice.

Should religion, and religious views, be above criticism?

Has anyone paid attention to the Canadian sextuplet case in British Columbia?  A couple gave birth to six premature babies.  Premature babies often require blood transfusions to survive and it is common practice.  The survival rate for premature babies in Canada is quite good, however two of these babies have already died.  The problem?  The parents are Jehovah’s Witnesses, who forbid blood transfusions.  Now note, these babies have no understanding of what it means to be a Jehovah’s Witness.  They have not made the choice of believing that blood transfusions are immoral.  The choice of religious belief has been made for them, by their parents.  The result is two dead babies.  Two people who will not have the chance grow up and have the freedom to choose their own beliefs.  We’ll never know if these two children would have grown up to be Jehovah’s Witnesses like their parents.  Instead, they are dead, because of what their parents believed.  If a definite link can be made between those babies’ deaths and their parents’ refusal to allow blood transfusions, those parents should be charged with child abuse leading to death.   They won’t be, though, because their behaviour is protected by this thing called freedom of religion.

An interesting byproduct of this religious polarization, is the rise of atheist activism.  It’s like a bar fight, one or two people start pushing, and before long everyone jumps in to support their people, whether that means friends, countrymen, or members of the same religion.

In the matter of religion, everyone seems to be gearing for a fight.

In comes the Rational Response Squad who put out this thing called the Blasphemy Challenge.   The Blasphemy Challenge is basically a call for people to renounce religion on YouTube.  Over a thousand people have responded, posting their own videos renouncing, or denouncing in some cases, god and religion.

The problem is that, apart from bringing the question of the religion to a popular medium like YouTube, the Blasphemy Challenge doesn’t seem to do any good.  I’ll sum up the discussion it created on YouTube.

Theists: “You’re going to hell!”

Atheists: “You’re an idiot!”

What’s the point?

My cat and I decided to make a video response and I have posted it on YouTube.  It’s my (our) first video and we want to know what you think.